# The tables have turned.



## lovelygirl

It's so easy for men to get ANY woman they want that they don't have to put any effort to get these women or even flirt with them.
Women are into "hunting" mode all the time that men don't even have the desire to pursue/approach them.

Not only have I noticed this, but I've also been told by my guy-friends and/or other men in general.

It took me much effort to make a guy at the gym ask me out that I don't think about dating him cuz I know that he won't take further steps. 
With this I mean to say that men nowadays are too much work, unlike before when women were too much work for men.

I notice this even on daily basis when I don't see a group of people with mix genders anymore...but I mostly see a group of girls surrounding a boy. 


Do you agree with me or is it my impression?


----------



## lenzi

It's my opinion that attractive women are approached by more men than they know what to do with and less attractive women are left with slim pickings.


----------



## ntamph

lovelygirl said:


> It's so easy for men to get ANY woman they want that they don't have to put any effort to get these women or even flirt with them.
> Women are into "haunting" mode all the time that men don't even have the desire to pursue/approach them.
> 
> Not only have I noticed this, but I've also been told by my guy-friends and/or other men in general.
> 
> It took me much effort to make a guy at the gym ask me out that I don't think about dating him cuz I know that he won't take further steps.
> With this I mean to say that men nowadays are too much work, unlike before when women were too much work for men.
> 
> I notice this even on daily basis when I don't see a group of people with mix genders anymore...but I mostly see a group of girls surrounding a boy.
> 
> 
> Do you agree with me or is it my impression?


Sorry, but I gotta call bull on this (no offense).

SOME men do have women swarming around them. But they are a tiny fraction of the male population. 

Men are still expected to ask women out, ask them to marry them and the rest. 

I've only been approached by a woman directly and upfront once in my life. 

Most men will never get direct, unsolicited attention from a woman ever and would never date if they didn't find the guts to be rejected in the first place. Women don't have to deal with that.


----------



## ntamph

However, one weird thing that I have noticed is that whenever I see a man and woman in a car together and they are under 30 the woman is almost always driving.

Has anyone else noticed this?

I assume that since most people generally don't let others drive their car that women under 30 have their **** together more often than men (they can afford cars).

Does anyone agree?


----------



## happy as a clam

Confused... did you mean "haunting" or "hunting"? Two completely different meanings...


----------



## roostr

Wow, I always felt the opposite was true


----------



## Machiavelli

lovelygirl said:


> I notice this even on daily basis when I don't see a group of people with mix genders anymore...but I mostly see a group of girls surrounding a boy.


The reason you see a group of girls surrounding a boy is because while it's true that most men are attracted to most women, most women are NOT attracted to most men. The boy you saw is an Alpha or a Sigma and the girls want to join his harem, because he's one of the few that attracts women. In the chimp troop, 20% of the males (the alpha and a couple of betas) produce 80% of the offspring. The other classes of males produce few offspring. This is called the Pareto Principle or the 80/20 Rule and is found throughout nature.

Today, the lower orders of human males, the deltas and the gammas, have video games and porn to keep them busy. So the alphas, sigmas, and betas get all the women.


----------



## Fozzy

lovelygirl said:


> It's so easy for men to get ANY woman they want that they don't have to put any effort to get these women or even flirt with them.
> Women are into "haunting" mode all the time that men don't even have the desire to pursue/approach them.
> 
> Not only have I noticed this, but I've also been told by my guy-friends and/or other men in general.
> 
> It took me much effort to make a guy at the gym ask me out that I don't think about dating him cuz I know that he won't take further steps.
> With this I mean to say that men nowadays are too much work, unlike before when women were too much work for men.
> 
> I notice this even on daily basis when I don't see a group of people with mix genders anymore...but I mostly see a group of girls surrounding a boy.
> 
> 
> Do you agree with me or is it my impression?


----------



## murphy5

just where IS this magic land that you speak of where men get ALL the women? I must be in the wrong country.


----------



## sinnister

ntamph said:


> However, one weird thing that I have noticed is that whenever I see a man and woman in a car together and they are under 30 the woman is almost always driving.
> 
> Has anyone else noticed this?
> 
> I assume that since most people generally don't let others drive their car that women under 30 have their **** together more often than men (they can afford cars).
> 
> Does anyone agree?


I noticed this and I comment to my wife all the time. I do the driving...even when we are in her car.


----------



## Jetranger

To the OP: I absolutely do not agree, it’s the other way around. I’m going to say right now that I think you have deliberately reversed it here to make a point.

If you Google ‘what is wrong with women today’ and see for yourself how many men are confused, frustrated and disheartened by unrealistic expectations and demands that women have. There are innumerable essays and diatribes on this, both on blogs and in the press. If you like I’ll go and get some links once I get home from work. The result is that many men simply aren’t that bothered any more. Trying to write nice and interesting messages to women on dating sites only to be rejected hundreds of times over a period of years. I see nice looking girls on dating sites that I think I’d be a great match for but it’s harder and harder to muster the enthusiasm to write a good, thoughtful and fun message to her knowing that she probably won’t respond or even read it.

Let’s look at what you said, you think it took too much effort to _make_ a guy at a gym ask you out, and now you don’t feel like dating him. Why didn’t you approach him, act interested in him? Why does he have to make the first move, and the further steps every time? Speaking as a guy, I’d be thrilled if a nice looking woman approached me, and seemed interested enough in me that she was taking further steps.

I'm informed by several male acquaintances working overseas that the situation you describe does exist - if you're a caucasian male working in Asia (specifically China, Korea and Japan)


----------



## ReformedHubby

Hmmmmm.....a man have any woman he wants. Interesting theory. I guess it depends. Does this man know his lane? In other words swinging for the fences when you have a low sex rank is pointless. However, if he approaches woman that are in his range and he isn't a creep about it. I would think that most men would have some success. The problem is there are a surprising number of grown men that never got over their fear of rejection.


----------



## Wolf1974

I don't know that men can have anyone they want. If so I would like a an explanation from a couple of women who have shot me down before.

That said I do think men are becoming more difficult to tie down. My female friends have expressed that men are willing to date but won't commit or get married. I see my younger female cousins complain about this a lot on Facebook as well, for how accurate that can be. 

I also have seen that my male friends, and would have to throw myself into this, don't seem to particularly care any longer about getting married or having a commitment and most of us certainly aren't working hard at finding one. Last thing I was looking for when I found my Gf was a GF. So in that regard I would say that the tables have changed some what yes


----------



## Chris Taylor

I go to the gym to work out. I think if you were hanging around me trying to get me to ask you out I'd find you terribly annoying.


----------



## wilson

lovelygirl said:


> It took me much effort to make a guy at the gym ask me out that I don't think about dating him cuz I know that he won't take further steps.
> With this I mean to say that men nowadays are too much work, unlike before when women were too much work for men.


Hitting on women at the gym is very cliche. Most respectful guys will not hit on a woman at the gym unless she makes it very clear she's interested. 

I bet a lot of guys hit on you throughout the day, but they're not the guys you want to go out with, so you don't count them. If you want one specific guy to hit on you, you have to make it clear that you want him to make a move.


----------



## lovelygirl

Chris Taylor said:


> I go to the gym to work out. I think if you were hanging around me trying to get me to ask you out I'd find you terribly annoying.


What if two people like each other at the gym? What's wrong with that? 



wilson said:


> Hitting on women at the gym is very cliche. Most respectful guys will not hit on a woman at the gym unless she makes it very clear she's interested.
> 
> I bet a lot of guys hit on you throughout the day, but they're not the guys you want to go out with, so you don't count them. If you want one specific guy to hit on you, you have to make it clear that you want him to make a move.


He, himself, told me that _nowadays, men either don't have to put much effort to court a woman OR they don't punt any effort AT ALL. 
It's way easier for men to get laid that they have totally forgotten to court a woman because they know that the next woman is there waiting for them so they don't bother trying to get one._

He told me this with his own words. 



Jetranger said:


> Let’s look at what you said, you think it took too much effort to _make_ a guy at a gym ask you out, and now you don’t feel like dating him. Why didn’t you approach him, act interested in him? Why does he have to make the first move, and the further steps every time? Speaking as a guy, I’d be thrilled if a nice looking woman approached me, and seemed interested enough in me that she was taking further steps.


I don't want to make this thread about my personal experience but I have let him known in many ways that I'm interested. 
But this belongs to another thread. I have shown my interest in many ways, I think he's interested too but he doesn't really bother to make any effort. Probably because he knows I'm already interested and expects me to make the next step.
I was the one who mentioned the coffee (after he had mentioned it once) so it's because of me and my effort that we went out. 
So? Does it mean I have to make all the effort? Not really.

But I don't want to keep up with this story. I was referring to men in general and this phenomenon of forgetting to court women.


----------



## ericthesane

lovelygirl said:


> It's so easy for men to get ANY woman they want that they don't have to put any effort to get these women or even flirt with them.


Note to self: While I am not actively hunting in that I am still trying to get my wife interested, I must make a point of asking lovelygirl at some point what city/country/universe she lives in where men can get any woman they want....


----------



## WorkingOnMe

lovelygirl said:


> He, himself, told me that _nowadays, men either don't have to put much effort to court a woman OR they don't punt any effort AT ALL.
> It's way easier for men to get laid that they have totally forgotten to court a woman because they know that the next woman is there waiting for them so they don't bother trying to get one._
> 
> He told me this with his own words.


I agree with him. I mean really, why waste time with someone who is too much work and too little payoff when there's another prospect right around the corner.


----------



## Racer

lenzi said:


> It's my opinion that attractive women are approached by more men than they know what to do with and less attractive women are left with slim pickings.


And that's not gender specific. Hot guys also have the pick of the litter. While the rest sit on the sidelines. I know several….

What bothers me, is one of these guys has immediately obvious issues…. And so many girls just turn a blind eye to it simply because he’s ridiculously good looking. We’re talking the kind of guy who is a belligerent drunk intentionally trying to get fights and treats everyone who’s not “in” like dirt. I’ve watched him try to pick a fight in a movie theatre with a dad who’s got his kids there for ‘cutting in front of him’. So, his girlfriends later seem ‘shocked and dismayed’ he has severe anger issues and struck them… It floors me they don’t run or think it will get turned onto them.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Racer said:


> And that's not gender specific. Hot guys also have the pick of the litter. While the rest sit on the sidelines. I know several….
> 
> What bothers me, is one of these guys has immediately obvious issues…. And so many girls just turn a blind eye to it simply because he’s ridiculously good looking. We’re talking the kind of guy who is a belligerent drunk intentionally trying to get fights and treats everyone who’s not “in” like dirt. I’ve watched him try to pick a fight in a movie theatre with a dad who’s got his kids there for ‘cutting in front of him’. So, his girlfriends later seem ‘shocked and dismayed’ he has severe anger issues and struck them… It floors me they don’t run or think it will get turned onto them.


Same goes for men who chase crazy chicks, though, no?

Man seems oblivious to the obvious problems and craziness a chick has because she's so hot. Keeps chasing her no matter how crappy she treats him. It is the same.

I think crazy hot dudes and crazy hot chicks should only date each other. Some of them just might figure things out together. 

Everyone else should just steer clear.


----------



## Jetranger

lovelygirl said:


> I don't want to make this thread about my personal experience but I have let him known in many ways that I'm interested.
> But this belongs to another thread. I have shown my interest in many ways, I think he's interested too but he doesn't really bother to make any effort.


You think he's interested? Maybe he's just not that into you and is humouring you. I think this topic deserves to be about more than your experience but I'm wondering if you feel like this because of this one dude and what he said and how he's reacting to you.



> But I don't want to keep up with this story. I was referring to men in general and this phenomenon of forgetting to court women.


Well, women don't do much to attract men. I'm currently being nigh-on interrogated on POF by a woman who messaged me saying she liked my profile. I'm trying to have a conversation but she is just asking questions about where I work, where I live, do I have my own place, have you met many people off this site... I think she's screening me against her own criteria and not doing a very good job of concealing it! All my attempts to turn it into a nice chat about the summer weather and enjoying it and having fun are being met by more of these probing questions. I am seriously turned off by this because she doesn't actually seem interested in me so much as my stats, as it were.

Young Man: Women Today are "Whack Jobs" - henrymakow.com
Where Have the Good Men Gone? - WSJ 

Read the comments in the WSJ link, they're superb.

I and many other guys I know have sent tons of messages to tons of women on POF and OKC. There seems to be little difference between writing a thoughtful message asking about things you read in her profile, and just saying "Hey there " in terms of how many responses you get. Or how many times someone clicks the 'wants to meet you' button and then ignores you when you message them. Or as in my case, acts extremely interested in you and then friendzones you after the first date claiming that's all she was looking for all along. 

Short version: We don't expect a 100% success rate but it feels like women's expectations are so high and so much effort is required to even be dignified with a rejection (as opposed to being outright ignored) that why bother? 

I apologize to and thank all the ladies on this site who give us regular guys a chance. We can't all be bodybuilders with oceanfront mansions and Ferraris.


----------



## Broken at 20

Women wanted, and got, equality in the workplace, and socially, but yet romantically, they expect old world values to hold. 

Why do guys always have to do the chasing? The asking out? The proposing even! Why? 
Women make just as much money as men today. You have the same economic power as I do. Why can't you ask a guy out? Why expect men to do everything in the romantic arena today? Take a gamble and ask a guy out, and either get rewarded with a "Yes," or taste rejection. You want equality, there is your equality.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I actually fully agree. Some women should absolutely go ahead and be the pursuers. Why be so snarky about it? It isn't a big deal. 

Some women _want_ to pursue and do so. I feel more women should do so _if they are inclined that way_. Women were told NOT to pursue in previous generations. Because guess what? If you don't tell women not to pursue, then they will pursue. Women like men. They try to get close to them and gain their interest or show their own interest. Some women will heavily pursue. There is nothing inherently wrong with anyone pursuing others for love, sex, romance, marriage, the whole shebang.

And women ARE going after men. Not all women will do this but the ones who are so inclined, absolutely should go for it!


----------



## RandomDude

The problem is that for some men (such as myself) who enjoy the thrill of the chase, are put off by bold women who do the approaching; it gives me the impression she's either desperate or after something with a catch.

Personally I recommend more subtle approaches for women, maybe in a few generations things will change but for us hard-wired folk it won't. Tis just my honest opinion.


----------



## RandomDude

Ey? 75% (or more - I'm being generous) of women where I live won't entertain the idea of paying for a date and a man who suggests it would be automatically considered a cheapskate lol

Culture hasn't caught up, and in the meantime should men really take the risk? We must live in different worlds, but from what I've heard from Americans here where I live society isn't much different. Tables turned? Heh, not here!


----------



## lovelygirl

Jetranger said:


> You think he's interested? Maybe he's just not that into you and is *humouring you.* I think this topic deserves to be about more than your experience but I'm wondering if you feel like this because of this one dude and what he said and how he's reacting to you.


Why would he humor me ?? Is it because you'd do the same if you were him?
It's what you usually do when a woman shows interest in you??

IT'S MEN LIKE YOURSELF THAT MAKE US WOMEN NOT APPROACH MEN in general.
See now?? 
You think that I'm to be humored given that I've shown my interest towards him.
You think I'm to be humored that I approached him. 
You think I'm to be humored that I might have a higher interest in him compared to how he feels about me.

So according to you, given that I'm into him, it means that he's automatically humoring me and making fun of me because of that? 

This is the mentality that men have when some girl is interested in them? She's to be humored for that? 

Great! Another reason why women SHOULD NEVER approach a man UNLESS he does it first. 




> Well, women don't do much to attract men.


Why would they? 
You men humor women if they do much. 



> I'm currently being nigh-on interrogated on POF by a woman who messaged me saying she liked my profile. I'm trying to have a conversation but she is just asking questions about where I work, where I live, do I have my own place, have you met many people off this site... I think she's screening me against her own criteria and not doing a very good job of concealing it!


It's way better than letting herself be humored by you. 




> Short version: We don't expect a 100% success rate but it feels like women's expectations are so high and so much effort is required to even be dignified with a rejection (as opposed to being outright ignored) that why bother?


Why should not women have high expectations? 
It feels like a trend to humor a woman who's interested in you so why bother lowering the expectations?
After all, no woman deserves to be humored and probably you men deserve rejection!


----------



## lovelygirl

RandomDude said:


> The problem is that for some men (such as myself) who enjoy the thrill of the chase, are put off by bold women who do the approaching; it gives me the impression she's either desperate or after something with a catch.
> 
> Personally I recommend more subtle approaches for women, maybe in a few generations things will change but for us hard-wired folk it won't. Tis just my honest opinion.


Thank you!
I totally agree!

I like to be chased. I don't want to feel like the man in that relationship. I like the thrill and a little bit of work that comes with chasing. It makes the chasing more interesting.

On the other hand, I'm of the idea that the girl should also do her part in showing interest towards the man that's chasing her.
Both should work on supporting and caring about each other ..but the chasing part should belong to the man.


----------



## lovelygirl

WorkingOnMe said:


> I agree with him. I mean really, why waste time with someone who is too much work and too little payoff when there's another prospect right around the corner.


too little payoff? 
How would you know this if you didn't get to know her more and be a bit more patient?

Not all women are the same and some of them (including me) have so much to offer if men were a little bit more patient and didn't jump on the next girl right away. 

It's true that some women don't offer much but not all women are like that. Just like not all men are the same.


----------



## lovelygirl

RandomDude said:


> Ey? 75% (or more - I'm being generous) of women where I live won't entertain the idea of paying for a date and a man who suggests it would be automatically considered a cheapskate lol
> 
> Culture hasn't caught up, and in the meantime should men really take the risk? We must live in different worlds, but from what I've heard from Americans here where I live society isn't much different. Tables turned? Heh, not here!


I've paid during dates but it's not something that I'd do on regular basis. 
I still think that the man should pay most of the time or on most dates. That said, I think that the woman should offer her pay from time to time but not most of the time.


----------



## murphy5

lovelygirl said:


> But I don't want to keep up with this story. I was referring to men in general and this phenomenon of forgetting to court women.


some times a specific man is just not into you. It means NOTHING about your sexiness or desireability! he may be gay, for instance. He may have a steady GF, and really be turned on by you, but does not want to stray on his GF. He may be "damaged" from a previous relationship and needs time to get over it to get back in the hunt. 

If you let him know your interest, and every time you see him you at least say "Hi", that is enough.


----------



## RandomDude

lovelygirl said:


> On the other hand, I'm of the idea that the girl should also do her part in showing interest towards the man that's chasing her.
> Both should work on supporting and caring about each other ..but the chasing part should belong to the man.


From my experience I found women give off enough signs when they are interested - which tend to become more and more obvious the more frustrated she gets (hehe)

It's normally during this time that I try to drop a bomb on her if I'm not interested (such as mentioning an upcoming date / my kid / etc) so she realises I'm not available - saving her the embarrassment by making it too obvious.

And they say I'm not a gentleman! Bah!



lovelygirl said:


> I've paid during dates but it's not something that I'd do on regular basis.
> I still think that the man should pay most of the time or on most dates. That said, I think that the woman should offer her pay from time to time but not most of the time.


I'm quite used to paying though it does impress me slightly when a woman insists on her share, though slightly offends me too! Can never win!


----------



## lovelygirl

RandomDude said:


> I'm quite used to paying though it does impress me slightly when a woman insists on her share, though slightly offends me too! Can never win!


To make it clear, I'm not for sharing the bill. Either he pays it* all *or I do. 
It's a real turn off when the man expects me to offer my share instead of me paying it all or he does.


----------



## lovelygirl

murphy5 said:


> some times a specific man is just not into you. It means NOTHING about your sexiness or desireability! he may be gay, for instance. He may have a steady GF, and really be turned on by you, but does not want to stray on his GF. He may be "damaged" from a previous relationship and needs time to get over it to get back in the hunt.
> 
> If you let him know your interest, and every time you see him you at least say "Hi", that is enough.


To be honest, if he doesn't feel the same way that's not to say I'm not sexy or attractive. 
I know I am so if he doesn't want to see this, his loss. 

Next? 

p.s. I don't even bother to say hi anymore. As I said, there are many men out there who are more worthy than he is.
Just like men don't want to waste time, us women don't want to waste time as well.


----------



## alexm

RandomDude said:


> The problem is that for some men (such as myself) who enjoy the thrill of the chase, are put off by bold women who do the approaching; it gives me the impression she's either desperate or after something with a catch.


That's interesting you say that, because that's likely how many women feel when approached at the gym, at the grocery store, in line for coffee, etc.! In this case, the tables really have turned.

I'm not against the art of the pickup, per se, but 9 times out of 10, whoever is being the aggressor is looking for one thing only.

It's nigh impossible for anyone, woman or man, to approach someone out of the blue like that and have it turn into an actual, real relationship, simply because of that - the person being approached automatically thinks it's about sex or something else. Certainly it happens, and I'm sure some of you now have a spouse with whom you met by one of you approaching the other out of the blue.

Online dating aside, I think the majority of marriages and even LTRs come from a more organic meeting, like through mutual friends, etc.

So it's no wonder that men and women both assume there's an agenda when a stranger chats you up at the gym - because their usually is. And we men are starting to see this more and more, which is relatively new to us and we are therefore also somewhat suspicious when it happens! It's been happening to women for as long as there have been bars and gyms and lines to stand in!


----------



## alexm

lovelygirl said:


> too little payoff?
> How would you know this if you didn't get to know her more and be a bit more patient?
> 
> Not all women are the same and some of them (including me) have so much to offer if men were a little bit more patient and didn't jump on the next girl right away.
> 
> It's true that some women don't offer much but not all women are like that. Just like not all men are the same.


Patience is for those who are looking for a mate. Impatience is because (s)he's not looking for a mate, (s)he's looking for something fun and easy.

These days, it's incredibly easy to find "fun and easy" with little to no effort. Thanks, internet.

Back in my day (lol!), hookups required patience, and lots of it. Nowadays, there truly is somebody else right around the corner. If something requires more work than you're willing to put into it, it's not a problem. You go home and check your PoF profile, or you put an ad on craigslist or something. Back then, in order to meet people, you actually had to be outside meeting people. And when one showed interest, you ran with it, even if they weren't exactly what you were looking for because you never knew when you'd get another chance.

And that's where the no patience comes into effect.

It sounds to me like the guy you're interested in is either not interested in you, or he's actually looking for a LTR and isn't getting that vibe from you. To go back to my previous post in this thread, most people will make the assumption if they're being approached by someone of the opposite sex, it's not because they're looking for an LTR or marriage.


----------



## DoF

Wolf1974 said:


> I don't know that men can have anyone they want. If so I would like a an explanation from a couple of women who have shot me down before.
> 
> That said I do think men are becoming more difficult to tie down. My female friends have expressed that men are willing to date but won't commit or get married. I see my younger female cousins complain about this a lot on Facebook as well, for how accurate that can be.
> 
> I also have seen that my male friends, and would have to throw myself into this, don't seem to particularly care any longer about getting married or having a commitment and most of us certainly aren't working hard at finding one. Last thing I was looking for when I found my Gf was a GF. So in that regard I would say that the tables have changed some what yes


Yep, it's a withdrawal effect from unbalanced justice system.

On one hand, women love how they can screw a man once they are married and get away with all kinds of ****.

Now, you have man that won't even consider marriage due to above.

Things always seem to balance themselves out by default. This trend will continue as well.


----------



## Faithful Wife

RandomDude said:


> The problem is that for some men (such as myself) who enjoy the thrill of the chase, are put off by bold women who do the approaching; it gives me the impression she's either desperate or after something with a catch.
> 
> Personally I recommend more subtle approaches for women, maybe in a few generations things will change but for us hard-wired folk it won't. Tis just my honest opinion.


The problem here is that this only applies to *you* and *some women*. You want to chase and you want a woman to play hard to get. What about men who don't want to chase and women who do? Not everyone is the same, so not everyone should behave the same. Therefore, why would you recommend the same advice to everyone? It doesn't work. Make allowances for people's differences, that is what works.

So for you that means not going out with a woman who is chasing and you should only pursue the hard to get ones. For some other guy, it means he should wait and let women chase him.


----------



## Jetranger

lovelygirl said:


> Why would he humor me ?? Is it because you'd do the same if you were him?
> It's what you usually do when a woman shows interest in you??
> 
> IT'S MEN LIKE YOURSELF THAT MAKE US WOMEN NOT APPROACH MEN in general.
> See now??
> You think that I'm to be humored given that I've shown my interest towards him.
> You think I'm to be humored that I approached him.
> You think I'm to be humored that I might have a higher interest in him compared to how he feels about me.
> 
> So according to you, given that I'm into him, it means that he's automatically humoring me and making fun of me because of that?
> 
> This is the mentality that men have when some girl is interested in them? She's to be humored for that?
> 
> Great! Another reason why women SHOULD NEVER approach a man UNLESS he does it first.


Wow, this guy really pushed several of your buttons. How could he not like _you_? You’re great! You’re amazing! How DARE he!

This is ONE GUY. 

The tables have indeed turned. During my recent experience (here) where I was approached by a woman, she very quickly changed her mind and offered what was either a cop-out or a lie: that she just wanted friends, even though her online profile said several times that she wanted a romantic relationship. She slathered on the compliments about what a nice and funny guy I was and that she was sure we’d make the bestest of friends but I took the exit she offered. The majority people on here told me that there was nothing wrong with this, that she was just trying to be nice and let me down easy (*humouring me, if you will*) and that's just how it goes, but I felt similarly offended at having been messed around like this. 

The mentality when a woman is interested in a man but the man isn’t that interested in a woman (or the other way around) is to consider the nicest way to turn them down. It's well-intentioned but often the execution is poor. If you’d stop raging for a second you might see that maybe he just doesn’t like you that much. If he did actually go for that coffee with you maybe he’s prepared to give you a chance but currently doesn’t feel enough of an attraction to you to actually make much of an effort yet. You need to decide if he’s really worth this much aggravation, if you’ll really manage to win him over (and if so, for how long?)



> Why would they?
> You men humor women if they do much.


WE MEN? You mean this one guy. Don’t tar me with the same brush because you think he’s a jerk and I’m trying to help you understand what happened.



> Why should not women have high expectations?
> It feels like a trend to humor a woman who's interested in you so why bother lowering the expectations?
> After all, no woman deserves to be humored and probably you men deserve rejection!


Humor humor humor humor.

That seems to really rub you up the wrong way too. I don’t know why. It is meant in the context of ‘letting you down gently’ but you feel like you’re being mocked. You’re letting one not especially bad experience put you off, one guy has made every other guy into your enemy too. I can understand you being upset, it can take a lot of guts, putting your heart out there and openly expressing your interest to someone. It’s a big risk, because being rejected (or what you perceive as rejection) is very painful. You feel ugly and stupid and embarrassed and you dwell on what you said and did and think you threw away your chance and wonder what you could have done differently. I hate that feeling, and it actually puts me off trying sometimes because I hate the feeling of seeing someone I like and knowing that if I blow it, that’s that, and all the feelings of undesirability that come with it.

If this guy thinks he can just sit back and let the chicks come to him, good for him. Would he really be that much of a person to date, if he figures he doesn’t have to care about making you happy or that you’re enjoying yourself because if you get pissed off and leave, the next one will be along soon enough? 

The next guy you approach might be well be thrilled and flattered beyond belief that you’ve approached him, and will jump at the chance to take you out for an amazing time.


----------



## Jellybeans

lovelygirl said:


> *Women are into "hunting" mode all the time* that men don't even have the desire to pursue/approach them.


Speak for yourself, maybe? This does not at all apply to me. 



lovelygirl said:


> It took me much effort to make a guy at the gym ask me out that I don't think about dating him cuz I know that he won't take further steps.


First, you cannot "make" someone ask you out. But it kinda sounds like maybe you got a vibe that he wasn't that interested and only asked you out to go through motions and when you realized it, it wasn't satisfactory (I would feel the same if that happened to me). You wanted him to want it on his own. 



Chris Taylor said:


> I go to the gym to work out. I think if you were hanging around me trying to get me to ask you out I'd find you terribly annoying.


Me, too. 



lovelygirl said:


> He, himself, told me that _nowadays, men either don't have to put much effort to court a woman OR they don't punt any effort AT ALL. _


_

Maybe with the women he is dating. 



lovelygirl said:



But this belongs to another thread. I have shown my interest in many ways, I think he's interested too *but he doesn't really bother to make any effort.*

Click to expand...

Get that book "He's Just Not that Into You." My experience has been that you can generally tell when a man is into you. He will pursue you. He will make an effort. Men who want you WILL make an effort to have you. 

This guy doesn't seem like he's that interested.

We've all been there. We like someone more than they like us and we can't figure out why. There's no "why" to figure out. It's best to just move on. It wasn't meant to be. There is no point in chasing after someone who is not interested in you.



_


----------



## Jellybeans

Jetranger said:


> If you’d stop raging for a second* you might see that maybe he just doesn’t like you that much*. If he did actually go for that coffee with you maybe he’s prepared to give you a chance but currently doesn’t feel enough of an attraction to you to actually make much of an effort yet.


:iagree:


----------



## Jellybeans

Jetranger said:


> The majority people on here told me that there was nothing wrong with this, that she was just trying to be nice and let me down easy (humouring me, if you will) and that's just how it goes, but I felt similarly offended at having been messed around like this.


So glad you were able to finally see that. :smthumbup:

People who aren't interested - should not occupy a lot of time in your brain.


----------



## samyeagar

Jellybeans said:


> :iagree:


It almost sound like the other lesson being learned here is that contrary to common belief, men are not just knuckle draggers who will be all over any woman who shows the slightest interest. Men have standards too. Men have criteria, and I think one of the big changes is that men and women both are realizing now that they don't have to settle, they don't have to snatch up the first thing that comes along, they can wait because another one is always right around the corner.


----------



## Jellybeans

I think all people should have standards and not just get involved with someone because that person likes them. It should be mutual. 

I also think that throwing yourself at someone or keeping chasing after someone who clearly wants nothing to do with you is NOT at all the answer. 

And that isn't gender-specific.


----------



## Jetranger

Jellybeans said:


> So glad you were able to finally see that. :smthumbup:
> 
> People who aren't interested - should not occupy a lot of time in your brain.


My takeaway from it is that you should feel free to give people a chance if you aren't 100% sure, and that other people might do the same for you.


----------



## Zatol Ugot?

lovelygirl said:


> It's so easy for men to get ANY woman they want that they don't have to put any effort to get these women or even flirt with them.


Yeaahhhh............No.


----------



## lovelygirl

Jetranger said:


> Wow, this guy really pushed several of your buttons. How could he not like _you_? You’re great! You’re amazing! How DARE he!
> 
> This is ONE GUY.


It's not about this guy. 
He just proved what I've noticed/observed. And not just in him, in many men nowadays.
I gave him as an example. 
No, he didn't push my buttons. He's not the first guy with who doesn't share a mutual interest with me and sure won't be the last. 
But I was referring to what he said that men don't make any effort nowadays. And this is true. 
They're too lazy to even show their interest in a woman (IF they're interested). 
Nowadays, you never know when a man is interested because he doesn't really do anything and expects the woman to do it all. 



> If he did actually go for that coffee with you maybe he’s prepared to give you a chance but currently doesn’t feel enough of an attraction to you to actually make much of an effort yet. You need to decide if he’s really worth this much aggravation, if you’ll really manage to win him over (and if so, for how long?)


I'm over him already. 




> WE MEN? You mean this one guy. Don’t tar me with the same brush because you think he’s a jerk and I’m trying to help you understand what happened.


I don't consider him a jerk just because he's not interested in me.
His choice. 



> That seems to really rub you up the wrong way too. I don’t know why. It is meant in the context of ‘letting you down gently’ but you feel like you’re being mocked. You’re letting one not especially bad experience put you off, one guy has made every other guy into your enemy too. I can understand you being upset, it can take a lot of guts, putting your heart out there and openly expressing your interest to someone


.
You described this whole situation as mockery. 
You said he was humoring me. 
Just because he's not interested in me doesn't mean he's mocking me. 

I fail to see how the meaning of the word "humor" is "to let someone down gently". 




> It’s a big risk, because being rejected (or what you perceive as rejection) is very painful. You feel ugly and stupid and embarrassed and you dwell on what you said and did and think you threw away your chance and wonder what you could have done differently. I hate that feeling, and it actually puts me off trying sometimes because I hate the feeling of seeing someone I like and knowing that if I blow it, that’s that, and all the feelings of undesirability that come with it.


I feel stupid and ugly??
haha. Hell no! Just because someone rejected me doesn't make me stupid and/or ugly. 
Sure, I don't like the feeling when someone doesn't share the same interest but no way in hell does it make me feel ugly and stupid. I'd have to be pretty stupid to feel stupid just because he's not interested. I don't even call this a rejection because it's not how I see it. 
But as I told you, this thread is NOT about him specifically. It's about men in general nowadays who don't move a finger EVEN when they're interested in a woman.

Another guy friend of mine said that man nowadays call it "emasculating" to approach a girl they're interested in because if she's interested she'll approach herself sooner or later.



> If this guy thinks he can just sit back and let the chicks come to him, good for him. Would he really be that much of a person to date, if he figures he doesn’t have to care about making you happy or that you’re enjoying yourself because if you get pissed off and leave, the next one will be along soon enough?


I thought the same. If he's a lazy dude who doesn't care enough to show his interest, I'm sure he'd be a pain in the a** as a boyfriend. 
I want someone energetic, alive, confident who's not afraid to lead and certainly someone WHO HAS BALLS! 



> The next guy you approach might be well be thrilled and flattered beyond belief that you’ve approached him, and will jump at the chance to take you out for an amazing time.



This is the one I'm waiting for.


