Challenging the theory of women by DJ's

[Eileen]

Blimey! Not another science debate.

 

[Craig Reeves]

Actually ManOMan attraction is usually formed within in the first five seconds of meeting someone not five minutes.

That's bull****. If attraction happened in the first 5 seconds for a WOMAN, then it will have to happen the first THREE seconds for a guy, and that's bull****. Never in my life have I met a woman, and in 3 seconds decided that I wanted to sleep with her, ever....no matter how hot she was.

I can't speak for everyone by I usually know instantly when first meeting a guy whether there is chemistry or not, often before he has told me his name.

Thinking somebody is cute and wanting to get to know them is NOT attraction - that's just interest. Attraction is when you THINK about them often when they are gone. Attraction is when you feel a connection with somebody and you want to be around them all the time....basically.....you like their company. Now how could one possibly like being around somebody or feel a connection with them in the first 5 seconds of meeting them? That's bull. This is prove that you don't know a damn thing about how this stuff works.

However once I get to know him and he hasn't got the right attitude this will fade.

You're contradicting yourself, here. Attraction can't switch on and off that quickly. No, what's going on is that you find INITIAL INTEREST for a guy, you go over and talk to him and you DO NOT FEEL ATTRACTION. You find out based on his personality that you DO NOT like his company, so you move to somebody else. That makes much more sense than what you are saying.

Craig Reeves, attraction is usually a ruthless choice despite what David D'Anglio says.

News flash....I came up with that theory before he did.

According to the Evolution thory, the reason why you see so many good looking women with average looking guys (I have only just learnt this at college in the last couple of months) or ugly ones, has nothing to do with the guy being confident, hard to get or sometimes wealth. Similar to female birds, the best reproductive strategy for a woman is to settle with a mediocre a guy who is more reliable to hang around to raise the offspring, and mate with the best looking guy (often unreliable) so that her children turns out to be good looking.

The theory of evolution is just that......a THEORY. It is NOT taught to educate people on how the origins of life on earth work. I know this for a fact. It is merely taught because it is an important theory to learn. I do not believe in the theory of evolution (i'm a creationist) so everything that you have just said does not hold water with me. Not to mention that it doesn't even make sense.

But let me use your theory of evolution against you, shall I?

Based off of what I know about evolution, it goes on a theory that humans are animals just like all the other animals on the earth (just much more evolved). I highly doubt that decisive decisions like who a female animal is going to mate with is really based off of looks - it is based off of the most DOMINANT male out of the pack. This is the animal they are going to mate with and ultimately be the father of their children.

Not only that. But if that were the case, then you wouldn't see so many hot women MARRIED to average looking guys. Think about it, most women MARRY a guy so that they CAN start a family. And if that was also the case, then you are basically saying that if you are an average guy dating a hot woman, she is guaranteed to cheat on you, and that is also utter bull****.

You're such a feminist yet you are basically saying that all women cheat on their men if they aren't "good looking" enough.

And as for science arguments.....you just disproved the theory of evolution even more than it has already been disproved before.

 

[MysteryWoman]

Sorry about the official statistics suggest that one in ten children are not the children of the fathers they believe they are.

The reason most beautiful women end up with average looking men, is because they benefit as the man is more reliable than the handsome stud. But a lot of them will set out to get pregnant by the best looking guy she can get. Ever notice that the majority of the time when the woman is good looking the children almost alway turn out good looking no matter how ugly the guy looks.

I know you probably not going to read it but the books that I have got my information on are "The Red Queen" (1993) by Matt Ridley and David Buss latest book, can't remember the name

 

[Aramas]

The theory of evolution is just that......a THEORY. It is NOT taught to educate people on how the origins of life on earth work. I know this for a fact. It is merely taught because it is an important theory to learn. I do not believe in the theory of evolution (i'm a creationist) so everything that you have just said does not hold water with me. Not to mention that it doesn't even make sense.

This is pure, ignorant, rampant stupidity. Gravity is just a theory. Do you think you will float away if you stop believing it? Every modern structure on earth was designed with theories. WIll they all fall on your head when you proclaim their heresy? The great unwashed seem to confuse 'theory' with 'hypothesis'.

