DataSage’s Alpha Male Guide to Meeting Women (JULY UPDATE!!)

Post Reply New Topic

Please, let me explain the fundamental theory of sexual attraction of women, as follows.

There are three fundamental axes of sexual attraction that motivates a woman to have sex with a man on a non-verbal level. These all correspond to primitive instincts that are hardwired into us (women), but are more evolved into obvious selectivity factors that are, correspondingly, social norms now. A man who has strengths in one or a combination of these factors will be a winner with women. They are as follows:

(1) obvious physical attributes (beauty, health, strength),
(2) sexual skills with a variety of techniques that means he knows (or can figure out on the fly) how to please a woman in the way her particular sexual response works (most American men never develop these skills well),
(3) is a Protector -- a man who the woman is confident will protect her from harm and help her prosper

All sexual motivation to actually climb into bed with someone is built from a combination of these three attributes. Other things, like intelligence, wit, etc, are just standards that people apply to what kinds of people they can tolerate to be close to or who they want to surround themselves with. Some traits, like great social charm and popularity, or a lot of money, is a version of one of the three, like being a good Protector. If you are dating the captain of the football team, most likely his cronies and his satellites won't pick on you and people will start doing a lot of good things for you, so for some people who are socially insecure, a popular person could represent (3), a Protector. Likewise, a woman who is more attracted to a rich doctor than a waiter, given that the men are alike in other ways, sees more (3) in the rich doctor.

If one of the three is missing, but the guy is a great guy, that's still okay. For example: missing sex skills. Many Americans are missing sex skills. If you really like someone, he's charming, wonderful, and handsome, but has no sex skills, you can still enjoy the intimacy and be aroused by him sexually. Or if a man has no ability to protect a woman: he is poor and is a peace lover who won't even intervene if a man walks up and slaps her, he can still attract the woman into his bed if she knows or believes he's sexually gifted and knows how to please a woman (many men don't). As another example: the man is ugly, but he's very tough, brave, honorable and true, like a hero on the battlefield. That man is a Protector. A woman is sexually aroused by tough men for that reason -- even men who are bad or dangerous (so long as the woman believes he will look out for HER).

These three elements of sexual attraction in women are independent, therefore, and some men have more than one. The reasons these three elements are powerful bases of attraction can be described with evolutionary cognitive behavior theory, for each element. For (1), image analysis has shown that universal standards for beauty almost always correspond to physical attributes of symmetry of features and good health, and it is speculated that people are sexually attracted to these standards because the child will have better chances of getting good genetic material if certain symmetry and health indicators are screened for. For (2), sex is all about the pleasure and stimulation, and once people enjoy sexual pleasure, they seek it out as an end in itself. Moreover, they develop individual sexual arousal patterns (romantic sex, dirty sex, etc..) depending on what they are suited for and exposed to culturally. Sex is a very developmentally intense function, for that reason. Good sex, then, becomes an end in itself. Since so few (American) men are good at delivering skilled, expert lovemaking to women, any man who a woman believes is a great lover, will have an almost automatic in with her (provided he doesn't have critical negatives). For (3), it is critical to the survival of the woman and her babies after the babies are born, that she have a good protector. A woman is more likely to have babies that survive if she forms bonds with Protectors rather than men she perceives as weasels and snakes. So women don't just consciously seek out prosperous men who can ensure their survival or men who are brave and honorable... they are naturally more aroused by such men of influence, bravery, power or "Alpha Males".

A man who is actually incompetent or deficient in all three areas: bad physical appearance (questionable genetic material for the babies), lack of sexual skills (a guarantee of no satisfaction) and no protection or benefit from being bonded with him (you're on your own and vulnerable to predators), has zero sexual appeal. The only reason a woman would have sex with a man who is deficient or incompetent in all three areas is pure social networking, prostitution, sexual perversion or she's playing some manipulative game.

Now each woman and culture has particular ways of defining these traits. (1) Physical beauty/health: In some tribes in Africa, people drink and eat tremendously to get as fat as they can, to compete with each other for sexual appeal. (2) Great sex skills: In some countries, having a lot of girlfriends is a signal that a man is a great lover, and people practice sexy looks and flirting, to try to send signals that they have a sensual nature and that pleasure awaits if you get intimate with them. (3) The Protector: well, we all know that men show off to get women, like buy hot cars and expensive watches, etc, to get girls, or that women are attracted to brave heroes (especially the heroes that save them).

Again, all other traits (good sense of humor, intelligence, good manners, kindness) are all about personal comfort zone and social pleasure. You would apply them to anyone who gets close to you (who you hire to represent your company or to choose one person as a roommate over another). These social and functional traits, however women might say that they find them attractive, do not motivate the visceral sexual arousal. That said, without good social skills, it is hard for two members of a large predatory mammal species to negotiate any personal closeness, and a good joke might send the woman over the edge if she was going to have sex with you anyways, or a faux pas might scare her away at the last minute, but the sexual attraction exists separate and apart from the frontal-lobed stuff.