----------



## Jetranger

lovelygirl said:


> It's not about this guy.
> He just proved what I've noticed/observed. And not just in him, in many men nowadays.
> I gave him as an example.
> No, he didn't push my buttons. He's not the first guy with who doesn't share a mutual interest with me and sure won't be the last.
> But I was referring to what he said that men don't make any effort nowadays. And this is true.
> They're too lazy to even show their interest in a woman (IF they're interested).
> Nowadays, you never know when a man is interested because he doesn't really do anything and expects the woman to do it all.


Really? A lot of people have wondered where the heck it is you live that it's like this, because I and many others have never ever encountered a situation like this where we as men could just sit back and have women approaching us. 

I've had a few women approach me but much of the time it's on me to put my feelings and self-confidence at risk by putting them out there for her to see. Did you read those links? 




> I'm over him already.
> 
> I don't consider him a jerk just because he's not interested in me.
> His choice.


Do you consider him a jerk because he is symbolic of what you perceive as the problem with finding men to date: that they apparently can just sit back and not give a **** or show any interest and make you do all the work?



> You described this whole situation as mockery.
> You said he was humoring me.
> Just because he's not interested in me doesn't mean he's mocking me.
> 
> I fail to see how the meaning of the word "humor" is "to let someone down gently".


That's _your_ problem, because you don't know meaning of the word humour in that context. Allow me:

humour: definition of humour in Oxford dictionary (British & World English)

_VERB [WITH OBJECT] 
Comply with the wishes of (someone) in order to keep them content, however unreasonable such wishes might be_

Humor | Define Humor at Dictionary.com

_verb (used with object)
to comply with the humor or mood of in order to soothe or make content or more agreeable: to humor a child._

I hope you understand now.




> I feel stupid and ugly??
> haha. Hell no! Just because someone rejected me doesn't make me stupid and/or ugly.
> Sure, I don't like the feeling when someone doesn't share the same interest but no way in hell does it make me feel ugly and stupid. I'd have to be pretty stupid to feel stupid just because he's not interested. I don't even call this a rejection because it's not how I see it.


I guess I'm more sensitive than you. I don't always find it easy to not take thing personally, and so a rejection I often see as someone saying there's something specifically wrong with me, and I feel bad about myself for having their flaws and having not realized it myself. Given your response to him... um... "not wanting to go out with you" I wondered if maybe you felt similarly.



> But as I told you, this thread is NOT about him specifically. It's about men in general nowadays who don't move a finger EVEN when they're interested in a woman.


The consensus among men in general here is that it's not true. I regularly talk to a bunch of other single guys about our experiences with women and we all feel like we're putting a ton of effort in with very little payoff.



> Another guy friend of mine said that man nowadays call it "emasculating" to approach a girl they're interested in because if she's interested she'll approach herself sooner or later.


I wonder about these guy friends of yours, maybe they've really got swag and are those lucky few who don't have to put an effort in, while the rest of us are scrambling around in their shadow so we too can have someone cute to hug at night.



> I thought the same. If he's a lazy dude who doesn't care enough to show his interest, I'm sure he'd be a pain in the a** as a boyfriend.
> I want someone energetic, alive, confident who's not afraid to lead and certainly someone WHO HAS BALLS!
> 
> 
> 
> This is the one I'm waiting for.


:smthumbup: 
I like that. Remember that guys can show the strength of their cojones in many ways.


----------



## Emerald

Oh the ones who will make an effort are out there LG...at any age.

I disagree that the tables have turned. My daughter is a dating 24 yr. old & the dudes chase her. She chases some too but is shy.

When I was a divorced 48 yr. old, I signed up for match.com. It was my preference not to contact any man first although I wanted the cost for any dates to be 50/50 - again my preference. My dates were cool with that including my husband who also made the first contact.

Have you tried online dating LG?


----------



## Thundarr

lovelygirl said:


> It's so easy for men to get ANY woman they want that they don't have to put any effort to get these women or even flirt with them.
> Women are into "hunting" mode all the time that men don't even have the desire to pursue/approach them.
> 
> Not only have I noticed this, but I've also been told by my guy-friends and/or other men in general.


Your guy friends are probably bragging to inflate their egos. Ask one of them to prove it.

But no I can't imagine anything that drastic has happened. Now if you're talking about the small minority of guys have their crap together, are in shape, good looking, have good career path, have character and charisma then sure that group doesn't have a lot of problems. But when did that guy ever have a problem with women in the past?


----------



## Forest

ntamph said:


> However, one weird thing that I have noticed is that whenever I see a man and woman in a car together and they are under 30 the woman is almost always driving.
> 
> Has anyone else noticed this?
> 
> I assume that since most people generally don't let others drive their car that women under 30 have their **** together more often than men (they can afford cars).
> 
> Does anyone agree?



In many cases I think this phenomena is because the guy has a suspended D/L.


----------



## HuggyBear

I'll agree that "the tables have turned" when I see women buying that half-drunk cretin at the end of the bar a last round, and then lying to him about how sexy he is just to get him to go home or to a motel with her.

I figure a few million more years of devolution are required, though.

NOTHING has really changed in human sexual psychology in the past 10000 years or so, as demonstrated globally.


----------



## Marduk

In all honesty, I've always done reasonably well with the ladies.

But since I pulled my head out of my ass a few years ago, got in shape, started dressing well, smelling nice, etc...

I have been absolutely shocked at the amount of attention I get from women. Even 20-something women (I'm in my early 40s).

Hell, the other night we were at a wake, and a (married) woman in her early 30s was chatting with me and my wife, and had the balls to ask me out right in front of my wife.

I laughed at her and walked away... and my wife laughed at her, too. Until she left on her own.

Anyway. All that to say that I'm shocked at the ballsiness of women now. Maybe I never noticed it before, maybe it's my age and I'm suddenly more attractive now, maybe it's the age of the women that I seem to attract now.

But it's more than a little disturbing actually. None of them seem to give a damn if I'm married, and even less that they are.


----------



## Nigel Pinchley

It is true that _some_ men always have a coterie of women surrounding them, but they are quite few and far between and, at least in my life experience, outnumbered by women in the opposing position.

And as Thundarr said, men are notorious braggarts in such arenas. I've known quite a few men with a nasty habit of grossly inflating their conquests into the realm of sheer fantasy.

Am I the only who perhaps senses a subtext of hurt or anger in this thread?


----------



## Nigel Pinchley

Ah, and on a more humorous note, all of the men I know who allow their wives to drive when together do so because they've become quite tired of having their driving skills examined and picked apart by a zealously vocal co-pilot


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

While I've observed its a hell of a lot easier to draw female attention today than it was 15 years ago (dunno if that's culture, getting older, or what...), I still think men typically put in much more effort than women. I've also known plenty of women who think it's all but beneath them to "chase" a man.

I disagree that most men will never receive unsolicited female attention of a romantic nature. I don't think I'm crazy hot, and I get plenty of unsolicited attention. It's unsolicited because I wasn't interested in them in the first place - else, I probably would have acted before she did. That's kind of the deal isn't it? All kinds of people will show interest, but you only tend to notice/appreciate the ones you yourself find desirable. Women tend to be less overt about it, and the average guy probably gets less of it than the average woman does, but the attention is there. The reverse is also true, the ones I go after, typically don't notice me right off - they're certainly not chasing me. That's the somewhat annoying challenge, which I've often expressed as everyone trying to select "up".

The issue isn't who can have anyone they want... its probably more that we tend to perceive the other side as having it easier than we do. We can't even rightly compare amongst our own sex. A guy drawing the attention of a ton of women I'd be happy with, might not be very high on them... he might have his sights on what for him, is "up". He too may think "Only the ones I don't want, want me." Even though those women are "up" for me.


----------



## OptimisticPessimist

Most women are not attracted to significantly younger men. Once the 30s begin to happen, many of the men who would be considered "high value" have already been gobbled up, and the 20-something ones who havent are often below the maturity requirements of a woman in her 30s. Compounding this is that many of the women remaining have a certain biological urgency that compels them to search constantly for remaining high class available (and even married or taken) males.

Many men in their 30s who are not taken are there for a reason. Either they are "low value" men, they are high value but fail to communicate their value via material and/or personality cues, they have just gotten out of a relationship, or they have had some experience that makes them avoid women alltogether.

A woman is attracted to a man who has the capacity to effect positive change in his environment through knowledge he has, power he has, or through charismatic social tendencies (another form of power). While the second wave of feminism rightly asserts that a woman should be able to work without social scorn, be paid the same for work as a man, etc... it has not changed the innate sexual characteristics of a female. By instinctual definition, a woman is looking for the highest echelon of male they are capable of attracting.

Thus, the true high value males that are still available often see dramatic shifts in their prospective chances as the ranks of high value males thin out from other instances of natural selection.

Especially when- and this is huge- they demonstrate confidence. Confidence in a person could be seen as the likliehood they reason they will be capable of efficating positive changes in their environment, as well as reason they have a capacity to attract high level members of the opposite sex.

However, while men and women are equal, they are not the same. Men like confidence in a woman (unless they themselves dont have it), but a woman almost certainly REQUIRES it in a man. A man who walks around with confidence- even with an average appearance and an average life- especially in his 30s will be flooded relentlessly with female attention. 

Where Im going with all the above rabbit-trails: a small subsect of men will see their relationship prospects skyrocket as they hit their 30s, while the remaining men and all women will slowly see their prospects diminish with age. Of course, a woman will get "hit on" more often than most men, and even the men suddenly getting tons of interest wont likely get "hit on" as much as the "upper echelon" of women in the "market". 

As society today emasculates many men through negative cultural influence (TV ads, TV sitcoms, fringe extremism within the feminism movement, etc), men with confidence in their 30s will often be drastically outnumbered by high value females who are available. Sorry for the novel, and its all just IMO as well as a work in progress.


----------



## Thundarr

OptimisticPessimist said:


> Sorry for the novel, and its all just IMO as well as a work in progress.


Made a lot of sense to me.


----------



## phoenix_

ntamph said:


> However, one weird thing that I have noticed is that whenever I see a man and woman in a car together and they are under 30 the woman is almost always driving.
> 
> Has anyone else noticed this?
> 
> I assume that since most people generally don't let others drive their car that women under 30 have their **** together more often than men (they can afford cars).
> 
> Does anyone agree?


I know many people in this situation and it's not because they have their **** together, it's because Daddy bought the car for them. Most young people can't even afford cars now, that's probably why you see less men under 30 driving.


----------



## ntamph

phoenix_ said:


> I know many people in this situation and it's not because they have their **** together, it's because Daddy bought the car for them. Most young people can't even afford cars now, that's probably why you see less men under 30 driving.


But why buy only cars for daughters and not sons?


----------



## Jetranger

ntamph said:


> But why buy only cars for daughters and not sons?


Sons are expected to 'man up' and look after themselves more.


----------



## Marduk

Men, take a good look around at your fellow man.

How many are even basically fit? How many are wearing clothes that fit? How many have even basic standards of personal hygiene?

How many walk around confidently with their head held high, look women in the eye, have a smile on their face, and a ready comment to a stranger in the elevator?

How many?

When I started getting my **** in order, I found it suddenly shocking how many men really don't give a crap or try at all.

And the day I realized that I had 3 hot women come on to me. 

The bar is so goddamn low these days you can basically trip over it. No wonder why women clamour for attention from guys that even pretend to give a crap about themselves.

Now, I suspect the same is true for women...


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

marduk said:


> Men, take a good look around at your fellow man.
> 
> How many are even basically fit? How many are wearing clothes that fit? How many have even basic standards of personal hygiene?
> 
> How many walk around confidently with their head held high, look women in the eye, have a smile on their face, and a ready comment to a stranger in the elevator?
> 
> How many?
> 
> When I started getting my **** in order, I found it suddenly shocking how many men really don't give a crap or try at all.
> 
> And the day I realized that I had 3 hot women come on to me.
> 
> The bar is so goddamn low these days you can basically trip over it. No wonder why women clamour for attention from guys that even pretend to give a crap about themselves.
> 
> Now, I suspect the same is true for women...


On the other side of the coin you have half the women out there claiming he doesn't have to be that fit, average looks are fine, and personality is most important. One friend of mine, who is quite overweight/fat, not physically attractive, but not really ugly... dates pretty much the same sort of women I do, and I'm more physically attractive by just about anyone's standard. But he has a natural southern charm, charisma and affability - and a certain "it" that someone in charge has. Dude drives me nuts because its just a natural gift.

Seeing him with some of these really good looking women makes me twitch and have difficulty reconciling some of the forum women's claims (or this post's claim) of the importance of male appearance.


----------



## Marduk

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> On the other side of the coin you have half the women out there claiming he doesn't have to be that fit, average looks are fine, and personality is most important. One friend of mine, who is quite overweight/fat, not physically attractive, but not really ugly... dates pretty much the same sort of women I do, and I'm more physically attractive by just about anyone's standard. But he has a natural southern charm, charisma and affability - and a certain "it" that someone in charge has. Dude drives me nuts because its just a natural gift.
> 
> Seeing him with some of these really good looking women makes me twitch and have difficulty reconciling some of the forum women's claims (or this post's claim) of the importance of male appearance.


My wife swore up and down that my appearance had nothing to do with the lack of sex, lack of attention, or her going out with her girlfriends all the time.

Until I got in shape, started dressing better, etc. Then everything started to turn around.

But I'm sure that's just a coincidence. At least that's what she says


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Not saying this is the case, but sometimes, if you're exercising and dressing better... and feeling better about yourself, your attitude changes. You have more energy, more confidence and likeability. You're taking care of things - better appearance or not, women like that.

While it always helps to look better, I'm inclined to think the non-physical factors make the biggest difference. I mean, unless we're talking some dramatic physical change.


----------



## michzz

Physique, attitude, economic success, interesting things to do, all are factors.


----------



## learning to love myself

lenzi said:


> It's my opinion that attractive women are approached by more men than they know what to do with and less attractive women are left with slim pickings.


I don't completely agree with this, Unless the attractive girl is extremely outgoing will men swarm around her.

Most of the beautiful woman I have known don't have men ask them out and when they are asked out it is usually the George Castanza type who feel they have nothing to lose.

You have seen a total 10 with a 4, why you ask because he was charming/funny and no one else asked.

I have never been single for more than a minute, however I have been told by men including my husband that I'm very Intimidating, Tall and Sexy and hard to approach. 

I do believe that, as when I'm a little buzzed and much more relaxed and let my guard down I do get hit on checked out and in front of husband... stupid men.


----------



## lenzi

learning to love myself said:


> I have never been single for more than a minute


You write this as if it's something to be proud of.

Do you think never being single in your entire life is a good thing?

I don't.


----------



## jaquen

Just the way the highest paid male models in the world don't make anywhere near as much money as the highest paid female models, the most handsome, sexiest man alive will still never, ever get hit on as much as the most beautiful, sexy woman. 

Good looking men get hit on. To what degree, obviously it varies, but they do. 

And still a woman who is average looking will often get hit on more than a good looking man. She might not even notice to the degree that she's hit on, particularly if it's not the kind of man she notices or wants. But if a woman looks halfway decent and put together plenty of men will make an attempt.

No, the tables have not turned. That's a fantasy.


----------



## murphy5

marduk said:


> My wife swore up and down that my appearance had nothing to do with the lack of sex, .
> 
> Until I got in shape, started dressing better, etc. Then everything started to turn around.


few of us have gotten to know ourselves good enough to be able to talk with our inner selves. Most just respond a certain way to stimulus, with the waking mind never figuring out why we do. 

She, obviously, has a sex drive connected to your physical looks. That is a fact, she just can not see it.

THAT is why a spouse should keep in shape, act sexy and dominant, etc etc. It keeps their SO on the hook, mentally:rofl:


----------



## Marduk

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Not saying this is the case, but sometimes, if you're exercising and dressing better... and feeling better about yourself, your attitude changes. You have more energy, more confidence and likeability. You're taking care of things - better appearance or not, women like that.
> 
> While it always helps to look better, I'm inclined to think the non-physical factors make the biggest difference. I mean, unless we're talking some dramatic physical change.


I've experimented with this. In fact, I took a ton of time and collected a ton of data on how often my wife initiated sex, how often she checked me out, how often I'd get hit on or checked out by women.

Experimented with fitness levels, clothing, even down to how confidently I walked, etc.

Fitness level was by far _my_ #1 indicator of how often my wife initiated sex, and how often other women came on to me.

A close second was clothing. 

The other stuff all made a difference, including cologne, hair cut, confidence, etc, but it was all gravy. Within limits.

For example I could be ripped and sit in a corner in a hoodie and not make eye contact with anyone and women would ignore me.

But if I was ripped and wearing even a crappy dirty t-shirt that showed it and even made eye contact with a woman... she would be all over me. I mean, come across a crowded room just to chat with me even with my wife right by my side.

So there were minimum kind of things I had to maintain, and focus on what had the greatest impact.

At least that was my experience. I purposefully tried to take my subjectivity out of the equation as much as I could.

I learned a lot about what attracts my wife actually. Either she's actively lying about what attracts her, or she doesn't realize it, or she can't admit it.

But a muscly upper body is definitely her #1 turn on. A well dressed man seems to be her #2.

So I try to do that, within reason.


----------



## murphy5

marduk said:


> I've experimented with this. In fact, I took a ton of time and collected a ton of data on how often my wife initiated sex, how often she checked me out, .


Wait, you are not "that guy" with the Excel spreadsheet, are you????:rofl:


----------



## wilson

jaquen said:


> Just the way the highest paid male models in the world don't make anywhere near as much money as the highest paid female models, the most handsome, sexiest man alive will still never, ever get hit on as much as the most beautiful, sexy woman.
> 
> Good looking men get hit on. To what degree, obviously it varies, but they do.


******* did a study where men rated women and women rated men. The ratings given by men were a typical bell curve--a few 1's, a few 10's and most in the middle. But the women's ratings were totally different. Their graph looked like a ski-jump hill. Most of their ratings were at the low end. This seemed to indicate that men are fairer when rating women, but women only like specific looks. If a man didn't fit that look, they rated him poorly. Essentially, either a guy is either a 1 or a 10.

So a man which fit the look (like David Beckham) would likely get hit on all the time. But an average looking guy (like Bill Paxton) might rarely get hit on because women rate him very low.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

marduk said:


> But if I was ripped and wearing even a crappy dirty t-shirt that showed it and even made eye contact with a woman... she would be all over me. I mean, come across a crowded room just to chat with me even with my wife right by my side.


Getting ripped is a dramatic physical change from average. There are even women who don't want the buff dude. I often wonder if the type that goes for the body building guy is just more aggressive herself. So its not necessarily that most women are finding him more attractive, I think its that he's done something that specifically targets a sort of woman who is more likely to be overt and he reads that overt behavior as proof of his attractiveness. There's a satirical pic floating around perception of what women want in a male body, with women's choice being simple basic athleticism... while the male perception of what women want is this ripped dude.

Without some dramatic physical change, you're really not going to notice much difference about a guy's body underneath his clothes. That kind of change takes years of work. Yet even if you don't get ripped, you'll still notice more female attention if you're working out and feeling good about your improved fitness. They can't really differentiate you unless you're naked, but they can readily see that you carry yourself with confidence - you're more confident because you like the way you look more than you previously did.


----------



## jaquen

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Without some dramatic physical change, you're really not going to notice much difference about a guy's body underneath his clothes. That kind of change takes years of work. Yet even if you don't get ripped, you'll still notice more female attention if you're working out and feeling good about your improved fitness. They can't really differentiate you unless you're naked, but they can readily see that you carry yourself with confidence - you're more confident because you like the way you look more than you previously did.



Well that's where fashion comes in, no? The typical, suburban to rural guy in the US isn't going to dress in a way that showcases his physique through clothing. Here in the US there are lots of badly fit, oversized clothing that us dudes are just drowning in. But plenty of European, Asian, Latin American, and more fashion conscious US cities feature men who dress in a way that showcases a lean, fit body (or whatever they're working with).

Here in NYC? You can definitely tell the dudes that work out. They're all over the place pea****ing during the summer time, just like the ladies. I'm talking just in t-shirts that don't drown and jeans that don't swallow you whole. Even in the colder months well cut, slimline suits and close fitting sweaters and pants aren't uncommon. 

There are options available to men who are interested in taking it.


----------



## Marduk

murphy5 said:


> Wait, you are not "that guy" with the Excel spreadsheet, are you????:rofl:


Actually I _was_ except I didn't get busted and I wasn't stupid enough to tell my wife about it.

I used google calendar, it was much easier to correlate date data.

It wasn't actually about her at all, it was for me to understand what I was doing, what was effective, and what wasn't.

I wish I had done this 20 years ago.


----------



## Marduk

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Getting ripped is a dramatic physical change from average. There are even women who don't want the buff dude. I often wonder if the type that goes for the body building guy is just more aggressive herself. So its not necessarily that most women are finding him more attractive, I think its that he's done something that specifically targets a sort of woman who is more likely to be overt and he reads that overt behavior as proof of his attractiveness. There's a satirical pic floating around perception of what women want in a male body, with women's choice being simple basic athleticism... while the male perception of what women want is this ripped dude.
> 
> Without some dramatic physical change, you're really not going to notice much difference about a guy's body underneath his clothes. That kind of change takes years of work. Yet even if you don't get ripped, you'll still notice more female attention if you're working out and feeling good about your improved fitness. They can't really differentiate you unless you're naked, but they can readily see that you carry yourself with confidence - you're more confident because you like the way you look more than you previously did.


I meant ripped for me  I'm no bodybuilder.

Luckily I put on muscle mass and drop body fat relatively easily, even now into my 40s. But I'm no Hugh Jackman.

I actually took it a bit far. Started to get the full six pack and everything, but my wife became very insecure and weird so I backed it off.

I now cycle my workout routine and basically take the summer off. Allow myself to get a little gut, relax, and then get back in shape.

Helps keep us in a good place without her being either disinterested or insecure.


----------



## jaquen

marduk said:


> I actually took it a bit far. Started to get the full six pack and everything, but my wife became very insecure and weird so I backed it off.


That's too bad. I've lost an extraordinary amount of fat and am moving towards very low body fat levels partially because I've always wanted to see my body shredded to pieces with very little fat, and partly because I can't wait to drive my wife even crazier with that look.

A lot of women would very much appreciate the work you're putting in. I definitely get that improved looks do trip insecurities in some spouses, but it's really too damn bad.


----------



## Machiavelli

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Getting ripped is a dramatic physical change from average. There are even women who don't want the buff dude.


A woman once told me that muscles were actually a turn off to her, so she couldn't understand why she was unbuckling my jeans.



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I often wonder if the type that goes for the body building guy is just more aggressive herself.


It depends. Women who train a lot themselves are much more likely to go for a guy like Frank Zane. At least according to one study I read. In real life, women who don't like the bodybuilder physique often get "afraid" (turned on) when in close proximity to a physique they would reject in a photo. Nevertheless, all that is really necessary to achieve to pass the first fitness test, physical attractiveness, is to achieve an attractive shoulder:waist ratio. This ratio inherently means the subject will have a flat stomach, and that is important. This is achievable by most men who train and eat right. Most bodybuilders since the advent of the drug era (post 1960) _actually fall far outside this ratio._ So while it's true that guys over the ratio aren't hurting for women, a "natural" guy who keeps it in proportion with an eye to what women respond to will do quite well. There's quite a lot of research on this topic if you use google.




DvlsAdvc8 said:


> So its not necessarily that most women are finding him more attractive, I think its that he's done something that specifically targets a sort of woman who is more likely to be overt and he reads that overt behavior as proof of his attractiveness.


I've been young and skinny, young and built, mature and pudgy, mature and obese, old and obese, and old and built. I got hit on in all conditions except old and fat. Built is always best for pulling women, including women who profess no interest in muscle (like my wife). I had/have good size visible muscle and a good SWR, I'm nowhere near 1965 bodybuilder proportions.



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> There's a satirical pic floating around perception of what women want in a male body, with women's choice being simple basic athleticism...


They're looking at the SWR. Marathoners are athletic, but most don't carry enough muscle to achieve the SWR, thus failing to pull girls. Look at straight male gymnasts on the other hand, short, but well laid. Of course, males of all body types get married every day. Not all married men get laid every day.



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> while the male perception of what women want is this ripped dude.


"Ripped" merely means extremely low body fat and this is a well documented female attractor. Thus the need for a flat stomach. Six pack is best to have, but most women have already decided what they want to do to you before your shirt even comes off. The six pack is just the nitrous oxide once they get it off.



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Without some dramatic physical change, you're really not going to notice much difference about a guy's body underneath his clothes.


See above.



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> That kind of change takes years of work.


I can take a fatty 100# overweight into a six pack and a perfect SWR in one year, if he will comply with an eating plan and workout for 40 minutes a week.



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Yet even if you don't get ripped, you'll still notice more female attention if you're working out and feeling good about your improved fitness. They can't really differentiate you unless you're naked, but they can readily see that you carry yourself with confidence - you're more confident because you like the way you look more than you previously did.


They can see what they need to see once your coat comes off. The tapered torso and the level belt gives them most of the information they need. Then they lean in for a hug or slap your arm to check the Rockwell scale.


----------



## heartsbeating

I'm wanting a hint of a 6-pack myself... for myself, not my husband lol. Whether I have the discipline to get there is another matter. Feels good to become stronger and healthier though. When we move, he's planning on hitting the gym with me. I find him sexy and appealing as he is. I'd dig for us to work-out together but that's not necessarily about the muscles. 

He often goes to a local store for us. Usually casual in his sweats, skullcap, etc. Recently I've been with him a few times. Each time, I noticed the way the girls at the counter light up when they see him. Smiles and easy conversation. He included and introduced me too. I'll admit to being silly about it when we got in the car. He gave me a look, went to tickle me and said 'Are you a little bit jealous?' I told him no. He continued to tell me about a Patrice O'Neal (comedian) skit about the difference between men and women in relationships and women wanting their man to look good to other women. It started to sound like a TAM thread! I expressed that I didn't need that. Then couldn't help but laugh at myself as the words came out, 'but I'll be making your fave dinner tonight.' He was laughing along with me. I had to check myself and told him I wasn't surprised the girls looked happy to see him - I know what a catch he is. 

And now I go to the store all the time instead of him. I kid! He has this way of easily engaging and sharing a quick laugh. I could imagine other customers aren't this way. That, and he resembles Dave Grohl. I can't say whether he'd get hit on but the body language certainly changed upon seeing him.


----------



## Cynthia

Machiavelli said:


> I can take a fatty 100# overweight into a six pack and a perfect SWR in one year, if he will comply with an eating plan and workout for 40 minutes a week.


You could make money selling a program like that online.
What kind of workout do you suggest?
What is your dietary plan?


----------



## Middle of Everything

CynthiaDe said:


> You could make money selling a program like that online.
> What kind of workout do you suggest?
> What is your dietary plan?


Not mach but ill take a stab.

A moderate number of push-ups, crunches and other core work.

Diet? Protein and avoid refined carbs like the plague. Obviously FAR fewer calories than you really want. 

Its the diet that is going to trip up 95% of people.


----------



## Jetranger

wilson said:


> ******* did a study where men rated women and women rated men. The ratings given by men were a typical bell curve--a few 1's, a few 10's and most in the middle. But the women's ratings were totally different. Their graph looked like a ski-jump hill. Most of their ratings were at the low end. This seemed to indicate that men are fairer when rating women, but women only like specific looks. If a man didn't fit that look, they rated him poorly. Essentially, either a guy is either a 1 or a 10.
> 
> So a man which fit the look (like David Beckham) would likely get hit on all the time. But an average looking guy (like Bill Paxton) might rarely get hit on because women rate him very low.


Here's the results of that study:












Middle of Everything said:


> Its the diet that is going to trip up 95% of people.


Ever since I started MFP I've been blown away by how quickly you can go over your 2000 a day, never mind the 1820cals it's told me to stick to for losing a pound a week. I owe a guy a breakfast from Tim's so looked it up on their site today. Their standard breakfast combo of a bacon egg cheese biscuit or English muffin, medium coffee and a hashbrown (the hash brown is included by default) is just over 600 calories. Holy smokes! I'll stick to my banana, thank you!


----------



## OptimisticPessimist

Middle of Everything said:


> Not mach but ill take a stab.
> 
> A moderate number of push-ups, crunches and other core work.
> 
> Diet? Protein and avoid refined carbs like the plague. Obviously FAR fewer calories than you really want.
> 
> Its the diet that is going to trip up 95% of people.


I disagree with some of this. Im not Mach but..

Core work I agree; more core muscle means more muscle to show when you lose the fat. Chest, shoulders (especially side deltoids which are often neglected) and back are all integral to the V-shape that drives women nuts. You must also work legs; as one of the largest muscle groups, testosterone production is increased by working legs. When working shoulders, make very sure you have balanced production of muscle; if you dont you can very easily destroy your shoulder cup.

The single biggest misconception is that in order to lose weight, you must cut calorie intake. This is, respectfully, not correct.

The body adopts to its environment; its part of why we feel, and its why our bodies grow muscle when we lift weights- the body is responding to its environment. If you cut food intake, the body basically does this: "Oh crap, I am in an environment where food is scarce- slow the metabolism NOW and store any and all extra food as fat in case I have to go without it for awhile." Now, you can still lose weight- you take in less calories than you burn, and thus the body breaks down fat stores to provide you with energy. The problem is, when you stop your diet- or slip up- your body weight explodes (and hence the cycle many deal with). After a while your body realizes it has a good food supply again and speeds up your metabolism.

What you want to do is roughly this: eat whenever youre hungry, stop when youre full. Even better to schedule multiple small meals all throughout the day. Why does this work? Your body basically does this: "Ok, I have a great food supply; I dont need to store fat any more. Time to speed up the metabolism." Between the increase in metabolism and the cardiovascular excercise you should be doing, the weight starts falling off (as you eat more and more!). The best part is, you dont have to worry about weight explosion afterwards...

Of course, this is all a chemical process.


----------



## Marduk

jaquen said:


> That's too bad. I've lost an extraordinary amount of fat and am moving towards very low body fat levels partially because I've always wanted to see my body shredded to pieces with very little fat, and partly because I can't wait to drive my wife even crazier with that look.
> 
> A lot of women would very much appreciate the work you're putting in. I definitely get that improved looks do trip insecurities in some spouses, but it's really too damn bad.


Well...

#1 it was a hell of a lotta work and a lotta discipline. I like an occasional beer and wings, ya know?

#2 the point in doing all of it was to figure out what I could do to better myself and attract my wife, not make my wife insecure.

#3 I was attracting a lot of attention from other women. It was causing problems in my marriage, at work, all kinds of places.

What I learned is that a lot of relationship improvement stuff -- including red pill stuff -- is it's like medicine.

There's a certain amount that improves you, and when you go past it, it becomes toxic and harmful. I was seeking the sweet spot. Minimum effort for maximum reward.


----------



## Marduk

OptimisticPessimist said:


> I disagree with some of this. Im not Mach but..
> 
> Core work I agree; more core muscle means more muscle to show when you lose the fat. Chest, shoulders (especially side deltoids which are often neglected) and back are all integral to the V-shape that drives women nuts. You must also work legs; as one of the largest muscle groups, testosterone production is increased by working legs. When working shoulders, make very sure you have balanced production of muscle; if you dont you can very easily destroy your shoulder cup.


100% agree. The path I took was 3 rounds of P90X with the leg workouts heavily modified (Tony's legs are little sticks).

I also spent a lot of time in the dojo, on my mountain bike, and on the ski hills on top of that. If you're gonna work out, you should have fun doing it.



> The single biggest misconception is that in order to lose weight, you must cut calorie intake. This is, respectfully, not correct.
> 
> The body adopts to its environment; its part of why we feel, and its why our bodies grow muscle when we lift weights- the body is responding to its environment. If you cut food intake, the body basically does this: "Oh crap, I am in an environment where food is scarce- slow the metabolism NOW and store any and all extra food as fat in case I have to go without it for awhile." Now, you can still lose weight- you take in less calories than you burn, and thus the body breaks down fat stores to provide you with energy. The problem is, when you stop your diet- or slip up- your body weight explodes (and hence the cycle many deal with). After a while your body realizes it has a good food supply again and speeds up your metabolism.


What I did was download a calorie tracker app, set it to lose 2 lbs per week, and stuck to a 1/3 protein, 1/3 fat, 1/3 carb diet. No free days.

In 3 months I had cut roughly 25lbs of fat and put on a bunch of muscle. In 9 months I had gained all the weight back, but in lean muscle.

Made a huge difference.

Yes, metabolism counts. For a lot. But you can also drive your metabolism up by working out daily.

I would also time my meals: carbs only before working out, protein and fat before bed, etc.

At the end of the day though, your body is a biochemical machine that obeys the laws of thermodynamics.

If you output more energy than you put in, it has to draw upon internal stores to keep it's output up. The trick is to draw upon your fat stores not your protein stores.


> What you want to do is roughly this: eat whenever youre hungry, stop when youre full. Even better to schedule multiple small meals all throughout the day. Why does this work? Your body basically does this: "Ok, I have a great food supply; I dont need to store fat any more. Time to speed up the metabolism." Between the increase in metabolism and the cardiovascular excercise you should be doing, the weight starts falling off (as you eat more and more!). The best part is, you dont have to worry about weight explosion afterwards...
> 
> Of course, this is all a chemical process.


All fine and good, but I'd still advise tracking your calorie intake, your macronutrients, and supplementing wisely -- vitamin D's (more than you think you need), Omega 3's, a good solid multivitamin, etc.

Oh, and I *highly* recommend spending a few months being extremely data-driven. I collected data about what I ate, what workouts I did, everything.

Once I correlated it with the rest of the data like how often my wife initiated sex or I got hit on by other women, it was very illuminating.


----------



## Machiavelli

CynthiaDe said:


> You could make money selling a program like that online.
> What kind of workout do you suggest?
> What is your dietary plan?






Middle of Everything said:


> Not mach but ill take a stab.
> 
> A moderate number of push-ups, crunches and other core work.
> 
> Diet? Protein and avoid refined carbs like the plague. Obviously FAR fewer calories than you really want.
> 
> Its the diet that is going to trip up 95% of people.