Evolution is a proven, observable and repeatable theory. Take a bacterial culture, add chlorine to it in sufficient quantity to wipe out 90%+ of them, let them get back to the normal population, rinse and repeat - voila! In a few day you have evolved chlorine resistant bacteria. How do you think viruses change into new forms? How do they transfer from animals to humans? How do they develop resistance to drugs? Through evolution, fvckhead. I'm so sick of listening to morons deny the self evident while embracing dogma.

Every breed of dog, cat, canary, hamster, cow, horse, pig, chicken, duck, goose, lettuce, broccoli, wheat, corn and so on ad infinitum has evolved from a wild ancestral strain and continues to do so.

'Creationist' is just another name for 'ignorant, stupid, self-deluded moron'. At least it's shorter and easier to spell

Don't cofuse valid proven theories with the bitter, twisted, self deluded drivel that poses as such on this forum. Some d!ckhead had the gall to claim that 'data shows' some mindless shyt he was trying to pass off as fact. Show me one shred of data, proof, research, whatever that supports the fvcked up shyt that people spout on this site.

 

[( . )( . )]

Originally posted by MysteryWoman
Sorry about the official statistics suggest that one in ten children are not the children of the fathers they believe they are.

The reason most beautiful women end up with average looking men, is because they benefit as the man is more reliable than the handsome stud. But a lot of them will set out to get pregnant by the best looking guy she can get. Ever notice that the majority of the time when the woman is good looking the children almost alway turn out good looking no matter how ugly the guy looks.

I know you probably not going to read it but the books that I have got my information on are "The Red Queen" (1993) by Matt Ridley and David Buss latest book, can't remember the name

probably the truest thing youve said for quite some time, SEE you b!tches can sometimes not talk sh!t and say stuff thats half congruent to real life.

well done mystery, keep it up.


just on a side note, chicks are finding it harder and harder to pull this manoeuvre off nowadays with the ease of DNA tests, and i would think in the coming years it will be alot cheaper for men to have them done, btw i always thought it should be a free service provided by the government, but thats neither here nor there.

 

[Eileen]

Originally posted by Aramas
'Creationist' is just another name for 'ignorant, stupid, self-deluded moron'. At least it's shorter and easier to spell

Finally! Someone who talks sense!

 

[Paradox]

Getting back on topic, we can see that all women are not the same. Most DJ's will agree though that by not giving a woman who is used to alot of attention little or no attention you make them raise an eyebrow.

Treating the 10 as if she were a 4 is an effective field proven DJ technique. Neg-hits and other techniques show her that to the DJ she is nothing special.

This raises her curiosity and hopefully makes her want to learn more about the man who does not bow at her feet.

 

[MysteryWoman]

Originally posted by Paradox
Getting back on topic, we can see that all women are not the same. Most DJ's will agree though that by not giving a woman who is used to alot of attention little or no attention you make them raise an eyebrow.

Treating the 10 as if she were a 4 is an effective field proven DJ technique. Neg-hits and other techniques show her that to the DJ she is nothing special.

This raises her curiosity and hopefully makes her want to learn more about the man who does not bow at her feet.

But only if she is interested in the guy in the first place to an extent, otherwise she doesn't give a shyt

 

[darwinian_sympathiser]

Because of the post by Aramas, I now step in . . .

OK, first off I think Craig Reeves initial criticism of MysteryWoman was valid, and the last comment of

"leave your problems and your snotty feminist attitude at the door"

was well meant. Having said that I view her now as someone, maybe the creationists are guilty of this also, of wanting the world in their own image. Her obsession with "model looks" and all this physical attraction business tells me something about her character that I rather not say here, but I think we all know what it is . . .

You see, before I move onto the main point, Nature is not - and never was nor will be - in our own image. Nature does not care about us, no matter what we think of it. It has no feelings and it cannot be turned. We simply have to submit to it in ways that best suit us. Which is why all these scientific disciplines arose. I rather they did not arose since it makes for a serious amount of effort of intellect to understand them - and that requires discipline and solitude, plus you need to have the intelligence to do so, which the general population doesn't (no offence to anyone here, I wished I could have been a world class footballer once but I just cannot make the grade)

It was I who mentioned "The Red Queen" in another thread that MysteryWoman started, entitled rather typically "looks are more important than you think". The other book by Buss that she mentions is probably "The Evolution of Desire", and the research that Bellis and Baker did. They also found out (and she forgets to mention this) that these cheating women typically had affairs with men who are higher in status than their husbands . . . Oh and in "The Red Queen" women were orderd by their looks and men were orderd by their STATUS . . . Why didn't you mention that?

