Schedules of Mating

[mb121]

There's an entire book out there about RT's good genes/good dad dichotomy. It's called sperm wars:

http://www.amazon.com/Sperm-Wars-Sc...bs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212138011&sr=8-2

Basically, women look to get impregnated by the good genes while having the ability to raise the child with a good dad. The book talks about scenarios which involve cheating and infidelity on the female's part to achieve this balance.

 

[FM 3321]

There's an entire book out there about RT's good genes/good dad dichotomy. It's called sperm wars:

http://www.amazon.com/Sperm-Wars-Sc...bs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212138011&sr=8-2

Basically, women look to get impregnated by the good genes while having the ability to raise the child with a good dad. The book talks about scenarios which involve cheating and infidelity on the female's part to achieve this balance.

I still need to read that book. It's sitting on my bookshelf and the moment.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Finally, the largest thing I find troublesome when Str8up put his two cent saying RT's post supports his view on humanity. I'm sorry, but the programming seems to say a type of people who are immediately attractive to lustful. My point is, I think there is more to life than just sexuality and biological evolution, if your view of people is they are that hostile that you sound, I must disagree.

I don't disagree with this. One of the reasons I continually lock horns with the SS moralists is because in my stripping away the veneer of the mechanics of all this it get s uncomfortable. In doing so it exposes a very harsh reality that I think we all know is there on some level of consciousness, but we have to stay positive about it or we go nihilistic. It's like fire; you can use the knowledge to warm you up and play the game better or you can let it burn you up. It seems pessimistic on the surface to analyze this; like it's all too serious, but there it is.

I like to look at things more pragmatically though. I hate to quote G.I. Joe, but, now you know, and knowing is half the battle. As I said in my prior posts, as human beings we're in the interesting position of being in between controlling our own behaviors, but still being undeniably influenced by our biology and the sometimes cruel evolutionary legacies of what we've inherited. I'm all for being positive. I think every AFC, PUA, DJ and in between man should strive to become the 'Good Guy' POOK outlined once. To harness the confident, self-assured attitude of the Jerk AND cultivate a necessary empathy that the Nice Guy has. This guy who can be the Good Genes AND the Good Provider is where a DJ ought to be, while keeping a good self-knowledge of his own value as such.

 

[iqqi]

The only thing that should be stickied are rules and announcements, not some poster's views on male/female relationships. This is just a discussion. Not some big deal announcement that merits sticky. This just takes away from the validity of this board.

 

[STR8UP]

Really guys, please snap out of it. If this is what you achieved by coming to sosuave, then I have to question if it was worth it in the first place.

There's nothing to snap out of.

I embrace reality, guys like you deny it. Rollo lays it out eloquently, and the self appointed feme-crusader (iqqi) gets her panties in a wad and questions why this knowledge should be readily available, and at the forefront of our consciousness.

If you people knew me and saw me interact with women, I can assure you that you would see me in a different light. It's pretty difficult to be a woman hater and continue to be well liked by many women, which I am.

I can listen to a woman speak in her language, and understand completely what she is really saying. But do I sit there and try to explain to her how illogical her words are? I don't often do that because it's a waste of breath. I enjoy a little debate from time to time with PLATONIC female friends, but any woman who I share intimacy with or see the prospect of sharing intimacy with, I sit there and smile and converse in a manner that does not allow them to see the fact that I know their game and I can see behind their words and actions.

I've been here for a long time (off and on) and I can assure you that I am a much better person today than I was in years past.

Believe what you want to believe, the truth does not care either way.

 

[dakota]

The whole fallacy of this "good genes" versus " good provider" is that clearly the good genes are the good provider. To suggest " physical prowess" as the requirement for "good genes" is backwards. The one thing that sets man apart from all other animals is his brain... not his physique.
It could well be argued that physically man has DECREASED over time while INCREASED in brain power. Clearly the man who passes his genes on best .. wins"... this requires him to be the best provider also. The great difference that is also missed that impacts the equation these days is social welfare. In the past "bad matings" resulted in the children dying in the rough life they would have if they had only a mother to care for. So the "good physique" father who abandoned his kids would quickly have no decedents.. Nowadays however...the state steps in and provides aid and the child abandoner's can rely on the government to step in and provide care.
On a sidenote.. one ultimate era of male dominance came in early preindustrial england. At the time males had large estates that required many servants... many of these were young females. It was typical for the head male of the estate to have kids with many of his servant girls at the time. The children's survival was insured by keeping the mother servant employed. This was an extremely successful way of having many children with many partners. The head males were of course typically intelligent and highly driven.. and passed on these traits to their children.. thereby setting the groundwork for the industrial revolution.....
the devils advocate

 

[KontrollerX]

I absolutely agree with Str8up.