MOE, your work-out plan is underpowered, but you are right on the money about the diet. Diet is 90% of the program and it does trip up 95% of the people. 

You're also correct on carbs; humans were never designed to have processed carbohydrates at all. Grain and sugar (and all combinations thereof) are highly addictive and they are the big issue for those who need to drop 50-100#. Having said that, one of the diets I use with clients is 60% carbohydrate, but that's a calorie counting diet that involves actual hunger most days. I prefer to use Slow Carb, Atkins, or Paleo, but I have quite a few plans that work. Many diets will work if you can merely comply with them.

The exercise program is two high intensity (HIT) weight sessions per week, basically to build muscle, but also to burn glycogen stores. You can use machines or barbells. Most people tolerate the exercise okay; it's not without pain, but it's brief. Seventy percent of my clients usually drop out before they reach their final goals. They either meet somebody(s) or realize they have no willpower to eat as directed and decide to save their money.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Machiavelli said:


> "Ripped" merely means extremely low body fat and this is a well documented female attractor. Thus the need for a flat stomach. Six pack is best to have, but most women have already decided what they want to do to you before your shirt even comes off. The six pack is just the nitrous oxide once they get it off.
> 
> I can take a fatty 100# overweight into a six pack and a perfect SWR in one year, if he will comply with an eating plan and workout for 40 minutes a week.


Its certainly not just extremely low body fat. There are plenty of skinny guys with six packs who get passed over because they're small, even with a good SW ratio. To put on the size that will make them appealing is the dramatic change I'm talking about. Most are only going to see marginal improvement that women aren't even going to notice.

Women are attracted to a certain proportion, but fitted clothes still don't do much to show off a marginally athletic physique - even with a decent SW ratio. Myself for example... I'm fairly athletic, lift 4-5 days a week, decent proportions but not extremely lean (although that depends on your frame of reference I suppose). I don't put on bulk without eating like a horse. Even most well fitting clothes only tend to show that I'm not fat. To get gains that would make a distinct difference in my size and readily visible SW ratio, literally takes years - I've been there before (and coming to hate food; I didn't even have to eat well, I just had to eat A LOT).

Now sure, I could dress like a European and show better. But then I'd look like a European... and its "off" style here in the states. 

For Joe Average out there hitting the gym... I'm inclined to think the little difference in his waistline or musculature isn't the critical factor. Few are going to have the diet and workout discipline to really make a dramatic change. But Joe Average will still pull more women after working out more, simply because he feels better about himself and carries himself with more confidence as a result.


----------



## Cynthia

Middle of Everything said:


> Not mach but ill take a stab.
> 
> A moderate number of push-ups, crunches and other core work.
> 
> Diet? Protein and avoid refined carbs like the plague. Obviously FAR fewer calories than you really want.
> 
> Its the diet that is going to trip up 95% of people.


This is how I eat and exercise. My husband is working up to it.



Machiavelli said:


> MOE, your work-out plan is underpowered, but you are right on the money about the diet. Diet is 90% of the program and it does trip up 95% of the people.
> 
> You're also correct on carbs; humans were never designed to have processed carbohydrates at all. Grain and sugar (and all combinations thereof) are highly addictive and they are the big issue for those who need to drop 50-100#. Having said that, one of the diets I use with clients is 60% carbohydrate, but that's a calorie counting diet that involves actual hunger most days. I prefer to use Slow Carb, Atkins, or Paleo, but I have quite a few plans that work. Many diets will work if you can merely comply with them.
> 
> The exercise program is two high intensity (HIT) weight sessions per week, basically to build muscle, but also to burn glycogen stores. You can use machines or barbells. Most people tolerate the exercise okay; it's not without pain, but it's brief. Seventy percent of my clients usually drop out before they reach their final goals. They either meet somebody(s) or realize they have no willpower to eat as directed and decide to save their money.


Sounds pretty much like what I’m doing. I was wondering if there was anything I might be missing. I’m doing fine, but my husband has some health issues that he is working on now that he got a serious scare from the doctor.
My husband and I both have trouble with gluten, so our home is now gluten free. Within days my husband could recognize a huge difference in how he felt. I was amazed. I’ve been gluten free for over a year, but it took months before my symptoms resolved. He actually felt better within 48 hours. He slipped up and was back to being sick within a few hours. Now he’s convinced.
Thank you for the info.


----------



## Machiavelli

OptimisticPessimist said:


> I disagree with some of this. Im not Mach but..
> 
> 
> The single biggest misconception is that in order to lose weight, you must cut calorie intake. This is, respectfully, not correct.
> 
> The body adopts to its environment; its part of why we feel, and its why our bodies grow muscle when we lift weights- the body is responding to its environment. If you cut food intake, the body basically does this: "Oh crap, I am in an environment where food is scarce- slow the metabolism NOW and store any and all extra food as fat in case I have to go without it for awhile." Now, you can still lose weight- you take in less calories than you burn, and thus the body breaks down fat stores to provide you with energy. The problem is, when you stop your diet- or slip up- your body weight explodes (and hence the cycle many deal with). After a while your body realizes it has a good food supply again and speeds up your metabolism.





marduk said:


> Yes, metabolism counts. For a lot. But you can also drive your metabolism up by working out daily.
> 
> ...
> 
> At the end of the day though, your body is a biochemical machine that obeys the laws of thermodynamics.
> 
> If you output more energy than you put in, it has to draw upon internal stores to keep it's output up. The trick is to draw upon your fat stores not your protein stores.
> 
> All fine and good, but I'd still advise tracking your calorie intake, your macronutrients, and supplementing wisely -- vitamin D's (more than you think you need), Omega 3's, a good solid multivitamin, etc.


All good comments, y'all. The thing about the body and the third law of thermodynamics is that the body is capable of leaning out the fuel air mix, so to speak. It will run the same and maintain fat even on less calories. The old school 3500 Rule (have a minus 3500 calorie imbalance to lose one pound of fat) doesn't work like it should on paper. It's all about what foods you eat and increasing metabolism by raising lean body mass, burning off glycogen (which must be replenished), and keeping insulin response low. See: Why We Get Fat and What to Do About It, by Gary Taubes. For an even more technical discussion, see Good Calories, Bad Calories by the same author.


----------



## Jetranger

While we've gone off topic a bit (but as someone who is making a real effort to look after themselves, it's a useful and interesting tangent) it also shows that men aren't just sitting around waiting for women to throw themselves at us - we're working hard to make ourselves more appealing in a number of ways.


----------



## turnera

In female terms, what you're describing isn't the actual looks that we're clamoring for. It's the pride in one's self that drives you to stay fit and look great that we're looking for.

My H laments all the time about guys today walking around with women looking all hot, while the guy's wearing shorts down to their knees, baggy t-shirts not tucked in, tennis shoes or flip-flops - at restaurants! What woman wants to be with that guy? Just because it's in style doesn't mean you wear that on a date.


----------



## Marduk

turnera said:


> In female terms, what you're describing isn't the actual looks that we're clamoring for. It's the pride in one's self that drives you to stay fit and look great that we're looking for.
> 
> My H laments all the time about guys today walking around with women looking all hot, while the guy's wearing shorts down to their knees, baggy t-shirts not tucked in, tennis shoes or flip-flops - at restaurants! What woman wants to be with that guy? Just because it's in style doesn't mean you wear that on a date.


Exactly!

The bar is so damn low just putting on a pair of jeans and t-shirt that actually fits is enough to turn some heads these days.


----------



## Machiavelli

turnera said:


> My H laments all the time about guys today walking around with women looking all hot, while the guy's wearing shorts down to their knees, baggy t-shirts not tucked in, tennis shoes or flip-flops - at restaurants! What woman wants to be with that guy? Just because it's in style doesn't mean you wear that on a date.


Well. They have to hide the gut, and that's the best way to do it.


----------



## Cynthia

Machiavelli said:


> Well. They have to hide the gut, and that's the best way to do it.


lol There is no hiding it. It is purely psychological on the part of the person try to camouflage it.


----------



## Marduk

Machiavelli said:


> All good comments, y'all. The thing about the body and the third law of thermodynamics is that the body is capable of leaning out the fuel air mix, so to speak. It will run the same and maintain fat even on less calories. The old school 3500 Rule (have a minus 3500 calorie imbalance to lose one pound of fat) doesn't work like it should on paper. It's all about what foods you eat and increasing metabolism by raising lean body mass, burning off glycogen (which must be replenished), and keeping insulin response low. See: Why We Get Fat and What to Do About It, by Gary Taubes. For an even more technical discussion, see Good Calories, Bad Calories by the same author.


Yup; you have to get it to draw on the right fuel store.

I have found a lot of success with the 1/3 intake by calorie per macronutrient mix.

If you dramatically restrict calories over the short term and do nothing exercise-wise and are sedentary, your body will downshift your metabolism to accommodate, and may actually preserve your fat stores thinking you've gone into starvation mode.

It may then burn away your protein stores instead.

Gotta keep your blood sugar stable, eat good quality fats, and more protein than you think you need. And (in my case) lift heavy things. Cardio does virtually nothing for me.

But it also drives me crazy when people go on say a 500 cal/day diet for a week or two and don't lose anything and think they can't. So they go back to sitting on the couch and eating doritos and think that they're stuck because they're 40, or have bad genes, or whatever.

Your body _will_ lose weight because it's not a perpetual motion machine. It has to.

It may just not be the weight you want it to lose, and you need to feed your brain as well. It's the #1 resting consumer of glycogen and fat your body has.

If your brain isn't working right, you won't eat right or exercise.


----------



## Marduk

Machiavelli said:


> Well. They have to hide the gut, and that's the best way to do it.


Except it doesn't.

I've experimented with this. 

I got a little gut back on purpose. Tried baggy clothes, and tighter clothes that fit and show I had a bit of a gut.

I got hit on with the tighter clothes that showed that I had a bit of a gut but I didn't with the baggy clothes.

Of course, it's better just to lose the gut.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Hmm... well, I can't say I really know. I've never had much of any gut so as to compare. But I know that being more muscular and leaner when I was in my early 20s didn't translate into more/better women than I attract today. It was only better than being the skinny guy I was in early high school.

So to me its really just "don't be skinny" and "don't be fat".


----------



## JCD

lenzi said:


> You write this as if it's something to be proud of.
> 
> Do you think never being single in your entire life is a good thing?
> 
> I don't.


Is being single something to be proud of? She made a judgment free statement. She always has male attention and she's always found someone she likes to be with. Those are positive things. So is the ability to be content within yourself.

Why are you making it a negative?


----------



## JCD

turnera said:


> In female terms, what you're describing isn't the actual looks that we're clamoring for. It's the pride in one's self that drives you to stay fit and look great that we're looking for.
> 
> My H laments all the time about guys today walking around with women looking all hot, while the guy's wearing shorts down to their knees, baggy t-shirts not tucked in, tennis shoes or flip-flops - at restaurants! What woman wants to be with that guy? Just because it's in style doesn't mean you wear that on a date.


I have seen these guys too...

AND I have seen girls with rat nest hair, the most basic attention spent on their attire (yes, they color coordinate their pajamas and flip flops that they wear) and make up is just SO last century...as are skirts and heels.

Frankly heavier girls pay MORE attention to their coiffure and make up. They deserve a date more than some girl who wonders why a man doesn't love her for her flannel pants and flip flops.

Effort isn't just for men.

But to the larger point: this push for equality and the male meme that marriage is horrifying for them has made men skittish about relationships...and has forced women to actually have to do some pursuit.

The women are now facing active rejection (asking some guy and being shot down) instead of passive rejection (i.e. pining for some guy to ask them out).

Women don't like it! Suddenly they find that they are being treated like...like...men asking for attention in a club! Men were expected to suck up the constant rejection that was dating life. Women find that shoe pinches when it's on the other foot. (Ladies, we could have told you that)

Yes, this is a bit of schadenfreude. I am in the same place as Marduk, where basic effort in dress, attitude and exercise is garnering more female interest than I ever had before. Suddenly, _I_ get to be stuck in the role of letting someone down softly...and that shoe pinches too. It isn't easy and I get why women constantly hit on get a bit annoyed.


----------



## Jetranger

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Hmm... well, I can't say I really know. I've never had much of any gut so as to compare. But I know that being more muscular and leaner when I was in my early 20s didn't translate into more/better women than I attract today. It was only better than being the skinny guy I was in early high school.


I was pretty skinny in high school, now I'm more lean but going back towards skinny. My problem is I have swayback, not too severe, but enough that it means my lower back arches forward too much and that can make it look like I have a gut even though I definitely do not! It also means it's very difficult to get the 'level belt' thing unless I deliberately pull the back of my pants down just a touch to even it out.

I don't think I was meant to be muscular, I'm happy being trim.



JCD said:


> I have seen girls with rat nest hair, the most basic attention spent on their attire (yes, they color coordinate their pajamas and flip flops that they wear) and make up is just SO last century...as are skirts and heels.
> 
> Frankly heavier girls pay MORE attention to their coiffure and make up. They deserve a date more than some girl who wonders why a man doesn't love her for her flannel pants and flip flops.


True to an extent... however, I also consider what she'll look like without the clothes and make up. You see those with/without makeup pictures of porn stars and marvel at the transformations. They wear all that stuff to bed, most real girls don't. No question I'll feel more receptive to the same person if they've bothered tidying themselves up first!


----------



## jaquen

I've got plenty of bonafide skinny male friends who've never had a problem attracting women.

I think skinny-phobia is, and always has been, more of a male concern than a female one. 

Also what's being let out of this conversation is the power of an aesthetically pleasing face. That covers a multitude of body "sins".


----------



## Marduk

JCD said:


> I have seen these guys too...
> 
> AND I have seen girls with rat nest hair, the most basic attention spent on their attire (yes, they color coordinate their pajamas and flip flops that they wear) and make up is just SO last century...as are skirts and heels.
> 
> Frankly heavier girls pay MORE attention to their coiffure and make up. They deserve a date more than some girl who wonders why a man doesn't love her for her flannel pants and flip flops.
> 
> Effort isn't just for men.
> 
> But to the larger point: this push for equality and the male meme that marriage is horrifying for them has made men skittish about relationships...and has forced women to actually have to do some pursuit.
> 
> The women are now facing active rejection (asking some guy and being shot down) instead of passive rejection (i.e. pining for some guy to ask them out).
> 
> Women don't like it! Suddenly they find that they are being treated like...like...men asking for attention in a club! Men were expected to suck up the constant rejection that was dating life. Women find that shoe pinches when it's on the other foot. (Ladies, we could have told you that)
> 
> Yes, this is a bit of schadenfreude. I am in the same place as Marduk, where basic effort in dress, attitude and exercise is garnering more female interest than I ever had before. Suddenly, _I_ get to be stuck in the role of letting someone down softly...and that shoe pinches too. It isn't easy and I get why women constantly hit on get a bit annoyed.


A year or two back I was in the lineup at Starbucks.

Ahead of me was a drop dead gorgeous 40-something woman. Beautiful fitted pencil skirt, nice white button down top, those fancy high heels with the red soles that women seem to think are a thing.

Nothing ****ty, just very well put together. Hair up, makeup done but not overdone, in shape, beautiful.

Behind me were two women of about the same age, pear shaped, no makeup, terrible ill-fitting clothing. Hair that probably hadn't seen shampoo for a week. 

They both were insulting the woman in front of me over and over again, saying "****", "*****", all kinds of things. At a place of business.

The poor woman in front of me was getting very upset. It must have happened all the time.

As she walked up to the counter to order, so did I. I turned to her and said "If we both weren't married I'd buy you a coffee to make up for the two ugly fat cows behind you being jealous *****es. Let me tell you on behalf of those that know better, thank you for having the pride to take care of yourself." Loud enough for the two behind me to hear.

The two women behind me turned beet red and were speechless.

The hot woman smiled a big grin, thanked me and walked away.

Women are sometimes the worst to other women.


----------



## jaquen

marduk said:


> A year or two back I was in the lineup at Starbucks.
> 
> Ahead of me was a drop dead gorgeous 40-something woman. Beautiful fitted pencil skirt, nice white button down top, those fancy high heels with the red soles that women seem to think are a thing.
> 
> Nothing ****ty, just very well put together. Hair up, makeup done but not overdone, in shape, beautiful.
> 
> Behind me were two women of about the same age, pear shaped, no makeup, terrible ill-fitting clothing. Hair that probably hadn't seen shampoo for a week.
> 
> They both were insulting the woman in front of me over and over again, saying "****", "*****", all kinds of things. At a place of business.
> 
> The poor woman in front of me was getting very upset. It must have happened all the time.
> 
> As she walked up to the counter to order, so did I. I turned to her and said "If we both weren't married I'd buy you a coffee to make up for the two ugly fat cows behind you being jealous *****es. Let me tell you on behalf of those that know better, thank you for having the pride to take care of yourself." Loud enough for the two behind me to hear.
> 
> The two women behind me turned beet red and were speechless.
> 
> The hot woman smiled a big grin, thanked me and walked away.
> 
> Women are sometimes the worst to other women.


----------



## whitehawk

l dunno but first up , women are a hell of a lot of work. lt's 5x harder and more complicated being around women than males . So l think if a guy does find himself single again , he's often not all that keen on getting into that [email protected] again, not in a hurry anyway . And , he may well have been screwed over well and truly so he's defiantly not in a hurry for that part again. 

But there is one thing l noticed about the old hunt to since joining my date site, well in my area anyway.
l never realized but the guys out number the girls on mine sometimes 3 to one.
l finally decided to check out the numbers just a wk or so back.
So how the hell have l managed to meet dozens of girls on there , l don't know . Why did they even meet e when there's so many other guys on there, don't know . You'd think with those odds l'd be lucky to meet one.
And the next thing had me scratching my head about :scratchhead: was , how is it in that case , with odds like that , l always seem to be the one saying sorry , but this isn't really for me or however you wanna put it .

So it is kinda weird really because it should be the other way round with those kinda odds. Maybe it is easier for a guy l don't know really . Women are breaking up 75% of marriage break ups now and a hell of a lot of them certainly seem to think it's all gonna be easy peasy and party time. But not having been single for a long time before this , l'm still sussing the whole crazy single world out.


----------



## jaquen

whitehawk said:


> l never realized but the guys out number the girls on mine sometimes 3 to one.
> l finally decided to check out the numbers just a wk or so back.
> So how the hell have l managed to meet dozens of girls on there , l don't know . Why did they even meet e when there's so many other guys on there, don't know . You'd think with those odds l'd be lucky to meet one.
> And the next thing had me scratching my head about :scratchhead: was , how is it in that case , with odds like that , l always seem to be the one saying sorry , but this isn't really for me or however you wanna put it .


Are you a good looking man? Are you at least marginally fit or lean? If yes, then those odds are irrelevant. You wouldn't be competing against most of those other guys. A 3:1 ratio is misleading if a good portion of the male population on these dating sites aren't the kind of men who are going to easily stand out in an online environment. Men who do well on dating sites with women tend to overwhelmingly posses attributes that are more widely considered attractive on a superficial level.


----------



## Jetranger

whitehawk said:


> But there is one thing l noticed about the old hunt to since joining my date site, well in my area anyway.
> l never realized but the guys out number the girls on mine sometimes 3 to one.
> l finally decided to check out the numbers just a wk or so back.
> So how the hell have l managed to meet dozens of girls on there , l don't know . Why did they even meet e when there's so many other guys on there, don't know . You'd think with those odds l'd be lucky to meet one.
> And the next thing had me scratching my head about :scratchhead: was , how is it in that case , with odds like that , l always seem to be the one saying sorry , but this isn't really for me or however you wanna put it .


Strange, isn’t it? I’ve been ‘out there’ are year and it’s been a rollercoaster ride and learning experience second to none. I’ve met a lot of girls, talked to many more, and I think I’m figuring some things out in the process. For some of them, there’s a reason they’re on a dating site, and it’s not due to a busy life or lack of meeting people face to face. Everyone has their quirks, their unique qualities, but sometimes you find something that makes you go “hang on a sec…”. I’m having a first meeting/drinks with a girl off OKC tonight and while we were texting last night she said a few things that I’ll be wondering about now.

Some have anger, some have baggage, some think a picture of them holding their stupid cat is going to have a positive effect (there’s even an ad on POF right now saying women who pose with their cats get 53% less messages). 

Don’t forget, though, we’re seeing this from the perspective of guys who’ve had experience and now want to make sure we get a good girl this time around.


----------



## Marduk

Jetranger said:


> Strange, isn’t it? I’ve been ‘out there’ are year and it’s been a rollercoaster ride and learning experience second to none. I’ve met a lot of girls, talked to many more, and I think I’m figuring some things out in the process. For some of them, there’s a reason they’re on a dating site, and it’s not due to a busy life or lack of meeting people face to face. Everyone has their quirks, their unique qualities, but sometimes you find something that makes you go “hang on a sec…”. I’m having a first meeting/drinks with a girl off OKC tonight and while we were texting last night she said a few things that I’ll be wondering about now.
> 
> Some have anger, some have baggage, some think a picture of them holding their stupid cat is going to have a positive effect (there’s even an ad on POF right now saying women who pose with their cats get 53% less messages).
> 
> Don’t forget, though, we’re seeing this from the perspective of guys who’ve had experience and now want to make sure we get a good girl this time around.


My advice?

Ditch the websites and make friends with a lot of women.

That's all. Just friends.

Women who are friends with a good guy can't help but try to hook him up with all their girlfriends that are good. And they'll try to keep you out of trouble by weeding out the bad ones for the most part.

Remember, they know things about their friends that you'll never know. How many dudes they've slept with, if they've cheated, all kinds of things.

And having some good women that are friends scouting for you is an amazing thing.

Just don't be a-holes when you dump their friends because it's not working out. In fact, go to them for help doing it when the time comes. They'll let you know how to let them down easy.

That's what I did when I got divorced. And boy, I was up to my armpits in women.


----------



## OptimisticPessimist

marduk said:


> A year or two back I was in the lineup at Starbucks.
> 
> Ahead of me was a drop dead gorgeous 40-something woman. Beautiful fitted pencil skirt, nice white button down top, those fancy high heels with the red soles that women seem to think are a thing.
> 
> Nothing ****ty, just very well put together. Hair up, makeup done but not overdone, in shape, beautiful.
> 
> Behind me were two women of about the same age, pear shaped, no makeup, terrible ill-fitting clothing. Hair that probably hadn't seen shampoo for a week.
> 
> They both were insulting the woman in front of me over and over again, saying "****", "*****", all kinds of things. At a place of business.
> 
> The poor woman in front of me was getting very upset. It must have happened all the time.
> 
> As she walked up to the counter to order, so did I. I turned to her and said "If we both weren't married I'd buy you a coffee to make up for the two ugly fat cows behind you being jealous *****es. Let me tell you on behalf of those that know better, thank you for having the pride to take care of yourself." Loud enough for the two behind me to hear.
> 
> The two women behind me turned beet red and were speechless.
> 
> The hot woman smiled a big grin, thanked me and walked away.
> 
> Women are sometimes the worst to other women.


:smthumbup:

Totally awesome dude! Youre my hero for the day 

I would have paid money to see the look on their faces. Jealousy (within moderation) is one thing if it motivates you to improve yourself, but its another thing entirely when it inspires treating others poorly.


----------



## Jetranger

marduk said:


> My advice?
> 
> Ditch the websites and make friends with a lot of women.
> 
> That's all. Just friends.
> 
> Women who are friends with a good guy can't help but try to hook him up with all their girlfriends that are good. And they'll try to keep you out of trouble by weeding out the bad ones for the most part.
> 
> Remember, they know things about their friends that you'll never know. How many dudes they've slept with, if they've cheated, all kinds of things.
> 
> And having some good women that are friends scouting for you is an amazing thing.
> 
> Just don't be a-holes when you dump their friends because it's not working out. In fact, go to them for help doing it when the time comes. They'll let you know how to let them down easy.
> 
> That's what I did when I got divorced. And boy, I was up to my armpits in women.


Don’t let DoF see you, they are very strongly against opposite gender friends!

Pretty much all my friends are already female. That’s always been the case for me, and it has worked pretty well in the past in terms of getting help meeting romantic partners. I even got feedback on my bedroom performance through a friend of my then GF (and it was good news!). It’s very good advice, one that guys would do well to heed. 

A thought occurs: you know how women always seem to appear out of the woodwork the moment you get a girlfriend? One theory goes that they figure there must be something in you if another woman has decided to be with you. I wonder about when you have those female friends, and you’re hanging out – does that ‘ooh, I wonder what’s great about him’ thing cancel out that ‘oh, a guy and a girl, they must be together, stay away’ thing? Just fun to think about…


----------



## whitehawk

Jetranger said:


> Strange, isn’t it? I’ve been ‘out there’ are year and it’s been a rollercoaster ride and learning experience second to none. I’ve met a lot of girls, talked to many more, and I think I’m figuring some things out in the process. For some of them, there’s a reason they’re on a dating site, and it’s not due to a busy life or lack of meeting people face to face. Everyone has their quirks, their unique qualities, but sometimes you find something that makes you go “hang on a sec…”. I’m having a first meeting/drinks with a girl off OKC tonight and while we were texting last night she said a few things that I’ll be wondering about now.
> 
> Some have anger, some have baggage, some think a picture of them holding their stupid cat is going to have a positive effect (there’s even an ad on POF right now saying women who pose with their cats get 53% less messages).
> 
> Don’t forget, though, we’re seeing this from the perspective of guys who’ve had experience and now want to make sure we get a good girl this time around.



Yeah it's a crazy ride alright . And l mean l can only say it from my male perspective meeting women but yeah they sure don't seem to be able to shelve their baggage . Mind you , being a women meeting guys , maybe guys don't either , dunno. l got enough problems dealing with the women s l'll let them worry about that one :rofl:

That pic thing , man. Dog's , cats , sprawled all over a couch in some crap house clothes or with a beer in their hand , don't think l'll ever get the pic thing .


----------



## whitehawk

marduk said:


> My advice?
> 
> Ditch the websites and make friends with a lot of women.
> 
> That's all. Just friends.
> 
> Women who are friends with a good guy can't help but try to hook him up with all their girlfriends that are good. And they'll try to keep you out of trouble by weeding out the bad ones for the most part.
> 
> Remember, they know things about their friends that you'll never know. How many dudes they've slept with, if they've cheated, all kinds of things.
> 
> And having some good women that are friends scouting for you is an amazing thing.
> 
> Just don't be a-holes when you dump their friends because it's not working out. In fact, go to them for help doing it when the time comes. They'll let you know how to let them down easy.
> 
> That's what I did when I got divorced. And boy, I was up to my armpits in women.



Haha , sounds like the way to go l'd much rather RL anyway . Trouble is l pretty well came out of my marriage friendless and that side of things just doesn't seem to wanna happen . Takes time l spose .


----------



## whitehawk

Jetranger said:


> Don’t let DoF see you, they are very strongly against opposite gender friends!
> 
> Pretty much all my friends are already female. That’s always been the case for me, and it has worked pretty well in the past in terms of getting help meeting romantic partners. I even got feedback on my bedroom performance through a friend of my then GF (and it was good news!). It’s very good advice, one that guys would do well to heed.
> 
> A thought occurs: you know how women always seem to appear out of the woodwork the moment you get a girlfriend? One theory goes that they figure there must be something in you if another woman has decided to be with you. I wonder about when you have those female friends, and you’re hanging out – does that ‘ooh, I wonder what’s great about him’ thing cancel out that ‘oh, a guy and a girl, they must be together, stay away’ thing? Just fun to think about…



l always wonder about that stuff too. Or does he look like a loser to them bc he's hanging out with females .
l've had heaps of female friends over the years . Damn hard getting female friends that have good lookin female friends though isn't it :rofl:

l've gotta get down to my sisters place for a few days . She's got heaps of very nice cute friends . The guys don't seem to like her much but the good news is the girls flock to her .


----------



## Machiavelli

marduk said:


> Women are sometimes the worst to other women.


Sometimes?


----------



## Machiavelli

whitehawk said:


> l always wonder about that stuff too. Or does he look like a loser to them bc he's hanging out with females .


If he is not an obvious orbiter and the women are competing for his attention, it's a big boost in attractiveness due to females preference for preselection.


----------



## lovelygirl

jaquen said:


> Good looking men get hit on. To what degree, obviously it varies, but they do.
> 
> And still a woman who is average looking will often get hit on more than a good looking man..


Sorry, I have to disagree with this.
Nowadays, good looking men are hit on WAY MORE than average/good looking woman. 
Whether it's in the club or on the streets, when a good looking man passes by, EVERY GIRL turns their head and they stare at him more than he would stare at a good looking girl.


----------



## heartsbeating

lovelygirl said:


> Sorry, I have to disagree with this.
> Nowadays, good looking men are hit on WAY MORE than average/good looking woman.
> Whether it's in the club or on the streets, when a good looking man passes by, EVERY GIRL turns their head and they stare at him more than he would stare at a good looking girl.


I'm not disputing this one or another because I simply don't know what the dating scene is like but I couldn't help but wonder if you're noticing this because it's your perception? If I suggested to look for people wearing hats, suddenly people with hats will start appearing everywhere.


----------



## lovelygirl

It's not my perception. It happens in my daily life. 
Although I understand your point and I see how this could sound as only a perception, it's not. Not where I live.


----------



## Lyris

Do you live on the moon? Because that's not the situation where I live or anywhere else I've ever heard of.

And I don't believe that Starbucks story, sorry.


----------



## over20

lovelygirl said:


> It's not my perception. It happens in my daily life.
> Although I understand your point and I see how this could sound as only a perception, it's not. Not where I live.


:iagree:


----------



## Caribbean Man

marduk said:


> Women are sometimes the worst to other women.


Funny thing is, I have seen that same " Starbucks " scenario / dynamic right here on TAM.


----------



## Caribbean Man

heartsbeating said:


> I'm not disputing this one or another because I simply don't know what the dating scene is like but I couldn't help but wonder if you're noticing this because it's your perception? If I suggested to look for people wearing hats, suddenly people with hats will start appearing everywhere.



I agree to an extent.

Sometimes a person's perception is often their realty.

Maybe in LG's situation , it might be a mixture of both?

Perception _and_ reality.


----------



## Lyris

Really? You've seen two fat, ugly, poorly dressed women tearing down an attractive one here on TAM? Where?


----------



## Caribbean Man

lovelygirl said:


> Sorry, I have to disagree with this.
> Nowadays, good looking men are hit on WAY MORE than average/good looking woman.
> Whether it's in the club or on the streets, when a good looking man passes by, EVERY GIRL turns their head and they stare at him more than he would stare at a good looking girl.


I'd say that I've seen it go both ways.

depends on the environment and it's subculture.

So it might not actually a hard and fast rule. It the dating and attraction game , things tend to be fluid.

Back in my single days, I always made my own observations and formed my own rules.


----------



## Anon Pink

marduk said:


> A year or two back I was in the lineup at Starbucks.
> 
> Ahead of me was a drop dead gorgeous 40-something woman. Beautiful fitted pencil skirt, nice white button down top, those fancy high heels with the red soles that women seem to think are a thing.
> 
> Nothing ****ty, just very well put together. Hair up, makeup done but not overdone, in shape, beautiful.
> 
> Behind me were two women of about the same age, pear shaped, no makeup, terrible ill-fitting clothing. Hair that probably hadn't seen shampoo for a week.
> 
> They both were insulting the woman in front of me over and over again, saying "****", "*****", all kinds of things. At a place of business.
> 
> The poor woman in front of me was getting very upset. It must have happened all the time.
> 
> As she walked up to the counter to order, so did I. I turned to her and said "If we both weren't married I'd buy you a coffee to make up for the two ugly fat cows behind you being jealous *****es. Let me tell you on behalf of those that know better, thank you for having the pride to take care of yourself." Loud enough for the two behind me to hear.
> 
> The two women behind me turned beet red and were speechless.
> 
> The hot woman smiled a big grin, thanked me and walked away.
> 
> Women are sometimes the worst to other women.


I wanted to thank you again for that lovely comment. It made my day! Women at always so mean to me!


----------



## Marduk

whitehawk said:


> Haha , sounds like the way to go l'd much rather RL anyway . Trouble is l pretty well came out of my marriage friendless and that side of things just doesn't seem to wanna happen . Takes time l spose .


I found it was pretty easy to make friends with women... pick some nice, smart, women and just make friends with them. Let them know you're not hitting on them, just coming out of a long term relationship, etc.

Anyway that's what I did.


----------



## Marduk

Lyris said:


> Do you live on the moon? Because that's not the situation where I live or anywhere else I've ever heard of.
> 
> And I don't believe that Starbucks story, sorry.


Don't believe it all you want. I don't know why you would, frankly.

But it did happen and I did do it. Happened right here at work.


----------



## Marduk

Machiavelli said:


> If he is not an obvious orbiter and the women are competing for his attention, it's a big boost in attractiveness due to females preference for preselection.


I made it very obvious I was just friends with this core group of women. One of them was my buddy's GF so that helped.

But then I made friends with their girlfriends, hung out with them, and made it very clear that I wasn't looking to hook up with any of them.

Then the setups began.


----------



## Machiavelli

marduk said:


> Then the setups began.


LOL


----------



## Cubby

lovelygirl said:


> Sorry, I have to disagree with this.
> Nowadays, good looking men are hit on WAY MORE than average/good looking woman.
> Whether it's in the club or on the streets, when a good looking man passes by, EVERY GIRL turns their head and they stare at him more than he would stare at a good looking girl.


From what I've observed, a good-looking man, from oh, about mid-thirties on is much-valued and much-admired to women. So many of my wife's friends who are single (40's and early 50's) are desparate to find a quality man, so that kind of a man will get plenty of attention from them. But the average, run-of-the-mill kind of guy seems to get about zero attention from women. They're all clamoring for that cool, good-looking guy.