Asperger individuals can work on their appearance (work out, etc.) and work on their sensual skills (there are ways to leverage sensory integration dysfunction into very refined sexual abilities but it's not easy and takes a lot of study/work). The advantage for Aspergers is that most NT's focus so much on (3) -- social influence, money, popularity and other attributes of being an "Alpha Male", that men can pay too little to (1) (their appearance and physical condition) and ignore (2) (developing expert sex skills). Because NT's are so immersed in the world of their social delusions and spheres of power/influence, they can be quite popular, influential, etc, and totally suck in bed. And there are a lot of women out there who are not primarily axis-(3) types (i.e. they aren't primarily seekers-of-protectors type of women, but more seekers-of-beauty or seekers-of-sexual-fulfillment).

The problem I had with my professor is that I loved him very much -- as my teacher. But he had zero shred of sexual attraction for me because he was (1) physically a completely neglected, out of shape slob who couldn't even walk up stairs and wore shabby, threadbare clothes, (2) he obviously had zero sex skills, and his psycho girlfriend told me that, too and his behavior showed he was totally sexually naive and used corruption of his position rather than real sexual skills to get sex from women, and (3) his final opportunity to have sex with me -- the fact that he was my benefactor and protector -- vanished when the sociopathic woman who was sleeping around in the department started attacking and harassing me and he let her because he was interested in her. I loved my professor very much, but as a teacher, and nothing could have dragged me into his bed because I have Asperger Syndrome, and I can't lie and I can't sleep with a man if I can't find any shred of sexual motivation or arousal to support it. And once he let the sexually scheming woman harass me, I became unable to muster any real sexual motivation to sleep with him. I was stuck (because I cannot lie) on the fact that I had zero sexual motivation to have sex with him. It took me a long time, and I had to figure out my above theory of sexual attraction, before I understood why this man I had so much affection for, suddenly became such a sexual zero in my book. And my theory was very useful for understanding him, after I figured it out and why there was no way I'd have sex with him even though I liked him so much and the project was obviously falling apart because I was holding back. This professor was in fact one of those sexual zeros -- and that is why he had to resort to setting up students and scrambling to get time with sex addicts, to cheat on his wife with whom he claimed to have a sexually and intellectually empty marriage.

Using the above 3-axis theory of sexual attraction, I was finally able to understand why my professor, an important and well-loved researcher, who I admired a great deal was such a zero. My 3-axis theory of the sexual attraction of women strips the distractions and noise from the model of sexual attraction and you can clearly see, using it, when a man is sexually inadequate even though outwardly he seems cool, successful, smart and nice.

So the example of my professor became a revealing one in terms of HIS limiting factors: he had zero (1) axis sexual appeal, zero (2) axis sexual appeal, and when he turned out to be a Weasel and Snake enabling someone who was harassing me, instead of the Protector and Benefactor I thought he was, he reverted to zero (3) axis sexual appeal and that made him a Total Zero in every sexual attraction axis. Once he becomes a Total Zero sexually, the man becomes a toad in terms of sexual appeal, even though he is important, charming, intelligent, sweet and so on.

A note on lying and pretending: Now many normal people force themselves and train themselves to have sex with people who have no actual strengths in any of the three true axes of attraction. The sexually networking woman who was sleeping around the UMD Math Department certainly did a lot of ugly guys who had no sex skills and who were cheating on their wives and were losers, all the time. But they were important guys, academically and professionally. What was key for her is that she was a sexually networking sociopathic Machiavellian and they are wired a little differently in the brain. They experience actual pleasure (their brain pleasure centers light up and get dopamine boosts) from getting attention and dominating others, and this women went around sleeping with old academics and married men because she was (1) professionally networking and (2) getting a narcissistic sexual pleasure out of becoming the fantasy of sexually repressed men cheating on their wives. She was a deviant. If you can find a deviant, like a narcissist, sex addict or sociopath, they can be manipulated and used because they are creatures of compulsion, but it's bad to get them in your life. And even this woman who was the sexual networker, hated herself and her life and cornered me with long monologues about how bad the sex was and how miserable her sex life was. (Because she was a sociopath she lacked personal insight as to how unfulfilling and self-defeating her Machiavellian games were). In that sense, a perverted person always presents sexual opportunities, and with them the natural rules of sexual attraction of women don't apply, but it's better to avoid those kinds of women, including codependent sex addicts, Machiavellians and narcissists.

My advice is this: If you focus on your physical appearance of beauty and grace, i.e. be in good health, condition and get exercise, and you develop your sex skills as well as possible (it's at least as complex a "sport" as fly fishing or football), and you're kind and generous with women, you will develop far more sexual attraction than you will trying to be some phony Alpha male.

Last edited by ephemerella on 28 Nov 2008, 7:41 pm, edited 6 times in total.

Yes, any woman can get laid most any time. But most people want more than that. There are a lot of men out there systematically looking for socially naive women to use and dump. So it's not all roses out there for Asperger women.

