pretending to be in a relationship to look more attractive

Post Reply New Topic

Hyperlexian, your thread isn't something new at all btw:

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt216099.html

that was pretending to have sexual experience, which isn't really the same thing. similar, though.

Dantac, if it all "makes sense from an anthropological point of view" it would make sense for allllll the peoples, and if you read the actual study or my OP, you would see it does not. it only works for some people - the single ones, mostly. about the other point, women make their own money these days, so it doesn't follow they'd be after some man's money. further, the man's earnings were NOT included in the original study. so none of that really works.

rabbittss, thanks for sharing your experiences of how it worked for you! Pondering, good point. that may be the case in many situations.

Last edited by hyperlexian on 28 Jan 2013, 6:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

Women don't want to train their men like pets. They want ones that already obey, the one that went for years and lived with the dog trainer.
Probably what the guys see in the attached women too.

I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of young adolescent guys go for older women, because the older women are more experienced...

It just occurred to me that if the OP is true (which certainly has significant validity) - then the opposite must also have validity.

...meaning any of us tossed in the trash by partners "trading up" or who were otherwise less than 100% satisfied - are going to be thought of as less desirable by other partners in the future. Kinda' like someone fired from their job looks worse to the next employer, even if it was a shifty employer vs. a bad employee situation.

*sigh* Good thing it's a low priority for me these days...

that part (as bolded) wasn't actually apparent in the study. you can click the link in the original post to see the results. i don't know why it would make you less desirable because it showed that someone, somewhere found you attractive once.

It works for the same instinct reasons.

and I was not pretending, they were simply assuming something false about me.

it might be true, yeah - i don't know. i know that i personally don't care about dating or sexual experience, so i can't say if i judge them both the same way or not. someone else would have to answer that

We think in totally different wavelengths btw.

You're a "Humans are conscious almost instinct-free reasonable creatures" doctrine.

On the other hand I believe in "Humans are intelligent apes" - when it comes to sexual selection and attraction, humans are very apes, however humans invented terms like "spark" and "chemistry" to make their attraction experiences sound less ape and more mystic.

Last edited by The_Face_of_Boo on 28 Jan 2013, 6:52 am, edited 2 times in total.

yeah, it makes sense that we'd not find it easy to communicate a common ground.

Read up on the multi-culture study by David Buss. Part of it is about women in very different cultures and what they perceived as desirable in a mate. Resources was the key no matter if you were a 1st world woman living in a megacity or a nomadic tribeswoman. This is why I say that it makes sense.

It does not matter if earnings were not included in the study per say. Simple deduction: if he's taken it means he passed his girl's 'checks' and that increases his desirability to other women.

I also remind you that only a minute amount of women in the world have the ability to make their own money. 1st,2nd and better-off 3rd world countries yes... but the bulk of the female population in this planet do not have that advantage. The Buss study also covered 1st world countries and in general it was found that a woman, even if she worked for her money, still showed great preference for a mate that could bring in resources over one that merely was nice, looked good and was broke.

The Buss study is interesting in that it provided data in what men and women considered important and intolerable when it came to choosing and keeping mates.

men: looks/health most important factor and find sexual infidelity unacceptable.
Translation: looks/health = will my genes passed on here will be healthy. sexual infidelity= is this really my kid?

women: resources as most important factor, looks/health as 2nd most important. sexual infidelity was found to be not as critical a relationship-breaker as it was in men as long as she retained access and preferably control of the resources he brought in.
Translation: resources=my offspring wont starve & will have the best chance; looks/health=my genes passed on here will be healthy. sexual infidelity= threat to the resources going to another woman. *

*This is the reason cited as to why most women he interviewed said they'd forgive sexual infidelity as long as the guy remained theirs and his resources available only to her children. Of course they hated the infidelity but the interesting thing was men would terminate the relationship whereas a woman would try and keep it.

In short, men think about themselves, women about their kids. Its dead-on right if you ask me.

This is not my opinion its the results of the study. In my opinion it does make sense even though my morals find it slightly insulting.

if you look at actual marriages though, people usually tend to marry within their own socioeconomic bracket. Buss performed a survey and did not look at actual demographic data in terms of who marries whom. women would have to be marrying "up" for income or earning power to be a significant factor in a marriage context, and that does not play out in our culture to any significant degree anymore.

also, the more gender parity the society has for earnings and education, the closer in age the spouses will be at the age of first marriage. basically, women don't have to get married young and marry for money if they can pull in their own resources. an older man earns more money on average than a younger woman, and may have more education, so he becomes more attractive - but only in a culture where a woman earns less.

additionally, about male parentage... i was reading Sex at Dawn and there are many examples of cultures where parentage is less important or less personal than ours. in some cultures, pregnant women even have sex with as many men as possible so the baby can have lots of dads! even in our society, many men knowingly raise children who are not their own, like in a stepdad situation. it isn't so simple that it can be boiled down to men wanting to be selfish or anything.

the stepdad story only supports the part where the woman dictates that he (stepdad) marries her if he accepts the children, which is what Dantec mentioned In short, men think about themselves, women about their kids. Its dead-on right if you ask me. .

that makes no sense. she is not holding hostages, it's a relationship. she is thinking of dating, not just about the kids - she could just as easily date someone else or she may end up alone. the kids are a consideration but they are not some weird bargaining chip.

and there are also stepmoms out there, equally willing to take on the same role.

So what you're saying is that women are just as selfish as men?

of course both genders can be equally selfish! i don't think this was a good example of selfishness though. parents are tasked with balancing both romantic and parenting concerns, so they have to consider multiple factors. not every one of them does, and some of them behave more selfishly than others, but it's not one gender that is worse than the other.

I think it works the same way with other factors.... People are constantly after what they feel they are being denied... or are in danger of losing the ability to get. I think we really put to much emphasis on "Anthropological" drive on these forums.. I'm sure that in a basic sense it is there.. but I think the idea that we are just animals and are therefore only beholden to basic animal drives.. is a bit narrow. Personally, I prefer the "Super Stick 1million" analogy to life.. If you ever went to a skating rink or bowling ally in the 90's.. you woulda seen one of these machines.. sort of a wind tunnel they put the kid into and it had say like.. free pizza coupons or 1$ bills and they'd turn it on and you had 30 seconds to grab as much as you could.. Well all the kids would try for the money first but as the clock started running out they'd just try and grab a hold of anything they could lay their hands on. And I think that's how life is.. just different people have different clocks.. some have socities clock.. some have a biological clock.. and some have a religious clock.. and the eternal outlier.. some people just do get lucky and find the love of their life first thing right off the bat..