----------



## turnera

My brother's getting divorced, at 60. He's decent looking, getting some responses on line, dresses well, very well off. But OMG, his teeth are horrendous, yellow, brown even. I told him to get them whitened and he gave an excuse about porous teeth, blah blah. I just thought, well, good luck when those online women finally meet up with you, then. No way I'd date someone whose teeth look like that. Especially when he has money to fix it.


----------



## Cubby

turnera said:


> My brother's getting divorced, at 60. He's decent looking, getting some responses on line, dresses well, very well off. But OMG, his teeth are horrendous, yellow, brown even. I told him to get them whitened and he gave an excuse about porous teeth, blah blah. I just thought, well, good luck when those online women finally meet up with you, then. No way I'd date someone whose teeth look like that. Especially when he has money to fix it.


Haha! It's amazing that some people choose not to control the things they can control. Like dressing well, working out, good hygiene....and getting your teeth fixed when you have the money to do it.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

jaquen said:


> I've got plenty of bonafide skinny male friends who've never had a problem attracting women.
> 
> I think skinny-phobia is, and always has been, more of a male concern than a female one.
> 
> Also what's being let out of this conversation is the power of an aesthetically pleasing face. That covers a multitude of body "sins".


It was left out of the conversation because the conversation was centered on controllable factors -Your face isn't. I know of zero skinny guys who get much attention from women. My slightly over weight friends have better luck than skinny friends. In fact, my skinny friends are often in relationships with women who weigh as much or more than they do - a fact that I get the impression neither of them is actually happy with.

Peruse any dating site for a few minutes and you'll see that "skinny-phobia" isn't just a male concern. Three preferences dominate female profiles for physical traits - height, followed by "not fat", followed by "not too skinny". Height and fat are obvious, but "not too skinny" is often related to the female desire to be "smaller" than him and perception of what a man is supposed to be. Perceived norm is a factor, its role in lower perceived dominance/confidence is another (just like height).

Caveat - I did a couple semesters in the UK, and I have noticed that being skinny wasn't as much of a negative thing to European women - at least those in the UK, France and Italy. In the later two in particular, virtually all of the young men were fairly skinny. But here in the states, skinny is definitely a negative I can speak to from experience.


----------



## Marduk

Machiavelli said:


> LOL


I think women (especially those in relationships) have some kind of existential or projective need to hook up the decent single guys that they like.

I mean, seriously. They would basically hand their friends to me on a platter. Down to how to get them in the sack successfully.

Women are weird.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

whitehawk said:


> But there is one thing l noticed about the old hunt to since joining my date site, well in my area anyway.
> l never realized but the guys out number the girls on mine sometimes 3 to one.
> l finally decided to check out the numbers just a wk or so back.
> So how the hell have l managed to meet dozens of girls on there , l don't know .


Well, you did better than I did online. It was a total waste of time for me. 9 out of 10 don't bother to respond. Even mutual match sites, my response rate was low... like 1 out of 5... and that's AFTER they already "like" you. I'm convinced that tinder for example, is 25% women looking for a hookup with a select guy, 25% women actually looking for relationships, and 50% women just looking for an ego boost with no intention to interact.

I have better fortunes in almost any real life location.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

lovelygirl said:


> Sorry, I have to disagree with this.
> Nowadays, good looking men are hit on WAY MORE than average/good looking woman.
> Whether it's in the club or on the streets, when a good looking man passes by, EVERY GIRL turns their head and they stare at him more than he would stare at a good looking girl.


I'm moving to where you live. lol


----------



## Machiavelli

marduk said:


> I think women (especially those in relationships) have some kind of existential or projective need to hook up the decent single guys that they like.
> 
> I mean, seriously. They would basically hand their friends to me on a platter. Down to how to get them in the sack successfully.
> 
> Women are weird.


They aren't weird, they're wonderful. Just don't expect too much reason and accountability and maybe you'll be surprised.


----------



## Marduk

Machiavelli said:


> They aren't weird, they're wonderful. Just don't expect too much reason and accountability and maybe you'll be surprised.


I have found they have reason and accountability, they just don't always follow the same rules of logic.

I.e. boolean vs fuzzy logic. If the rules make it hard to get what you want, change the rules, or change what truth means.

Social logic and accountability is not objective.

Men are good at this too.


----------



## lovelygirl

Lyris said:


> Do you live on the moon? Because that's not the situation where I live or anywhere else I've ever heard of.
> 
> And I don't believe that Starbucks story, sorry.


No honey. I don't live on the Moon. Albania is not the "Moon" yet. 
Come over here and you'll see. 
I don't remember when was the last time I was hit on in the club...where I go every weekend. The only thing I remember was me and my girls checking out the guys in there.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## lovelygirl

My ex-boyfriend of two months just broke up with me (2 weeks ago) because he had so many girls hitting on him that he didnt really have time to be patient and dedicate to our relationship. He got hit on more than I was hit on by other men. 
He was this immature man that he cared more about who was hitting on him and how often than than he cared about "us".
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jaquen

lovelygirl said:


> Sorry, I have to disagree with this.
> Nowadays, good looking men are hit on WAY MORE than average/good looking woman.
> Whether it's in the club or on the streets, when a good looking man passes by, EVERY GIRL turns their head and they stare at him more than he would stare at a good looking girl.


I'm an actor. A large portion of my social group is made up of very attractive people, actors and models, lots of "hot" guys. 

Good looking men get looked at, of course. People feel comfortable looking. Girls "turning their heads" at an attractive man is not the same thing as actively putting themselves out there and hitting on them. 

But put an average looking woman with some T&A in a fitted outfit however, and she'll have no trouble AT ALL getting hit on all day, throughout the day. And I'm not talking just about night clubs here; cat calls in the streets, pick up lines at the Starbucks, guys at work, you name it. She can even be somewhat overweight, but if she's proportioned she'll still have a good pick of guys trying to land home. I see it literally _all the time_.

Of the men I know, women will look. Some will very subtly flirt. A few will be more aggressive. But for the most part even the built, toned, shredded male models I know can't pull the level of direct come ons that an average woman with a nice shape will on a day to day basis.


----------



## jaquen

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> It was left out of the conversation because the conversation was centered on controllable factors -Your face isn't. I know of zero skinny guys who get much attention from women...
> Caveat - I did a couple semesters in the UK, and I have noticed that being skinny wasn't as much of a negative thing to European women - at least those in the UK, France and Italy. In the later two in particular, virtually all of the young men were fairly skinny. But here in the states, skinny is definitely a negative I can speak to from experience.


I trust your word. This has got to be a caveat thing though. Because I grew up in the DC area, and I've live in NYC for about 10 years. Especially here in NYC rail thin skinny men with drop dead gorgeous women is the norm.

I'm talking buck 40, 5'10" - 6, skinny jeans thin. Obviously not all, but so many of the women here LOVE that look.


----------



## jaquen

lovelygirl said:


> No honey. I don't live on the Moon. Albania is not the "Moon" yet.
> Come over here and you'll see.
> I don't remember when was the last time I was hit on in the club...where I go every weekend. The only thing I remember was me and my girls checking out the guys in there.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Earlier you said even "good looking" women don't get the same play as men.

So you're telling us that in Albania THESE good looking women:










Doesn't get hit on as much as these good looking men?


----------



## Iver

A guy who's thin and 6' tall vs. a guy who's thin and 5' 8" are going to be living in very different worlds.


----------



## jaquen

Iver said:


> A guy who's thin and 6' tall vs. a guy who's thin and 5' 8" are going to be living in very different worlds.


Come to Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Bushwick and Park Slope, Brooklyn. You'll find plenty of both.

One of my best friends, who isn't even an actor or model, but a political analyst with a cute-but-average face, glasses, is about 5'7", a bit awkward, but endearing, dates enough women he's been hooked up with, or met online, that he has a regularly running dating email blog he sends out detailing his average 2-4 dates per-week...with many different women. And he's a pretty selective guy, so quite a few of them featuring him rejecting further dates with said women. And this guys might have some slightly above-average lower body musculature, but he's a twig up top with a little bit of a paunch; far from ripped or shredded.

It's a different world here, I'm starting to think. The only guys I know who have major trouble with women are the fat ones or dudes who are very average or below average looking.

I'm not saying he's getting run down in the streets by a gaggle of women, of course not, but lots of shorter and skinny guys do very well here. Especially in hipster areas like the neighborhoods I mentioned above.

I live further south in BK in a predominantly Hispanic and Chinese area. Night and day from hipsters. Among the Hispanics you see LOTS of chunky-to-fat women with skinny guys, short and tall. And, of course, the Chinese men tend to be rail thin on average with equally as thin women.


----------



## samyeagar

jaquen said:


> Earlier you said even "good looking" women don't get the same play as men.
> 
> So you're telling us that in Albania THESE good looking women:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't get hit on as much as these good looking men?


Meh...the chicks look plastic, and the guys look gay...


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

jaquen said:


> I trust your word. This has got to be a caveat thing though. Because I grew up in the DC area, and I've live in NYC for about 10 years. Especially here in NYC rail thin skinny men with drop dead gorgeous women is the norm.
> 
> I'm talking buck 40, 5'10" - 6, skinny jeans thin. Obviously not all, but so many of the women here LOVE that look.


I don't know NYC (lived in Jersey for a little while though), its its way too big to make a fair statement about, but I grew up and lived in the DC and Baltimore subs most of my life, and DC is small enough to really get a good feel for. The majority of people I know still live up there. 5'10" 140 is pushing the lower bound (reference for anyone reading... I'm 5'10" 160 right now... and I still look slim, too slim for some women's taste). Skinnier than me today is particularly difficult considering DC area women - with the exception of weird pockets of skinny girls like Georgetown and Clarendon - tended to have more of the thicker softball girl build. I've found that to be true of a lot of the northeast. Good luck finding a skinny girl in Boston (lived there a year). I always guessed that the women being bigger played a large role in the difficulty that I and other skinny guys I knew had getting dates. Looking at the skinny guys I grew up with, sure enough most of them have ended up with women their weight or even higher (even though they're shorter). It was plain to observe that the smaller women tended toward bigger "not fat" guys (albeit height seemed the larger factor than build). Leaving the skinny guys and the larger girls.

DC is a strange place. My friends and I believe it is the most difficult to date place we've lived. Which is really strange considering women heavily outnumber men there. To get in as a skinny guy - you really have to get in the niche subculture of pseudo-intellectual types with the black-rimmed glasses who hate corporatism and consumerism yet love everything Apple ( obviously generalizing, but you get the picture right?). Outside of that, the guys in demand were the tall medium+ build (but soft, not athletic) somewhat prep suburbanite dudes in brown flip flops. What's with these dudes in brown flip flops?? (love this parody song; the guys in the vid aren't examples of the type of guy I'm referring to... I just though of the flip flop thing and the song came to mind)


----------



## Marduk

jaquen said:


> I'm an actor. A large portion of my social group is made up of very attractive people, actors and models, lots of "hot" guys.
> 
> Good looking men get looked at, of course. People feel comfortable looking. Girls "turning their heads" at an attractive man is not the same thing as actively putting themselves out there and hitting on them.
> 
> But put an average looking woman with some T&A in a fitted outfit however, and she'll have no trouble AT ALL getting hit on all day, throughout the day. And I'm not talking just about night clubs here; cat calls in the streets, pick up lines at the Starbucks, guys at work, you name it. She can even be somewhat overweight, but if she's proportioned she'll still have a good pick of guys trying to land home. I see it literally _all the time_.
> 
> Of the men I know, women will look. Some will very subtly flirt. A few will be more aggressive. But for the most part even the built, toned, shredded male models I know can't pull the level of direct come ons that an average woman with a nice shape will on a day to day basis.


I think that age skews things as well.

I never got hit on in my 20's or 30's like I do in my 40's. I wish I did.


----------



## Marduk

samyeagar said:


> Meh...the chicks look plastic, and the guys look gay...


I was thinking that I've seen a video of the two women together, and the guys probably were together.


----------



## jaquen

I'll admit, as open minded as I am as a person, I am amazed at the plight of the skinny man.

I was the polar opposite as a kid; fat. I made very little leeway with girls as a fat kid and teenager. The friend zone was my common enemy. It was pretty detrimental to the psyche, to the point that when I finally shed weight (the first time) and got all this amazing reaction from gorgeous girls, I didn't believe it and couldn't' really let it in. I know for a fact the opposite end; no matter how you look, it's tough for most fat guys. When I'm slimmer and when I'm bigger, not surprisingly, the differences are night and day. Even in just the looks you get around you.

I always assumed skinny guys had it much, much easier. I've had lots of rail thin friends at all stages in my life who pulled girls and women. Of course the more medium to built, lean dudes usually (though not always) did much better, but I don't recall too many truly skinny guys going without.

Your current weight is where my goal is, as I actually want to be very streamlined. It's great for my career, and it's where I feel most comfortable. I've done the thicker football look and I ain't interested. I've got a medium sized frame and the 160s are where I look best. But I also won't look rail thin there.


----------



## Lyris

My husband is skinny. It's hot as f*ck. I don't like big guys at all.

He's not skinny/fat though. He's got lots of muscle, just very little body fat and his frame is smallish.


----------



## jaquen

marduk said:


> I think that age skews things as well.
> 
> I never got hit on in my 20's or 30's like I do in my 40's. I wish I did.


Yes, now that makes sense to me.

I think a very attractive, over 40 woman who has kept in shape and dresses well will continue to pull lots of attention. I know plenty of guys my age, 20s and 30s, who would talk to that kind of older woman. But most middle aged women don't look like that.

I can definitely see how an 40s and over man, in good shape, would be a holy grail to A LOT of women. That type of man I can see getting a lot more attention older, as his age peers succomb to bad, baggy clothes, pot bellies and man boobs. He's going to stand out, sometimes just keeping a 32 inch waist. And if he's still got a full, or somewhat full, head of hair? Catnip.


----------



## lovelygirl

jaquen said:


> Earlier you said even "good looking" women don't get the same play as men.
> 
> So you're telling us that in Albania THESE good looking women:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't get hit on as much as these good looking men?


Those girls would get hit on a lot ..but these guys would get hit on A LOT MORE.
Those girls are pretty and tall. Obviously they'd get more attention than an average looking girl. 
But those guys, who are VERY handsome to most girls, would wait for the girls to approach first or hit. They would get more looks.


----------



## jaquen

Lyris said:


> My husband is skinny. It's hot as f*ck. I don't like big guys at all.
> 
> He's not skinny/fat though. He's got lots of muscle, just very little body fat and his frame is smallish.


Yep, that's my experience. It sounds like your hubby has more of a lean soccer player/male model look. That kind of guy does very well. 




lovelygirl said:


> Those girls would get hit on a lot ..but these guys would get hit on A LOT MORE.
> Those girls are pretty and tall. Obviously they'd get more attention than an average looking girl.
> But those guys, who are VERY handsome to most girls, would wait for the girls to approach first or hit. They would get more looks.


That just floors me. Me thinks a lot of men need to be taking a trip to Albania!


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

jaquen said:


> I'll admit, as open minded as I am as a person, I am amazed at the plight of the skinny man.
> 
> I was the polar opposite as a kid; fat. I made very little leeway with girls as a fat kid and teenager. The friend zone was my common enemy. It was pretty detrimental to the psyche, to the point that when I finally shed weight (the first time) and got all this amazing reaction from gorgeous girls, I didn't believe it and couldn't' really let it in. I know for a fact the opposite end; no matter how you look, it's tough for most fat guys. When I'm slimmer and when I'm bigger, not surprisingly, the differences are night and day. Even in just the looks you get around you.
> 
> I always assumed skinny guys had it much, much easier. I've had lots of rail thin friends at all stages in my life who pulled girls and women. Of course the more medium to built, lean dudes usually (though not always) did much better, but I don't recall too many truly skinny guys going without.
> 
> Your current weight is where my goal is, as I actually want to be very streamlined. It's great for my career, and it's where I feel most comfortable. I've done the thicker football look and I ain't interested. I've got a medium sized frame and the 160s are where I look best. But I also won't look rail thin there.


Well, count me in as a skinny guy that had the same trouble. Bottom line, you don't wanna be at the poles. haha

I have a small frame. If I stop lifting, I'll plummet down to 140-145 in a heartbeat... and with my weight, so goes the amount of interest I've gotten. 140 is damn close to no man's land - you just look too small and frail, and let's face it, the 5'5" 110 girl who would be a decent match is gonna easily pull some 5'10"-6' 160+ dude who's better put together. Leaving the 150 lb women for the 140 lb men. I hit the weights so hard as a teen because I was so sick of every girl I could get being as heavy or heavier than myself. I got up to about 180... but I hate eating as much as I had to to maintain that weight. So I've settled on 160 as reasonable... and people still think I'm thin... but thankfully the women don't think I'm *too* thin.


----------



## jaquen

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> So I've settled on 160 as reasonable... and people still think I'm thin... but thankfully the women don't think I'm *too* thin.


Dude I've seen your pics and you look awesome. A lot of men's goal is where you're at, trust me.

I think you only look "too thin" to people in the US who are becoming more and more accustomed to thick, chubby, overweight, and obese people. Again, as you probably know, NYC is a different place. But when I travel around, and even back home to the DC/MD area, I'm floored at how fat people collectively have gotten. It stands out so much more when you've lived amongst a slimmer population. A man of our height, and your current weight, would almost never have been seen as too thin 30 or more years ago.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Thanks J. But you know another thing... and you'll probably identify in reverse... it doesn't matter when I've put on muscle and weight and it doesn't matter that I consciously know its the rest of society that has gotten bigger. I still see the scrawny teen in the mirror even today. So much so that I'd rather be a little overweight than underweight.

We all get to carry something I suppose. At least mine is "light". haha.


----------



## whitehawk

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Well, you did better than I did online. It was a total waste of time for me. 9 out of 10 don't bother to respond. Even mutual match sites, my response rate was low... like 1 out of 5... and that's AFTER they already "like" you. I'm convinced that tinder for example, is 25% women looking for a hookup with a select guy, 25% women actually looking for relationships, and 50% women just looking for an ego boost with no intention to interact.
> 
> I have better fortunes in almost any real life location.



Well, l was sorta thinking that in the reverse tbh. Like they have 3 -1 to choose from , yet l'm still knocking them back so to me that shows it's maybe no where near as easy for a chick to hook up as they "think" it's going to be.
Another thing l notice to is their demands on their profile as compared t what they actually are and look like. Most of mine have been nothing special at all in looks or turn out to be over weight or 5 or 10yrs older then they looked on the site.
Yet they seem to get on there with their big list of demands and wants as if it's all just going to fall at their feet.
Yet there's no way the same women could be carrying on like that in RL and have usually spent years single .
So although l have met some really nice girls for sure , it's also been very disappointing, very . But hey , l've also had heaps of knock backs and no replies to and l think your right about there being a lot of people on them just after an ego trip. Because a lot of it as you say, doesn't really make sense . They liked you or have checked you out 5 times, then they disappear or take down their account.

But RL is def' the go if you can meet people that way for sure fr me personally. The few l have met in RL that have turned into something have been exactly what l'd go for from the get go at least so your a mile ahead before you even start .

But on the other hand , there's people through tam all the time that have struck it lucky on date sites and met their latest gf and stuff so , anything can happen l guess . l actually met my ex in a singles club. Neither of us could believe it as befre we met , it was just ridiculously disappointing so , l guess for me , it's more that once of on the date site that l might just happen to stumble over.


----------



## Marduk

jaquen said:


> Yes, now that makes sense to me.
> 
> I think a very attractive, over 40 woman who has kept in shape and dresses well will continue to pull lots of attention. I know plenty of guys my age, 20s and 30s, who would talk to that kind of older woman. But most middle aged women don't look like that.
> 
> I can definitely see how an 40s and over man, in good shape, would be a holy grail to A LOT of women. That type of man I can see getting a lot more attention older, as his age peers succomb to bad, baggy clothes, pot bellies and man boobs. He's going to stand out, sometimes just keeping a 32 inch waist. And if he's still got a full, or somewhat full, head of hair? Catnip.


You just described me


----------



## whitehawk

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Thanks J. But you know another thing... and you'll probably identify in reverse... it doesn't matter when I've put on muscle and weight and it doesn't matter that I consciously know its the rest of society that has gotten bigger. I still see the scrawny teen in the mirror even today. So much so that I'd rather be a little overweight than underweight.
> 
> We all get to carry something I suppose. At least mine is "light". haha.



Man l envy you. Eat what you want , dream come true . All my fav foods are fatty stuff . Matter of fact , my fav everything is bad for ya one way or another , lifes a [email protected] :rofl:
Anyway , don't worry about what ever we are , there's just as many in the opp' sex that are this or that to so there's more than enough to g round no matter who we are l say :smthumbup:


----------



## turnera

lovelygirl said:


> Those girls would get hit on a lot ..but these guys would get hit on A LOT MORE.
> Those girls are pretty and tall. Obviously they'd get more attention than an average looking girl.
> But those guys, who are VERY handsome to most girls, would wait for the girls to approach first or hit. They would get more looks.


Oh, you're serious. I thought you were joking. Those guys look disgusting and slimy and like gigelows.

(PS, I hope one of them isn't you!)


----------



## jaquen

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Thanks J. But you know another thing... and you'll probably identify in reverse... it doesn't matter when I've put on muscle and weight and it doesn't matter that I consciously know its the rest of society that has gotten bigger. I still see the scrawny teen in the mirror even today. So much so that I'd rather be a little overweight than underweight.


Oh I can definitely relate. The first time I shed the weight, back in my late teens, I was floored by the reactions even from strangers. Everyone telling me how awesome I looked. The attention I was getting from women and even men. For the first time in my life being praised for looks and athletic ability. I had decent musculature, was no longer in the fat category, but wasn't as lean as I wanted. I couldn't see the 70 or so lbs I lost, all I saw was the little I had left to go. I was so warped that I can't even remember what my body looked like in the mirror. I just felt almost as fat as I did as a kid.

Not having any clue how close I was to my ideal, and after maintaining for several years, I eventually regained everything plus double. I never thought I'd be one of those, because I HATED being fat with the heat of a thousand suns ever since childhood. But no matter how much you change your body if the mind doesn't catch up, you're eventually screwed.

I've lost over a 100lbs in the last couple years. I'm knocking on the door of my college weight and should be at goal in a few months. But I'm in a very, very different place this time. Aware of how far I've come and I've put in far more mental work. My mind is catching up with the man in the mirror, and it's making all the difference in the world.


----------



## soccermom2three

jaquen said:


>


These guys look like the 2014 version of SNL's "Two Wild and Crazy Guys".



(Did I just date myself?)


----------



## soccermom2three

wilson said:


> ******* did a study where men rated women and women rated men. The ratings given by men were a typical bell curve--a few 1's, a few 10's and most in the middle. But the women's ratings were totally different. Their graph looked like a ski-jump hill. Most of their ratings were at the low end. This seemed to indicate that men are fairer when rating women, but women only like specific looks. If a man didn't fit that look, they rated him poorly. Essentially, either a guy is either a 1 or a 10.
> 
> So a man which fit the look (like David Beckham) would likely get hit on all the time. But an average looking guy (like Bill Paxton) might rarely get hit on because women rate him very low.


I think this is very true. When my 19 year old daughter and her friends talk about guys, they are very specific with what they like. For example, my daughter likes tall, muscular and athletic and her best friend likes red hair. I could totally picture my daughter taking that poll and going through her checklist with each guy.


----------



## JCD

I took a look at Albania on Wikipedia. They did not specify the gender disparity. 

However, that being said, Albania was hit by two very systemic demographic changes which _may_ have hit it hard the same way:

1) Communism fell. Almost one million people fled. Which gender and demographic is easily mobile and can easily find safe work? I am sure a large minority of that number would be young men.

2) The Kosovo War happened, causing a large (almost half a million) influx of ethnic Albanians BACK into Albania. Now...if you are at war, which group are you going to ship to the front lines and which are you going to ship to 'safe' places? There was probably a large influx of women and children into the country...and some of them may have stayed, having lost family and homes back in Kosovo.

Checked another data point. At 15-24 years old, it is 1.04 men per woman. At 24 -54, is it *.91* men to women.

Weed out the alcoholics, the disfigured, the married (a very large cohort) coupled with a renewed interest in aesthetics ala the West and the dating situation for Albanian women looks sort of grim. 

To put it another way: very few men, even among the enemy, went without in post War Vietnam, Germany, Japan, Korea and the South.

I could be overanalyzing things but it might explain a few things.


----------



## whitehawk

jaquen said:


> Yes, now that makes sense to me.
> 
> I think a very attractive, over 40 woman who has kept in shape and dresses well will continue to pull lots of attention. I know plenty of guys my age, 20s and 30s, who would talk to that kind of older woman. But most middle aged women don't look like that.
> 
> I can definitely see how an 40s and over man, in good shape, would be a holy grail to A LOT of women. That type of man I can see getting a lot more attention older, as his age peers succomb to bad, baggy clothes, pot bellies and man boobs. He's going to stand out, sometimes just keeping a 32 inch waist. And if he's still got a full, or somewhat full, head of hair? Catnip.



ln shape women in their 40s that have also kept their looks though , is as rare as hens teeth to don't forget. That is actually the same holy grail to men , if you can find one. What a women views as looking good at that age and what they tell their friends is a far nother story to how a guy sees it.
That male description you give goes the same for women to don't forget.
Saggy everything , big fat guts, thighs, asses, bad skin , shocking teeth the works, aged faces, it's no different. Just sayin .


----------



## Thundarr

Supply and demand plays it's role in attraction and who gets attention. And that varies from on region or micro-region to the next. The big fish in a little pond might as well be a big fish.

That being said, I don't think the dynamics have sweepingly changed all that much. I admit that I'm speculating though.


----------



## whitehawk

l mean there's nothing wrong with looking how ever we look and being whoever we are , every body ages bar a lucky few. There's someone for everyone , none of that matters . As l always say , just look down any street or at 100s of married couples , that's reality and it doesn't look anything like single women or men talking on a forum , really.
The trick is being realistic , particularly for women . If we are this or that ,then if we just think of the equivalent in the opposite sex and all will be well with the world.
They'll be happy to have you the way you are and you them , that's the way l look at it .


----------



## wise

A couple years ago, in my single days, the dating game was just that.. a game... unless the girl was completely drunk (then it was just easy)

What I noticed was 'men chasing girls' actually does not work. To many girls are so full of themselves that guys are starting to not bother anymore. Why talk to a girl and get no response? Why get rejected by a girl who IS ON your level because you aren't 10 years older than her? Why waste your time trying to wine and dine an ignorant girl when you could get the same result out of her if you met her at a bar and she was drunk? Some girls like being chased but more than often..most girls feel suffocated by these type of guys. What worked for me 'in the game' was 'not chasing'. It is sad.. but what I noticed was.. that plenty of guys would be trying to talk to this specific girl; however, she felt annoyed by them and wondered why the hell this one guy wasn't into her like the rest. This is the real 'table turning' at its finest.

Another theory of 'men not chasing' is because (1) he is hit on by more women than one and (2) he is talking to about 5 different girls including you. He is not chasing you because he is always occupied with talking and fu*king other girls. He might tell you all the things you want to hear at his own expense; however, to his buddies, you are known as 'gym girl.' 

On another note.. married men are always telling single men to stay.. single. "Don't be an idiot like them and get married, or at least do not waste your 20's with one woman." A lot of us younger men actually take note to that because we see just how miserable they are. We refuse to be that guy who has to escape to work from his sexless marriage and crazy kids. They go to work, close the door, look at women on facebook, reminisce about their single says, talk dirty about the secretaries, and ask the single guys who are the fu*king and how is it. That seems to be the lowdown these days in the office.


----------



## JCD

Perhaps what you say at the end is true, but while being miserable in a marriage makes me miserable, when I am happy in a marriage, I am VERY happy.

The key is to try to make the later more than 50% of the time. Perhaps the men doing all the complaining don't know how to do a marriage correctly.

Granted, if the goal is to have a lot of satisfying sex...oops...sorry...it's marriage again. I don't need to check my rolodex or cruise the bar. I ask 'wanna?' and she says yes or no. Ten seconds.

BUT...I do sacrifice in variety. I only get one type of crazy girl in my life instead of a variety of crazy girls.

Recall, this is a PRO marriage website.

Marriage has it's problems. It is not 100% problems. And ask yourself, if marriage was so terrible, why are all these guys crying when it comes to an end?

Just something to think about.


----------



## jaquen

wise said:


> On another note.. married men are always telling single men to stay.. single. "Don't be an idiot like them and get married, or at least do not waste your 20's with one woman." A lot of us younger men actually take note to that because we see just how miserable they are. We refuse to be that guy who has to escape to work from his sexless marriage and crazy kids. They go to work, close the door, look at women on facebook, reminisce about their single says, talk dirty about the secretaries, and ask the single guys who are the fu*king and how is it. That seems to be the lowdown these days in the office.


I'm the guy telling anyone who asks that I love being married. But I also tell them that's because I have the best wife in the world and love being married specifically to her. I'm still a huge fan of marriage...to the right person.

But I can definitely cosign that lots of married dudes warn other guys to avoid their fate.

But I can also say that most of the single guys I know, who are out in the dating world, sleeping with different women, getting all the variety...are envious of what my wife and I have. These dudes are tired and are hoping the next one is "the one".


----------



## Lyris

I think my husband likes being married to me. He gets someone who adores him and has adored him for more than 20 years. He has sex basically whenever and however he wants to. He has someone who takes care of him when he's sick, who loves to spend time with him and who is interesting to talk to. Oh and who runs between 15-25 miles each week, so the letting-self-go is not an issue. 

He has two daughters that he adores and who worship him. He doesn't have to cook or clean or shop, it's all taken care of. 

He doesn't get the newness or variety I suppose, but that's all. I think it's more than a fair trade.


----------



## TiggyBlue

lovelygirl said:


> Those girls would get hit on a lot ..but these guys would get hit on A LOT MORE.
> Those girls are pretty and tall. Obviously they'd get more attention than an average looking girl.
> But those guys, who are VERY handsome to most girls, would wait for the girls to approach first or hit. They would get more looks.


I thought the absolute opposite, I can see those girls getting hit on a lot but the guys weren't on par with the Albanian girls, I couldn't see them getting more looks than the girls (imo those guys aren't attractive).
Very good looking guys get a lot of play from what I've seen (living somewhere there's quite a few hot eastern European builders it pretty common, girls throw themselves at them).


----------



## whitehawk

jaquen said:


> I'm the guy telling anyone who asks that I love being married. But I also tell them that's because I have the best wife in the world and love being married specifically to her. I'm still a huge fan of marriage...to the right person.
> 
> But I can definitely cosign that lots of married dudes warn other guys to avoid their fate.
> 
> But I can also say that most of the single guys I know, who are out in the dating world, sleeping with different women, getting all the variety...are envious of what my wife and I have. These dudes are tired and are hoping the next one is "the one".


It's the same for the single women out there.
ps , l had a good marriage to a great girl for 16 yrs or so , it was only the last 3 , 4, that got a bit fugly and effed us up.
But l really pitied a lot of married guys and so often thought no way , just shoot me , please. In my own though , before the bad run , l loved being married and our ways , things , us .


----------



## Machiavelli

lovelygirl said:


> My ex-boyfriend of two months just broke up with me (2 weeks ago) because he had so many girls hitting on him that he didnt really have time to be patient and dedicate to our relationship. He got hit on more than I was hit on by other men.
> He was this immature man that he cared more about who was hitting on him and how often than than he cared about "us".


This isn't really new, as it started happening to me back in elementary school about the time The Beatles released "I Wanna Hold Your Hand." However, this is not the general male experience. Only about 5% of males have this problem. Think about it, there aren't enough women for every guy to have a dozen flocking around him.


----------



## Machiavelli

samyeagar said:


> Meh...the chicks look plastic, and the guys look gay...


Never knew I liked plastic so much.

I agree on the dudes.


----------



## Machiavelli

JCD said:


> Recall, this is a PRO marriage website.


I'm totally pro-marriage: polygynous marriage, to be specific. You know, like in the Bible.


----------



## lovelygirl

TiggyBlue said:


> I thought the absolute opposite, I can see those girls getting hit on a lot but the guys weren't on par with the Albanian girls, I couldn't see them getting more looks than the girls (imo those guys aren't attractive).
> Very good looking guys get a lot of play from what I've seen (living somewhere there's quite a few hot eastern European builders it pretty common, girls throw themselves at them).


Albanian girls are a beautiful race so it's very common for them to get hit on. But when they see a handsome guy he gets hit on A LOT MORE. Guys nowadays are starting to take care of themselves in many ways so they have more success in the dating scene. That's why hitting on a pretty Albanian woman goes unseen because the Albanian guys are the ones who have changed their lifestyle and therefore are getting most of the attention.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## lovelygirl

Machiavelli said:


> Never knew I liked plastic so much.
> 
> I agree on the dudes.


As for the dudes, their style is the latest trend so many Albanian guys are heading towards that look. 
They know have a lot of success with that.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jaquen

lovelygirl said:


> As for the dudes, their style is the latest trend so many Albanian guys are heading towards that look.
> They know have a lot of success with that.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Oh it's not just Albania. Lots of clubbing dudes in the US with that look, despite how "gay" it might seem to some, do well. Here it's that Jersey Shore, overtanned, Eurotrash, douche look but it's popular.


----------



## Machiavelli

Studies show ... heavy stubble provides tingle. Not light stubble, not light beard; heavy stubble.


----------



## JCD

Machiavelli said:


> I'm totally pro-marriage: polygynous marriage, to be specific. You know, like in the Bible.


Well, it is just that which lets me know that I am smarter than my ancestors.

With my wife I get her chit. With four wives I get #1's chit, #2's chit, #3's chit, #4's chit, all the chit that goes on between them all, blamed and told to take sides and fix all their chit.

So stay single, foreswear variety, be a cheating chit or be a stupid chit with multiple wives.

