Why do us MEN Create our own HELL?

[Freeman]

Why is it that, more often than not, we create own misery with woman? Many of you who are reading this know what I'm talking about...We pursue the most sublime rather than most conspicuous-we diss the 7 to get with the 9 who has no interest in us...Why?

Ex. from my own life:


there's a chick at my job that would be considered a 8.5 by any guy-who shows more interest in me-as opposed to this other chick who I just recently met who seems mildy interested at best and who is less attractive physically than the other one...what is it? Is it the thrill of hunting after something that presents more of a challenge?

 

[MacAvoy]

Its basic human nature, why would you want to have a cake and let it sit there, of course you want to eat it too.

With regards to women, why would you want the sh1ttier of the two, of course you want the better one.

 

[DJ4Real]

It's the challenge. "Humans want what they can't have easily".

 

[Freeman]

Originally posted by MacAvoy
Its basic human nature, why would you want to have a cake and let it sit there, of course you want to eat it too.

With regards to women, why would you want the sh1ttier of the two, of course you want the better one.

You say,"better" define what you mean...in my post I said that the 1st chick is better physically than the other one-so when u say "better", do you mean in terms of prize?

 

[Alphathree]

Human beings have beat out a lot of other creatures in terms of dominance, so it's not surprising that we never settle for something medicore.

In terms of mating, your ancestors were aggressive in their competition for the hottest women. If they weren't, they wouldn't have mated, and you wouldn't be here.

It's all based on the simple-but-profound fact that every single one of your male ancestors managed to mate with a fertile woman -- otherwise they wouldn't be your ancestors!

So you have the product of a bunch of genes all of which were at least once successful with an attractive (and therefore fertile) woman.

EDIT: Imagine that you put 100 men and 100 women in a room and the women pick the top 5 men and **** their brains out. All the children belong to those men. Say the children are once again 100 men and 100 women. Again, the women pick the 5 five men and **** their brains out. All the kids are theirs.

Repeat this process a gazillion gillion bazillion times. Yes, there's still gonna be 95 men who don't get laid, but that's only beacuse they are "only" super-duper optimized to get laid, rather than the top 5 who are super-duper-duper optimized.

 

[DjDreamer]

Originally posted by Alphathree
EDIT: Imagine that you put 100 men and 100 women in a room and the women pick the top 5 men and **** their brains out. All the children belong to those men. Say the children are once again 100 men and 100 women. Again, the women pick the 5 five men and **** their brains out. All the kids are theirs.

Repeat this process a gazillion gillion bazillion times. Yes, there's still gonna be 95 men who don't get laid, but that's only beacuse they are "only" super-duper optimized to get laid, rather than the top 5 who are super-duper-duper optimized.

Interesting perspective... so would you say sexualy superior men are the ones who are aggressively pursueed by really hot women? Sort of like rock stars?

The tao of steve is making a whole heap of sense now...