Falcon needs to accept that his idea of reality and his idea of optimism is simply something we don't and never will share.

And I see what Rollo was getting at and its fine for him to think the way he does about nihilism as being truth and neutral but a negative concept to fully embrace.

I too see it as neutral and the truth but since I love embracing the truth in all ways I embrace nihilism and feel positive about embracing it.

 

[TheHumanist]

Ah, reality, I am tired of hearing that argument. One group are said they are closing their ears and going lalalala and the other is saying they see the truth and it so ****ing liberating. You know the problem is? How the information is conveyed, thinking on RT's posts, as I said before, the basic point is the genetic coding of men and women have influence us to develop these conventions (men to ephasise loyalty and women ability to change her mind, though those developments have more factors than just biology pushing for that, it played a role if why it even developed) and the coding also says there are certain type of qualities each gender like. Basically like we men want a girl who certain types of features, girls do too. Fortunately, there more than one way to attract a girl if one is born without it (different wording and sounds so much more positive than compensation and good genes).

Again, I contest the interpretation of what RT said means the world is hostile and cuttroat. There's no need to think that, hell, looking at Rollo's latest reponse, he agrees there's more than the biological influence in people and even the biology doesn't always point that bad of a direction.

The whole fallacy of this "good genes" versus " good provider" is that clearly the good genes are the good provider. To suggest " physical prowess" as the requirement for "good genes" is backwards. The one thing that sets man apart from all other animals is his brain... not his physique.

Understaning RT, he meant the coding leads to attraction of a certain type, does not mean the person actually got better genes then the guy without it. Ironically, RT mention that we should not equate good genes with alpha and good provider with beta, using good genes itself have a connotation of saying bronze is better than brains... or looks. Again, fortunately there's more than one way to have attraction. Well, at least that what I'm getting out reading the text and the reponses from RT.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

The whole fallacy of this "good genes" versus " good provider" is that clearly the good genes are the good provider. To suggest " physical prowess" as the requirement for "good genes" is backwards. The one thing that sets man apart from all other animals is his brain... not his physique.

Go back and read the full thread. This isn't a qualitative debate, it's an outline of the underlying motivations for behavior. "Good Genes" is just for lack of a better term. I only use it to conveniently describe the type of guy possessing the physical attributes that women are aroused by. He's the guy that 'naturally' get a woman wet. It would be nice to imagine that women should get hot for a somewhat chubby, Good Provider male, and then term him as possessing 'good genetics' by virtue of his provisioning capacity, but this simply isn't the case. In fact, if anything, that's eugenics - making a case for good breeding stock based on personal bias.

How to spot a rich guy

We laugh at this, but the reason it's funny is because we immediately, subconsciously, recognize an imbalance. A rich, fat, millionaire may be a fantastic provider for his model wife, but at the end of the day it's the penniless pool boy who arouses her sexually.

 

[Falcon]

There's nothing to snap out of.

I embrace reality, guys like you deny it. Rollo lays it out eloquently, and the self appointed feme-crusader (iqqi) gets her panties in a wad and questions why this knowledge should be readily available, and at the forefront of our consciousness.

If you people knew me and saw me interact with women, I can assure you that you would see me in a different light. It's pretty difficult to be a woman hater and continue to be well liked by many women, which I am.

I can listen to a woman speak in her language, and understand completely what she is really saying. But do I sit there and try to explain to her how illogical her words are? I don't often do that because it's a waste of breath. I enjoy a little debate from time to time with PLATONIC female friends, but any woman who I share intimacy with or see the prospect of sharing intimacy with, I sit there and smile and converse in a manner that does not allow them to see the fact that I know their game and I can see behind their words and actions.

I've been here for a long time (off and on) and I can assure you that I am a much better person today than I was in years past.

Believe what you want to believe, the truth does not care either way.

If I had a dollar everytime someone claimed to be an unfaultable bearer of truth on this forum I'd be rich by now. So please, before you past your beliefs and opinion as reality next time, consider this. It is our perspective that creates reality. If you hold the perspective that we live in a cutthroat world, or that everyone is full of malice or ill will, basically any of these kind of broad stereotypes and generalizations, then your mind will do everything in its power to prove it so. Your pride wont allow it otherwise. If all you do is read books or posts catered to one single mindset or one particular belief, then that is all that you will see in this world. If that's the path you choose, then so be it, but don't try to force your 'truth' on other people, all right? Another thing, just saying that something "is the truth and we have trouble accepting it" does not make it true either. Your perception of what reality is doesn't necessarily carry over to other people's reality or experiences. It certainly didn't carry over with my experiences, but at least I never claimed to be some holy truth-speaker. I well know that my perspective is one of many, just like yours.