JMO



Machiavelli said:


> Studies show ... heavy stubble provides tingle. Not light stubble, not light beard; heavy stubble.


So...I am curious what you do with your days besides working on your V, looking lustfully at MA's David statue and reading up on all that chit for attracting chicks?

For a guy who self proclaimed has all this pull, you sure do work hard at this.

I'd ask how long a stubble, but I don't really care. Unless you are one of the Mongol Horde, it is, as usual, ladies choice and they will or won't choose me whatever my tonsorial preferences.


----------



## Machiavelli

JCD said:


> Well, it is just that which lets me know that I am smarter than my ancestors.
> 
> With my wife I get her chit. With four wives I get #1's chit, #2's chit, #3's chit, #4's chit, all the chit that goes on between them all, blamed and told to take sides and fix all their chit.
> 
> So stay single, foreswear variety, be a cheating chit or be a stupid chit with multiple wives.


I've got the one wife, since I made that promise in my ignorance. However, women need a certain amount of drama, even my W, who is relatively low drama. So keeping several of them around helps meet one of their big needs. That need gets focused within the harem, so they say, and the H just floats above the storm. Not to mention that unlike monogamously married men, men in polygynous marriages do not have the usual decline in testosterone attributed to the married state.

Since so many men are either not into women or are such a massive turnoff to women that they'll never have one outside of a commercial transaction, this isn't a bad solution for those who are lucky enough to be highly attractive. It also allows for lower ranking women to have access to higher ranking men than they would have in a monogamous society. The downside is that if you have a lot of men who actually want women and can't get one, you have a lot of social instability.



JCD said:


> So...I am curious what you do with your days besides working on your V, looking lustfully at MA's David statue and reading up on all that chit for attracting chicks?


I'll leave the lustful looks at marble to you; my interest in historical sculpture is strictly analytical and practical. As for what I do all day is turn fat people into people with attractive physiques; at least those clients who can follow instructions and control their urges for grain and sugar. My reading up was mostly done about 6 years back when my wife's "hormones" made her disinterested in sex. I try to keep current, but new research just confirms what was already known empirically way back.



JCD said:


> For a guy who self proclaimed has all this pull, you sure do work hard at this.


Had pull. I'm pushing 60, so my animal magnetism started tapering off about the time Bill Clinton left office, though I have no doubt I would do well in the 40-55 set of divorced females (based on my daily interactions). And it only takes about 30 minutes (2 X 15-20 min) workouts a week to do it. Not hard at all.



JCD said:


> I'd ask how long a stubble, but I don't really care. Unless you are one of the Mongol Horde, it is, as usual, ladies choice and they will or won't choose me whatever my tonsorial preferences.


It won't work for me, either. I inherited the ***** facial hair gene. However, when you're trying to get a response from a woman, one should push all the buttons one has the ability to push. In all of life's pursuits, aim for the center of mass first. Then adjust.


----------



## Quant

Typical woman insight the problem is that you only notice alpha males and thus generalize off of that.You are also overrated your relationship value if you have to approach a alpha.


----------



## jaquen




----------



## lovelygirl

Quant said:


> Typical woman insight the problem is that you only notice alpha males and thus generalize off of that.*You are also overrated your relationship value if you have to approach a alpha*.


I'm not sure if I understood the bolded part.


----------



## Jellybeans

He means the kind of men that get him on so much that they don't chase much.


----------



## JCD

Machiavelli said:


> I've got the one wife, since I made that promise in my ignorance. However, women need a certain amount of drama, even my W, who is relatively low drama. So keeping several of them around helps meet one of their big needs. That need gets focused within the harem, so they say, and the H just floats above the storm. Not to mention that unlike monogamously married men, men in polygynous marriages do not have the usual decline in testosterone attributed to the married state.


Ya know...when I have eunuchs and walled palaces well away from me and hundreds of minions who can serve as a buffer between me and my 'women's drama'...maybe I can buy into polygamy.

There is a strategic eunuch shortage, however.

I would note this: the only place which sees such drastic marital imbalances are dictatorships. Great places to be...if you are on top. Ask Saddam Hussein how well that works. For me, I think I'd rather take my chances on a Western Democracy, where the women are free to shoot me down...but they also wear miniskirts because they feel safe.

Because otherwise, in such polygamous cultures, the women tend to dress in tents...if not because of religion, because those few lower status men who have wives don't want their overlords to see what kind of beauty they have so their wives get dragged off...usually after a quick 'widowdom'. (divorces are for peasants)

See Abram and Egypt about that last.


----------



## JCD

Jellybeans said:


> He means the kind of men that get him on so much that they don't chase much.


Second translation: George Clooney does NOT chase women. If you are waiting for George Clooney to chase you, you got a few decades of waiting...


----------



## always_alone

Quant said:


> You are also overrated your relationship value if you have to approach a alpha.





JCD said:


> Second translation: George Clooney does NOT chase women. If you are waiting for George Clooney to chase you, you got a few decades of waiting...


One guy says that if the woman chases the "alpha", there must be something wrong with her, and one guy says that (what I presume to be) an alpha never chases women.

Mmmmmm. Which is it, I wonder? 

Since many women initiate successfully with "alphas" and George Clooney himself has been rejected, I'd say both must be off.


----------



## samyeagar

always_alone said:


> One guy says that if the woman chases the "alpha", there must be something wrong with her, and one guy says that (what I presume to be) an alpha never chases women.
> 
> Mmmmmm. Which is it, I wonder?
> 
> Since many women initiate successfully with "alphas" and George Clooney himself has been rejected, I'd say both must be off.


Hmmm...AA...I think you may have just made an incredible discovery here! The "real" alphas are the ones who don't chase, unless...they aren't?...won't the real alpha please stand up!

I would hardly call myself alpha, yet I have never chased in my life. Just not my style, and I've never had any issues getting and keeping women...in fact my wife, I am the first man she ever pursued in her life...there was just something about me that compelled her to do so...

All this greek alpha bet (alpha-beta...see what I did there?) soup makes my head hurt....


----------



## JCD

always_alone said:


> One guy says that if the woman chases the "alpha", there must be something wrong with her, and one guy says that (what I presume to be) an alpha never chases women.
> 
> Mmmmmm. Which is it, I wonder?
> 
> Since many women initiate successfully with "alphas" and George Clooney himself has been rejected, I'd say both must be off.


You have it wrong. The first poster is saying: 'if you are chasing George Clooney, you aren't all that.' If she were 'all that', he would be chasing her. 

And I suppose there are SOME women that even George would be willing to chase...or at least make a soft pass at. But since, as you imply a lot, men are pigs who will chase anything in a skirt, why would George waste his time chasing a 9.999 when he has so many willing 8's and 9's hitting on him? 

And these days, George Clooney isn't George Clooney.

As the Dauphin said: All cats are gray in the dark.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

I think its important to define "chase" in this context. The types we'd call "Alpha" will still hit on women (one definition of chase), they just don't get hung up on one. If someone isn't biting, it doesn't matter. That person occupies no negative or positive space in your mind... they're still the same as everyone else. You don't "try harder" to impress her (another definition of chase).


----------



## JCD

Off hand, I can think of a half dozen reasons, totally irrespective of her desirability why he wouldn't hit on her or even consent to coffee. I wouldn't take it personally at all.


----------



## always_alone

JCD said:


> You have it wrong. The first poster is saying: 'if you are chasing George Clooney, you aren't all that.' If she were 'all that', he would be chasing her.


I must have it exactly right, then, because that is what I said: If she is chasing the alpha, there is something wrong with her.

And why might George chase someone? Well, perhaps because all those women "ain't all that", given that they're going after an alpha and all.

Gotta love alpha logic.


----------



## Jetranger

wise said:


> They go to work, close the door, look at women on facebook, reminisce about their single says, talk dirty about the secretaries, and ask the single guys who are the fu*king and how is it. That seems to be the lowdown these days in the office.


This is true. There’s a guy at work who’s the same age as me, similar in terms of attractiveness… and he’s married. I’m not. He finds tales of my dating and women fascinating as he misses those days when he was free to go out and see whoever he wanted, instead of trudging home every day after work to his wife.


----------



## samyeagar

Jetranger said:


> This is true. There’s a guy at work who’s the same age as me, similar in terms of attractiveness… and he’s married. I’m not. He finds tales of my dating and women fascinating as he misses those days when he was free to go out and see whoever he wanted, instead of trudging home every day after work to his wife.


And see, I don't miss being single one little bit. I'm the married guy that always comes to work with a smile on my face and is excited to go home. The single guys lament how much the dating world sucks, and love hearing about how freakin' awesome my wife is.


----------



## JCD

Jetranger said:


> This is true. There’s a guy at work who’s the same age as me, similar in terms of attractiveness… and he’s married. I’m not. He finds tales of my dating and women fascinating as he misses those days when he was free to go out and see whoever he wanted, instead of trudging home every day after work to his wife.


There is a disconnect and a mistaken impression involved here.

I, as a man, can enjoy looking at an attractive woman no matter my marital status, as long as it is done respectfully, discretely or privately (ala images).

I can also vicariously enjoy the success and tales of daring do from my single friends.

BUT...those tales are very small segments of their lives. Unless you are ridiculously good looking or charming (and they tend to be married quickly if they want to be), for most of them, these highlights that they share are just that: highlights. MOST of their days are spent doing WoW, porn, Breaking Bad or some other 'not screwing her on the chandelier' kind of activity.

Life is full of trade offs. It would take a pretty exceptional woman to get me from my wife. And if she was all that, she wouldn't want anything to do with me in the first place


----------



## Jellybeans

Jetranger said:


> This is true. There’s a guy at work who’s the same age as me, similar in terms of attractiveness… and he’s married. I’m not. He finds tales of my dating and women fascinating as he misses those days when he was free to go out and see whoever he wanted, instead of trudging home every day after work to his wife.





samyeagar said:


> And see, I don't miss being single one little bit. I'm the married guy that always comes to work with a smile on my face and is excited to go home. The single guys lament how much the dating world sucks, and love hearing about how freakin' awesome my wife is.


Just goes to show we aren't all built the same. Some folks loe marriage, others prefer the single/bachelor/bachelorette life. There is no right or wrong.

One size doesn't fit all. The world would sure be boring if everyone were the same/thought the same, etc.


----------



## Machiavelli

JCD said:


> Ya know...when I have eunuchs and walled palaces well away from me and hundreds of minions who can serve as a buffer between me and my 'women's drama'...maybe I can buy into polygamy.
> 
> There is a strategic eunuch shortage, however.


Islamic Turk polygyny is only one form. My native ancestors in the Southeastern USA were polygynists as well as matriarchal for property purposes and they had no walls and no eunuchs. My Comanche friends tell me their society on the South Plains was similar. 

And, if you study up, you'll find very few monogamous societies in history until the Empire and then the church spread the Roman marriage law across the world starting about 400 AD. And that was only legal, serial monogamy. There was no expectation of actual sexual monogamy until very recently.



JCD said:


> I would note this: the only place which sees such drastic marital imbalances are dictatorships. Great places to be...if you are on top. Ask Saddam Hussein how well that works. For me, I think I'd rather take my chances on a Western Democracy, where the women are free to shoot me down...but they also wear miniskirts because they feel safe.


Wrong. Polygyny has existed under all types of government, hunter gatherers, sheep herding societies, western pioneers, etc. including right here in the USA (as stated before). 

Again, there is legal monogamy and practical monogamy; they are not the same thing. And lets not forget serial monogamy. The Greeks were the originators of legal monogamy, but they had an entire array of female consorts of different grades available to them within and outside their houses. So, while legally monogamous, they were not so in practice. This was the state of "monogamy" until the Puritans came along.



JCD said:


> Because otherwise, in such polygamous cultures, the women tend to dress in tents...if not because of religion, because those few lower status men who have wives don't want their overlords to see what kind of beauty they have so their wives get dragged off...usually after a quick 'widowdom'. (divorces are for peasants)


Again, you're trying to apply Sharia to the whole world. That doesn't apply outside of the desert and places they have subjugated. However, the legally monogamous Athenians hardly let their wives out of the house. Read some history and a little anthropology. American Indians might be a familiar place to start.



JCD said:


> See Abram and Egypt about that last.


Abraham (a practitioner of polygyny) did not die in Egypt, so I don't get your point?


----------



## Caribbean Man

samyeagar said:


> And see, I don't miss being single one little bit. I'm the married guy that always comes to work with a smile on my face and is excited to go home. The single guys lament how much the dating world sucks, and love hearing about how freakin' awesome my wife is.


Lol, spoken like a truly , happily married man.

I don't miss being single at all either.
I had good times before I got married and I've had really bad times.

But even the worst time in my marriage is better than the best times I've had when I was single.

Definitely , dating is a nightmare.


----------



## Marduk

My god, I'm truly happy I'm not single.

And regarding the bit about "alphas" (not sure what that even means any more)...

I think the theory is that a dominant, high status male will attract all females his sex rank and below.

So if I'm an alpha male that's a sex rank of 8, I should attract women of sex ranks 0-7.5. 

I think there's some merit in that, since I got my act together I attract women's attention a lot more, but it's rare I attract a hot 20-something or drop dead gorgeous woman my own age, that to be blunt could attract hotter guys than me.

And "alphas" are supposed to go for what they want. Because they're dominant and confident, they will want a high status female to inject his genes into, and will approach the new conquest with zest and with the attitude that she's lucky I want her. If she doesn't, I move on without wasting my time or being butthurt about it because there's a long line of women that are available to me. There's a sense of abundance.

And there's some merit in that. When I'm confident around women, they become more into me, and when I'm more meek, they don't. If I approach my wife confidently, she usually will respond well. If I don't, she doesn't usually respond as well.

Where it all breaks down of course is that sex ranks aren't objective, neither is dominance or what "alpha" means. And some days I feel like an 8, some days I feel like a 6. Some days I pull lots of attention, some days I don't. And the whole abundance mentality is disrupted by fidelity in marriage.

So the whole substructure of the debate collapses under objective scrutiny.

In short I think there's some generalized truths there, but it's important to take as general guidelines instead of hard and fast rules.

It's generally a pretty good strategy to become the most awesome human being you can be, whether you're married or not. Hell, maybe especially when you're married. Male or female.


----------



## JCD

Machiavelli said:


> Islamic Turk polygyny is only one form. My native ancestors in the Southeastern USA were polygynists as well as matriarchal for property purposes and they had no walls and no eunuchs. My Comanche friends tell me their society on the South Plains was similar.


I know very little about Native American society except to note that while they may not have had walls for harems, generally where was a lack of walls period! Very few 'cities' in North America outside of Anasazi. But I know less about Native American architecture. 

Also, eunuchs were also had a role in segregating women in Chinese society, so no, I wasn't focusing on only one form.



Machiavelli said:


> And, if you study up, you'll find very few monogamous societies in history until the Empire and then the church spread the Roman marriage law across the world starting about 400 AD. And that was only legal, serial monogamy. There was no expectation of actual sexual monogamy until very recently.


 You will also find very few democracies. But I note that you like cherries. You seem to pick a lot of them. You ignore the Gauls and the German tribes which had strong laws about monogamy. The Romans wrote all about them.

Also, many so called 'polygamous' cultures had monogamies+. Only one 'wife' but the King/Dictator/Chief/Big Kahuna was allowed to nail any number of 'extras' while leaving those kids illegitimate...or less legitimate. It's in the law, see! Right here! He wrote it himself! (Well, maybe great granddad did...but he was a pig too)



Machiavelli said:


> Wrong. Polygyny has existed under all types of government, hunter gatherers, sheep herding societies, western pioneers, etc. including right here in the USA (as stated before).


Yes. A king, a chiefdom, an emperor, a Citizen for Life, a Prophet of God (hint, using a tiny splinter group from a Democracy, or people who live 'outside the law' doesn't exactly support the idea that democracies support polygamy or negate the fact that when 'betas' can vote, they vote for the right to not have their women stolen by guys with more weapons)



Machiavelli said:


> Again, there is legal monogamy and practical monogamy; they are not the same thing. And lets not forget serial monogamy. The Greeks were the originators of legal monogamy, but they had an entire array of female consorts of different grades available to them within and outside their houses. So, while legally monogamous, they were not so in practice. This was the state of "monogamy" until the Puritans came along.


Nice shuffle. Sorry, but trying to conflate 'patriarchal attitudes toward the male right to cheat' is not the same as 'polygamy'. Two different things altogether.

How seriously any particular culture or person was in their monogamy is very much a personal thing. Cheaters cheat. Doesn't matter what the rules say...or if the rules codify it.




Machiavelli said:


> Again, you're trying to apply Sharia to the whole world. That doesn't apply outside of the desert and places they have subjugated. However, the legally monogamous Athenians hardly let their wives out of the house. Read some history and a little anthropology. American Indians might be a familiar place to start.


Not really but I am also forgetting that these cultures were also much more dangerous and rape laws were hardly 'progressive'. So women dressed down in self defense. Very few cultures of any kind of government had anywhere near the dress of our current age as far as I know. The closest were the Minoans and some French fashions which mostly revealed the bust. But skin tight clothing for women? Mostly the domain of 'actresses' and women who did not have the right to say 'no'.



Machiavelli said:


> Abraham (a practitioner of polygyny) did not die in Egypt, so I don't get your point?


Abram (before the name change) went to Egypt with is wife Sarai. Pharaoh saw she was a hottie. Asked Abram about it. Abram saw he was drooling like a maniac over his wife and got a sense that he was going to get his throat cut so Pharaoh could get his mitts on her 'morally'. So he lied and said she was his sister (how this solved his problem, I don't know)

So Pharaoh grabbed her anyway without slitting his throat, in fact, by giving him a ton of gold and such. (Maybe he was at the seven year point) Took her in and got ready to marry her/induct her into his concubines, whatever.

Then Pharaoh got a plague and God told him to take a cold shower or he'd get iced. So Pharaoh dropped her like a hot rock, and paid the two off to get the hell out of his kingdom.

After that, I'm sure Abram dressed her in a tent. And he didn't have Sharia either.


Edited to add: Of course, there is also the fact in some, if not many, hunter gatherer cultures, women were treated as booty (changing the dynamic of a 'booty call'). I am specifically thinking of the Jivaro Indians in South America, though there is a thread of that in Mongol culture as well. See Genghis' first wife Borte as an example. (I am such a nerd. I actually remembered her name)

This also questions the reasoning for polygamy. Elder rich men in Sub Saharan Africa wanted to tie up all the farming women for himself. Hunter Gatherer cultures, which engaged in war a LOT, had horrifying death rates among the men. The women needed to go to someone. In fact, this is part of the push in Siberia (IIRC) where the number of 'marriageable' men is so low (that demon vodka) that the women are pushing to legalize polygyny because they love 'alpha' men so much (i.e. has a job, doesn't drink, doesn't beat them...scarcely a V in sight...)


----------



## jaquen

Caribbean Man said:


> Lol, spoken like a truly , happily married man.
> 
> I don't miss being single at all either.
> I had good times before I got married and I've had really bad times.
> 
> But even the worst time in my marriage is better than the best times I've had when I was single.
> 
> Definitely , dating is a nightmare.


I love being married. I am deeply, consistently in love with my wife. I adore the woman, for many reasons, one of them being that she knows exactly how to love this man. 

But how much do I love being married vs how much do I love being married specifically to _this_ woman? 

As I see marriages around here, and increasingly more marriages among the people I know, fall into ruin I do think that it all comes down to who you married. If my marriage looked anything like most of the people here on TAM I definitely can see that I'd easily be yearning for the single life.


----------



## jaquen

In other news, I'm digging the debate JCD and Machiavelli.


----------



## OptimisticPessimist

I agree with Machiavelli that the V shape can make a lot of women "approach", but I certainly dont think thats the only way. Perhaps it leads to more overt displays of interest; I wouldnt know as I only have a very mild V-shape- Im pretty thin.

Im an average looking guy 5' 11" with a thin frame, and I get quite a few looks from women. I also get demonstrations of interest, but I would consider them more subtle. I would venture to guess Machiavelli is talking about:

"Hey, my name is Amy. Are you single?"

I dont get that very often. I get prolonged looks, compliments on what shirt im wearing (I am a Tshirt and jeans guy, so I dont dress well either), nervously paying attention to their fingers while talking to me, smiles, etc. I would consider these subtle hints that give them plausible deniability, or ones I wouldnt notice if I wasnt interested.

Bottom line is I think confidence is where it all comes in. Guys work out and get their V and start feeling confidence, and that confidence is what gets a woman's attention. I carry myself with confidence even despite not being heavily muscular, and thats where I think my success comes from.

I think in today's society men with confidence are in short supply. It may have always been that way, but its definitely that way today. Even men who SHOULD have confidence often dont, usually for very superficial reasons (we live in a very superficial society in many ways). When a man with confidence comes along- even an average one like me- they are desired. Confidence is a person's expectation that they can thrive in their environment, and that is where female attraction is based.

Just IMO


----------



## JCD

jaquen said:


> In other news, I'm digging the debate JCD and Machiavelli.


I think Mach makes very good points sometimes and I love a good debate. Glad someone else does too.


----------



## Machiavelli

JCD said:


> I know very little about Native American society except to note that while they may not have had walls for harems, generally where was a lack of walls period! Very few 'cities' in North America outside of Anasazi. But I know less about Native American architecture.


The Mississippian mound builders had pretty good size wooden cities, stockades and longhouses, but they had already disappeared by the time the Spaniards started poking around North America. Most likely wiped out by the disease wave moving ahead of the Spaniards.



JCD said:


> Also, eunuchs were also had a role in segregating women in Chinese society, so no, I wasn't focusing on only one form.


In China, the main role of eunuchs was as body servants and political advisers to the emperor. China also fully removed the penis, not just the testicles, to make sure the eunuchs were fully inoperable. 



JCD said:


> You will also find very few democracies.


The only democracies in non- or pre-Christian lands were those of certain ancient Greek city-states. That seems to be the origin of legal monogamy, but not practical monogamy, since Greek men had a range of levels of slave girls, concubines, hetairai, etc. 



JCD said:


> But I note that you like cherries. You seem to pick a lot of them. You ignore the Gauls and the German tribes which had strong laws about monogamy. The Romans wrote all about them.


Actually, Caesar in _The Gallic Wars_, and he was in error about a lot. As was Tacitus, who went nowhere himself IIRC, when writing about German marriage. In that he was clearly holding up German wives as more faithful in contrast to the intriguing adulterous Roman women of the day. We now know the German and Gallic tribes had polygyny, and even polyandry occasionally. The Celts (Gauls and Britons) apparently gave women a lot of sexual freedom and Caesar made some assumptions about wife sharing from the context of the Roman marriage that don't really apply. 



JCD said:


> Also, many so called 'polygamous' cultures had monogamies+. Only one 'wife' but the King/Dictator/Chief/Big Kahuna was allowed to nail any number of 'extras' while leaving those kids illegitimate...or less legitimate. It's in the law, see! Right here! He wrote it himself! (Well, maybe great granddad did...but he was a pig too)


All "monogamous" cultures prior to the rise of the Puritans in England had pretty much total heterosexual freedom for the husband, aside from adultery (PIV with another man's wife).



JCD said:


> Yes. A king, a chiefdom, an emperor, a Citizen for Life, a Prophet of God (hint, using a tiny splinter group from a Democracy, or people who live 'outside the law' doesn't exactly support the idea that democracies support polygamy or negate the fact that when 'betas' can vote, they vote for the right to not have their women stolen by guys with more weapons)


I know of no culture that has limited legal polygyny, as opposed to de facto polygyny, to the high and mighty. As I have shown, even "monogamous" cultures weren't sexually monogamous (for males).



JCD said:


> Nice shuffle. Sorry, but trying to conflate 'patriarchal attitudes toward the male right to cheat' is not the same as 'polygamy'. Two different things altogether.


Legal monogamy is not practical sexual monogamy, as I've demonstrated.



JCD said:


> How seriously any particular culture or person was in their monogamy is very much a personal thing. Cheaters cheat. Doesn't matter what the rules say...or if the rules codify it.


No culture on this earth, prior to the Puritans, expected males to limit their sexual exploits to only one woman. If you've got one, I'd be interested in hearing about it.



JCD said:


> Not really but I am also forgetting that these cultures were also much more dangerous and rape laws were hardly 'progressive'. So women dressed down in self defense. Very few cultures of any kind of government had anywhere near the dress of our current age as far as I know. The closest were the Minoans and some French fashions which mostly revealed the bust. But skin tight clothing for women? Mostly the domain of 'actresses' and women who did not have the right to say 'no'.


Umm. No. The buttonhole only dates to medieval times, and that's the beginning of form fitting clothing, aside from wrapped and tied sheer linen, a la Egypt. Public nudity was quite common for men and women when appropriate in the ancient world, gymnasium, the baths, etc.

The Islamic veil was apparently introduced by Moe when his men started indicating they wanted to use his wives in the same way he used theirs IIRC.



JCD said:


> Abram (before the name change) went to Egypt with is wife Sarai. Pharaoh saw she was a hottie. Asked Abram about it. Abram saw he was drooling like a maniac over his wife and got a sense that he was going to get his throat cut so Pharaoh could get his mitts on her 'morally'. So he lied and said she was his sister (how this solved his problem, I don't know)


Actually, without looking it up, Abe (same guy no matter which name he was using) introduced his wife (also his half-sister IIRC) as his sister and told her this was the plan, prior to entering Egypt, and to play along....



JCD said:


> After that, I'm sure Abram dressed her in a tent. And he didn't have Sharia either.


The text doesn't relate any of that. So far as we know, Moe was the originator of the great cover up.

Edited to add: Of course, there is also the fact in some, if not many, hunter gatherer cultures, women were treated as booty (changing the dynamic of a 'booty call'). I am specifically thinking of the Jivaro Indians in South America, though there is a thread of that in Mongol culture as well. See Genghis' first wife Borte as an example. (I am such a nerd. I actually remembered her name)

Incidentally, 1 in 200 living males are direct paternal descendants of Genghis, per Y chromosome. You can thank polygyny and concubinage for that.



JCD said:


> This also questions the reasoning for polygamy. Elder rich men in Sub Saharan Africa wanted to tie up all the farming women for himself. Hunter Gatherer cultures, which engaged in war a LOT, had horrifying death rates among the men. The women needed to go to someone.


Bingo. Constant warfare, but also herders, not just hunter gatherers and even early farmers. Not to mention death in the hunt. War was the normal state of the world until recently.



JCD said:


> In fact, this is part of the push in Siberia (IIRC) where the number of 'marriageable' men is so low (that demon vodka) that the women are pushing to legalize polygyny because they love 'alpha' men so much (i.e. has a job, doesn't drink, doesn't beat them...scarcely a V in sight...)


Sorry, but both Putin and Ivan Drago have V torsos to some extent. We already have polygyny in the Western world, it's just "soft" polygyny. And if the Russians adopt hard polygyny, all the women will flock to the top males. Back in the mid-70's a group of unmarried women in Saudi Arabia wanted the King to force men to take on additional wives if they had only one. 

The great benefit of legal monogamous marriage being enforced in a culture is that it promotes stability and industry. Actual male sexual monogamy wasn't required for the west to triumph, since even gamma males would be essentially forced into marriage by their families up until the 20th century. (See: Speed, Joshua)


----------



## turnera

The best thing about the last Olympics was reading the stories of the journalists who went there and were given hotel rooms with buff pictures of a shirtless Putin in their rooms.


----------



## JCD

Machiavelli said:


> The only democracies in non- or pre-Christian lands were those of certain ancient Greek city-states. That seems to be the origin of legal monogamy, but not practical monogamy, since Greek men had a range of levels of slave girls, concubines, hetairai, etc.


Thank you for conceding the point so graciously. I win. :smthumbup:

I said: when democracies came around and men got to vote on whether EVERYONE got a share of women, EVERYONE got their share of women. What you see as 'alphas' didn't get to artificially hog them all. 

And that is exactly it: artificially hog them all. Genghis Khan and the Inca did not have 10,000 wives and concubines because they all saw his Putin-like studliness and got soppy panties. Men with swords (or Macana) went around and rounded up 'suitable candidates' and herded them to 'their new husband'. It is described in the histories. This is generally called in these decadent times, kidnapping and rape (with a side of bride theft thrown in). Last I checked, the Sultan of Brunei did not have chiseled abs. Polygyny has always been about wealth and power, not abs.

You just proved my point. Outside a bargain with the Muslims, I can't think of a single democracy which allows polygyny or polygamy besides India which does not also have a HUGE Muslim population...but then again, I don't recall a lot of Muslim democracies period... Pakistan sort of kind of....not really. India had to allow a Muslim carve out: they have 120 million Muslims. Hindus are monogamous. They weren't before they had a democracy...but that's the point, isn't it? Cause as soon as they booted the Brits out, they could have went back to polygyny...they didn't. Suggestive?

Let's look at Turkey. It became a democracy in 1926. It also, that same year, abolished polygamy. Hmm. Just like Lebanon. Hmm.



> Polygamy is legal in Indonesia and a man may take up to four wives, as allowed by Islam*. Despite such legality, polygamy has faced some of the most intense opposition than any other nation with the majority consisting of Muslims.* Additionally, Indonesia has the largest Muslim population in the world.[1] Recent restrictions have brought about harsher penalties for unlawfully contracted polygamous unions and polygamy is said to be on the decline





> The practice of what is usually called polygamy enjoys de facto legality in Kenya although such unions are no longer fully recognized by the courts.[1] With the enactment of the new constitution, the Marriage Bill of 2007,which would have effectively legalize civil polygamous marriage in Kenya, became null and void as it was unconstitutional


Democracies seem to kill polygyny (I am sure there are exceptions, but exceptions are just that, not general rules). The only places which allow it seem to be Muslim and/or African. 

Please name a single non Muslim Democracy which legally allows polygamy to all faiths outside of Africa. One with a population of more than 7 million people (.1% of the population, no fair finding some tiny tribe)


Everything else about practical vs legal monogamy is irrelevant. Cheaters gonna cheat.


----------



## always_alone

JCD said:


> Everything else about practical vs legal monogamy is irrelevant. Cheaters gonna cheat.


Some cultures tolerate a greater amount of promiscuity than others, without calling it cheating, or insisting that marriage be strictly monogamous.

However, this promiscuity is certainly not the exclusively male privilege that Mach would have it be. The notion that men are more sexual, more entitled to sexuality than women, and more forgivable for their "practical non-monogamy" is a part and parcel of the Puritan sexual hang-ups.


----------



## JCD

always_alone said:


> Some cultures tolerate a greater amount of promiscuity than others, without calling it cheating, or insisting that marriage be strictly monogamous.
> 
> However, this promiscuity is certainly not the exclusively male privilege that Mach would have it be. The notion that men are more sexual, more entitled to sexuality than women, and more forgivable for their "practical non-monogamy" is a part and parcel of the Puritan sexual hang-ups.


I will easily concede that women are as sexual as men and probably have just as many cheaters in their make up as men do.

What women historically have NOT had was a consequence free way of cheating. I mean this in a couple of ways. First, women get pregnant and men can count. And frankly a baby is ALWAYS a consequence when it happens. But a 'red headed step child'...well!

Second, women faced much more draconian adultery penalties than men legally.

Third, even if they survived or were not accused of adultery by their husband, in the majority of cases, they were tossed out on their rear. And considering the job opportunities of women in history, particularly 'divorced' women (which was frankly short hand for 'adulterous women', even Happy Days had an episode on it), that meant they were facing zero support financially. This meant many of these women needed to become pros.

Fourth, the social ramifications for women were murderous. Very few women were so secure in their marriages that they wanted a single woman around who 'broke the deal' (I keep my husband and you keep yours), Particularly since she was probably desperate to find someone to make a family with.

So what this has generally meant is that women have many more incentives to be faithful whatever their personal predilections or if they can't stay faithful, they are MUCH more discrete in their infidelity. Technology is tripping them up these days. (they did a random gene test of paternity and found something like 10% of kids weren't the fathers)

I also agree with tacit cultural acceptance of 'legal' vs. 'practical' monogamy, but don't consider it relevant from a legal standpoint. In Thailand, a man can have a _mia noi_ which means 'little or second wife', who has absolutely ZERO legal standing but culturally is expected to be taken care of fiscally *as long as they are together.* Losing his favor loses her meal ticket and she has no legal recourse, which is much different than polygyny, but a lot to do with 'rationalized cheating'.

I would not be so quick to pin the 'hypocrite' label on the Puritans, however. If you wanted to see a cesspool of infidelity and vice, look at the court of Charles the Second. The Puritans defined themselves AGAINST those shenanigans. You want to see a marital hypocrite? Julius Caesar, Henry the II, John Lackland, Pope Alexander IV, any French king you can name, any Tsar you can name. But very few of them felt legally secure enough to be totally indiscrete...which takes a little starch out of the toothlessness of 'legal monogamy' argument.

Don't blame it on the Puritans.


----------



## always_alone

JCD said:


> I would not be so quick to pin the 'hypocrite' label on the Puritans, however. If you wanted to see a cesspool of infidelity and vice, look at the court of Charles the Second. The Puritans defined themselves AGAINST those shenanigans. You want to see a marital hypocrite?  Julius Caesar, Henry the II, John Lackland, Pope Alexander IV, any French king you can name, any Tsar you can name. But very few of them felt legally secure enough to be totally indiscrete...which takes a little starch out of the toothlessness of 'legal monogamy' argument.
> 
> Don't blame it on the Puritans.


Point taken, and I can't argue that patriarchal power has worked hard to control women and our sexuality over the past few centuries.

But notice that most of your examples reflect Christianity in its heyday of conquest and world power. It may not be just the Puritans, but the idea that men alone are forgivably promiscuous is a product of particular religions and worldviews that demonize women's sexuality. 

Because these religions have had a great deal of success at taking over the world, one might be tempted to assume that their views are universal. But they most certainly are not.


