Friendzone

Post Reply New Topic

Here we go again speaking about women like we're all ran by a uni-mind that gives us all the exact same standards/desires when it comes to males. Do all men judge women on their weight, do all women judge men on their height. And are 'good looks' a good enough basis for anyone to form a relationship? Males have personality traits they like or dislike as well....whether its a long laundry list or not probably depends more on the person than the gender.

Klowglas

Statements like that are called 'begging the question'.

The thing about a worldview like yours is it has to ignore whole swathes of actually existing facts and behaviours to make sense. Yet it captivates, because it explains, in a very simplistic Just So Stories sort of way, certain facets of behaviour that we sometimes see.

Here's the thing: by definition, any human behaviour is natural. And no human behaviour is more natural than any other, though it may be more common, and so create a statistical norm. Anything that is deemed 'unnatural' is down to a fallacious concept of 'nature' on the deemers part. This fact should be common sense, yet many people have a lot of trouble with it. They go to all sorts of essentialist and question-begging lengths to define what is 'natural'. Well, what is 'natural' is anything that can occur. That being so, if we want to try and understand what might be underlying 'nature', we ought to look at what does occur - that is, at the facts - than at how we think the world is in our theories.

(tbc)

Therefore, it is just as natural for a woman to have kids with the musclebound millionaire as it is with the schlub on social security, or indeed to not want to have children. Indeed, the most attractive specimen, by these facts, is the average looking, likely overweight, average income man. He is the kind of man most women hitch up and have kids with.

We could go by numbers of kids. That's a good one, for the strict Darwinians. Do you know of any particular relation between income and/or looks and the number of children conceived? Poor and average households would probably average out at 2 or 3. How many does it rise when you get to the millionaires and billionaires? The Brad Pitts (6, 3 of which are adopted, fgs) and Ryan Goslings (1) and George Clooneys (0)? Warren Buffet has 3 kids. Michael Bloomburg 2. Sam Walton had 4. Which, given his background, is probably as many as he'd have had if he'd been rich or not.

Do you see how farcical this kind of theorising becomes?

OK......I'm not talking about all, but I'm talking about MOST. Like it or lump it, there are statistically significant patterns in terms of what people find attractive. I cannot begin to tell you how many times I've seen minimum height requirements in women's profiles on dating sites(many women state they want a man who's at least 6') and how many women say they like tall men.

But as you pointed out, good looks aren't enough to establish a basis for a relationship as far as most women are concerned! They also want men who are assertive, confident, and socially skilled.

Guys have laundry lists of personality traits but I think you'll find that they'll compromise as long as the woman they get is physically attractive to them.

It's natural, but it's not what humans incline towards, hence the grief you often see here.

"Why can't I be loved despite my imperfection?" is the demand you often see.

It's because humans (women especially) select for perfections, men do this as well but not to the woman's extent (women possess a lot more risk in choosing a male since gestation and child-rearing is so expensive).

Women bred by weak men are potentially gambling with their lives, or a genetic dead end, hence their selection for the strongest. Her strongest might mean the nerd in her particular group, but once she moves into a new area, or if a rival group comes in to throw off this equiliberum, her strongest might be another more intelligent nerd, or it might be a jock. Humans ALWAYS side with the strongest, because humans want to survive, what better way to survive then by allying yourself with the strongest?

Do you know what happens when a male lion dethrones a pride's alpha? He proceeds to kill the cubs, so that the females can go back into heat -- the weak male met a genetic dead end, whilst it was perfectly natural for the weak male to reproduce, it's also perfectly natural for him to meet his genetic demise at the behest of a stronger, more capable male.

This is the source of the grief you see here, the strongest will survive; humans want to side with the strongest in order to do so, so the selection is still there... the grief you see in this forum shows that some of us want to get rid of it, but the unfortunate truth is that it is intrinsically tied with our humanity because it was such a tremendous and useful tool for our survival.

A woman's brain is constantly analyzing cues to the dominance of a male, which is merely her trying to protect herself, because if a rival tribe moves next door, none of this mumbo-jumbo is going to help her or her children, all that matters is "does this male posses the killer-instincts needed to protect me and my children?"

Women love men in positions of authority for the above reason, they love -LOVE- that confidence because it reassures her that she's going to survive. It is mandated by nature that women must become more selective, it's not even a bad thing (i got a warning last time I said something like this just to clarify that there isn't any misogyny in what I say). It was actually instrumental to our survival, so women can't be blamed for it.


Lastly, number of children aren't any real indication of dominance. the R/k selection theory can help explain this..