And look, validate yourself all you want to me about your personal life, but know that it doesn't change the actual words of your posts, which Ifind very incongruent to what you claimed. I have a hard time believing someone is living a happy life when all that comes out is negativity and spitefulness.

 

[thedeparted]

A rich, fat, millionaire may be a fantastic provider for his model wife, but at the end of the day it's the penniless pool boy who arouses her sexually.

Really? Prove it. Or site a study that proves it. All you quoted so far was GI Joe.

Your evo-bio focus is not only woefully lacking in scientific foundation, or supporting research, but it runs contrary to what DJ is all about.

What we know from sosuave is that ANY GUY can turn that girl on if he knows how to use kino, ec, push-pull tactics etc. etc. It's not the hunky DJ that wins, but the skill-full one.

But finally, I can't help asking: you are a married guy, right? Doesn't that make you the sucker-provider? Just worrying the same old hole while the rest of us run around out there pulling fresh meat to impregnate? Or is there an author's exclusion in your theory?

 

[Brandonc662]

All you quoted so far was GI Joe.

Funny as fvck, sorry RT but you did quote an 80's cartoon. Might as well have said "their more than meets the eye" or "turtle power"

 

[TheHumanist]

Now I'm a little confused again, I agree that the rich fat man provider will never turn the girl on sexually than the penniless poolboy with all his looks. Are you encouraging or bashing providers? Trying to conceptualize before, it seems to say that the man without qualites that turn girls on by looks the same way that some girls with supermodel like looks turn on guys immediately can be "compensated" by other qualities (though things like intellegence and loyalty take a woman mature enough (and it mean mature, not the woman who lost her value and now desperate to cling on the first guy she sees) to appreciate such qualities too).

Now with that analogy, are you saying you provided, it sounds like the provider is just a chump who have to use his wealth to get her to stay around at all, and she only there for the money and never because she actually like him or want him in any form. Basically going back to the original negative sound that the best one can do who lacks such qualties that arouse women is to become rich or something like that so they can be used but at least he got something. Though you also said what seperate good providers from afcs. So I guessing that mean when you say good provider, you mean the good masculine man. Therefore, provider is being said in two ways (the ones that seperate from AFCs and millionare fat man type), it's kinda confusing. Two different terms should be used if that right.

Is that what you saying, or am I missing something here.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Really? Prove it.

Gladly.

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/haselton/papers.html

I doubt you'll have the patience to actually read case studies, but here you go.

Pay particular attention:

Pillsworth, E. G. & Haselton, M. G. (2006). Women’s sexual strategies: The evolution of long-term bonds and extra-pair sex. Annual Review of Sex Research, 17, 59-100. [PDF Format]

and this:

Pillsworth, E. G. & Haselton, M. G. (2006). Male sexual attractiveness predicts differential ovulatory shifts in female extra-pair attraction and male mate retention. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27, 247-258. [PDF Format]

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

Can you be absolutely sure that its true? What evidence can you find to the contrary? Who would you be without that belief?

If people spent time asking the above questions rather than debating why all women are superior gene seeking untrustworthy unaccountable bags of illogic who also happen to be in jeolous control of the very happiness that men seek, then some might be able to feel genuine love and respect for every woman you meet on the street.

 

[iqqi]

The OP is just a bunch of garrulous writing.

Shouldn't be STICKIED, my god.

 

[edger]

it sounds like the provider is just a chump who have to use his wealth to get her to stay around

THANK YOU. Any guy who slaves himself financially to a woman is a HUGE C H U M P.

 

[MatureDJ]

So why did George Washington marry a widow with two children?

Because she was loaded with cash!

I suspect that George was a typical military AFC. A leader of men, you betcha, but not a lover.

 

[MatureDJ]

Thus you have a very identifiable rarity of males who exemplify both the Good Genes aspect of sexual attraction, but also make for Good Providers. This is compounded by a woman's capacity to identify and appreciate this rare male.

And the woman's capacity to resist getting knocked up and keeping herself in attractive shape waiting for her psychological maturity to catch up. It isn't worth a damn that a woman would come to this realization after she has borne a child, or gained her thunder thighs.

 

[KontrollerX]

Hmmm lets see...

Maybe because during the time of Washington the feminist movement did not yet exist, chivalry was still alive and well and plus people back then tended to shack up and remain loyal to their partners due to basical survival needs ie resource aquirement and utilization.

The mini series John Adams illustrates this very well with the relationship of John and Abigail Adams.

Edit: And once again I will say this topic is needed as a stickied topic because it has always been the standard job of moderators on various forums across the net to once every so often post a stickied message indicating what the overall site or forum was and is supposed to be about when one too many members (in this case AFC's) start veering off topic ie promoting AFC views far too heartily.

BTW, good alternative theory about Washington Mature DJ.