I'll red pill you guys on human sexual selection. Since we're all men here (well, mostly) i'll make the primary focus of this topic on a women's sexual strategy. Aside from the comments I'll be posting, I will also answer any questions you guys may have for me. I'll stick around for about an hour before I leave.
Females consider only two quantities of selective value in their mate choices: genetic benefits (physical attractiveness – optimized in high-rate short-term mating), and direct benefits (optimized in long term mating). Thus, long-term relationships (i.e. long term mating), and short term relationships are each just one of two time-variant fitness strategies.
Women have evolved to value long-term relationships because this implies direct-benefits (long term benefits with implications for paternal investment as the basis of selective value in long-term mating). But, they have also evolved to value short term relationships as this implies genetic benefits (genetic quality indicated in sensory biases fixed by evolutionary success, and subjectively assessed as physical attractiveness).
Since these two forms of benefits are rooted in evolutionary stratetegies with conflicting optima, females have evolved a further strategy to minimize the trade-off in receiving one benefit at the cost of another – something we know as strategic pluralism: where females are mate specific in receiving independent benefits(they tend to mate with the most physically attractive males for their genetic benefits, and manipulate the less attractive, but more resourceful males for their direct benefits.
Note that it is only recently (in human history) that women have placed more emphasis on short term mating but this wasn’t always what define hypergamy in the first place. In the past, hypergamy was a balance of the best pluralistic strategy assessed by women (this is because both high ends of Alpha Fuck- Beta Bucks were hardly found in a single man).
Relative deviations in physical characters can reliably signal developmental incompetence, from which sensory biases become fixed by evolutionary success.
Empirical researches prove that women (like men) prefer mates of high attractiveness rather than that similar to their own. This is because physical attractiveness is the strongest and most robust predictor of mate choice (Walster, Aronson, Abrahams, & Rottman, 1966), and mate choice is in turn the most important social judgment humans make with respect to their reproductive fitness.
Somewhat tautologically, we tend to mate with individuals to whom we are attracted, so there is a seemingly self-evident advantage to being attracted to individuals of high genetic quality (indirect benefits) as evidenced by physical morphology.
More specifically, there’s also Alfred Russell Wallace’s “good genes” hypothesis: we pursue good-looking people because their good looks signal having genes that have protected them against the ravages of pathogens. And second, is R.A. Fisher’s “sexy sons” hypothesis: we pursue good-looking people because, whether we find them good-looking or not, the potential mates of our offspring will, so we’d improve their reproductive success by giving them genes for attractiveness. The idea that attractiveness is logarithmically perceived doesn’t decide between these two genetic theories, but I think it does go against the “parasite avoidance” hypothesis.
Also, as an extension of Zahavi’s hypothesis, Folstad and Karter introduced the immunocompetence signaling hypothesis for humans. This hypothesis suggests that Secondary sexual characteristics are reliable indicators of mate quality because the reproductive hormones required for their development, including testosterone, suppress the immune system (e.g., Peters, 2000; Rantala, Vainikka, & Kortet, 2003). The expression of testosterone-linked traits reveals that men are in good enough condition to withstand the deleterious effects of immunosuppression, and women who selected these men as mates would have transmitted features associated with good condition to their offspring.
Sexual selection and sexual attraction seem be based on beauty rather than utility, and explains the common observation in nature that it is the most beautiful that survive (J Biosci. 2004).
Most empirical research is based on the assumption that individuals seek a mate of the highest possible quality (in terms of the genes or resources that can provide), and hence show directional preferences for indicators of mate quality. This would imply that attractiveness and quality should be highly correlated.
But surprisingly, there’s not a linear relationship between beauty or its components and genetic fitness, and there are not particular greater mate qualities of those who are highly attractive. Empirical research show that whereas unattractive faces can signal poor genetic fitness, on this account, those who avoid mates with extremely unattractive faces would have increased their reproductive success over those who did not. In the extreme case of genetic anomalies, such as Down’s syndrome, it is obvious that unattractive faces signal low health and intelligence. However, faces that are above average in attractiveness are no more ‘‘fit’’ than those in the middle of the attractiveness.