Instead of just "be yourself" maybe better advice is to "work on yourself but in ways that make you a better you". Instead of training to be an "Alpha Male" you could work out and get in glowing health. That is very attractive. Or practice ways to talk about your special interest in a charming way, instead of being something or someone other than what is natural.

If I did any of the things in that guide then I would be dishonest.

I can't stand most people for longer than a few seconds. So if I am not being myself and being honest, then how am I supposed to weed out those 90+ percentage of people who annoy me?

I agree with most of what you're saying, but not this. There have been times of my life (when young and naive, not now I'm older and wiser, of course) when I wanted to be a male slut more than anything else in the world. And failed abysmally. And it ain't just me - Just look in any bar or club. Or around these forums! Men and women ARE different. It IS easier for MOST women to fulfill an interest in no-strings-attached sex. Much easier. The main problem is whether this is what she really wants, it's a self-imposed limitation. I'm not saying it's easier for women to find a good relationship. It isn't. That is just as difficult for women as for men. But nsa sex is easily attainable by most women, yet very difficult to attain for the majority of men. Hence it has become "The Holy Grail" for men and rather pointless for women.

There is reams of research that shows male standards are just so much lower than female. What about the experiment where a stranger just walks up to a member of the opposite sex and asks if they'd like to sleep with them? Something like 80% of men said 'yes' and only 5% of women. We don't need the research though. It's everywhere you look. Start a forum for "people who aren't getting enough attention from the opposite sex", sure you'll have some women, but it will be 10 males to every females, at least.

Try this experiment: create 2 fake users, 1 female, 1 male, on a dating forum, identical profiles for each, stating for each that "you are of average looks and build" and all you are interested in is no-strings-attached sex. People genuinely do this so we know what the results will be. The female will have several hundred replies within 1 day. The male will be lucky to get 1 genuine reply in a week. He'll get some replies telling him he's a disgusting pervert and some from professional ladies trying to sell him their services.

I'm not saying there's ANYTHING WRONG with this state of affairs. It is the way of nature. The male of nearly all species parades around showing off trying to impress the disinterested females. The females sit around going '...mmm...whatever...' and eventually make a choice of the male specimens leaping, jumping, muscle flexing, feather twirling and barking in front of them. A handful of males are desired by nearly all the females and the rest of the males fight for crumbs. The males will accept any female so long as she allows them to take a well-earned break from this stupid charade of 'impressing the females'.

With the world overpopulated, we don't need women to lower their standards to the same as men. We men should really be working on having higher standards.



I absolutely agree. Unfortunately, that is the majority of women (and men). Narrow-minded shallowness is all most people can handle and is what they want.

Last edited by ManErg on 02 Dec 2008, 8:23 am, edited 2 times in total.

Very interesting. However, surely number 2 can't be on the same axis as the other two? By the time you're in a position to find the sexual skills of a man, you've already made your decision based on 1) and 2).

You can't assess sexual skills before you've already said 'yes', so these cannot in anyway influence the decision.

I've heard people say that very often people who are in demand due to 1) are not good at 2) simply because they never *have* to learn anything. Personally, I'm fine at 3), lacking at 1), and to compensate, I've learnt a lot of 2)! !! But I don't know how anyone could ever determine that unless we're already 'between the sheets'. Display a testimonial from a satisfied customer that I passed the 'G-Spot identification" test, perhaps? As a musician, it should be obvious I'm very skilled with my hands....but, come on!! ! Maybe I should be mentioning these skills in my conversations with women more, I'd always assumed that crude boasting of ones bedroom techniques in public was the sign of a lecherous, sleazy male. I'll get back to you with the results....

<EDIT> Could they be GUESSING the abilities of 2) based on 1). e.g. "Good looking so must have had lots of experience" vs. "Not good looking, probably only ever done it in the dark. By themself"

My idea of the 3 elements women find attractive is the 3 P's: Physique, Personality, Power.

Physique matches your 1, Power matches your 3 and you seem to have missed Personality from your list. Do women really find sexual skills more important than personality?

Last edited by ManErg on 02 Dec 2008, 7:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

Research has shown a correlation between symmetry and perceived beauty. Where is the research that shows a correlation between facial symmetry and good health, though? I thought phrenology and any other idea of linking personality attributes to head shape had been sensibly dismissed as racially motivated pseudoscience?


The key word is 'believes'. What is the scientific mechanism for the triggering of this belief?


Such as: she doesn't find him attractive? Looks like circular references to me. How do you explain variety? The fact that there are very, very few, if any, who nobody finds attractive?


Apparently 1 in 12 women suffers physical abuse from her chosen partner. And most do not leave him due to this. What's going on there, then?


Which is clearly an awful strategy as the "Alpha Males" are the least faithful and most likely to be pursues by another, younger and more attractive female. We see this all the time with the rich and famous.


Explain the "questionable genetic material" implied by say, a large nose, bushy eyebrows, big ears. Beautiful people are as likely as anyone to have unhealthy children. Ugly people can have healthy, smart children. Show the research that proves otherwise.