----------



## JCD

always_alone said:


> Point taken, and I can't argue that patriarchal power has worked hard to control women and our sexuality over the past few *millenia*. (Fixed that for you)
> 
> But notice that most of your examples reflect Christianity in its heyday of conquest and world power. It may not be just the Puritans, but the idea that men alone are forgivably promiscuous is a product of particular religions and worldviews that demonize women's sexuality.
> 
> Because these religions have had a great deal of success at taking over the world, one might be tempted to assume that their views are universal. But they most certainly are not.


I would leave you with this thought: In CHRISTIAN societies, the men are patriarchal hypocrites for cheating on their wives in their *monogamous* relationships.

Most of the other cultures are already polygynous (i.e. acceptably male promiscuous) and yes, Babylonia, China, Japan and a good number of other places were MUCH worse on cheating women then men. They weren't hypocrites because it was codified law: men could screw around, women could not.

You keep wanting to make this a religious thing. I would think you would be happy to be able to make it a 'male' thing 

I could bore you with a dozen examples of the inequity of the laws in non Christian countries, but what would be the point? Here, however, is a bit of Hindu Scripture



> Manusmriti was the eternal code of conduct for ancient Indians and the general public followed it religiously which say:- “Day and night woman must be kept in dependence by the males (of) their (families), and, if they attach themselves to sensual enjoyments, they must be kept under one’s control.” “Her father protects her in childhood, her husband protects her in youth, and her sons protect her in old age; a woman is never fit for independence.”
> 
> “While creating them, Manu allotted to women a love of their bed, of their seat and of ornament, impure desires, wrath, dishonesty, malice, and bad conduct.”


Still think it's a Christian thing?


----------



## always_alone

JCD said:


> I could bore you with a dozen examples of the inequity of the laws in non Christian countries, but what would be the point? Here, however, is a bit of Hindu Scripture
> 
> 
> 
> Still think it's a Christian thing?


I didn't say it was only Christian -- just that it required a particular religion or worldview that demonizes women's sexuality--of which Christianity is one powerful example. There are plenty of others, no doubt. 

But, I know it's not a male thing because there are cultures that do recognize and celebrate female sexuality instead of trying to lock it (and them) in a box while giving free rein to men. 

Sadly, not enough of them, though, and their lessons often lost. Too bad because too many people now erroneously assume that male and female sexuality are altogether different in kind and deserving of separate treatments, rather than seeing the cultural assumptions that propagate these attitudes.


----------



## JCD

always_alone said:


> I didn't say it was only Christian -- just that it required a particular religion or worldview that demonizes women's sexuality--of which Christianity is one powerful example. There are plenty of others, no doubt.
> 
> But, I know it's not a male thing because there are cultures that do recognize and celebrate female sexuality instead of trying to lock it (and them) in a box while giving free rein to men.
> 
> Sadly, not enough of them, though, and their lessons often lost. Too bad because too many people now erroneously assume that male and female sexuality are altogether different in kind and deserving of separate treatments, rather than seeing the cultural assumptions that propagate these attitudes.


You mean there are places on this Earth which are MORE accepting and forgiving of female sexuality than the West?

Please tell me where this is. Because recently, it's the Land of "DO What Thou Wilt" when it comes to women's sexuality. Even cheating or giving a man an illegitimate child means nothing in divorce court.


----------



## Garry2012

sinnister said:


> I noticed this and I comment to my wife all the time. I do the driving...even when we are in her car.


It all the metro/beta male pressure I suppose....


----------



## ocotillo

wilson said:


> ******* did a study where men rated women and women rated men......If a man didn't fit that look, they rated him poorly.......Essentially, either a guy is either a 1 or a 10.


I can believe that. I have a friend who's wife passed away several years ago and he's trying to get back into dating. He's average in looks, above average in intelligence and financially secure. Most of the stuff he's shown me from these sites is just incredible in terms of expectations.

The Yin to that Yang seems to be that if a man can touch a woman's heart, he can go from a 1 to a 10 in her eyes. The number of women I know who believe their aging, average looking husbands are solid 10's is not only endearing, it's enough to restore one's faith in humanity.


----------



## always_alone

JCD, let me clarify that I'm not disagreeing with much of what you say. I'm just pointing out that one assumption you seem to hold in common with Mach is the patriarchal one that all of this is up to men to decide, and women are just ornamental pawns waiting to be put in their proper place.

My only point is that oppression of women and our sexuality is neither universal, nor essential. As such, it is worth consideration in our analysis of what counts as natural and what is purely political in our marital and sexual relationships.


----------



## always_alone

JCD said:


> You mean there are places on this Earth which are MORE accepting and forgiving of female sexuality than the West?
> 
> Please tell me where this is. Because recently, it's the Land of "DO What Thou Wilt" when it comes to women's sexuality. Even cheating or giving a man an illegitimate child means nothing in divorce court.


Current Western society is chock full of mixed messages and Victorian-era hang-ups about women's sexuality. 

Whereas some anthropological evidence reveals that there have been, and still are, many societies where women's sexuality didn't get handed to them in a package of guilt and shame, and women's contributions to "men's" work weren't automatically considered emasculating turn-offs.


----------



## jaquen

Garry2012 said:


> It all the metro/beta male pressure I suppose....


Or perhaps some men just aren't fond of driving.

Shocking, I know.


----------



## JCD

always_alone said:


> JCD, let me clarify that I'm not disagreeing with much of what you say. I'm just pointing out that one assumption you seem to hold in common with Mach is the patriarchal one that all of this is up to men to decide, and women are just ornamental pawns waiting to be put in their proper place.
> 
> My only point is that oppression of women and our sexuality is neither universal, nor essential. As such, it is worth consideration in our analysis of what counts as natural and what is purely political in our marital and sexual relationships.


I am frankly thrilled we can have a civil conversation! And we aren't disagreeing on much.

'Universal'? I would never claim that. 

I am not defending the patriarchal position as much as pointing out that it is (or at least seems) the default and I am offering it in answer to Mach's suggestion that one of the underpinnings of the prevalence of polygymy is women's choice. Perhaps I am misunderstanding him. I can't imagine the vast majority of females is looking forward to being wife number 5 or concubine number 12. 

I am also citing patriarchy as the reason for the monogamous double standard. He seems to feel that a man and one woman is very unnatural and only a beta would live that way. Perhaps. Perhaps not.




always_alone said:


> Current Western society is chock full of mixed messages and Victorian-era hang-ups about women's sexuality.
> 
> Whereas some anthropological evidence reveals that there have been, and still are, many societies where women's sexuality didn't get handed to them in a package of guilt and shame, and women's contributions to "men's" work weren't automatically considered emasculating turn-offs.


I agree with the mixed message thing.

As far as the anthropologists...perhaps. I haven't read up on these places at all. But do you really want to live in some ethnographic group of 20,000 people in the middle of nowhere among a culture which doesn't speak your language and dresses funny just so you can get your freak on 10% better than in the West?

Seems like a hell of a trade off. And no one seems to pin point these cultures so they can be examined objectively.

Just a quick deviation. For decades, anthropologists had examined the Jivaro tribe and the decision of dozens of different men who examined them was '*******s!'

My sociologist professor assigned the story of this one anthropologist who decided he was going to PROVE they weren't violent, troublesome idiots. This was before he arrived and spoke their language.

He 'proved' it. Granted, they threatened him constantly and he kept buying them off by giving them axes and arrowheads and other items. But he PROVED they were just misunderstood.

Sort of like Margret Mead deciding that Samoa was a paradise before she got there.

Like St. Helen, Constantine's mom. She found the True Cross, the Nails, the Crown of Thorns, and every other relic she was looking for. Funny how that happens...

So I have a few doubts about anthropology, particularly if it isn't viciously peer reviewed.


----------



## ocotillo

A problem I have with the idea of a sexual free-for-all indulged in by "Alpha males" and unwilling or only semi-willing females over anything resembling the long term is simply genetics. (I'm not attributing that idea to anyone on this thread, but I have heard it on TAM before.)

Here were I live, (AZ) we have about half the cases in the entire world of a rare genetic disorder called, fumarase deficiency. Surprise, surprise, surprise. I wonder how that happened?

Most people today are a little hazy about the difference between a second cousin and a first cousin once removed. But that's small potatoes next to the intricacies of kinship in a polygamous society. It's a problem that quickly becomes intractable without some combination of strict customs and/or strict record keeping. Ancient Judaism is good example of how common sense genetic precautions got wrapped up in the mantle of religion which regulated and restricted everyone.


----------



## Machiavelli

JCD said:


> Thank you for conceding the point so graciously. I win. :smthumbup:
> 
> I said: when democracies came around and men got to vote on whether EVERYONE got a share of women, EVERYONE got their share of women. What you see as 'alphas' didn't get to artificially hog them all.


Win what? Proving my point that most humans have not lived in democracies? The Athenian democracy only lasted 200 years. Genghis Khan was a winner, that's why he got all the woman. There was nothing artificial about it.



JCD said:


> And that is exactly it: artificially hog them all. Genghis Khan and the Inca did not have 10,000 wives and concubines because they all saw his Putin-like studliness and got soppy panties. Men with swords (or Macana) went around and rounded up 'suitable candidates' and herded them to 'their new husband'. It is described in the histories. This is generally called in these decadent times, kidnapping and rape (with a side of bride theft thrown in). Last I checked, the Sultan of Brunei did not have chiseled abs. Polygyny has always been about wealth and power, not abs.


Polygyny predates wealth. The North American Indians, polygynists, had no wealth. In pre-wealth, pre-land, pre-herding, hunter gatherer societies like the Creek or the Comanche the acquisition of women was a product of hunting and fighting capability. A v shaped torso is the indicator to H-G women that a man has upper body strength and an ability to defend his women. This attraction was hardwired in the human female long before the concept of real estate or even "gold" was conceived. Incidentally, this is why women, without seeing a man, can very accurately determine his upper body strength via the sound of his voice.

These are merely two such "first look" indicators of male superiority.




JCD said:


> You just proved my point. Outside a bargain with the Muslims, I can't think of a single democracy which allows polygyny or polygamy besides India


Democracy, in and of itself, is not a causative of monogamy. The rise of monogamy has zero to do with democracy. Athens was only one city state and they were nominally monogamous prior to becoming a democracy. Other Greek _poleis_ were not and never became democracies, yet all were nominally monogamous. Similarly, the Romans had nominal (legal) monogamy for hundreds of years before establishing their Republic, and when the Republic fell to Empire monogamy continued. Feudalism and Empire is not democracy, yet monogamy spread throughout Europe. The reason was church law. As Catholicism spread, so did the rules of the RCC.

If you imagine there is no polygamy in a democracy, you're overlooking Europe (hint: 3-way wedding). When was the last prosecution in the US for polygyny, as opposed to statutory rape of young Mormon girls. Which reinforces my point that "soft" polygyny continues in legally monogamous societies as it always has since the time of the Greeks. They are monogamous only for legal and inheritance reasons. They continue to approve of or tolerate men who can to maintain "soft" harems. 

The winners in a legally "monogamous" society are unattractive men (who can now have a woman, maybe even including occasional sex acts) and highly attractive women (who can now have exclusive legal claim on the wealth of high rank man), while the losers in the same society are highly attractive men (limited one official wife) and second tier and below women (can no longer have legal claim on wealth of top men).



JCD said:


> which does not also have a HUGE Muslim population...but then again, I don't recall a lot of Muslim democracies period... Pakistan sort of kind of....not really. India had to allow a Muslim carve out: they have 120 million Muslims. Hindus are monogamous. They weren't before they had a democracy...but that's the point, isn't it?


The Hindus did not go for legal monogamy until 1955, almost a decade after independence.



JCD said:


> Cause as soon as they booted the Brits out, they could have went back to polygyny...they didn't. Suggestive?


Not at all, since your timeline and imagined cause and effect is completely wrong. The British did not introduce legal monogamy onto the indigenous population, so polygyny in India continued on uninterrupted as it had to the dawn of time, until 1955.



JCD said:


> Let's look at Turkey. It became a democracy in 1926. It also, that same year, abolished polygamy. Hmm. Just like Lebanon. Hmm.


Sorry, but Turkey did not become a democracy in 1926. It became a single party republic under Ataturk in 1923 and it nothing changed that so long as Ataturk lived. Polygyny was abolished by Ataturk at the same time that he abolished beards, the fez, and public prayer in his drive to permanently turn Turkey into a modern European secular state. Ultimately, he failed, as the existence of Erdogan demonstrates.

As for Lebanon, that was a Maronite Christian majority state originally. That's where its monogamy comes from.



JCD said:


> Democracies seem to kill polygyny (I am sure there are exceptions, but exceptions are just that, not general rules). The only places which allow it seem to be Muslim and/or African.


The spread of Christianity in the West, followed by global Westernization and/or colonialism, is what spread monogamy, not democracy. Also, in countries that retain traditional indigenous tribal groups, such as are found in islands or Amazonia, no effort is usually made by the westernized central government to enforce nominal monogamy.



JCD said:


> Please name a single non Muslim Democracy which legally allows polygamy to all faiths outside of Africa. One with a population of more than 7 million people (.1% of the population, no fair finding some tiny tribe)


Why not, aren't they people, too? How about The Netherlands, for one. Also, note that there are high degrees of toleration to de facto polygyny in all countries that legally ban it.



JCD said:


> Everything else about practical vs legal monogamy is irrelevant. Cheaters gonna cheat.


Bool sheet. The whole point is that nobody ever expected actual sexual male monogamy before the advent of the Puritans. I don't actually have a problem with "cheating" whatever that is, since you can define "cheating" any way you want. I do have a problem with adultery. Here's the Common Law definition: Adultery is wrongful intercourse between a married woman and any man other than her husband. That's also the biblical definition in the Pentateuch, by the way. And is still to this day the legal definition in a number of states, not to mention India.


----------



## WyshIknew

Nigel Pinchley said:


> Ah, and on a more humorous note, all of the men I know who allow their wives to drive when together do so because they've become quite tired of having their driving skills examined and picked apart by a zealously vocal co-pilot


Mrs Wysh; "I would have gone that way"

Me; "Yes, well I'm driving so we're going this way. When you 
drive *you* can go that way."

Mrs Wysh; "Well I was only saying."

It only took a few repetitions of this for her to wind her neck in.


Don't wanna sound like an arse but back seat drivers wind me up.


----------



## WyshIknew

wilson said:


> ******* did a study where men rated women and women rated men. The ratings given by men were a typical bell curve--a few 1's, a few 10's and most in the middle. But the women's ratings were totally different. Their graph looked like a ski-jump hill. Most of their ratings were at the low end. This seemed to indicate that men are fairer when rating women, but women only like specific looks. If a man didn't fit that look, they rated him poorly. Essentially, either a guy is either a 1 or a 10.
> 
> So a man which fit the look (like David Beckham) would likely get hit on all the time. But an average looking guy (like Bill Paxton) might rarely get hit on because women rate him very low.


I can sort of agree with this via an empirical example.

About 18 months ago, after reading some of the stuff that Machiavelli has posted, about the sex rank thing and posting a pic on a pic site to see how attractive others find you I actually posted a few pics on a site to see what my result would be.

I promptly forgot about it and only revisited the site some months later.
I was initially disappointed as I regarded my score to be rather low, but then I noticed another statistic that showed that I was regarded as hotter than 75% of the men there.

But many of the ladies there had a higher score than me although their percentage score was lower.


----------



## ocotillo

Machiavelli said:


> Incidentally, this is why women, without seeing a man, can very accurately determine his upper body strength via the sound of his voice.


Interesting. I think the authors should reread Alice Brues though.


----------



## always_alone

JCD said:


> I am not defending the patriarchal position as much as pointing out that it is (or at least seems) the default and I am offering it in answer to Mach's suggestion that one of the underpinnings of the prevalence of polygymy is women's choice. Perhaps I am misunderstanding him. I can't imagine the vast majority of females is looking forward to being wife number 5 or concubine number 12.


On this, I agree. Polygyny reflects power, not nature or proclivity. 

What I was questioning was your emphasis on democracy, as it doesn't seem essential for a society to reject the harem model.



JCD said:


> But do you really want to live in some ethnographic group of 20,000 people in the middle of nowhere among a culture which doesn't speak your language and dresses funny just so you can get your freak on 10% better than in the West?


The point is not to live there, the point is to learn more about human nature from them. 

I share your suspicion of anthropology. It is exactly the sort of "find what you are looking for" problem that allowed so many sexist stereotypes of cavemen dragging women around by the hair in the first place. Early anthropologists carried a heap of biases that they simply imposed on the cultures they were observing. In North America, for example, it was said that most native tribes were patriarchal, but it turns out a significant part of this was that the colonials were refusing to recognize (or even talk to) female authority figures.

Even the most careful anthropology needs to be scrutinized, but it does indeed reveal that there is much evidence that outright contradicts stereotypical sexist beliefs that were founded through Christian colonialism.


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> Interesting. I think the authors should reread Alice Brues though.


Ha! Now *that* is interesting.


----------



## JCD

always_alone said:


> On this, I agree. Polygyny reflects power, not nature or proclivity.
> 
> What I was questioning was your emphasis on democracy, as it doesn't seem essential for a society to reject the harem model.


I am debating and when I debate, I throw ideas out there and think about them. This one book I read suggested that when men had more say in society which was broader than Agamemnon getting to claim all the women in a raid (look how that worked out, Mach), suddenly monogamy starts popping up everywhere. Mach correctly cites that many Greek cities were not democracies, but here is the thing: they all depended on citizen soldiers! That man in the market place cutting up the fish? He was going to be next to you in the phalanx so if you said 'screw you, I'm claiming all the women in this battle AND your daughter' well...there might be a sudden GAP next to you in the fight or someone might shove you out front...

I probably mean _democratic principles_ more than pure democracy. One of the underlying themes of the Church as well was that every man (and, significantly, every woman) had worth. EVERYONE, not just someone with a long arm reach and abs and a V.

In places where these principles flourished, polygyny died.

Mach likes to talk about 'superior' and 'winners'. Well, in the marketplace of *ideas*, Christianity won. Genghis Khan died. The Mongols died. There is only a genetic legacy at best. (And a visceral hatred of Mongols over most of the globe) And I think, when compared to Islam (another religion of the sword ala the Mongols), it has a little bit more to offer women. Which is why it spread through the Roman world so readily (granted, their philosophy was 'if you aren't an alpha, you can suck it'.)

JMO (and the opinion of a Muslim woman I know...though she was an atheist, and I can't blame her)

In fact, in the 'market place of ideas', it has a little something to offer pretty much everyone, which is why it succeeded.

Well...not EVERYONE. ("Hey guys! Let's try this idea! I have abs...and you don't...so how does this sound? I get MY woman and I get as many of your wives and daughters as I can trick, seduce or force. And if you don't like it, I'll beat you up! Sound good? Guys...guys?")

Some ideas have a very..._limited_ appeal. That doesn't mean you can't beat them into people if you use a big enough stick though (look at Communism)



> The point is not to live there, the point is to learn more about human nature from them.
> 
> I share your suspicion of anthropology. It is exactly the sort of "find what you are looking for" problem that allowed so many sexist stereotypes of cavemen dragging women around by the hair in the first place. Early anthropologists carried a heap of biases that they simply imposed on the cultures they were observing. In North America, for example, it was said that most native tribes were patriarchal, but it turns out a significant part of this was that the colonials were refusing to recognize (or even talk to) female authority figures.
> 
> Even the most careful anthropology needs to be scrutinized, but it does indeed reveal that there is much evidence that outright contradicts stereotypical sexist beliefs that were founded through Christian colonialism.


Erm...I think this is another 'way parter' for us. In that 'market place of ideas', well...these tiny little pockets of femdom? They failed. Now I don't know why, but I am skeptical about how much they can teach us. If they had been radically good or effective, they would already have spread. They didn't.

Granted, I might be biased because in gender power struggles, it is, as anywhere else, a zero sum game.


----------



## always_alone

JCD said:


> Erm...I think this is another 'way parter' for us. In that 'market place of ideas', well...these tiny little pockets of femdom? They failed. Now I don't know why, but I am skeptical about how much they can teach us. If they had been radically good or effective, they would already have spread. They didn't.
> 
> Granted, I might be biased because in gender power struggles, it is, as anywhere else, a zero sum game.


There are a few "way-parters" here.

Christianity did not "win" in a marketplace of ideas, it won by the sword. Pagan heathens were systematically slaughtered, their temples destroyed and replaced with churches and crosses. Missionaries then picked up where the swords left off and continued the conversions.

And while Christianity covers a broad scope with many different philosophies and points of view, it is not as though it proclaims equality for women. Some sects more than others, of course, but compare the Bible to the Qu'ran.

Last, but not least: you are quick to dismiss the "pockets of femdom" as untenable because they didn't survive -because women do not currently hold the balance of power. But really the point is that we can learn something about women and women's sexuality under conditions where we aren't kept under lock and key and carefully controlled. 

And what we learn is that our sexuality isn't all that different from men's and that we are quite capable of all sorts of tasks that modern stereotypes would deem "men's" work, and not at all inclined to sit around in harems while the men looked after our pregnant selves or dragged us around by our hair.

These truths are now being "discovered" by modern science, but really, we've known them for a long time. Unfortunately, history was written by the conquerors, and so much about the conquered has been overlooked or downright squashed. Even though it has been ongoing through many cultures and systems --but under the radar, for fear of being burned at the stake or stoned to death.


----------



## JCD

always_alone said:


> There are a few "way-parters" here.
> 
> Christianity did not "win" in a marketplace of ideas, it won by the sword. Pagan heathens were systematically slaughtered, their temples destroyed and replaced with churches and crosses. Missionaries then picked up where the swords left off and continued the conversions.


Yes, sometimes. But I think that is WAY simplified. Ireland was not 'conquered' for Christ. Nor Norway.

Sometimes a king converted and the people followed suit. Sometimes it was slow missionaries. Sometimes strictly political decisions and fightings were 'claimed' (and later 'blamed' on religion) Case in point: Constantine and Charlemagne could have been Zorastarians, Buddhists or screaming atheists. Where they were politically meant they had to fight and conquer their respective territories. Religion was there, but it wasn't necessarily the ONLY factor in their 'carnage'.



> And while Christianity covers a broad scope with many different philosophies and points of view, it is not as though it proclaims equality for women. Some sects more than others, of course, but compare the Bible to the Qu'ran.


I did. And there were a litany of horrors done in the name of 'Christ'...or to be more fair, by Christians. HOWEVER, it is that comparison that makes me say Christianity was a better deal than Islam in comparison. No harems. No burkas. No veils. No polygamy or nine year old girls forced to marry the head of state, setting a wicked precedent.

And bear in mind while all this is going on, the same offenses against women were happening in China and other nations, without the 'excuse' of Christianity.

Much of the examination of other cultures has this wistful wish fulfillment ('I see how crappy MY culture is, so there must be a BETTER culture out there' See Margaret Mead) Objectively, it's a toss up. There was no monolithic Christian treatment of women anymore than there was some monolithic 'better' place. The Mings were engaging in foot binding. Tell me where you'd rather live?



> Last, but not least: you are quick to dismiss the "pockets of femdom" as untenable because they didn't survive -because women do not currently hold the balance of power. But really the point is that we can learn something about women and women's sexuality under conditions where we aren't kept under lock and key and carefully controlled.
> 
> And what we learn is that our sexuality isn't all that different from men's and that we are quite capable of all sorts of tasks that modern stereotypes would deem "men's" work, and not at all inclined to sit around in harems while the men looked after our pregnant selves or dragged us around by our hair.
> 
> These truths are now being "discovered" by modern science, but really, we've known them for a long time. Unfortunately, history was written by the conquerors, and so much about the conquered has been overlooked or downright squashed. Even though it has been ongoing through many cultures and systems --but under the radar, for fear of being burned at the stake or stoned to death.


I don't disagree. Maybe the status of women worldwide is purely predicated on female/male strength disparities.

However, while what you say might be true, I happen to believe the genders are quite different. I could be wrong. I am making no value judgments. My wife does things and thinks in ways which sometimes has me agog at her wisdom. And then she'll say something pretty stupid.

She feels the same way about me at times.

Interesting times.


----------



## Machiavelli

always_alone said:


> One guy says that if the woman chases the "alpha", there must be something wrong with her, and one guy says that (what I presume to be) an alpha never chases women.
> 
> Mmmmmm. Which is it, I wonder?


An alpha doesn't need to approach women, since he's getting approached all the time. However, if he wants a particular shy or standoffish woman, he'll obviously need to approach her. Either way, he's getting laid.

This Alpha-Beta business comes from the study of chimp troops, where the Alpha (40%) and a couple of Betas (20% each) are responsible for about 80% of the offspring. All the lower classes of males combined make up the other 20% of troop offspring. Notice that the Alpha gets plenty of action, but he doesn't get all the action.



always_alone said:


> Since many women initiate successfully with "alphas" and George Clooney himself has been rejected, I'd say both must be off.


Is Clooney a womanizer?


----------



## lovelygirl

You consider George Clooney an "alpha" just because he's approached by many women? 

Hhm..I don't think so. 

Plus, I've never seen him as an alpha anyway.


----------



## Machiavelli

always_alone said:


> Some cultures tolerate a greater amount of promiscuity than others, without calling it cheating, or insisting that marriage be strictly monogamous.
> 
> However, this promiscuity is certainly not the exclusively male privilege that Mach would have it be. The notion that men are more sexual, more entitled to sexuality than women, and more forgivable for their "practical non-monogamy" is a part and parcel of the Puritan sexual hang-ups.


One of the things about polygyny, both in the animal kingdom and the human world, is that while the top tiers of male get to produce most of the offspring, that doesn't mean they're the only ones getting sex from their harem. This is one of the reasons being the alpha chimp is a very high stress position.

As for the Puritans, they were very pro sexual activity compared to the Catholics, which at one point only allowed sex on about half the days of the year (any day on the church calendar, and a number of days before and after, were no-sex allowed days). One reason Sir/St. Thomas More hated them was that they profaned marriage by bringing in passion. About the only sexual hangup the Puritans had was they were really against adultery (the Common Law / Biblical definition), bestiality, incest, rape, and buggery. Their idea of parentally and church approved dating was the practice of "bundling," which resulted in about 50% of the weddings being post conception "shotgun weddings."


----------



## turnera

lovelygirl said:


> You consider George Clooney an "alpha" just because he's approached by many women?
> 
> Hhm..I don't think so.
> 
> Plus, I've never seen him as an alpha anyway.


He's gorgeous, self-deprecating, NOT needy, and has a sense of humor. 

Enough said. Alpha.


----------



## always_alone

Machiavelli said:


> This Alpha-Beta business comes from the study of chimp troops, where the Alpha (40%) and a couple of Betas (20% each) are responsible for about 80% of the offspring. All the lower classes of males combined make up the other 20% of troop offspring. Notice that the Alpha gets plenty of action, but he doesn't get all the action.


Ah, yes, the chimps, the model all us humans should look up to!

Okay, why not? Let's take a stroll down the evolutionary ladder:

First, your numbers are off. Rank does seem to correlate with reproductive success, but at nowhere near the ratios you imagine. More than half of all males in one group sired offspring, for example.

Now true, the Alpha did sire more. With -- wait for it -- older females. Because, it would seem that while young males are overall very successful in the mating arena, chimps prefer older women. 

And note that these females too are playing on the side. Much more difficult to call it polygyny when the females also choose multiple partners, isn't it?

Because they do, and it turns out, many will prefer the lower rank males over the alpha.

Personally, I think it's because all the alpha chest beating gets tiresome pretty quick. Better to slip away with a young sweet beta, and have a wild old time. 

Male dominance rank and reproductive success in chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii


----------



## always_alone

JCD said:


> I did. And there were a litany of horrors done in the name of 'Christ'...or to be more fair, by Christians. HOWEVER, it is that comparison that makes me say Christianity was a better deal than Islam in comparison. No harems. No burkas. No veils. No polygamy or nine year old girls forced to marry the head of state, setting a wicked precedent.
> 
> And bear in mind while all this is going on, the same offenses against women were happening in China and other nations, without the 'excuse' of Christianity.
> 
> Much of the examination of other cultures has this wistful wish fulfillment ('I see how crappy MY culture is, so there must be a BETTER culture out there' See Margaret Mead) Objectively, it's a toss up. There was no monolithic Christian treatment of women anymore than there was some monolithic 'better' place. The Mings were engaging in foot binding. Tell me where you'd rather live?


No fair comparing the worst of Islamic fundamentalism with the best of Christian tolerance. 

Granted in large parts of the Middle East today, the intersection of religion and law combined with a strong push towards fundamentalism is making the situation intolerable for women. But this extremism isn't essential to Islam, and does not apply across the board or through history.

Yes, the Qu'ran says the man should lead women, but so does the Bible. And yes, the situation for women in many places right now is dire, and most certainly I would rather live here than there.

But my point was never that Christianity is bad, certainly not worse than others, just that it has had many of the same problems. And, more to the point, is a huge factor in the highly mixed and anti-sex messages that women in the Western world face, including the sexual stereotypes that Machiavelli is promulgating here.


----------



## lovelygirl

turnera said:


> He's gorgeous, self-deprecating, NOT needy, and has a sense of humor.
> 
> Enough said. Alpha.


Were you in a relationship with George Clooney?


----------



## ocotillo

always_alone said:


> Some sects more than others, of course, but compare the Bible to the Qu'ran.


I think many Christian denominations err in viewing the bible as a single contiguous work from cover to cover rather than the loosely organized anthology that it actually is.

There are definitely some onerous sentiments in the bible, but there are also some fairly progressive ideas that get drowned out in the desire to avoid even the semblance of contradiction.


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> I think many Christian denominations err in viewing the bible as a single contiguous work from cover to cover rather than the loosely organized anthology that it actually is.
> 
> There are definitely some onerous sentiments in the bible, but there are also some fairly progressive ideas that get drowned out in the desire to avoid even the semblance of contradiction.


Yes, fair enough. And maybe the Qu'ran is more consistent its misogyny. But much like Christianity, Islam is not a singular monolithic philosophy, but a mix that also embraces progressive ideals. It isn't all burquas and confinement.


----------



## Machiavelli

always_alone said:


> Ah, yes, the chimps, the model all us humans should look up to!


Humans and chimpanzees share behavioral and hierarchical characteristics, it is alleged.



always_alone said:


> Okay, why not? Let's take a stroll down the evolutionary ladder:
> 
> First, your numbers are off. Rank does seem to correlate with reproductive success, but at nowhere near the ratios you imagine. More than half of all males in one group sired offspring, for example.


The numbers in the particular troop I referenced, while form memory are very close to correct (the total of the alpha and his betas was almost exactly 80%), and the authors postulated that the alpha was only limited by the fact that so many females in that particular troop were too closely related to him. Different troops yield different results, but none are too far off from the Pareto principle.

Also, it doesn't matter at all that low ranking males sire offspring; what's important is they don't sire very many relative to the higher ranks. Part of the stress of being the alpha is trying to ride herd on the women. These studies indicate the females are having sex with a number of males, but reproducing mostly with the higher ranking ones.

Here's some other info from another troop study that seems to only have one Beta:


Budongo Paternity Study said:


> The alpha male sired four of these 13 infants (31%),while two were sired by a beta-ranked male (15%).Detailed dominance hierarchies were not available before 1994, although the male (MG) who was deposed from alpha rank in that year was the most successful sire (40%) in the earlier portion of our dataset (the offspring conceived before 1994).
> 
> Due to the success of the alpha male, there was a signiﬁcant relationship between higher dominance rank and the number of offspring sired between 1994 and 2002 , but low-ranking males were successful at siring offspring (see Fig. 1).
> 
> ...detail snip...
> 
> We compared these results to the predictions of the priority-of-access model. Given the considerable overlap between females’ maximal swelling periods, the alpha male’s success at siring offspring was approximately as predicted by the model. However, other high-ranking males (beta, gamma) did less well than predicted (31 vs. 53%) and low-ranking males that were not predicted to gain any fertilization opportunities actually sired 3 of the 13 offspring (23%).
> 
> Machiavelli: Note low ranks scored 23% nor far from the 20% you would expect on the 80/20. Alpha scored about 1/3 which is what was the case in the previous study I mentioned. There was only one beta in this group who fathered 2 to pull in 15%. Presumably, Gammas got the remaining 31%. Either way, only 7 males in this particular group reproduced.





always_alone said:


> Now true, the Alpha did sire more. With -- wait for it -- older females. Because, it would seem that while young males are overall very successful in the mating arena, chimps prefer older women.


The older females are considered to be more highly desired by the males, according to the authors of these studies.



always_alone said:


> And note that these females too are playing on the side. Much more difficult to call it polygyny when the females also choose multiple partners, isn't it?


Not hardly; it goes with the territory. We see this in people as well as in the Animal Kingdom. If you try to hog all the women, it's going to be tough to ride herd on them and keep out interlopers. But that's not the point.



always_alone said:


> Because they do, and it turns out, many will prefer the lower rank males over the alpha.


They don't prefer the low rank males to alpha, but they're sometimes outclassed in the competition for alpha, though alpha may get around to giving them some loving at some point. Or not. Females copulate promiscuously, so lower/younger rank males may be winning the sperm wars, due to age related higher quality/volume/motility issues.



always_alone said:


> Personally, I think it's because all the alpha chest beating gets tiresome pretty quick. Better to slip away with a young sweet beta, and have a wild old time.


