I suppose my previous post have been badly recieved considering that it was actually badly written.
In any case I'm posting here because I do truely believe that I have something constructive to say and genuine insights to offer.
Let me first start with the preliminaries, to which I take extremely brutal offence to.
The guy who sent is photo is not ugly, and the evolutionary theory has slight flaws, although mainly true, is dated.
MysteryWoman, I do not intend to flame nor insult you, but that shows total ignorance and lack of intelligence. If you eventually get to do the high levels of mathematics that I am about to do, and I'm only a humble graduate student mind, you will see just how ignorant you really are. The Darwinian evolutionary theory is the only workable theory that we have about how and why life is the way it is - there is NO other theory. These so called other theories of Freud (some right some wrong) and the much more recent ones (some of which I have read up on) are going to be merely trivial corollaries of a Grand Unified Theory of human psychology that has yet to be worked out. And the reason for this is simple - our mathematics is not strong enough yet. It requires a radically new way of thinking and new concepts - in short it requires someone of the order of a Newton or a Gauss to inject vitality and open up new paths to attack the major problems and concepts at hand.
Let me give you a disturbing example of the power of this view: I personally hate chimpanzees. I think they're grotesque - but I'll tell you what, I'm interested in them because they share 96.4% of our genes (it actually might be higher than this). I have never been to Africa nor observed Chimpanzees in the wild. However I took to reading Dawkin's "The Selfish Gene" and Morris's "Nake Ape Trilogy" and modified and conjectured, on Game Theoretical grounds, that the Alpha Male in a chimp colony should want to murder (and maybe eat) the offspring of a rival male and that he would enlist the aid of his subordinates to do so. This disturbing thought experiment was done by me in 1996 and I kept it to myself and was deeply disturbed by it. Notice everything was conjectured on theoretical grounds on the "Gene Selfish" view of evolution and by delicate mathematical arguments that I can not go into here. It was a complete shock to find that I was right 3 years later when I saw such a program about cannabilism amongst chimpanzees.
Now let me clean a few things up for you and Brad: You say women care about men's looks - that I totally agree with, but it does vary from person to person who they find attractive or not. I have done extensive thinking on this matter and have fallen out with a lot of friends over it, and I've been honest and strong enough to admit my own mistakes and apologise to them.
The problem I see is that people go onto this discussion forum hoping there's a miracle way of attracting that special person (and it's never persons) that they are interested in when they probably had enough signs from the woman in question that she's not interested. (I know because I use to be one of them as I honestly admit). The person with a proper retort to all this is DeepDish with the link below:
http://www.sosuave.com/vBulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21847
The thing is, is that you find it offensive that some man who may not be your type can attract you by his "character" or his other valuable assets and that really angers you, thinking that we men just have to find the right stuff to press. I too was angered by an ex friend saying that I should not be so into looks myself (I'm a 9 or 10, but believe me I'll a damn 11 when I get a professor's chair - just you see) and that I should really give any woman a chance to get to know her and maybe then I'll like her. I've realised throughout my life I just can't do that.
Consider the following famous experiment done by a psychologist who I've forgotten the name of. He had 15 boys and 15 girls and have 30 piece of paper number 1 to 30. He stuck these pieces of paper onto the foreheads of these people so that they can all see that numbers on other people's foreheads but not on theirs. The psychologist now tells them all to pair off with the highest number that they could find. Of course number 30 got together with number 29 and so on until everything filtered done with, sadly, name 1 ending with number 2.
And that's how we are in life. Who's going to accept second best for themselves? - we all want the best we can get. Nobody is taking anyone's independence of action away from anyone else. We end up with someone because we WANT to. When we don't want someone we all show it - in our demeanour and even our words when it comes to it. We choose for ourselves - but we CANNOT choose for other people. Who's business is it anyway if you see some stunning babe with an ugly guy? Does that imply that those that are not blessed with good looks should somehow reach for these loser's manuals on how to attract any woman they want (knowing that they're complete and utter crap anyway)? No it doesn't.
Human beings are mathematical objects to me. I can say this because we are digitally defined by our DNA and DNA is just a FINITE DIGITAL CODE that we mathematicians can do our mathematics on, and the Darwinian theory is an integral part of it.
As an aside: to cast a little light the reason why men can agree quickly to sex is that men only have to produce sperm whereas the woman has to invest much more in getting pregrant and producing the baby. This assymetry was first put forward by Trivers. She will be after Quality, He should be after Quantity. See "The Red Queen" by Mat Ridley for further discussions.
We are bounded by our evolutionary path and our animal instincts and urges shows through in all our affairs no matter what the FVCK we say to the contrary (and I have have purposely put that in bold because I strongly mean it). Our past is Darwinian, our present is Darwinian and our future is Darwinian. That's not negotiable - it's just a brutally honest fact of life just like the simple fact that we are all going to die.
As far as I can make out of all this Brad has also made an important point. You have only one life so you should live it well and to the max. He also have been terrible honest about how other women have reacted to him and seems to want to revenge himself by labelling them as *****es. I myself would not label such people as such, I see eveyone on this earth as fundamentally selfish and if someone just happens to find another unattractive, for whatever reason, the so be it. There's nothing more to say and I'm absolutely sure that no amount of DJ skills would change their minds. People are they way they are because they are the way they are (tautalogical I know). And you can ONLY choose the things that CHOOSE you.
For example when I was young I wanted to be a professional biologist. But I knew as I got older I just never had it in me. That's just the way life is. I've seen other students fall by the wayside because they never made the grade and settled to doing tedious jobs (even though some of them are earning in the region of over £120K now) while I just dominated and took top rank at my uni.
Yes looks are important and if you are saying that mysterywoman then so be it. They are important to you and you want to digitally extend that to all women including some of your good looking friends. I got news for you all: Looks matters, but it's also how to feel about a person. I fell in love with someone who didn't WANT me - for whatever reason that was. But by some uncanny twist of fate the best looking girl in college fancied me and I was so emotionally fvcked up about all this that I just moved uni.
Finally, and thanks for listening to my long rant (it's pretty incoherent since I've just had over 13 hours of mathematical thinking previous to this and it helps relieve my day), let us not forget that the sole purpose of partnering someone in a long term relationship is the production of offspring. I think it was Arthur Schopenhauer who put forward the view that love was actually vain and prejudice in the sense that the partners can be at each other throats or simply wouldn't choose each other for friends but as partners because of sexual attraction. And there is also a corollary to this that some genes are not suited to others. That is there are some extremely good looking women that you can never be attracted to because at a genetic level even though her genes are good they are just not good for you to pair with in producing a child . . . .
As for myself, and I mean this honestly, if I don't find a women attractive I would not even bother with her. Like mysterywoman I don't date women I'm not attracted to. I don't care if she has other great qualities (like high intelligence, good voice, great dress sense, earns a huge amount of money, socially adept etc. .) If I find her physically unattractive then I wouldn't even consider dating her, regardless of her personality.