I agree that attraction is not a choice, for the reason (and you all should have known this although I have hinted at it in various other posts since I looked into it very carefully) is to do with your sexual imprinting . . see Lorenz (and for a good overview see Morris).

Main point is this, and here I'm totally brutal: There is no such thing as good looking, nor ugly, nor anything . . Never has, never will be. It's the species that defines it according to its own standards. What if I took you in a time machine and sent you back to the time of Neanderthal man, how would they rate your looks? We have all deluded ourselves into this trap because our domiance and status hierarchies demanded it. If you read Dawkings carefully (The Selfish Gene, The Extened Phenotype), who incidently was trained by Niko Tinbergen as was Morris, he does mention about looks and dominance, BUT only in the context of whether it helps the gene pass onto the next generation.

And that's the point here we should look at. You all may or may not like this, but Nature has the last laugh. If it's looks that gets genes into the next generation so be it, if it's intelligence or having a fit body to provide food so be it. If it's a way with words or the ability to acquire wealth so be it. They are just solutions to an age old problem.

If any of you want me to reaffirm this, you can't choose those that do not choose you. We can all talk about looks or domiance and status but at the end of the day people make their decisions, and usually their bodies tells them so. You also got to know that some genes don't go well together, even though they live in the bodies of two "good looking" people according to MysteryWoman's point of view. And sometimes we fall in love with people who don't choose us or are abusive towards us, but the benefit to be with them outweights that costs (to our minds that is, even though others might see it differently). This is all a mishmash mess that our genes play with us.

And lastly, somewhere Pook made a beautiful insight. The opposite of love is not hate, it's power. That is what your posts are telling me, MysteryWoman. You seem to think, through insecurity or similar, that you might get interested in an "ulgy" guy or that an "ugly" guy could get you if they followed the tactics in this thread. It's a mark of that insecurity that you post the stuff that you do here, and your obsession with "model looks" makes me cringe. You want power, darling, and the sad thing is, we ain't going to give you it . . .

As for myself there's this one woman I'm seriously interested in, and I can't change the way I feel about her. I don't care if you find her "ugly", because my feelings for her is none of anyone's business. And if you want to ruthlessly judge people I think you ought to have a good look at yourself first before you do so. One of the things I learned is that I really can't judge other people in any way, not because it wrong, but because all of us have to bow down to Nature at the end of the day - we're all in this together whether you like it or not . . I don't like Nature the way it is, but the fact that it is the way it is and that I can never change that tells me something, and that's when I learnt to grow up. Just like Pook, DeepDish, The UnkownDon, BondJamesBond and the other wonderful posters on this site that makes it worth visiting from time to time . .

 

[ManOMan]

Mystery Woman,

again even a woman doesnt know what her gender wants or how they work

I have met many women in my past who just saw me as another guy, they showed very little interest

Girl #1 - we were casual aquaintances. I tried to hook up with her before, and was turned down. Then a few months later, there was some gossip among her friends that I was really "intelligent, funny, etc" Then all of a sudden, this girl was literally GROPING me, trying to kiss me, and still today always asking about me (but I kinda lost interest while she took a while to warm up)

Not only that, suddenly her friends were all interested in me too. I had no idea how all this got turned around , but I was pleasantly surprised.

Girl #2 - Very attractive woman, would come out with us everytime we went out. She was always trying to hook up with one of my other friends (even if they had girlfriends)

Then at one point I just thought "she isnt interested in me anyway might as well have some fun with it" so I busted some DJ techniques on her (teasing her, ignoring her, telling her how she is missing out on some great lovin) then all of a sudden , she started pursuing me! I was a bit taken back because this girl usually didnt give me a 2nd look

not to mention so many women Ive talked to in the past who said about their husbands "I wasnt initially attracted to him, now we are married"

your 5 sec rule isnt all encompassing. Some women are attracted to a guy right off the bat, and others need time to warm up

That DeAngelo crap about "attraction cant be created" is all b.s. and contradictory

he says attraction cant be created yet he writes an entire book on how to create attraction

 

[MysteryWoman]

But the woman who you was ignoring may have secretely liked you in the first place, and was hitting on other guys to ignite interest in you. I know some girls who have done this. Otherwise she is in insecure type that has to have every guy like her whether she is into him or not. These type of women will probably bolt the moment the guy makes a sexual move on her.