Specifically, some mathematical models have shown that the preferred male must provide genes that increase the survivorship or mating success of the offspring as compared to the genes provided by less desirable males. And empirical research on lek mating systems, as well as other nonresource-based mating systems, has confirmed the association between mate preference and increased offspring viability, although the fitness effects appear small at only a few percent. Beauty provided valid cues to intelligence and/or health for faces in the lower but not the upper halves of the distributions of these facial qualities.
Thus, low attractiveness (low averageness, low symmetry, or low sexual dimorphism) signal low fitness, as indexed by intelligence or health. On the other hand, high attractiveness does not signal any higher levels of fitness than does moderate levels of these attribute. Then mate preferences for attractive faces could not have enhanced reproductive success via choice mates in the top half of the beauty distribution. So maybe humans not only correctly utilize these cues when they are valid, but they also overgeneralize, utilizing these cues in the upper half of the distribution, where they are not valid. Therefore beauty preferences appear to have evolved under the influence of both the good genes and the runaway selection mechanisms.
It's not that women are trying to be whores, per say. But rather, women face a constant evolutionary pressure of finding the best genes possible and it just so happens that these high value men (with good genes) don't abide by commitment. The primary reason being they have far too many options to settle for just one woman. So women, share the very men they get "pumped and dumped" by. It's a cycle that plays out throughout their lives well until menopause.
>that last sentence
I take it you're from the manosphere.
>Women love opportunistically
>Men love idealistically.
OP is on point.
>Not for faggets?
Honestly wish it didn't have to sound like a hide out for closet fags.
Otherwise, every teenage male should be reading the content on the Manosphere.
Only similarity I share with that, is that I find my selected mate attractive. (but I don't plan to reproduce, so none of the rest is a concern)
I also like his personality.
Otherwise, I'm very scientific, but this is the one thing where I crack up and apply nothing but idealism. Sorry.
what exactly are you getting at?
Females use non-compensatory search heuristics, as opposed to strategies that facilitate making trade-offs among attributes (e.g., weighted averaging).
For example, when faced with choosing one potential mate from different male online daters, women first eliminated anyone who do not meet their standards on attractiveness, of those remaining they eliminated anyone who do not meet their standards for education, personality,etc). That is to say, bottleneck is physical appearance.
But you already know this, given as to how your mate is already attractive to begin with.
This is wrong. If a male is able to provide, he is clearly superior to the male who cannot/will not. The genes of the latter would result in another invalid, while the genes of the former would create another who has the prowess to provide, that is a "strong"(strong as in able to survive well in it's environment) male.
What the man provides is important in this case. Is he providing genes? Or is he providing resources?
What I'm getting at is that women are meticulously selective as to who they actually want children with (those who can provide good genes). For the sake of simplicity here, they select between hot men for indirect benefits and unattractive yet resourceful men for direct benefits.
cuckoldry does have it's place in sexual evolution. just because it's a meme in these parts doesn't mean it doesn't occur in real life as an evolutionary strategy by women. deal with it.
in this case, the man is of higher value (or perceived as such) than his mate. usually, the woman is after his indirect benefits. mind you, women do accommodate men who they can receive indirect benefits from.
men who present both benefits are ideal for women, but with that said, they are still quite rare in reality. This is because most men fulfill one extreme over the other. Namely, those with unattractive phenotypes (those who give direct benefits) make up nearly 80% of the male population.
males who possess neither will not experience any intimacy with any woman. you must be one or the other.
>re: alphas and betas
I used both terms for simplicity.
You realize that's a contradiction, right?
Men want a family, and they want it to be succesful. That is what has progressed the species so much. Makes sense that an alpha would want the same thing. He'd just have the pick of the absolute best females, compared to the betas who have to pick from scraps. So an alpha who provides would naturally end up with the best selection.
Let me guess, it was his "game" that got the girl right? Pfft.
Game is largely bullshit – a popular fiction synthesized to embellish male success with a basis in real quantities of evolutionary value. Trivial observations that seemingly confirm ‘game’, are observing nothing more than spurious correlations. The quest for a practically learned skill that can ‘bend’ female choice is a fools errand, because in order for evolution to work opportunistically, it must cull (in particular) male frequencies every generation.
Yeah, I've found that people who consider themselves 'awkward' looking or 'ugly' who espouse game all have one thing in common, and that's that they're fucking tall.