Betas are the penultimate rank in the chimp world and tend to reproduce the females who are too closely related to the alpha. 



always_alone said:


> Male dominance rank and reproductive success in chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii


This is a third study that you have linked to above. This was a small community with twice as many females as males, ranging from 7-12 males and 12-23 females. So we know that only half the males are still in this group, meaning only half the males even get the opportunity to reproduce, the rest being elsewhere for whatever reasons. Here are some highlights:



Gombe Study said:


> The alpha male (rank 1) secured the most offspring, siring 30.3% of the offspring, which was somewhat less than the 36.8% predicted but still 50% more offspring than the next most successful males (ranks 2 and 5). While the highest-ranking males (ranks 1–4) were less successful than predicted, males of lower ranks (5 and below) did as well as or better than predicted, and in some cases, as well as or better than males of higher rank....Alpha males sired offspring solely with unrelated females, or 37% (10 of 27) of the offspring produced by unrelated females.
> 
> ...the model had less explanatory power for the Gombe chimpanzees than was previously reported in the West African subspecies (Boesch et al. 2006). We suggest that differences in female gregariousness partially explain deviations in the model fit and that lower-ranking fathers sire offspring with younger, less desirable females and rely on the consortship strategy to secure matings.
> 
> ...Because alpha and high-ranking males copulate more frequently than low-ranking males in the periovulatory period , they may experience sperm depletion due to constraints on sperm production.... Sperm depletion in high-ranking males could enable younger, potentially more potent males to succeed in sperm competition and sire offspring even though they obtain fewer copulations in the conceptive window.


The fact that half the male chimps are completely out of the picture in the above troop means that only 50% of the males are still around to participate. After you adjust for that, we get very close to the Pareto Principle.


----------



## Machiavelli

always_alone said:


> Islam is not a singular monolithic philosophy, but *a mix that also embraces progressive ideals.* It isn't all burquas and confinement.


Now, you've sparked my curiosity: Which "progressive ideals" would those be?


----------



## Machiavelli

lovelygirl said:


> You consider George Clooney an "alpha" just because he's approached by many women?
> 
> Hhm..I don't think so.
> 
> Plus, I've never seen him as an alpha anyway.


It depends on if he's in high demand as a sex partner and he is willing to deliver the goods; i.e. actually meets the demand. In chimps, and in Vox Day's socio-sexual hierarchy, the Alpha is also the guy other males step aside for: the head chimp in charge, as it were. Betas are the second tier males. Day also posits a very high scoring Sigma male, which would be a male outside the social hierarchy of other males subservient to the alpha.


----------



## treyvion

always_alone said:


> Ah, yes, the chimps, the model all us humans should look up to!
> 
> Okay, why not? Let's take a stroll down the evolutionary ladder:
> 
> First, your numbers are off. Rank does seem to correlate with reproductive success, but at nowhere near the ratios you imagine. More than half of all males in one group sired offspring, for example.
> 
> Now true, the Alpha did sire more. With -- wait for it -- older females. Because, it would seem that while young males are overall very successful in the mating arena, chimps prefer older women.
> 
> And note that these females too are playing on the side. Much more difficult to call it polygyny when the females also choose multiple partners, isn't it?
> 
> Because they do, and it turns out, many will prefer the lower rank males over the alpha.
> 
> Personally, I think it's because all the alpha chest beating gets tiresome pretty quick. Better to slip away with a young sweet beta, and have a wild old time.
> 
> Male dominance rank and reproductive success in chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii


I saw this exact study being done on film. Yes the Alpha's were banging half the female chimps or more. But the female chimps were sneaky. When the alpha had his head turned, they would often tuft their rear out towards a beta who was hiding in the shadows. It would be a quick conjugation, not even one minute. But she'd keep up appearances for the alpha.


----------



## Machiavelli

JCD said:


> You want to see a marital hypocrite? Julius Caesar, Henry the II, John Lackland, Pope Alexander IV, any French king you can name, any Tsar you can name. But very few of them felt legally secure enough to be totally indiscrete...which takes a little starch out of the toothlessness of 'legal monogamy' argument.
> 
> Don't blame it on the Puritans.


Excellent points, JCD. However, the only political problem for the above men was* adultery*, not side action per se.


----------



## Machiavelli

always_alone said:


> Point taken, and I can't argue that patriarchal power has worked hard to control women and our sexuality over the past few centuries.


Civilization probably cannot exist beyond the chimpanzee level when females are allowed to become sexually feral and indulge their nature, due to their tendency to flock to the most desired males. This is probably why monogamous societies tend to be more successful than polygynous societies. 



always_alone said:


> But notice that most of your examples reflect Christianity in its heyday of conquest and world power.


Neither Caesar nor Genghis Khan nor Mohammed nor Xerxes nor Alexander had anything to with Christianity, but they all had a lot of women. Only Alexander and Caesar were legally monogamous. But we could play the conquest game forever. All conquerors have a fair hold on the young maiden market.




always_alone said:


> It may not be just the Puritans, but the idea that men alone are forgivably promiscuous is a product of particular religions and worldviews that demonize women's sexuality.


Nope. The Puritans and some other reformers, unlike those who came before, limited male sexuality to monogamous marriage, once that marriage was undertaken.



always_alone said:


> Because these religions have had a great deal of success at taking over the world, one might be tempted to assume that their views are universal. But they most certainly are not.


You mean you don't worship Zeus? Alexander will be disappointed. How about Jupiter or Venus?


----------



## ocotillo

always_alone said:


> Yes, fair enough. And maybe the Qu'ran is more consistent its misogyny. But much like Christianity, Islam is not a singular monolithic philosophy, but a mix that also embraces progressive ideals. It isn't all burquas and confinement.


My comment wasn't about Christianity so much as it was about the bible as a piece of literature. I'm not a Christian apologist by any stretch of the imagination. 

If we just take the stories at face value without getting into the historicity of them, the picture that is painted of Jesus is extremely progressive. Jewish men at the time didn't even speak to their own wives in public

Jesus of the bible openly speaks to women as equals, he discusses theology with them, he does not shame them because their sexual past, he greatly restricts the ability of a man to divorce his wife and he advocates monogamy; all of which were very unusual things in his culture.


----------



## always_alone

Machiavelli said:


> The fact that half the male chimps are completely out of the picture in the above troop means that only 50% of the males are still around to participate. After you adjust for that, we get very close to the Pareto Principle.


That's some wonky math.

If the so-called alpha group also contains betas, sigmas, gammas, indeed everyone but the lowly zetas, then it simply is no longer the 20% exclusive club, and so no surprise at all that they sire the majority of children. 

You can't have it both ways. Either the alpha really is defined as the select dominant 20% in which case, they get nowhere near 80% of the action. Or "alpha" is defined as that group getting 80% of the action, in which case it includes many betas and others as well.

The Pareto Principle is utterly ad hoc, and mostly misused.

Oh, and read the studies: many females *prefer* the lower ranks and will flat out reject alpha advances.


----------



## always_alone

Machiavelli said:


> Neither Caesar nor Genghis Khan nor Mohammed nor Xerxes nor Alexander had anything to with Christianity, but they all had a lot of women.


Women don't "flock" to conquerors, they are rounded up and roped in. But JCD already hashed this out with you'll and sonic won't bother except to add one thought:

It's true that some men do seem to have many women throwing themselves at them, but it's not the v-torso or chest thumping, as you imagine. Just ask Mick Jagger.


----------



## creative

I believe it comes down to how the man feels and thinks. If he feels confident, understands the needs of a woman but comes off unneedy himself, knows what his heart wants and is creative enough to go out to get it, then I believe he has the motivation and desire to pursue a woman who he wants. However, if he knows what he wants then he will select the woman who matches up to his own beliefs and values. I think the myth of a particular guy being the 'Alpha male' is a misguided belief. There are guys who manage their limitations and issues and understand that if they do have these issues, it will be brought into a relationship, so it becomes the woman's issue to burden. Sure that is what relationships about is the security and support of our own personal vulnerabilities, & taken on our partners issues is part of the connection. However woman have had plenty of experience to 'weed' out the guys who feel they don't match up to them. Purhaps some woman are after confident, secure (emotionally, psychologically, financially, sexually, and/or spiritually), a leader, a man who is tuned into his feminine and masculine sides, or what ever traits they are looking for. So I feel instead of thinking that some men are the top dogs, educate and understand about the needs for woman and know what your heart wants, then you will find the right woman and not just any. Remember we only have this life, it's not a dress rehearsal so learn, love and let go.


----------



## whitehawk

Ah , none of it matters anyway. We can't all be alphas or even wanna be just to impress a female and they can't all have stunning model looks and this or that personality type.
There's a billion different combination's of personality , looks , bodies , couple combination's, lifestyles and much much more out there. 
Anything can work and anything can happen , it is everywhere you look.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> It's true that some men do seem to have many women throwing themselves at them, but it's not the v-torso or chest thumping, as you imagine. Just ask Mick Jagger.


And I suppose that a woman's hourglass , sexy , curvy and perfectly proportioned shape doesn't attract lots of male attention either...


----------



## whitehawk

l reckon there's 2 main things , for women or men , that seem to attract a lot more than usual from the opposite sex .
Yeah sure , looks will do it . But you do notice to not all good looking people can attract the opposite sex .
And then there's a personality type come just plain sex appeal aroma type thing but there may not be looks. Just some kinda sex appeal that attracts .
You see both types attracting way more than usual.


----------



## samyeagar

whitehawk said:


> l reckon there's 2 main things , for women or men , that seem to attract a lot more than usual from the opposite sex .
> Yeah sure , looks will do it . But you do notice to not all good looking people can attract the opposite sex .
> And then there's a personality type come just plain sex appeal aroma type thing but there may not be looks. Just some kinda sex appeal that attracts .
> You see both types attracting way more than usual.


Status of the attractor, and not really caring about being special of the attractee.

We see it all the time in both sexes. Athletes, movie and TV stars, 15 minutes of famers, many who are well know to be average at best in looks, and abusers, players, all around a$$holes, and still have them lined up around the block.


----------



## Machiavelli

ocotillo said:


> Jesus of the bible openly speaks to women as equals,


Jesus to Samaritan woman: "Give me a drink."



ocotillo said:


> he discusses theology with them, he does not shame them because their sexual past,


Are you aware of any women Jesus interacted with who were clearly in violation of the sex laws of the Pentateuch? None come immediately to mind.



ocotillo said:


> he greatly restricts the ability of a man to divorce his wife


What he restricts is rotating wives out of the harem to make way for younger and hotter. Something already addressed twice in the Old Testament, but more forcefully and specifically by Jesus.



ocotillo said:


> and he advocates monogamy;


He does not, despite being given a golden opportunity to do so by the Sadducees.


----------



## Machiavelli

always_alone said:


> Women don't "flock" to conquerors, they are rounded up and roped in.


LOL. And what a golden opportunity it was to be roped in. What better way to get high status in the hen pecking order. Concubine to the Emperor or maybe even Queen and maybe even Queen Mother to the next king. And yes, women who aren't roped in still flock to the king and they would sell their own husbands for the opportunity as they have done for 1000s of years in every corner of the globe. Have you ever read history?



always_alone said:


> It's true that some men do seem to have many women throwing themselves at them, but it's not the v-torso or chest thumping, as you imagine. Just ask Mick Jagger.


Mick Jagger could not laid. Gene Simmons could not get laid. I could go on all day, with these. And they'll be happy to tell you about it. Mick even wrote a hit song about it. But once you're on stage, you don't have to have a hit record, all that changes.

Mick is the Genghis Kahn of the rock era.


----------



## samyeagar

Machiavelli said:


> LOL. And what a golden opportunity it was to be roped in. What better way to get high status in the hen pecking order. Concubine to the Emperor or maybe even Queen and maybe even Queen Mother to the next king. And yes, women who aren't roped in still flock to the king and they would sell their own husbands for the opportunity as they have done for 1000s of years in every corner of the globe. Have you ever read history?
> 
> 
> 
> Mick Jagger could not laid. Gene Simmons could not get laid. I could go on all day, with these. And they'll be happy to tell you about it. Mick even wrote a hit song about it. But once you're on stage, you don't have to have a hit record, all that changes.
> 
> Mick is the Genghis Kahn of the rock era.


And they can even come right out and say they do it for the money and to get laid...attitudes many, if not most women say they don't like, yet there is still an endless line of them waiting for their turn to have the rock star bang them.


----------



## Machiavelli

always_alone said:


> JCD, let me clarify that I'm not disagreeing with much of what you say. I'm just pointing out that one assumption you seem to hold in common with Mach is the patriarchal one that all of this is up to men to decide, and women are just ornamental pawns waiting to be put in their proper place.


Ultimately, nothing happens in the course of human society, unless men agree, for whatever reason, to either do it or allow it to happen. I have ancestry in two Native American matriarchal societies and that was even the case back then.



always_alone said:


> My only point is that oppression of women and our sexuality is neither universal, nor essential. As such, it is worth consideration in our analysis of what counts as natural and what is purely political in our marital and sexual relationships.


I don't consider the natural order to be oppressive, although the women of the Seneca Falls era used the phrase "the tyranny of nature." I do consider those who promote delayed marriage and childbirth as being opposed to the natural reproductive order. That's what sounds like oppression to me.


----------



## Machiavelli

samyeagar said:


> And they can even come right out and say they do it for the money and to get laid...attitudes many, if not most women say they don't like, yet there is still an endless line of them waiting for their turn to have the rock star bang them.


Because it raises their status. They can say "I fooked Elvis" to all their friends. Before I went to college and really became aware of the female pecking order (aside from high school cheerleaders), I thought women were quiet among each other about who they had banged, just as young "gentlemen" are taught to be. Ha!


----------



## Machiavelli

whitehawk said:


> l reckon there's 2 main things , for women or men , that seem to attract a lot more than usual from the opposite sex .
> Yeah sure , looks will do it . But you do notice to not all good looking people can attract the opposite sex .


No. I've never noticed that. I've never known of a good looking woman that has trouble getting all the sex she wants.



whitehawk said:


> And then there's a personality type come just plain sex appeal aroma type thing but there may not be looks. Just some kinda sex appeal that attracts .
> You see both types attracting way more than usual.


A woman can get all the sex she wants, provided she's not super obese. And men are even willing to pay for it, in spite or her rotten teeth and facial sores.


----------



## ocotillo

Machiavelli said:


> Jesus to Samaritan woman: "Give me a drink."


The Jesus character very likely was not speaking Koine Greek, but that's all we have to go on. In Greek there is a nuance to, "διδωμι" involving the ideas of charity or gift giving so I would translate "Δοϛ μοι πιεϊν" more along the lines of "Will you give me a drink" or "Please give me a drink" and a number of modern translations offer this rendering. 




Machiavelli said:


> Are you aware of any women Jesus interacted with who were clearly in violation of the sex laws of the Pentateuch? None come immediately to mind.


I've been agnostic since about my late teens, but was raised Jewish and because of that have to say that restricting ourselves to the Pentateuch in discussing Jewish culture at or around the 1st century would be beyond ludicrous.  

Most Jewish scholars today believe that the Jesus character was probably a liberal Pharisee, possibly allied in some way with the school of _Bet' Hillel_ and the evidence is actually pretty compelling when laid end to end. Christians are generally inclined to snort at the very idea, but it's still undeniable that the Jesus character does bow to the Oral Law here and there. Probably the most striking and least debatable from a Christian perspective is in adherence to the principle of _pikuach nefesh_, which renders the Sabbath either _hutra_ or _dechuya_.

With that in mind, Jesus in the Johannine account urges leniency towards a woman accused of adultery; he shames the crowd instead of shaming her, explicitly telling her, "Ουδε εγω σε κατακρινω." The Samaritan woman herself was not in a marriage a Pharisee would have recognized. In the Lukan account he accepts the gift and ministrations of a woman most likely a prostitute.




Machiavelli said:


> What he restricts is rotating wives out of the harem to make way for younger and hotter. Something already addressed twice in the Old Testament, but more forcefully and specifically by Jesus.


I agree that this facet was addressed in the OT, but also would add that Jewish culture had evolved somewhat by Roman times. If you take away the attrition of men and influx of women through war and couple that with Jewish endogamy, proscription of castration and hereditary inheritance customs, polygamy becomes unsustainable as the norm. Certainly it occurred as Josephus and Justin Martyr both observed, but there are plenty of indications that it was the exception. You can start to see the cultural progression even in Pre-Maccabean times in the Tanakh where plural marriages seem to have a negative flavor when they are portrayed by Ezekiel and others. 




Machiavelli said:


> He does not, despite being given a golden opportunity to do so by the Sadducees.


I would say that when a Jewish Rabbi states that the pattern in the Adam and Eve story is what G-d intended; that the "two will become one flesh," etc. that his meaning is pretty clear. Certainly that's not a condemnation of polygamy, which the Jesus character certainly could have done and did not, but I would still describe it as advocating monogamy.


----------



## Deejo

Well hot damn, we haven't had one of these for quite some time.

I have seen preselection work. And basically, those guys don't need to work at all. Women find them. 

But ... I certainly do not believe that is most men.


----------



## always_alone

Machiavelli said:


> LOL. And what a golden opportunity it was to be roped in. What better way to get high status in the hen pecking order. Concubine to the Emperor or maybe even Queen and maybe even Queen Mother to the next king. And yes, women who aren't roped in still flock to the king and they would sell their own husbands for the opportunity as they have done for 1000s of years in every corner of the globe. Have you ever read history?


What you describe happens, no doubt. And in many ways, in many places throughout history. No one can deny that patriarchy has prevailed for a very long time, all over the globe. No one can deny that many societies have allowed men to keep many wives, or treated women like property, or that there are still many males who feel that they are entitled to all of this because it is the "natural order".

Trouble is, once you start scrutinizing the details, your simplistic and reductionistic explanations of these historical phenomena don't stand up.


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> Jesus of the bible openly speaks to women as equals, he discusses theology with them, he does not shame them because their sexual past, he greatly restricts the ability of a man to divorce his wife and he advocates monogamy; all of which were very unusual things in his culture.


Interesting!

Some interpretations will say this of Muhammed as well, that he would converse readily with women about spiritual matters, and placed women in leadership positions. While he was allowed to have as many wives as he wanted, he almost exclusively chose those who would be shamed and ostracized elsewhere.

And in the Qu'ran, the problem of original sin is not blamed solely on the woman.


----------



## heartsbeating

Deejo said:


> Well hot damn, we haven't had one of these for quite some time.
> 
> I have seen preselection work. And basically, those guys don't need to work at all. Women find them.
> 
> But ... I certainly do not believe that is most men.


Your post reminded me of this quote I read recently. Although I think it could apply to both men and women.

'The flower doesn't dream of the bee. It blossoms and the bee comes.'


----------



## Machiavelli

ocotillo said:


> The Jesus character very likely was not speaking Koine Greek, but that's all we have to go on. In Greek there is a nuance to, "διδωμι" involving the ideas of charity or gift giving so I would translate "Δοϛ μοι πιεϊν" more along the lines of "Will you give me a drink" or "Please give me a drink" and a number of modern translations offer this rendering.


Which is why I chose the KJV and not some other translation which reflected more nuance. 



ocotillo said:


> I've been agnostic since about my late teens, but was raised Jewish and because of that have to say that *restricting ourselves to the Pentateuch in discussing Jewish culture at or around the 1st century would be beyond ludicrous.*


It is for you, but not for me. Judean/Hebrew/Jewish culture in the time of the Greeks and Romans was somewhat influenced by outside ideas and some pretty far out groups and innovations, like the sexual asceticism we see with the Essenes. Since I approach it from a Christian sola scriptura angle that posits Jesus as the almighty incarnate, I see his stuff as being in consistency with the original written prohibitions, rather than being influenced by innovations. 

There is a lot of emerging scholarship on this early era of the birth of Rabbinical Judaism and Christianity that is extremely interesting.



ocotillo said:


> Most Jewish scholars today believe that the Jesus character was probably a liberal Pharisee, possibly allied in some way with the school of _Bet' Hillel_ and the evidence is actually pretty compelling when laid end to end. Christians are generally inclined to snort at the very idea, but it's still undeniable that the Jesus character does bow to the Oral Law here and there. Probably the most striking and least debatable from a Christian perspective is in adherence to the principle of _pikuach nefesh_, which renders the Sabbath either _hutra_ or _dechuya_.


Jesus himself implies that the current Pharisaical standard in his day was the "ox is in the ditch." That's quite a bit more lenient standard than the pikuach nefesh. 



ocotillo said:


> With that in mind, Jesus in the Johannine account urges leniency towards a woman accused of adultery; he shames the crowd instead of shaming her, explicitly telling her, "Ουδε εγω σε κατακρινω."


Who held the authority for the death penalty in the Roman province of Judea? Do you really think Jesus, a marked man already, is going to authorize an extra judicial execution?



ocotillo said:


> The Samaritan woman herself was not in a marriage a Pharisee would have recognized.


Jesus didn't recognize her as married, since he said she wasn't married to the man she was living with, but is that a violation of the Pentateuch? No. Not to mention God commanded the prophet Elijah to live with a young widow for "many months" in what appears to be very close quarters. Nor does Jesus tell the Samaritan woman "go and send no more." He points out her five husbands (who all may have been legitimate - the text doesn't say) as a means of getting her attention, not convicting her for any misbehavior.



ocotillo said:


> In the Lukan account he accepts the gift and ministrations of a woman most likely a prostitute.


So what? The only problem I can see with the Mosaic Law and a prostitute would be if she were a kedesha or the daughter of a priest. Now, it obviously violated some social norm that had evolved in society, but that's kind of the point, isn't it?



ocotillo said:


> I agree that this facet was addressed in the OT, but also would add that Jewish culture had evolved somewhat by Roman times. If you take away the attrition of men and influx of women through war and couple that with Jewish endogamy, proscription of castration and hereditary inheritance customs, polygamy becomes unsustainable as the norm. Certainly it occurred as Josephus and Justin Martyr both observed, but there are plenty of indications that it was the exception.


You sound like a priest defending what Augustine called "a Roman custom;" i.e. monogamy. Polygyny persisted in the ashkenazi world up to Gershom's proscription about 1000 AD, IIRC and it's still lawful for the Sephardim, unless I'm mistaken. And female slaves were certainly not off limits. Since only about 30% of males in Roman times were able to successfully reproduce, many males were not in the marriage market at all due to slavery, and that's before we consider the situation of violent demise. There were a surfeit of available women. In the ancient world, it is generally estimated, about 30% of the adult women were widows at any given point in time. These guys who write about reproduction in the ancient world like that percentage a lot.



ocotillo said:


> You can start to see the cultural progression even in Pre-Maccabean times in the Tanakh where plural marriages seem to have a negative flavor when they are portrayed by Ezekiel and others.


The Almighty is portrayed by "Ezekiel and others" as the husband of two wives, Israel and Judah. So, I really don't see a problem, yet another clear endorsement of the concept, in my view.



ocotillo said:


> I would say that when a Jewish Rabbi states that the pattern in the Adam and Eve story is what G-d intended; that the "two will become one flesh," etc. that his meaning is pretty clear.


But not all Rabbis agree. It's a shock, I know.



Jerusalem Post said:


> The whole notion of monogamy is not an essentially Jewish one, [Rabbi] Sopher stressed. “This [polygamy] is very acceptable in our religion, it’s religious coercion from the establishment under the influence of Catholicism that prevents about 15 percent of women in their fertile age from marrying,” he said.


Aside from those truths pointed out by the good Rabbi, if monogamy was in fact the original plan, it didn't survive Chapter Three any better than the originally intended nudity.



ocotillo said:


> Certainly that's not a condemnation of polygamy, which the Jesus character certainly could have done and did not, but I would still describe it as advocating monogamy.


You are not alone in your assessment; it's the predominant Christian view since 318 AD, but I don't see it as having any biblical basis. I think monogamy has been a good thing for the western world, but it is already on the way out.


----------



## Machiavelli

always_alone said:


> That's some wonky math.
> 
> If the so-called alpha group also contains betas, sigmas, gammas, indeed everyone but the lowly zetas, then it simply is no longer the 20% exclusive club, and so no surprise at all that they sire the majority of children.


Nope. I think you must mean the omegas. Zeta is not a category. There is only one alpha in a troop and one or two betas.



always_alone said:


> You can't have it both ways. Either the alpha really is defined as the select dominant 20% in which case, they get nowhere near 80% of the action. Or "alpha" is defined as that group getting 80% of the action, in which case it includes many betas and others as well.


The alpha can only make up the 20% solo if the troop only contains five males and none of these troops studied was that small, so obviously more than just the alpha reproduces. Nobody is saying that only an alpha gets laid or that alphas get 80% of the reproduction (it's around 30% in all these without adjusting for close relatives - 40% after adjustment). Alphas and Betas combined approach 80% of the offspring.



always_alone said:


> The Pareto Principle is utterly ad hoc, and mostly misused.


If you have a hypothetical troop of 24 males born and 12 of them are driven off or die, you still have to include the missing 12 to determine the percentage of males (approx 20%) who successfully reproduced.



always_alone said:


> Oh, and read the studies: many females *prefer* the lower ranks and will flat out reject alpha advances.


Just as in humans. Remember, 20% of the offspring come from the other 80%. Have you seen this chart?


----------



## JCD

Machiavelli said:


> Jesus to Samaritan woman: "Give me a drink."
> 
> 
> 
> Are you aware of any women Jesus interacted with who were clearly in violation of the sex laws of the Pentateuch? None come immediately to mind.
> 
> 
> 
> What he restricts is rotating wives out of the harem to make way for younger and hotter. Something already addressed twice in the Old Testament, but more forcefully and specifically by Jesus.
> 
> 
> 
> He does not, despite being given a golden opportunity to do so by the Sadducees.



Quibbles.



Machiavelli said:


> LOL. And what a golden opportunity it was to be roped in. What better way to get high status in the hen pecking order. Concubine to the Emperor or maybe even Queen and maybe even Queen Mother to the next king. And yes, women who aren't roped in still flock to the king and they would sell their own husbands for the opportunity as they have done for 1000s of years in every corner of the globe. Have you ever read history?
> 
> 
> 
> Mick Jagger could not laid. Gene Simmons could not get laid. I could go on all day, with these. And they'll be happy to tell you about it. Mick even wrote a hit song about it. But once you're on stage, you don't have to have a hit record, all that changes.
> 
> Mick is the Genghis Kahn of the rock era.


What assumptions you make! "Hi. I'm Udon, Under Lieutenant of the Golden Horde. How are you? Fine fine. I notice your 16 year old daughter has some very nice golden hair. Who is that she is with? Her fiancé?"
(makes gesture...gurgling sound in the distance).

"Well, that's fixed! She sure cries a lot! You need to talk to her about that. The Khan hates whiners! I'm going to have a bunch of harridans examine your daughter for virginity. If she lives...I mean passes that test, we're going to give you this golden opportunity! Now follow me here! We are taking the one asset you have of any worth, that one you were planning on setting up a decent match here so it could actually further your status and future, and I'm going to drag her off a thousand miles so she can marry The Great One, who is getting a little long in the tooth so we need to find something...novel...like blonde hair. Hope the Khan likes blondes, because if he doesn't well...it's the chop for me...oh...and I guess her as well. Damn I hate this assignment."

"So...she gets to go off and be...(checks document) Lesser Under Concubine #3789 with no legal representation, inheritance rights or support. Come ON! She's isn't Mongol! So...she gets to live away from all men except the Khan and if she pleases him, she can stay there and have a few bastards with the Khan. They'll be well taken care of...if they keep pleasing him. How well does she age? Now, I know she's at a bit of a disadvantage what with not being able to speak to him...is she a quick study with languages? No? (Mulls) Well...I got a quota here. We'll take her anyway. I hope she can learn how to sexually satisfy the Khan quickly. What if she doesn't please him? You don't want to know. You really don't."

"So say your goodbyes. You'll never see her or any grandbabies she'll have. What? You want something for her? How about your miserable lives?"

Gee Mach...sign me up for THAT!

This is not to say that when the Women Collecting Team number 16 got into town, they didn't prefer volunteers. But a quota is a quota. If they found a girl who preferred an alpha FROM HER OWN VILLAGE, I don't believe they particularly gave a rat's ass if they thought she might please the Khan and possibly up their own status.

And here is the thing. It wasn't just the Khan. Every single other General probably down to colonel was doing the same thing...and some were probably a lot less picky about the 'rape' thing.

The Horde et al was not known for it's manners.


----------



## always_alone

Machiavelli said:


> The alpha can only make up the 20% solo if the troop only contains five males and none of these troops studied was that small, so obviously more than just the alpha reproduces. Nobody is saying that only an alpha gets laid or that alphas get 80% of the reproduction (it's around 30% in all these without adjusting for close relatives - 40% after adjustment). Alphas and Betas combined approach 80% of the offspring.


Yes, exactly my point: your 80/20 ratio does not hold up. If you observe only 20%, then they are simply not producing 80% of offspring --only 30%. If you widen your group so that it really does account for 80% of offspring, all of a sudden, the group is more than 20%. Closer to 60%

Fact is, animal and evolutionary research does not support your claims, and the "priority of access" model has limited predictive and explanatory value.


----------



## JCD

always_alone said:


> Yes, exactly my point: your 80/20 ratio does not hold up. If you observe only 20%, then they are simply not producing 80% of offspring --only 30%. If you widen your group so that it really does account for 80% of offspring, all of a sudden, the group is more than 20%. Closer to 60%
> 
> Fact is, animal and evolutionary research does not support your claims, and the "priority of access" model has limited predictive and explanatory value.


Humans are not chimps and we have to deal with a greater range of social dynamics and consequences than chimps do.

Also, men ask a lot more questions. A roll in the grass to remove the smells isn't going to remove all doubts from a husbands mind.


----------



## always_alone

JCD said:


> Humans are not chimps and we have to deal with a greater range of social dynamics and consequences than chimps do.


Yes, agreed. The chimp studies were introduced merely to show that what is being asserted as the "natural order" for all of evolutionary history simply isn't. 



JCD said:


> Also, men ask a lot more questions. A roll in the grass to remove the smells isn't going to remove all doubts from a husbands mind.


And so?


----------



## JCD

always_alone said:


> Yes, agreed. The chimp studies were introduced merely to show that what is being asserted as the "natural order" for all of evolutionary history simply isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> And so?


Not much. More a comment on Mach's assertions.


----------



## JCD

Machiavelli said:


> If you have a hypothetical troop of 24 males born and 12 of them are driven off or die, you still have to include the missing 12 to determine the percentage of males (approx 20%) who successfully reproduced.
> 
> 
> 
> Just as in humans. Remember, 20% of the offspring come from the other 80%. Have you seen this chart?


Umm...here is the problem with your chart, Mach.

IF we buy into your assumptions of Alpha Superiority, what we should see is several male 'hubs' with a star cluster of women around them as the high value girls work their panties off to score with 'the alpha ****'.

And yet we don't see that at ALL! Now, these are teenagers, so they aren't that socially and rationally developed and inexperienced. But that means they should be CLOSER to chimps, not farther in behavior. Because a sophisticated lady of some experience will have a dozen reasons to not value an alpha which override her 'V-philia'. These hormone drenched teens should be more open to the status and V nature of sex.


If you examine this chart for more than 5 seconds, you see the 'multiple' branchings of 4+ partners mostly centered around a pink dot (girl). They are the majority, not a man who has multiples.

Now, that being said, there are several men who have had 3 or more partners.

I did a quick and dirty count of folks with three or more partners. The girls had 44 people who had three or more partners. The guys had 41. 

One man had 9 partners. There was one or two other men who had 5 or some such. But there are FIVE girls who had 5 partners and many more girls had 4 partners than men (who tended towards three in multiples)

How do you explain this chart in light of your assertions?


----------



## ocotillo

Machiavelli said:


> Which is why I chose the KJV and not some other translation which reflected more nuance.


Even in the AV, "Give me a drink" (Which is actually not a literal translation either) can be construed in a number of ways ranging from an imperative to a simple request. I've pointed out the textual basis for viewing it as the latter rather than the former and I'm not sure how to respond further, especially given the wealth of Christian commentary on that particular conversation. Do you believe that Jesus was being brusque, impolite, treating her has an inferior, etc.? If so, why?




Machiavelli said:


> It is for you, but not for me. Judean/Hebrew/Jewish culture in the time of the Greeks and Romans was somewhat influenced by outside ideas and some pretty far out groups and innovations, like the sexual asceticism we see with the Essenes.


I would agree with you without hesitation that Judaism and Jewish culture were not homogenous at the time. From a Jewish perspective groups like the Sadducees, Zealots, Sicarii, etc. are more of an historical curiosity than anything else because they all died out and only liberal Phariseeism survived as a continuing entity. 

Strictly from a Christian perspective though, how relevant are a group like the Essenes to a discussion about Jesus of the bible? The controversy pericopes are primarily arguments over how the Law should or should not be kept, specifically in light of the Pharisee belief that the written law could not be understood apart from the oral law. Later rabbinic innovations (And there were plenty of them by the 1st century) become a contextual backdrop of the discussions regardless of whether we actually agree with them or not.




Machiavelli said:


> Since I approach it from a Christian sola scriptura angle that posits Jesus as the almighty incarnate, I see his stuff as being in consistency with the original written prohibitions, rather than being influenced by innovations.


I understand and that's why I mentioned _pikuach nefesh_. The term is a semantic allusion to the conundrum that would occur if an occupied building were to collapse on the Sabbath. You can go through the Pentateuch from start to finish and you're not going to find any explicit guidance on what to do. 

That the Sabbath would be immediately suspended and more importantly, the reasoning as to why it was suspended is a later rabbinic innovation, eventually codified in the Mishnah as one of the highest of all mitzvoth. Jesus of the bible not only agrees with the reasoning and makes the same argument himself, (cf. Mark 3:1-6, Luke 6:6-11, Matthew 12:9-13) he doesn't seem to feel that it was being taken far enough. So in this instance (At least) he's outside of the Pentateuch and not really at odds with the oral law and its purpose at all. 




Machiavelli said:


> Jesus himself implies that the current Pharisaical standard in his day was the "ox is in the ditch." That's quite a bit more lenient standard than the pikuach nefesh.