K's select for a maximum investment into each offspring (as predatory animals often do), whereas r's circumvent the investment to maximize on the number of offspring (as herd animals do). R's are risk adverse (flight), whereas the K's actively seek out competition and confrontation (fight).

Stefan Molyneux did a very in-depth explanation of the r/K selection theory here and he compared it to the right/left political dichotomy in politics, as it does help explain the behavior between liberals and conservatives. It is mind blowing and I recommend everyone watch it.

I repeat -- I cannot emphatically recommend enough that people watch Stefan's dissection of the r/K selection theory, he goes to great detail explaining theory within human behavior.

I'll look at the r/K stuff when I've got time.

I doubt I'll ever persuade you. You have a huge psychological investment in your worldview. We all do. But my worldview - my view of human behaviour and our biological inheritance - is one that allows for every instance of the varieties of behaviour through time and space. Yours isn't. Yours is one that has to turn a blind eye to any counter- or non-instance of this behaviour you describe.

You lament the woe of the world, dismissing anything that isn't woeful - and there is so, so much! - as an illusion or a lie.

The irony is, this sort of thing is hugely anti-Evolution. All the Just So Stories people tell and call 'science'.

ETA

I always enjoy an ironic chuckle when men whose main point on these boards is their utter lack of success with women tell us all what goes on in women's brains.

Then I just get kind of depressed that otherwise smart people actually believe that s**t.

FETA

What pisses me off is I'm actually taking this biology and evolution s**t seriously. I'm not dragging in souls or God. I'm not saying 'culture is all'. I'm looking at humans as they actually are, rather than as I theorise them to be. I am looking at the facts of behaviour, and I am saying that human biology allows for all this marvelous variety.

I'm not throwing out half-arsed theories derived from 'norms' derived from statistical abstractions and making foolish generalisations and dismissively hand-waving anything that runs counter to it as though it's unimportant.

I am taking the world - the facts, all that is the case - on its own terms.

This thread has gone on for so long I forgot who the OP even was, and am not sure if they've actually replied since we passed the first page.

BaneBear, can you give us an update on how your life's going now? Has what we've said in this forum helped?

Well than say 'most' just stating women this and women that, doesn't leave much room for outliers who the statistical norms don't really represent. I myself have never given a damn about height but it certainly seems a lot of taller guys find small females attractive so I have gone out with more taller guys than shorter guys but that's because more taller than shorter guys have expressed interest. Granted lots of women probably do have some silly height requirement...but if they have that imagine all the other silly standards and petty requirements they'd have.

Also good looks alone aren't enough to establish a relationship as far as most people are concerned, compatability, getting along, feelings for each other, intimacy ect are all important factors. But yeah I wager most people here on WP aren't going to get with 'most' women or men, so what's it matter what most women want? How about what women outside of the status quo want? I don't know people go on and on here about how they can never get a girlfriend because they don't fit what most women are generally statistically attracted to as if females who are statistical outliers simply don't exist. People who don't fit in with the status quo commonly feel left out socially not just males who don't fit in with the status quo.

Also I think ideally most people in general want someone they are attracted to who also has personality and personality traits that are attractive.

Even using the word "most" is still generalising.

No, this forum has become a full fledged debate rather than its first intended purpose.
I still have no idea how to date at all. Everything from how to obtain attractive confidence, looking confident, what to wear, what to say, where to go, how to make my intentions clear right up front, if I got a date what do I do, what to do after a first date(like how to continue the relationship), if I am supposed to kiss on the first date, and what it means to actually be in a relationship.
I know that seems like a lot but people on here need to understand. Compare me to learning a sport, there is a basics be all sports 101 for each sport. Like what is the absolute most basic, and I have no idea what that is for dating. I don't understand people, especially women(not trying to sound sexist but I don't understand anything with women). So trying to simultaneously look attractive, have a confident tone and stance, make my intentions clear, figure out what to say when, how to flirt, how to attract, and finally what to do for a date, is EXTREMELY hard for me.

The perfect outfit for a man on a date: chino-type slacks and either a polo or a button-down shirt. Decent sneakers or shoes. Make sure the shirt is tucked in.

If you get friendzoned by a girl, the best thing to do is flip it around and tell everybody that she is stalking you.

That's terrible advice, and it's also slanderous. You can't just flippantly accuse someone of a crime for petty emotional revenge. You should not be advising people to do this.

Have you ever listened to what other women talk about when they think nobody's listening?

By definition, they talk about stuff they'd like to keep private.

Never, ever accuse someone of a crime you know they have not committed.

Yeah, lets just try to ruin the girls reputation and accuse her for something she didnt do because she only wanted to be friends And ya know, being friends is the WORST thing someone ever could do to you!


But honeslty you would most likely just make a fool of yourself by trying..