I've read that 1 in 3 women over 40 has 'little or no interest in sex". Asexuality is not rare in females of all ages. I think you place too great an emphasis on something that really cannot be accurately perceived until after the event.




Civilized humans do not have predators. Unless you include crafty salespeople exploiting stupidity. No amount of muscle can save a blockhead from being exploited by these sharks. You need a smart accountant and never mind the geeky appearance.



Surely the main reason is because she's rejected by the alpha males..and the betas..etc etc Not meant as denigration, but we can't all have the facial symmetry so craved by the alphas. People do not say "Woe is me. My facial symmetry is lacking therefore I do not deserve to reproduce" They find someone equivalent, perhaps someone not so obsessed with facial symmetry and sexual acrobatics, and pass their DNA on anyway.



Are you talking fantasy novels or real life? From what are they needing to be saved?



Are there any workouts to improve symmetry, or does that always require surgery?



Not just NT's, not just NT's....



OK, I sympathise with the difficulties you've had with this man. It sounds like you've built a theory to explain his behaviour, I'm not sure how far it goes to explaining the remaining 6 billion of us, though



Hang on though, the first part of this paragraph is describing attributes of an alpha male. You don't need me to tell you that there are hundreds of men right here on WP who are in good health, get exercise and are kind and generous, and have decent jobs, yet never get any interest from women. I believe you're discounting the huge effect of personality and shared interests in your model. For some women (and men) *this* is what matters more than all other aspects combined.

And how can you develop your sex skills if no-one wants to have sex with you in the first place? Does practicing by yourself count?

Whether or not women look for the attributes you describe, they do not have psychic powers. Their assessments are invariably flawed. How else do you explain the 50% divorce rate, mostly driven by women disatisfied with their partner? They rejoice in catching a handsome male - then rightly complain when they find out he's having an affair with a 19 year old. The rejoice in catching a physically strong male - then rightly complain when he threatens or physically abuses them. All of the positive traits you describe have a negative side, too.

My advice to women: Don't listen to those 'natural' instincts. Same as the instinct to pig out on chocolate and cake, they are not to be trusted and you try not to listen to them. Use your powers of reason.

My advice to men: Never, ever, ever listen to what women *say* they find atttractive in men.

The truth is that the pleasure of sex happens *almost* exclusively inside your own head. Facial symmetry and earning potential affect nothing other than your imagination.

Meh.

For the record, I like the geeky/nerdy guys, who are a bit shy, the confident ones make me a bit icky.

I also don't care about traditional good looks, but about a certain style as expression of personality.
The protector/provider thing is also overrated imo.

I like a guy with a sense of humour and quirky personality, not a leader type.

Maybe it's because I'm an aspie, I dunno.

I also think a good lover is someone who simply enjoys himself, and the presence of a woman, not just any woman, cos he needs to get laid, but her specifically.
How to please someone needs to be learned, because people have individual desires, there are no rules as what turns a woman on.




PS:
some of these posts are way too long...

Sorry, I haven't been paying attention and didn't see your posts. I think that personality is, from an evolutionary psychology perspective, less pressing as a survival or genetics selectability criteria than (1) genetics as implied by physical beauty and health or (3) protector function as implied by power/influence. In my opinion, personality is really secondary (or primary) to sexual attraction in the sense that it is a universal criteria for anyone you want in your life, not necessarily specific to sex. So you want to hire an employee with a good personality. That doesn't mean that good personality is one of the critical factors that qualifies someone for the job if you can't find anyone else.

But personality is "the closer" in the sense that we are complicated social animals with safety and comfort zones and it is part of the interpersonal infrastructure of getting close, just like speaking the same language and being able to avoid drooling helps you close the deal on a seduction. Just that personality isn't intrinsically a sexual trigger in the sense that it will incite sexual arousal in the absence of (1), (2) or (3).

My premise in identifying (1), (2) and (3) is that each one of these things can, in the absence of any other specific trait, create arousal in many women, and they often occur in combinations of 2 or more in people who are considered sexual attractors.



Most women aren't that good at picking this up, which is why some men who practice seduction (especially novices) make crude suggestions about how they know how to please a woman, etc. A lot of women are more sexually naive than the men, you know.

The whole context for my ideas, you know, is based on assumptions about American sex. The American sexual marketplace is, due to post-Renaissance and (in particular) Puritan cultural origins, is pretty repressed and low-functioning compared to sex in, say Europe. Many people are fumbling and don't know what to do, and certainly American women generally have a hard time telling what is good sex and what is bad sex or how to spot good lovers from surface traits and behaviors. American women tend to hook up with a guy who is good-looking or has a great job, and then complain about the sex. There is a high rate of anorgasmia among American women.

If I meet a great guy (if I were single right now) and I really like him, I am probably ten times more likely to have sex with him if he grew up in Europe than if he grew up in the U.S., if that means anything. So I suppose it is a combination of information, experience, intuition in specific instances and bias that comes to bear on forming an impression (or presumption) about whether any individual male as good sex skills.