Phariseeism at the time was acrimoniously divided into liberal and conservative factions. In rabbinic literature, these were known as the schools of Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai. It's undeniable that Jesus of the bible does not get along so well with some of the Pharisees, but at the same time it's also undeniable that Jesus of the bible is repeatedly extended (And accepts) the dinner invitations of Pharisees (Luke 7:36; 11:37; 14:1) despite that fact that it was forbidden for them to dine or fellowship with anyone outside of their order, (cf. Berakot 43b) It was also the Pharisees (Who allegedly wanted him dead) who warn Jesus of Herod's intent to kill him (Luke 13:31; cf. Acts 5:34) and it was also Pharisees who were among the earliest converts to Christianity, so relationships with them are not actually all bad. 



Machiavelli said:


> Who held the authority for the death penalty in the Roman province of Judea?


The Romans held the formal power of execution. The incident comes across to me as street justice of the worst sort rather than a formal legal proceeding though. Jesus doesn't disperse them by pointing out that what they wanted to do was illegal, he disperses them by shaming them out of it, which is more the tactic an altruistic person might attempt with a lynch mob. 



Machiavelli said:


> Do you really think Jesus, a marked man already, is going to authorize an extra judicial execution?


The Jesus character doesn't strike me as someone terribly afraid of what the Romans might think or do. I would imagine this would go double if you believe that he was God incarnate. It seems like one who accepts this would believe he's going to do what's righteous and just regardless of what fallen humans think, but maybe there's some piece of the Christian perspective I'm missing here. 

From the balance of your comments, I suspect that perhaps I've not communicated clearly because I don't really see the disagreement. 

For example:



Machiavelli said:


> So what? The only problem I can see with the Mosaic Law and a prostitute would be if she were a kedesha or the daughter of a priest. Now, it obviously violated some social norm that had evolved in society, but that's kind of the point, isn't it?


Yes. That is exactly the point. The "What" is that he was a guest in the home of a Pharisee and this was a serious social _faux pas_ in that context. And that ties directly to the assertion that Jesus' views of women were liberal and progressive in the time and place in which they occurred.


----------



## Machiavelli

JCD said:


> Quibbles.
> 
> ...snip...The Horde et al was not known for it's manners.


And Mick isn't known for being a tough guy, but he has had plenty of opportunity to pass along his genes. And if you think the Khan's top lieutenants weren't interested in having one of their daughters in his harem, you're sadly mistaken. 

What's best in life?


----------



## JCD

Machiavelli said:


> And Mick isn't known for being a tough guy, but he has had plenty of opportunity to pass along his genes. And if you think the Khan's top lieutenants weren't interested in having one of their daughters in his harem, you're sadly mistaken.
> 
> What's best in life?


Perhaps I am not understanding your point. 

Your assertion seems to be: 

-women are almost uncontrollably attracted to the V, so much so they behave in egregious fashion whether married or not

-power in the past came from the tip of a sword, so many (if not most) people in power were warriors, and hence much more likely to have a V. Hence be sexually desirable from a physical AND power position.

-so because we are also descended from chimps, and THEY are naturally polygamous, polygamy is OUR natural order and birthright as well. That the 'superior' 20% of men do (and SHOULD) get 80% of women (that you put yourself in this category is pretty evident) That it is only the UNnatural application of Christianity and other stuff which is 'messing with the natural order'

My counter assertion is this: that system only works in a limited number of scenarios: 

1) that there is a large gender disparity, such as post war Japan, substance abuse (see Siberia today) or some other situation where the men put themselves outside of being 'marriagable' (poverty or San Francisco) 

2) The warrior/political elite is willing to maim and kill to keep their pseudo monopoly (i.e. dictatorship or other oppressive form of government...and yes, I am putting chiefdom's down as this as well) So essentially, these cultures you seemingly laud are the functional equivalents of school yard bullies. "I get what I want, I get what you want, and you can suck it or I'll beat you up." If I were a mesomorph with good reflexes, I would like that kind of deal too! Sucks to be you if you lost the genetic lottery...cause it seems you will continue to lose it as the huge guys continue to grab all the best gened girls.

That these are LIMITED scenarios doesn't mean they were RARE scenarios, cause bullies are gonna bully and they always want moah!

I further said when democratic political systems, philosophies or situations came up (Phalanx), the little guy was able to tell the bullies...sorry, I mean 'alpha males', 'no, I think I deserve a woman too.' AND make it stick. The nobles of those times thought it was 'disrupting the natural order too.'

Sam Colt pretty much put paid to those days, btw. They aren't coming back.

And that's the thing: your V-ochracy doesn't last more than a few generations. What happens is that the bullies...I mean alpha males realize that a) they get old and younger V's could and should, according to your doctrine, kill them and take THEIR stuff and daughters and b) the bullies....sorry sorry...alpha males realized that their sons would not all be alphas as well. What is the point of gathering stuff if your sons are just going to lose it all? So let's make a 'natural order' today which mean I always get all the chicks if I want them. Oh...and to mollify the swords enforcing my doctrine, let me give them a few chicks and baubles too!

So they LEGALIZED their prerogatives. Now, it wasn't because the Khan had a V. it was because the Khan was the Khan...or the Caesar. HE was given the keys to the army and the ARMY would kill for him if he didn't get his prerogatives.

So much for the V. Then it becomes a crap shoot of to whom you were born. THEY got the babes, not a handsome, cut guy who used to be on top. And Kings not being idiots, they made sure to send such charismatic gents far away to fight...someone. Somewhere without a lot of women to eclipse the kings splendor. Think 'Uriah'. Bet he had a V.

**

And just to point out: Jagger didn't have a V or an alpha personality. So he is a contradiction of your philosophy.

Historically, the Khan liked raping the women of the leaders he killed. He also had all the pretty women pass in front of him, will they or nil they. He picked what he wanted and then sent his left overs to his men. Exactly how much 'volunteering' happens on the part of the woman in these scenarios? None.

Nor is there any 'volunteering' if daddy tells his daughter 'you ARE marrying the Khan'. So much for that hypnotic V.

Now, this is not to say that the V is irrelevant. Lady Chatterley wasn't attracted to Oliver Mellors for his mind. It was his V (and the fact that her handsome husband was crippled and emotionally abusive...but it was ONLY the V that was important, right?) Women DO occasionally do stupid things for a V...just like men occasionally do something stupid for a pair of boobs.


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: The tables have turned.*



JCD said:


> And just to point out: Jagger didn't have a V or an alpha personality. So he is a contradiction of your philosophy.


I believe the 'V' has equivalents in terms of social value, money, fame and power.

You don't necessarily need barn door lats if you can woo her with your artistic creativity, shower her with gifts, walk down the red carpet with her on your arm, or name the latest country you have conquered after her.

Good luck trying to land an hb9 by talking up your kill count in Call of Duty.


----------



## always_alone

JCD said:


> IF we buy into your assumptions of Alpha Superiority, what we should see is several male 'hubs' with a star cluster of women around them as the high value girls work their panties off to score with 'the alpha ****'.
> 
> And yet we don't see that at ALL! Now, these are teenagers, so they aren't that socially and rationally developed and inexperienced. But that means they should be CLOSER to chimps, not farther in behavior. Because a sophisticated lady of some experience will have a dozen reasons to not value an alpha which override her 'V-philia'. These hormone drenched teens should be more open to the status and V nature of sex.
> 
> 
> If you examine this chart for more than 5 seconds, you see the 'multiple' branchings of 4+ partners mostly centered around a pink dot (girl). They are the majority, not a man who has multiples.


This is because men flock to women, of course, and can't wait to join the harem of the high-status female. Men will always go out of their way to compete for her attention and favours.

I'm pretty sure preselection is at work here as well.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> I believe the 'V' has equivalents in terms of social value, money, fame and power.
> 
> You don't necessarily need barn door lats if you can woo her with your artistic creativity, shower her with gifts, walk down the red carpet with her on your arm, or name the latest country you have conquered after her.


And this rather the point isn't it? That there are a goodly number of ways to skin a dead cat?

Just as the v torso isn't necessarily the best body type for strength and survival, it isn't necessarily the best body type for attracting women. And there are a multitude of other attractants, and they aren't always status, money, power.

I get why you want to write off certain individuals as "losers" who need to up their "game" (or whatever), but ultimately I think these superficial glosses of how men and women are programmed to behave and think fail to account for agency, culture, and context.


----------



## Deejo

I actually do believe it is the best body type for attracting women. Needn't mean bodybuilder jacked, just shoulders wider than waist ... if that is all you can bring to the table.

I believe there are other social values and traits which can heavily influence attraction in most women.


----------



## Marduk

JCD said:


> One man had 9 partners. There was one or two other men who had 5 or some such. But there are FIVE girls who had 5 partners and many more girls had 4 partners than men (who tended towards three in multiples)
> 
> How do you explain this chart in light of your assertions?


Just because there's a male sexual hierarchy doesn't mean the female sexual hierarchy doesn't exist.


----------



## JCD

Deejo said:


> I believe the 'V' has equivalents in terms of social value, money, fame and power.
> 
> You don't necessarily need barn door lats if you can woo her with your artistic creativity, shower her with gifts, walk down the red carpet with her on your arm, or name the latest country you have conquered after her.
> 
> Good luck trying to land an hb9 by talking up your kill count in Call of Duty.


That is the point. General Howe, the paramour of Mrs. Loring, was not very fit. But he was a gentleman, wealthy, had a title and had command of an army. And a pooch of a stomach.

Howard Stern somehow 'got game' as did Gene Simmons. Neither are particularly visually appealing. At least to me.

AND...maybe a woman does NOT value being wife 363 for some rich lout. Maybe she wants the quiet pleasures of a home and hearth, with children SHE can raise, and a man who is always home, not coming home every season with a chain of other women behind him.

This is, in V land, crazy talk. THAT woman is obviously in denial. At least as I understand the core of the hardwired sexual attractant argument.


----------



## JCD

marduk said:


> Just because there's a male sexual hierarchy doesn't mean the female sexual hierarchy doesn't exist.


True. But I am also not seeing 20% of the clusters as men and they are not scoring with ANYTHING like 80% of the women.

Now maybe 80% of the women want him. Maybe not.

Just the way Mach talks about it, I expected more male centered epicenters.


----------



## Marduk

Deejo said:


> I actually do believe it is the best body type for attracting women. Needn't mean bodybuilder jacked, just shoulders wider than waist ... if that is all you can bring to the table.
> 
> I believe there are other social values and traits which can heavily influence attraction in most women.


When I considered this, I came up with a series of things that attract women to men. 

My list had a lot of physical, behavioural, and social status traits. The physical traits were actually the easiest to deal with: increase muscle mass and decrease bodyfat to a level that was attractive and not too much of a pain in the ass to do.

Most people can deal with this in 6-18 months of disciplined effort I would think.

The behavioural stuff was harder. Not only did I go through my wardrobe and sort that out, but I had to effect an air of confidently not caring about what my wardrobe was. Be aware of my physicality more, project it. Look people (especially women) in the eye more. Look, but don't ogle. All that kind of stuff.

OK, that was hard, and still a struggle, but doable.

The social status stuff was the hardest, and still my struggle. This is being part of high-status male groupings, doing well at work, etc.

So I started to work my ass off at work more. I don't think making tons of money itself is necessarily the issue here, it's being passionate and driven about your goals, and being successful at executing them.

And that's probably the hardest part.

My advice would be to start with your weakest elements that are the easiest to work on, and note the responses from the women in your life.

The alpha/beta/whatever stuff be damned. There is a male sexual hierarchy, there is a female sexual hierarchy, but the good news is that for us married dudes there's a lot of things you can learn and work on from an anthropological perspective to make your wife all hot and bothered around you. It's not the be all and end all of human reproductive strategies, but it _is_ a strategy that you can understand and leverage to your benefit.

Or not.

And that's one to grow on.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> I actually do believe it is the best body type for attracting women. Needn't mean bodybuilder jacked, just shoulders wider than waist ... if that is all you can bring to the table.


Maybe. Since this is roughly what any man who isn't obese will look like, more or less, there has to be some truth to it. But lots, and I mean lots, of women go for the lean look.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> Just because there's a male sexual hierarchy doesn't mean the female sexual hierarchy doesn't exist.


All of the hierarchy / ranking talk is too simplistic, IMHO. 

If, eg, you think the younger, attractive girls are always the desirable ones, the only ones to rise through the ranks, or to be popular with the boys, well let's just say that history will belie this high school assumption.

Many high-ranking women have been warriors and leaders in their own right, not necessarily a pretty face and a hot bod waiting to be moved around like an ornamental pawn.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> All of the hierarchy / ranking talk is too simplistic, IMHO.
> 
> If, eg, you think the younger, attractive girls are always the desirable ones, the only ones to rise through the ranks, or to be popular with the boys, well let's just say that history will belie this high school assumption.
> 
> Many high-ranking women have been warriors and leaders in their own right, not necessarily a pretty face and a hot bod waiting to be moved around like an ornamental pawn.


Sure, it's too simplistic, and that's kind of my point.

But it still exists. There's a whole world of female sexual hierarchy that I'm just now beginning to understand. There are all kinds of levers and pressures here -- things like the size of the diamonds in your engagement ring, the clothing you wear, the expensive purses... all these broadcast to other females things about their social status.

Breast size is another one -- my buddy's wife just told us over drinks the other night that she gets looked down on by other women because she has a smaller rack. I was shocked/baffled.

Anyway, to say that males don't respond to the female sexual/status signals would also be too simplistic; a high ranking but less attractive woman might be more sought after than a hotter but lower status woman -- like having to choose between a medium-hot woman that happens to be a rich movie star or a woman that is stunningly beautiful but vapid, trashy, and obnoxious. Many men would choose the former, and because at least in part because of the social status boost the men would have.

We're humans. There's pressure to improve our social standing because we're social animals.

But these are pressures, and opportunities to pull levers to seek our goals, not the be all and end all of human happiness or mating strategies.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> Maybe. Since this is roughly what any man who isn't obese will look like, more or less, there has to be some truth to it. But lots, and I mean lots, of women go for the lean look.


I disagree with you here.

I'm in a room of about a dozen males right now, and not including me, maybe two have this kind of body shape. Including me.


----------



## JCD

always_alone said:


> All of the hierarchy / ranking talk is too simplistic, IMHO.
> 
> If, eg, you think the younger, attractive girls are always the desirable ones, the only ones to rise through the ranks, or to be popular with the boys, well let's just say that history will belie this high school assumption.
> 
> Many high-ranking women have been warriors and leaders in their own right, not necessarily a pretty face and a hot bod waiting to be moved around like an ornamental pawn.


According to letter, Ann Boleyn was not a great beauty. She offered...something to Henry VIII. We have no idea what compelled him.

To be popular with the boys is an easy task. All it takes is an off the shoulder dress (off the shoulder and onto the floor, some might say)

There are a number of women who have risen through the ranks and been incredibly powerful. IIRC, since we are Gehghis-centric on this thread, when the men were away, Brote and the other WIVES (not concubines, not lesser women) of the Mongol Khans ruled Karakorum in their absence...and according to the records, they did a pretty good job.

Eleanor, Catherine the Great, Theodora, Elizabeth, Bloody Mary, Boudicca, a couple of Empresses in China.

But before we get too ahistorical, a great many of them started by being thought 'great beauties' and started their rise to the top through marriages.

Studies show that is one of the largest factors in one's career progression, fair or unfair.

That being said, accomplished women of history had to be MORE accomplished, not less, to make it back then.


----------



## JCD

marduk said:


> Sure, it's too simplistic, and that's kind of my point.
> 
> But it still exists. There's a whole world of female sexual hierarchy that I'm just now beginning to understand. There are all kinds of levers and pressures here -- things like the size of the diamonds in your engagement ring, the clothing you wear, the expensive purses... all these broadcast to other females things about their social status.
> 
> Breast size is another one -- my buddy's wife just told us over drinks the other night that she gets looked down on by other women because she has a smaller rack. I was shocked/baffled.
> 
> Anyway, to say that males don't respond to the female sexual/status signals would also be too simplistic; a high ranking but less attractive woman might be more sought after than a hotter but lower status woman -- like having to choose between a medium-hot woman that happens to be a rich movie star or a woman that is stunningly beautiful but vapid, trashy, and obnoxious. Many men would choose the former, and because at least in part because of the social status boost the men would have.
> 
> We're humans. There's pressure to improve our social standing because we're social animals.
> 
> But these are pressures, and opportunities to pull levers to seek our goals, not the be all and end all of human happiness or mating strategies.


I dunno.

In days past, one of the stock phrases in relationships was 'a woman I can take home to mother'.

In these days, that necessity has fallen some in power as has the power of the nuclear family.

Every man has a different weight they put on their partners and what they value. I recall one puppet emperor of Rome, when asked what he wanted in a wife by his sister who actually ran things, just insisted she be hot.

Granted who is he going to find of higher status?

Edited to add: Men put some weight on a woman's status. Probably not as much as SHE puts on her status. Why shouldn't she try to get as much mileage out of her (breast size/hair/status/education) as she can any more than a man might constantly talk up his (V/money/status/sense of humor/Call of Duty score) Again, that varies by individual.


----------



## Marduk

OK I spent my time at the squat rack considering this, and here's some thoughts that passed through my grey matter. They're half formed, so feel free to criticize.

Maybe women are a lot more embedded and reliant on the social matrix than men are. I mean, they seem to bond with a lot more females a lot more deeply then men seem to, and seem to seek support from other females a whole hell of a lot more than men do.

And this would make intuitive sense because women seem to broadcast a lot of social status signals to other women: jewelry, expensive purses, hair styles, clothes... even their men. When I'm in better shape and dressed nicer, I get "shown off" to my wife's girlfriends. Like I'm on display or something. So I'm a signifier of her social status, as well.

Just like men have "trophy wives" women have "trophy husbands," too.

No big shock there, methinks. But here's the flash of insight I wanted to test here:

If women are with high-status women that they want to compete (or at least be part of the pack) one of the ways they do this is sometimes by attracting high-status male attention.

On a GNO, for example... a women that gets hit on by a hot guy just came up in her friend's social status meter. Especially if she's a bit older but still hot (like my wife).

So maybe it's more than just having the male's attention that matters: it's that females notice her getting the male's attention that matters.

And this is why it's so important to understand how she's embedded in this social matrix, and what kind of group dynamic it is. If she's embedded in a group of high-status females that are all happily married and not cheating, if she gets hit on and turns the guy down, she not only got a +1 for getting hit on, but she got a +1 for staying faithful.

Now if she's embedded in a female group that is single, or non-monogamous, she would have gotten a +1 for getting hit on, but a -1 for "not going for it." So, neutral. Which would mean that there would be a lot of social pressure to "go for it" with the random guy which would turn a 0 to a +2.

This would also explain why when _I_ got hit on by a hot woman and my wife saw, my wife tells all her girlfriends (and their husbands) about it. The guys don't seem to care (they seem to want to talk a lot more about their RVs, vacation homes, and recent promotions). The girls, on the other hand, seem to be very, very impressed.

Not so much with me (ok maybe a little) but here's the shocker: maybe more with my wife. Because if some young hottie comes on to me, I must be attractive, and if my wife can keep me around and not have me cheat on her, _she_ must be awesome.

Again, it's not so much because someone else found me attractive, it's because she can keep someone that is, therefore her social status goes up, and the more other women will look up to her and support her.

Does any of that make sense?


----------



## JCD

I'll buy it. Of course, this may seem petty to some, but everyone is petty in some ways.


----------



## Jetranger

marduk said:


> So maybe it's more than just having the male's attention that matters: it's that females notice her getting the male's attention that matters.
> 
> Not so much with me (ok maybe a little) but here's the shocker: maybe more with my wife. Because if some young hottie comes on to me, I must be attractive, and if my wife can keep me around and not have me cheat on her, _she_ must be awesome.
> 
> Does any of that make sense?


I agree with that… on the one hand, women like to show off what they’ve managed to get in terms of their man - my ex would always be very happy that I ‘scrubbed up well” for formal occasions, and she’s not the only one who says I look good in a suit. On the other, they see a guy who’s claimed by another woman as something of a challenge. Firstly because he must have something good about him to keep her attention and so is worth having, and secondly because if she manages to get him away from the other woman, she must be in some way superior to her! What her long term intentions for this are I don’t know, but at the very least she’ll have bragging rights that she can get any man she wants and all the rest of you *****es know it!


----------



## Marduk

JCD said:


> I'll buy it. Of course, this may seem petty to some, but everyone is petty in some ways.


Petty, sure... but I'm wondering if the vast majority of this behaviour is stuff that most people aren't consciously aware of.

Like the 80% of an iceberg that's under the water.

We are animals, after all.


----------



## always_alone

I dunno, marduk, as a woman, I can't relate to any of your descriptions of women's hierarchies.

I've seen some of the competitive behaviour and showing off to be sure, but this only describes a subset of women, I think. Certainly not anyone I hang around with.

It's just some people --men and women-- who get completely wrapped up in what other people think of them, isn't it?


----------



## always_alone

JCD said:


> But before we get too ahistorical, a great many of them started by being thought 'great beauties' and started their rise to the top through marriages.
> 
> Studies show that is one of the largest factors in one's career progression, fair or unfair.
> 
> That being said, accomplished women of history had to be MORE accomplished, not less, to make it back then.


I wasn't trying to be ahistorical at all. Quite the contrary. The picture that is often painted is that women have always been (and some would argue, rightly) seen as weak, docile, submissive, good for sex, child-bearing and rearing, and little else. When, in fact, this is not the case. And there is a great deal of anthropological, historical, and sociological evidence to back this up.

Yes, some of the more powerful women were great beauties, but certainly not all. Yet they still managed to marry the most "alpha" of males. And some women did rise up the ranks through their marriages, no doubt, but it wasn't necessarily their beauty that got them there. It was their smarts, ruthlessness, and other qualities.

Note, too, that even what counts as "great beauty" is itself historical. What we idealized now is not at all what was idealized in other periods. Not the same look, not even the same body parts were sexualized.

The studies that show that beauty is a great career enhancer are all very recent. They, I would argue, are themselves culturally and socially situated. We live now in a world that values the superficial above all else, and so of course those that look good will do well. 

In days gone by, people tended to be much more concerned about who your family was, and your position in society when doling out the favours. Nowadays, of course, all a woman needs to be is young and able to lip-sync and take a sexy picture.


----------



## vellocet

always_alone said:


> This is because men flock to women, of course, and can't wait to join the harem of the high-status female. *Men will always go out of their way to compete for her attention and favours*.


Wrong. I don't compete. If I like someone, I will give them my considerations. I don't compete for anything. It is either an equal exchange in considerations, or no thanks.

And in the event the "competition" is about men competing with each other for her affections, again, I don't compete with other men. I am not going to be pitted up against someone else in order for a woman to sit back and let us fawn all over them. I'll let the other guy's play the fool.

Please, don't speak for "us men". Thanks :smthumbup:


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> The studies that show that beauty is a great career enhancer are all very recent. They, I would argue, are themselves culturally and socially situated. *We live now in a world that values the superficial above all else*, and so of course those that look good will do well.
> 
> *In days gone by, people tended to be much more concerned about who your family was, and your position in society when doling out the favours.* Nowadays, of course, all a woman needs to be is young and able to lip-sync and take a sexy picture.


Money, or, more accurately, status. Is this really any less superficial than good looks? "Oh hey, you were born in the 'right' family... schwing."

Out of curiosity, what is your interpretation of research that holds perception of a man's wealth/status as being the largest predictor of attractiveness among women (even though virtually none of the women in such studies admit to having such a bias at all)? There have been several studies of this, comparing pictures of men with no accompanying information, pictures of men with low-status/income careers, and those same pictures with high-status/income careers.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> I dunno, marduk, as a woman, I can't relate to any of your descriptions of women's hierarchies.
> 
> I've seen some of the competitive behaviour and showing off to be sure, but this only describes a subset of women, I think. Certainly not anyone I hang around with.
> 
> It's just some people --men and women-- who get completely wrapped up in what other people think of them, isn't it?


Hmm... I tend to have always gone for the "girlie girls" and maybe those are the ones that have that kind of thing be important to them.

I know it's important to my wife. Not in the sense of "we're rich I'm going to rub it in your face" kind of thing, but showing off a little bling now and again brings a smile to her face.

We had a chat with another couple a few weeks ago, and I was shocked that my artsy/granola girl wife of my buddy had felt looked down on by women or even excluded because she had a smaller rack. 

To this day. And she was quite upset about the whole thing, and confessing it was hard especially because my wife has the opposite problem rack-wise.

Thanks for your input and insight.


----------



## always_alone

vellocet said:


> Please, don't speak for "us men". Thanks :smthumbup:


I take it you were unable to see any of the ironies I intended with that post. Not even the little emoticon gave it away?


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Money, or, more accurately, status. Is this really any less superficial than good looks?


Both yes and no. No, it isn't as superficial because it's more about kinship and honour, and deep family connections and history, than it's about having a pretty ornament to dangle off your arm. It isn't about one person or his/her ego; it's entrenched in the social structure

But perhaps yes, too, because being born into a particular family or class certainly doesn't necessarily make one more deserving of accolades or capable in positions of power. It is merely an accident of birth.



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Out of curiosity, what is your interpretation of research that holds perception of a man's wealth/status as being the largest predictor of attractiveness among women (even though virtually none of the women in such studies admit to having such a bias at all)? There have been several studies of this, comparing pictures of men with no accompanying information, pictures of men with low-status/income careers, and those same pictures with high-status/income careers.


The results don't surprise me at all. Women have it drilled into them to look for someone who will support them well -- a doctor, for example. A product, I believe of a fairly long history where women have had few options available to them, and often were dependent on men for support.

Again, I would never dispute that women have been treated as second-class in many different places and times throughout history, it's the universality, inevitability, and biological necessity of this picture that I question.

My best guess says that we'll find that these studies too are culturally and historically situated, and that as more and more women out earn and out provide men, we'll see shifts in answers to the same questions. 

But either way, showing mugs of guys with stereotypical symbols of material wealth to a select demographic of women is not exactly the be-all and end-all of the science of attraction.


----------



## JCD

always_alone said:


> I wasn't trying to be ahistorical at all. Quite the contrary. The picture that is often painted is that women have always been (and some would argue, rightly) seen as weak, docile, submissive, good for sex, child-bearing and rearing, and little else. When, in fact, this is not the case. And there is a great deal of anthropological, historical, and sociological evidence to back this up.
> 
> Yes, some of the more powerful women were great beauties, but certainly not all. Yet they still managed to marry the most "alpha" of males. And some women did rise up the ranks through their marriages, no doubt, but it wasn't necessarily their beauty that got them there. It was their smarts, ruthlessness, and other qualities.
> 
> Note, too, that even what counts as "great beauty" is itself historical. What we idealized now is not at all what was idealized in other periods. Not the same look, not even the same body parts were sexualized.
> 
> The studies that show that beauty is a great career enhancer are all very recent. They, I would argue, are themselves culturally and socially situated. We live now in a world that values the superficial above all else, and so of course those that look good will do well.
> 
> In days gone by, people tended to be much more concerned about who your family was, and your position in society when doling out the favours. Nowadays, of course, all a woman needs to be is young and able to lip-sync and take a sexy picture.


Off hand, and with my rather limited memory for history, there are only a handful of women I recall who 'came from nothing' to be significant: Theodora, Joan of Arc and a number of women who became 'prophets' in the Catholic church (I know more western than Eastern history...but if anything THEY were much more hierarchal out east. I would love to see examples to the contrary).

Everyone else pretty much came from upper middle class to upper class backgrounds. You don't really hear about Mrs. Cromwell, do you? So 'winning the beauty genetic lottery' is replaced with 'winning the birthplace genetic lottery'. In either case, yes, there were some tough, substantial women in power. But it is very seldom that one 'fought her way up the ranks'. Most of them were already laying right next to the handles of power.

And for every one of them, you had a Joan of England, shipped off to Peter the Cruel of Castile, blithely accepting the lot and marriage arranged for her. 

Queen Mary II wept when she heard she was going to be married to William of Orange...but she did it. Strangely enough, she grew devoted to him and preferred his company to all others. While she ruled competently in her own right when forced to by necessity, she was more than happy to allow him to rule when he was home. 

Is this the 'right' or 'natural' course? Not saying that. I am saying that for every example of an Elizabeth, there were quite a few women who, for their own reasons, did not rock the boat. History is made by outliers...but lets not ignore that they ARE outliers.

However, that being said, I would certainly be open to any book recommendations you have on decent histories of women. Always willing to learn something new.

I have to say, you keep saying things like 'women were programmed by society to (go for the earners/ go for the V/ think that children were the best thing possible).

I find that a trifle demeaning. On the one hand, you assert that women were independent in the past of thought and action. And yet, when the majority tend to make decisions that perhaps you don't approve of, you call it 'programming' instead of giving them the benefit of the doubt of 'they choose a different route than I do'.

There is nothing wrong with you...but there isn't anything wrong with THEM either.

I could be wrong but that is how you are coming across.

Edited to add:



> Empress Dowager Lü had an assassin force venom down Liu Ruyi's throat....She then had Concubine Qi's limbs chopped off, blinded her by gouging out her eyes, cut off her tongue and locked her in the latrine, and called her a "Human Swine" (人彘). Several days after, Emperor Hui saw the "Human Swine", and after realising that it who the "Human Swine" was, the emperor was so sick of his mother's cruelty that he virtually relinquished his authority and indulged in carnal pleasures.



Mmm. Yes...women are no different from men.


----------



## always_alone

JCD said:


> Is this the 'right' or 'natural' course? Not saying that. I am saying that for every example of an Elizabeth, there were quite a few women who, for their own reasons, did not rock the boat. History is made by outliers...but lets not ignore that they ARE outliers.
> 
> However, that being said, I would certainly be open to any book recommendations you have on decent histories of women. Always willing to learn something new.


If I have time later, I will dig up more examples for you.

The way history is written, it is pretty much all outliers, with only the top tier of people ever mentioned. Most men don't rock the boat either, and most people do not make the history books.

That said, there are a lot more women figures than you are giving credit for. In Europe, the Middle East, China, you name it. And beyond what we are able to read about centuries later, there have been women participating in battles, taking extreme risks to protect their families, educate their daughters, fight against tyranny, invent new solutions, build communities and so on. They have not all flocked to the nearest tough guy so they could sit around boiling potatoes and looking pretty while men lived their lives. 



JCD said:


> I have to say, you keep saying things like 'women were programmed by society to (go for the earners/ go for the V/ think that children were the best thing possible).
> 
> I find that a trifle demeaning. On the one hand, you assert that women were independent in the past of thought and action. And yet, when the majority tend to make decisions that perhaps you don't approve of, you call it 'programming' instead of giving them the benefit of the doubt of 'they choose a different route than I do'.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with you...but there isn't anything wrong with THEM either.


What I said was that women have these messages drilled into them. And we do. When you are a little girl, people start talking to you about who you're going to marry, and who your "prince" will be.

And I didn't say that these weren't viable choices. Of course they are, especially in a culture where women can't vote, can't own property, can't earn a living. And they still are today. If that's what a woman wants, I'm not judging her. And some women actually do find material wealth to be very attractive, as well as status symbols. But many who say they are not are indeed telling the truth.

The reason I get sucked into these conversations is that it drives me crazy when people assume this sexist caveman view of women as pretty much completely helpless and useless, unless of course some guy wants to bang out hot bod. I can't help but chime in to point out that the evidence simply does not support this stereotype.


----------



## vellocet

always_alone said:


> I take it you were unable to see any of the ironies I intended with that post. Not even the little emoticon gave it away?



Ironies? From you when it comes to generalizing about men? You know the story about the boy who cried wolf right?


----------



## JCD

always_alone said:


> If I have time later, I will dig up more examples for you.
> 
> The way history is written, it is pretty much all outliers, with only the top tier of people ever mentioned. Most men don't rock the boat either, and most people do not make the history books.
> 
> That said, there are a lot more women figures than you are giving credit for. In Europe, the Middle East, China, you name it. And beyond what we are able to read about centuries later, there have been women participating in battles, taking extreme risks to protect their families, educate their daughters, fight against tyranny, invent new solutions, build communities and so on. They have not all flocked to the nearest tough guy so they could sit around boiling potatoes and looking pretty while men lived their lives.
> 
> 
> 
> What I said was that women have these messages drilled into them. And we do. When you are a little girl, people start talking to you about who you're going to marry, and who your "prince" will be.
> 
> And I didn't say that these weren't viable choices. Of course they are, especially in a culture where women can't vote, can't own property, can't earn a living. And they still are today. If that's what a woman wants, I'm not judging her. And some women actually do find material wealth to be very attractive, as well as status symbols. But many who say they are not are indeed telling the truth.
> 
> The reason I get sucked into these conversations is that it drives me crazy when people assume this sexist caveman view of women as pretty much completely helpless and useless, unless of course some guy wants to bang out hot bod. I can't help but chime in to point out that the evidence simply does not support this stereotype.


If you'd like, I could spout out about a dozen more examples. For reasons of space, I did not list EVERY powerful woman I knew about, just the top tier. And sometimes, historians get a bit Lady Gaga HUNTING for someone they can attribute as a 'powerful woman' just to find some examples and role models. So some caution and skepticism is in order.

Appreciate the help. Just point me toward a couple of books (Kindle friendly for preference)

In fact, I have my eye on this one: Women Shall Not Rule: Imperial Wives and Concubines in China from Han to Liao 
A trifecta: Oppressed wimmins, astonishingly powerful wimmins, and how polygamy both functions in theory and practice, all set in a different culture.

From the sample I read, the Chinese women, ala the Turks, WERE isolated from the scrum of mankind, but since they had their hands quite near the handle of power and could give it a few cranks every night, they had a good bit of influence, quite a bit of it unseen.

I'll probably be downloading that in the very near future.

And for the record, (and not to seem to score 'points') I never said that women were ONLY good for looking pretty and peeling potatoes. Some of them could wash dishes and sew too!

I kid! I kid!


----------