Women give very few shits about your facial genetics. They just want a big man with a masculine frame and decent mass. You can work a shit job, have a weird face, and even act kind of goofy and have weird interests she doesn't give a shit about, but if you're tall and built well, you're fine.
That's why lanky fedoras get laid constantly right?
The denial of facial aesthetics being important with guys is astounding. You sound like fat women. "real men want meat, not bones"
I fell in love with a man who isn't very muscular, but has a pretty face. I guess his hips artificially look a bit wide too, and I've seen him sit in a kind of ladylike position. Am I a dyke, then?
wtf does this image even show, it looks like a young guy with a tan and the same guy a few years older and a few pounds heavier with a different haircut and the beginning of a 6oclock shadow
You buy that shit? Girls don't have a fucking sense of humor. Most of them aren't laughing at you because you're especially funny. It's because they already find you attractive and want you to feel like you're on your game. It's the same reason most women fake orgasms. It's all in service of keeping you around.
You think if you were fucking attractive and unfunny, they'd tell you to stop? Get fucking real.
They don't get laid because they're idiots. Lanky Fedora wearers are literally one good verbal smackdown away from getting laid on a regular basis. Literally all they have to do is ditch the hat, stop wearing trenchcoats, and TRY. Nobody is going to have a 100% success rate, but believe me, those guys have very little work to do.
A short man can be charming as all fuck and never
Very much true. That is sexual dimorphism in effect.
Put it to you this way: Even when women cannot select men with high facial aesthetics, they will still select men of high sexual dimorphism (height, shoulder width, girthy build, etc..) simply because evolution has honed women to find these traits (justified by science) attractive and promising for reproduction (namely by being able to fend off other potential rivals).
How so? you provide no arguments to the contrary.
It's either looks or money. Read again.
It's shows an attractive man of high dimorphism (left) versus an unattractive man with low dimorphism (right).
You are correct. PUAism or "Game" disagrees with evolutionary synthesis.
Yeah, I think so.
I usually plan at least 5 years, but then, things don't go according to plan due to factors beyond my control, so I make a new plan. (the goal never ever changes)
I've slept with a number of girls and never had one fake an orgasm. Does this really still happen?
I'm not saying I made them orgasm every time, they either just wouldn't or would tell me they probably weren't going to.
Anyway I don't believe in alpha/beta whatever shit, most people just have sex with people on their same level of physical attractiveness (assuming you aren't a hobo, anti-social, or insane). Very few guys throughout history have sex with the hottest girls because very few guys are hot themselves. But it's not hard at all to just get laid.
Yeah, that's what I thought. You're not worth communicating with.
More like: WHY ISN'T EVERYONE EXACTLY LIKE ME AND NOT SLUTTING AROUND AND ONLY RESERVED FOR THEIR ONE TRUE LOVE?!?!one!1!one!1eleven
I still can't get used to it.
I would also like to address cases where, even in the absense of overt signalling defects(deviations in billateral symmetry, indications of developmental/immuno incompetence, etc.), females will tend to favor a dominant subset within a population – this is the principle of Koinophilia in effect(which is useful to think of as a selection pressure mediated by mutation-selection balance, bounding deviation from average, where increased deviation implies increased mutational loads tending to deleterious polymorphisms – but with some allowance for directional selection).
Exacerbating this whole dynamic, is mass-media communication, which skews female perceptions of male ‘normal’.
How this manifests, is that even if a guy is not otherwise fundamentally unattractive, if females have not been socialized to consider him as ‘mate material’, he will be at a disadvantage compared with members of the dominant subset(ie. ostensibly those who deviate less from male ‘normal’ – with exceptions made for media ‘weighting’ effects).
In such cases, it is recommended that disadvantaged males seek out females from disparate populations, where they can find attractive ‘outgroup-seeker’ females who have not been exposed to the same socializing pressures.
I would also like to elaborate, that what this translates to in layman terms, is that if you don’t resemble(in both manner and appearance) the male cohort that monopolizes a particular female’s social consciousness(in particular, the kinds of males paired with her female peers, or the kinds of males she sees positively depicted in the popular media), you will be at a severe disadvantage(because a girl tends to want the kinds of guys she observes other girls wanting – which is why women tend to preferentially mate with a small population of males, ironically selecting for promiscuous males).
You see I have a problem with this:
>Very much true. That is sexual dimorphism in effect.