As far as my professor was concerned, I could tell he would not be. I'm not sure if I told that story above, so I will tell it now (retell it if I already said it).

After I associated with him and our regular meetings started evolving into him playing with a slinky, almost blushingly and staring fascinatedly at my body during our meetings. Our work stalled during this period and there was a lot of chemistry, sexual tension, etc. And I was baffled by his inarticulate, spastic and incoherent behavior. I told him, when I associated with him, that I had a traumatic sexual harassment and stalking experience, and we had several meetings as to how he should work with me. I told him I had basic ground rules that I don't hold it against anyone to proposition me for sex at least once, so long as, if I say "No", that is not going to be a problem. I told him that I can't read body language, don't understand when people are hinting things at me and that I much prefer someone being clear on what they want if there is any confusion on how to communicate with me (this was before I knew I had AS, by the way, he had an AS son and would have understood what I was saying and how to take advantage, which is what he was trying to do). I said that if it ever came to it, I would much rather he just ask for sex than have some kind of painful missed-signals and confused conflict arise. I repeated probably about 3 times to him in that one meeting, I don't mind if someone propositions me, no matter who they are, so long as they only do it once if I say "No." Then, probably a few months after that, he started with playing with a slinky and staring at my breasts, legs, hips, etc. in meetings and not really talking academics. And that was only the beginning. I'm not going to go into any longer of a story with this because it went on for months and there are hundreds of details, except to say that the guy had every intention of holding the work hostage, and my research, to my having sex with him, but he was too incompetent and incoherent sexually to follow a normal way to do it, and he didn't have the balls to ask me outright as I had told him at the beginning he should do if it ever became a problem for him (I have had several men not be able to work with me on account of sexual tensions). Eventually, I arranged for him to hook up with a crazy woman who was codependent on me and harassing me, because I knew she was doing married men and had a thing for professors. I thought that if he had sex with a woman, maybe he would stop stalling the project and get to work with me instead of doing the suggestive playing with round objects and staring at my body during meetings. (But the trouble only started when I did that). Subsequently, she told me he was lousy in bed, and it was even more excuses for her to call me and invade my life, crying about how miserable her sex life was. She also told me that he said his wife was too stupid for him and then she told me a lot of stuff about how successful academics have dumpy old "Hausfraus" for wives and cheat on them with students, etc. By that time, I was so totally turned off that I would have had to been given a date rape drug to have sex with him. The whole picture: the inarticulate, inappropriate sexual staring and holding the work hostage, the complaints of having a stupid wife (the marriage was intellectually and sexually sterile) and other things, all spelled "No Pleasure Here" that he might as well have stamped on his forehead.

How else can I tell a man is bad in bed...? On one occasion, I was in his office installing a new computer for him and was under his desk. After I got up, he dived under there to hook up some cables. That was odd, and presumably some kind of reciprocal behavior ritual, but it didn't flatter him. He was so out of shape that he was unable to bear the weight of his upper body with his arms. So when he lowered himself he had to flop and when he lifted himself, he had to heave. I told the skanky psycho woman he was having an affair with (by this time I was trying to send signals to him that sex was out of the question as we were into the Summer semester and needed to move the project along), that seeing him on the floor flopping and heaving like that was like seeing something trapped in a La Brea tar pit, millions of years ago. He seemed kind of pissed at me in subsequent meetings with me and made a point of taking the stairs down five stories instead of the elevator, on my next visit to his downtown office to escort me out, which he had never done before.

How else can a I tell a man is bad in bed...? On one occasion, I came close to liking one professor on campus well enough to develop a romantic interest, and almost broke my no-relationships-on-campus rule. But then, after a couple of outings, it turned out he was married but separated. Then, it turned out he wasn't really separated but his wife was away on research or something. His excuse for wanting an affair was, "We have a passionless marriage." Now, I probably wouldn't have had sex with him anyways, even though he was very beautiful and had a lean, rangy body and was charming, because he was obviously a low character. But the fact that he thought that telling me he was in a "passionless marriage" was a good excuse was an immediate turn-off. Why would I want to have an affair with a man who has a "passionless marriage"? If I were going to have an affair with a married man, I would want a passionate guy. So after he said that, even if it weren't true, I could see he didn't really have a sensual mind, just because he thought it was an appealing thing to tell me.

Basically, sometimes you don't know if a guy is good at pleasing women, sexually. But in the absence of (1) or (3), if you do know a guy is a great lover, that is enough to create arousal in many women who are physical in nature. That's kind of the comic scenario about some scrawny guy followed around by many beautiful women when he gets a rep for being a great lover.

You can tell, tho, when someone has zero to offer a woman in bed, and when a woman gets that idea in her head, it's impossible to bed her. The simple reason being that the only reason to sleep with a man who you know will not and cannot satisfy you is some version or form of stark prostitution or Machiavellianism. And most women (while they might persuade themselves to start relationships with unattractive or inept rich men) stop short of actual cynical sex. I mean, a meal might look fabulous displayed on your computer monitor, but you're not going to lean over and lick the display expecting some pleasure or satisfaction for doing so So if you do that, you're engaging in completely cynical behavior. I think a lot of AS would have a hard time with that, especially those who cannot lie, cheat or hide the truth, which is how I am.