But the reason why I started this discussion is because you tried to generalise all women as having their only power in life is through sexually manipultating. And by ignoring a hot woman will suddenly have her lusting after you. If it was as easy as that many shy guys would have stunning women chasing them left, right and centre due to not showing interest.

No matter how good looking a man or woman is there is always someone who is not going to fancy them, and they are aware of this. Ignoring works, if the woman is slightly interested you in the first place.

Insecure DJ's have to accept that they can't have every woman they desire after, just as women have (including the hot ones from time to time). And ignoring hot women is not going to some magic wand that will have tones of women falling out of the sky and landing in your bed.

 

[Eileen]

Originally posted by darwinian_sympathiser
This is all a mishmash mess that our genes play with us.

Are you sure it's genetic and not some side effect of social interaction?

I tend to think that while people might be genetically predisposed for many things, it's the nurture side of the argument that plays the biggest role.

Originally posted by darwinian_sympathiser


And lastly, somewhere Pook made a beautiful insight. The opposite of love is not hate, it's power.

Power? How about indifference?

In general for everyone -

I won't argue the ins and outs of the evolutionary theory but I will add that the variable most ignored when talking about evolution is how social interactions effect evolution. Nature vs. Nurture. It’s an old psychology argument.

I'd also like to mention that "survival of the fittest" does not refer to strength or size. It means that the individuals who are most fit for the environment will be the ones likely to survive. This might mean the smallest or even the ugliest stand a better chance at survival. Dominance, in some cases, is a highly undesirable trait and not guaranteed to ensure survival.

I think it’s an affront to human intelligence to say that members of the human species are driven more by instincts than cognitive ability. I don’t discount evolutionary influences entirely, but to say humans have no control over who they are attracted to, is offensive to me. It sounds more like a psychological issue (obsession or the like) than a genetic argument.

The pedophile is a good example: Is he attracted to children because of genetics or because of some psychological issue?

 

[Craig Reeves]

This is pure, ignorant, rampant stupidity. Gravity is just a theory. Do you think you will float away if you stop believing it? Every modern structure on earth was designed with theories. WIll they all fall on your head when you proclaim their heresy? The great unwashed seem to confuse 'theory' with 'hypothesis'.

Isn't it called the Law of Gravity? I could have sworn that's what it was called. I could be wrong, though.

Evolution is a proven, observable and repeatable theory. Take a bacterial culture, add chlorine to it in sufficient quantity to wipe out 90%+ of them, let them get back to the normal population, rinse and repeat - voila! In a few day you have evolved chlorine resistant bacteria.

I know CELLS evolve...bacteria and viruses are single celled organisms.....

But that has nothing to do with INTELLEGENT life, you dumbass. Intellegent life includes all the animals and plants and funguses that you see all the time. If cells didn't evolve then nothing could grow.

Every breed of dog, cat, canary, hamster, cow, horse, pig, chicken, duck, goose, lettuce, broccoli, wheat, corn and so on ad infinitum has evolved from a wild ancestral strain and continues to do so.

There has been found to be mosquitoes that are said to be thousands of years old.....found in fossilized TREE SAP. Think about it......MOSQUITOES.........the same mosquitoes that we find today......how the hell have THEY not evolved.......oh yeah, and that tree that the sap came from...........I guess there were oak trees and pine trees back then too, huh.....but oh wait......that can't be right because they would have EVOLVED by then, right?

'Creationist' is just another name for 'ignorant, stupid, self-deluded moron'. At least it's shorter and easier to spell.

I know ALL about evolution. But it seems that you don't know anything about the Creation at all.....who's the ignorant one? Me? Or you?

So plz.....let me handle you and that *****, Eileen (why the fvck does she even post here, anywayz.....but I digress)....