So (2) is enough to get a woman in bed in the absence of (1) or (3), if the guy seems like a great lover. And (2) is also enough to be a deal-breaker, if the woman for some reason forms the opinion that there is no pleasure in having sex with him.

I address your various deluded or irrelevant comments below, individually.

If I expanded each paragraph to be exhaustive, say, to include a complete lecture on the theory of perception of beauty, each paragraph in my post would have been a book. The point is that perceptions of beauty can be tied to preference for better genetic selection, as a matter of evolutionary psychology. An area of research that supports this includes image studies that link universal subjective standards of beauty to feature symmetry, thus giving rise to a very credible theory that visual evidence of clean genetic profiles are linked to what we thing are purely subjective beauty standards. Perceptions of good health, generally, correlates to having credible assumptions of good genes.

I have no idea where you get the idea you can inject "phrenology" into my ideas (isn't that the fortunetelling of head bumps and skull features, like palm-readers read your future from your palm?). I think your Q is fairly incoherent, so I'm not going to try to provide you any other explanations why standards of beauty and perceptions health are linked to assumptions of good genetic material. I'm sure you can use Google more easily than I can write it up.



You are asking Q beyond the scope of my statement. My statement is how the hypothetical woman in my statement would react in response to such belief. I gave no information on how she would form it, say, in your case.



If you can map "critical negatives" semantically to "doesn't find him attractive" there is no point to your reading anything that is not a technical manual. The material I wrote is clearly over your head. Whether you are reading an article on stock investing or politics, etc., there is a level of rhetoric that involves implied qualified statements. If you are so off the map that qualified statements like "stock market tanking" and "poll-driven" have no meaning in your frame of reference, than clearly the article is over your head and you have to learn more about the subject (investing in stocks or politics) before you can read articles that have qualified statements in them. "Critical negatives" isn't commensurate with "doesn't find him attractive" unless you feel that not finding someone attractive is a "critical negative". A "critical negative" would be something, say, like finding someone was an axe murderer when you are interviewing him for a job at an axe manufacturer. He might meet the qualifications of the job you advertised, but has other critical negatives unrelated to the qualifications list (you just didn't list all the "no's", like "No axe murderers need apply").

You are pretty clueless to have such little frame of reference. Until and unless you get a more sophisticated ideas of the concepts I was writing about, it would take a 500 page technical manual full of Venn diagrams and caveats to explain it to you. So my material is over your head.



That's quite common, actually. The women fear the man but they have such low self-esteem and social anxiety that they fear the world outside more than they fear the man. The women instinctively view the abusive man as a strongman, and able to protect them from the greater dangers out in the world. The syndrome is complete when the male reinforces the woman's low self-esteem and fear of the outside world. In fact, it is common for the men to belittle the women and say things like, "You think I'm mistreating you? I'm a lot better than what you'll find out there if you walk out the door. No one will have you and you will be dead in the streets within a year. You're lucky I'm taking care of you." A lot of the mental abuse and belittling of the woman involves planting or exacerbating fears of the outside world.

Again, look it up as the material I wrote appears to be out of your frame of reference.



Your notion of "Alpha Male" isn't the same as mine. You clearly have a picture of a shallow, dominating, quasi-sociopathic, self-centered user in there. Lots of men are Alphas who are not like that. Alphas tend to have more sexual opportunity than non-Alphas, but that is normal. That doesn't mean that a weak and undesirable man is a better Protector or Provider.

Your paragraph might make sense if Alpha males were, as are in your limited frame of reference, shallow jerks and the women were losers. But my definition of Alpha Males is a little different than yours.

And you are forgetting that Alpha Males' natural partners are Alpha females. Alpha females are not as afraid of competition as you might think. Few women want a men who is so sheltered that other women don't want those men. Your reasoning is all based on the psychology of losers who are afraid/unable to compete with anyone or anything. As a classic piece of knowledge: people are always more attracted to prospective partners who are drawing other people. You have no notion as to the really, really well-understood basics of human attraction.

I suggest you pick up Robert Greene's "The Art of Seduction". I'm not in a position to write a 500-page technical manual to teach you everything that supports my comments.



My post was the outline of my theory, not a thesis to teach and defend. Look it up yourself. I'm not saying that I think beautiful people have better genetic material, I'm saying that theories are that we are programmed with a preference for beauty as a bias that evolutionary psychologists theorize is intended to seek better genetic material. Look up yourself these concepts if you disagree.



That is true in the U.S. where the society is sexually repressive and dysfunctional compared to some other countries. I believe that in France statistical studies (released recently) showed that as women age there, their sexual encounters increase in both frequency and variety of sexual behaviors. America has a high level of female impotence and anorgasmia. Since I was writing about natural female sexual desire and not the female sexual dysfunctional problems of America, I'm not using that as a frame of reference. Maybe you might want to resort to your version of Alpha Male domination to con and muscle anhydonic American females over 40 into your bed, if that is what you are interested in.



Firstly, yes they do. Secondly, I was speaking from an evolutionary psychology perspective where sexual arousal mechanisms arose and evolved. I'm not theorizing what is right and wrong. Just how women respond sexually, mostly for instinctive reasons.



Again, you are focused on scamming and taking advantage of losers, those who can't get anyone and who can't compete with other females. Sounds like you've been doing some bottomfeeding, ManErg.



You can turn on any movie in which there is a hero that gets the girl. It's programmed into our pop culture. Much of what we don't act out from the "Conan the Barbarian" type days are subsumed into our pop culture and sports culture. The psychology of arousal, not only sexual but other physical aggression and motivation, is linked to danger and heros and protection and saving, whether alone or in a team. If you don't recognize that, you can't thrill a woman except with head games and psychological manipulation. And the head games and psychological manipulation aren't things that are easy for AS people to do. It's not easy for me to do, if I wanted to do it. If that is what you are prosthletyzing with the cynical, phony Alpha Male crap, I think you're pushing it to people who would benefit from more honest and sincere methods of approaching women.



You don't even realize, do you, that being in good physical condition and strong and healthy might be more sexually attractive (and indicative of good genetic material) than not being in condition. You're even challenging my notion that working out improves a man's appearance. And my comment that this is something that Asperger people can manage (i.e. not necessarily a social-skills issue).



You are just nit-picking my social view here.



I again said that I think you and I have different explanations for what is an Alpha male. The men you describe as AS who are in good jobs, etc. are not necessarily not Alphas. You have a cynical, phony explanation of what an Alpha Male is. I have a more neutral view, from biology and anthropology. Not from this cynical, phony domineering stereotype I think is being pushed in some circles.



I was going to post another long post on how to do this, I could even post direct information here (probably in the adult section), but after working through your questions, I think that I would have to write a 500-page technical manual that has all the basic explanations, Venn diagrams, and exploded assembly and parts diagrams in it, so I'm not going to bother. It's not that hard, tho. Especially if you're open to bottom feeding stupid, gullible female losers, as you apparently are, to get practice having sex using techniques you study.



Marriage & sex are two different subjects, believe it or not. If you are expecting me to ground divorce statistics in theories of sexual arousal, you are sadly mistaken. Except for the fact that as an evolutionary matter men and women only have to stay together long enough for the babies to get big enough to keep up with the pack and avoid predators.



Your truisms are intellectually and sensually empty folk wisdom of locker-room quality. Male version of old-wives tale.

Your theories of psychological head games and con artistry and ego domination are only good for manipulating and scamming losers, bottom feeding the low-self-esteem and the head-cases.

Take any girl to a physics seminar and then to a top-shelf gym and ask her how many guys, in each place, she found attractive.

AS men can work out, get good muscle tone and a healthy glow, study and get as good an occupation as you can, learn a variety of great sex skills (it's really important and books are out there), be as generous as you can (be a hero or a good protector in some way).

If you use the shallow, phony, cynical, ego-dominating tactics of the unhealthy stereotyped dominating male in this OP's post, you will only score, if you score at all, with losers and head cases with low self-esteem. Those are the kind of people the psychological head games work with.

Last edited by ephemerella on 13 Dec 2008, 5:32 pm, edited 2 times in total.

So how will she ever know if her assumption is correct? What you say above contradicts what you say further up about "American women having bad sex relationships".

But the really big flaw with your argument is that a man's skills in bed are independant of the woman he is with. (and vice versa) The fact is that some women are just so ignorant and disinterested in sex, Casanova himself couldn't even warm them up.

It takes two and where people are happy, it's a combination of understanding, effort and acceptance made by the two of them. Not one of them expecting the other to 'perform to Olympic standards to make me happy'. Sexual pleasure is basically your own responsibility, not something to blame others for if you're not getting it.

In the case of a rejection, you never really know for sure. Well, I pretty much knew for sure when my professor's skanky girlfriend was crying on my shoulder about how miserable her sex life was and was telling me how the sex was lousy, so that was rare confirmation that my assumption was true.

There are stages in which you size men up. There's the "first five minutes" impression.

I actually couldn't figure out why I couldn't have sex with my professor until just recently. I had no idea that sex in the U.S. was as bad as it was. I grew up in Europe. I had no way to map my lack of attraction for some men to what was my implicit awareness that they had no sexual skills, because I had no idea that some men were so ignorant. Only recently have I been able to map the things that put me off in men who seemed otherwise okay, to the fact that these were a subset of signals that corresponded to warning signs that they had no sex skills, i.e. that there was "No Pleasure Here" if I got involved.

Also, much of my sensual thinking was quite nonverbal and non-explicit. I often do that when I am systemizing. I systemize nonverbally for a long time until something clicks and I "know" that something, and then I use math and other analytical methods to figure out what it is I know and how I know it. If I am good, a whole new theory or method of analysis pops out.