The very first dinosaur bones were discovered in the 19th century.....yet for some funny reason...............they're mentioned in the Bible in Job 40:15-24. Read that. The description of that animal fits that of a dinosaur called the Brachiosaurus (the huge ones with the really long necks). Elephants and hippos certainly do not have tails like cedar trees......dummy...

While we're still on dinosaurs....

The theory of evolution states that dinosaurs evolved over MILLIONS of years.

To this day, archeologists have not found any animals that were PART dinosaur, and PART something else, or anything that even MIGHT have been part dinosaur and part something else. If the theory of evolution was true, we would have been able to dig up remains of creatures that were somewhat HALF dinosaur and HALF something else (i.e., half tricerotops and half rhino). It has not happened.......every dinosaur that has been discovered has been 100% dinosaur...no in-betweens.

Not to mention that the word 'dragon' is used a number of times in the Old Testament. In most instances, the word "dinosaur" could substitute for dragon and it would fit very nicely. Creation scientists believe that dinosaurs were called dragons before the word dinosaur was invented in the 1800s. We would not expect to find the word dinosaur in Bibles like the Authorized Version (1611), as it was translated well before the word dinosaur was ever used.

Something else...

The Bible tells us that God created all of the land animals on the sixth day of creation. As dinosaurs were land animals, they must have been made on this day, alongside Adam and Eve, who were also created on Day Six (Genesis 1:24-31). If God designed and created dinosaurs, they would have been fully functional, designed to do what they were created for, and would have been 100% dinosaur. This fits exactly with the evidence from the fossil records.

But anyway, before you and that ***** Eileen start running your yaps about how wrong and ignorant Creationists are.....remind yourselves to stop calling the kettle BLACK when you yourselfs are the pots.

 

[iqqi]

Originally posted by Craig Reeves
To this day, archeologists have not found any animals that were PART dinosaur, and PART something else, or anything that even MIGHT have been part dinosaur and part something else. If the theory of evolution was true, we would have been able to dig up remains of creatures that were somewhat HALF dinosaur and HALF something else (i.e., half tricerotops and half rhino). It has not happened.......every dinosaur that has been discovered has been 100% dinosaur...no in-betweens.

birds are dinosaurs

dinosaur extinction

read up.

p.s. you are stupid

 

[ManOMan]

I dont see how a species has to be part dinosaur and part something else?

correct me if Im wrong, but there is a classification of all animals, I dont know of any half breeds

I mean as humans , darwin said we came from the same origins as apes and monkeys, but it doesnt mean we are 1/2 ape 1/2 human

sure there were flying dinosaurs, but that doesnt mean birds were dinosaurs, there were also long necked dinosaurs(giraffes?) or turtle looking dinosaurs with shells

from what I remember, the only living remnants of dinosaurs today are crocs, lizards, turtles, etc.

 

[Eileen]

Originally posted by Craig Reeves
But that has nothing to do with INTELLEGENT life, you dumbass. Intellegent life includes all the animals and plants and funguses that you see all the time. If cells didn't evolve then nothing could grow.

I dare say I've never met an intelligent fungi.

(I'm not saying evolution isn't a observable fact, I'm just saying that most mushrooms aren't very smart. Conversation with one is quite a bore.)

 

[ManOMan]

tee hee! an intelligent mushroom! I could see glade capitalizing on that idea!

 

[DesertsFox]

Originally posted by ManOMan
tee hee! an intelligent mushroom! I could see glade capitalizing on that idea!

Eileen,

Even though the British sound different then americans, they are still aware of english grammar. Even the fake british .

 

[Eileen]

Originally posted by ManOMan
I dont see how a species has to be part dinosaur and part something else?

Actually, they are currently mapping the human genome by studying the DNA of bacteria.

It would seem that even bacteria have genetic sequences that are identical to parts of genetic sequences found in humans. This holds true if you sequence an earthworm, a moose or a whale. We all share common genetic sequences.

The idea that humans came from monkeys is absurd. We, like everything else on this planet, evolved from pond scum.

We share a common ancestry with many of the apes, but in the end, we share a common ancestry with every other living thing on the plant as well.

 

[Eileen]

Originally posted by DesertsFox
Eileen,

Even though the British sound different then americans, they are still aware of english grammar. Even the fake british .

I'm from South Africa ...