Once I figured out that I had come to "know" the professor was a sexually desperate loser in bed, then other things fell into place, like why he was scamming an AS student for sex in the first place, why he had an inadequate wife, yada yada yada.

Edited to add:

Actually I agree with you in one respect. People can pretend. After my first sexual harassment trauma, I was "pretending" to be a sexual naif in order to try to appear to fragile and lame for professors to hit on. So I exaggerated my childlike features (like my voice) as much as I was able to do (I'm not a good actress) and otherwise acted naive romantically around my professor. This was because in my previous sexual harassment and stalking trauma, the professor(s) said I seemed older and more worldly than the other students and they acted as if I were pretending to be offended and traumatized. Obviously, neither they nor I knew about the AS back then, in the first trauma. But part of why they probably assumed I was callous about sexual harassment is that I was dating members of the track team at the time of the first sexual harassment/stalking trauma. So they probably assumed that I was some kind of cynical sex addict hanging around with a lot of college boys to get some action. But in fact those student athletes were coming after me... one even proposed to me. Obviously, the misperception of my first set of sexual harassers was that I was some kind of cynical sex addict chasing college guys, when in fact those boys were lining up for me, for serious relationships. When I returned to school, finally, and then associated with Dennis Healy, I had no real understanding of why my previous professors had so much sexual disrespect for me, so I just tried to repress all sexuality and acted like a naif. In this case, the professor would have had a misperception of my own sexual skills.

So, obviously, based on my own experience, the misperception that you propose does exist and I have experienced it both ways. Firstly, the professors in my prior sexual harassment trauma assumed that I was chasing the student athletes and not that they were chasing me, probably because they have limited exposure to sexually competent women and just assume a woman who attracts that much attention is hustling like a sex addict, instead of being a magnet. Secondly, when I returned to school, I wanted to avoid any confusion, so with my limited acting skills I acted childlike and pretended to be a sexual naif, to promote a professor's perception of me as one of those hands-off-the-naive-student cases. Both of these misperceptions involve frame of reference errors or manipulations, which are presumably not present in a social seduction such as is the topic of this thread.

I.e. I was misperceived as chasing younger male students when it was they who were after me, and then I later tried to intentionally promote misperception of myself as a sexual naif, but these conditions were due to social dysfunction and harassment.

Last edited by ephemerella on 16 Dec 2008, 11:32 am, edited 3 times in total.

You yourself said she was "crazy", though. Could she have ever said different?

Ephemerella, I don't want to debate your personal experience. (it sounds far too confusing for me!) . What I'm trying to get across is that I don't believe women, or men are anywhere near as good at 'sixth sensing' what other people are really like. We all get conned, fooled make continual mistakes about what others are really like.

However, many of us believe we have these powers, maybe a few do. The commonest refrain I hear in failed relationships is "he/she seemed fine at first, but then....". Our radar is flawed, but perhaps it's all we have so we sincerely wish it to be perfect. And never examine the evidence that suggests otherwise.

I think she was genuinely BPD or some combination of personality disorders. But the lousiness of her sex life seemed to permeate her consciousness no matter what mood or personality she was in. Again, the girlfriend's complaints was only one data set in a flood of negative signals about the guy.



I don't think that, personal experience wise or not, it is that difficult to tell if someone has the promise of being a good football player, or has the sensibility and fine taste to be a good chef, or has the dexterity, senses and intellectual interest in animals to be a good hunter. And then, further, talking to them or watching them try out for the role, it's not too hard to form an opinion on whether or not you think they know what they are talking about.

Similarly, I don't think it is that hard to tell whether a man has any natural or acquired sex skills. It certainly isn't the murky, mysterious area that you might think it is.



You are talking about something completely different, personality and identity. It is almost impossible to tell what an NT is under their surface. Or predict the the character that they might display under new circumstances. That is the subject of much forensic psychology, religion, works of literature and great morality tales. That is light years away from simply being able to tell if a guy has sex skills.

You should not equate character, personality and identity with whether or not someone has great sex skills. Quite often ones who do have great sex skills are rogues, and have no character.

Other women may not have these skills. I seem to be an adept. Although I hate to use that word, no way to rate me.

She watches guys open peanuts without using their hands.

As he opens the door to all kinds of inneresting jokes, I feel another "Top Ten List" building...

However, it would be far easier to write a "Top Ten Ways To Tell A Guy Sucks in Bed" list than a "Top Ten Ways To Tell A Guy is a Great Lover", if the frame of reference is the American sex scene.

You concoct all these condescending schemes to bed women, yet discount the importance of actually having sex skills to please her. I'm sure you all will score real well.

Every year, many fail to make the grade as pro-footballers and pro-chef's. So why were they given a chance if the coaches could tell in advance? Simple. They can't.


It's incredibly simple to form a totally incorrect opinion on anything.


Oh yes we can! You'd almost certainly disagree with it though.