Put it to you this way: Even when women cannot select men with high facial aesthetics, they will still select men of high sexual dimorphism (height, shoulder width, girthy build, etc..) simply because evolution has honed women to find these traits (justified by science) attractive and promising for reproduction (namely by being able to fend off other potential rivals).
Now I know anecdotal evidence is not evidence at all, but can you explain why I get pussy out the ass? I mean everywhere I go, college, work, parties. I'm a 5'8 light skinned skinny mexican faggot. I'm neither tall nor well built, but I do have a aesthetically pleasing face.
Just this semester alone in my psychology class I currently have 5 women who want me, 2 are white, one is Russian (also white, blue eyes) and 2 more are Latinas. The Russian one has a lot of money.
Why would ANY of them go after me if what you said is true?
My experience as a young man-- old and fat now-- was that 'try' doesn't really do anything.
But when you are in decent shape and are lucky enough to be the coolest and smartest male around, you don't actually have to do anything-- no charm offensive, no jokes, no romantic stuff.
They basically throw themselves at you. It's the complete opposite from being the recipient of the 'stay away don't talk to me' vibe they give off if you aren't the current Chad Thundercock.
you answered your own question.
>but i do have a aesthetically pleasing face.
in my post above, i basically stated that if the man doesn't have an aesthetic face, he can still pull via his sexual dimorphism alone.
>writing hundreds of paragraphs about why you virgin faggots can't get laid or find a GF
Or maybe you're just ugly and annoying.
Lol, using the term redpill is for delusioncels (delusional incels)
Its all about the blackpill
The "little boy faces" are not a good image matchup to the chart, considering men (post-puberty) with high T have chiseled and defined square jaws that look like a combo of the 3 faces.
I'm a mixture of these faces
I have a masculine lower face but more feminine upper face
I definitely look more like the left
Mine are even
Friendly reminder to not reply to the pirate flag poster. He is a mentally ill troll who pretends to be a woman with headmates, one of them being the ghost of Hitler.
race has it's place in bio-evolution but it's not necessary for show casing the differences in digit ratios.
are you forgetting that some boys get a higher surge of testosterone in the womb and thus, this shows in their facial structure and digit ratio later in life (childhood)?
Not true, my girlfriend loves me more than I love her.
I live by the philosophy that you shouldn't love a woman more than she loves you and it has worked out fabulously for me. Every girlfriend I've had was fairly good. I lost my two prior girlfriends not due to arguments or misunderstandings, but due to circumstance. The first one moved away to college and the second one's parents divorced and she went to live with her dad in a different state.
Honestly, if you are a good person, decent looking, intelligent and not desperate, you likely won't encounter bad women. /pol/ has a very biased view of women, because in practice, I had not encountered nearly the number of whores/bitches/liars as /pol/ claims to exist. Now, at least half of all women fall into the aforementioned category, but half isn't even close to all or 95% or something.
If you tend to attract horrible women at a disproportionate rate, or no women at all, perhaps you require some self reflection. The truth is, very few women look like models. This girl I grew up with and am fairly close friends with is now an incredibly beautiful model (pic related). She is the only 10/10 I know. Most men desire her, but few men deserve a girl like that. She isn't a whore either, and is morally sound. Girls like her are 1 in 10,000.
You should just have realistic expectations of what a woman is, and be better at choosing the good ones from the bad. Most men have difficulty with these two things, which is what leads to them being forever alone. Looks play an important role too, but I've seen men of all appearances find women, even ugly men. You just can't expect to be ugly and get pic related.
>best friend is an antisocial unattractive nerd who never had a gf before
>gets an adorable gf
WHY COULDNT IT HAVE BEEN ME?!
Females are the reproductively limiting sex(rate limiting in reproductive success) – which manifests in *all* dimensions of mate choice(in other words, females are more selective in all their mating
One obvious implication of this, is that, given sufficient latitude of female choice(ie. relieved of economic constraint, which would otherwise mediate their choices), female sexual choices will always tend towards small male breeding populations.
In more colloquial terms, what this means is that male/female ‘leagues’ are asymmetrical – with male ‘rank’ being bottom heavy in distribution, while female ‘rank’ being top heavy.
If we take the (justified) assumption that guys are more inclusive in their mating choices, and consider a higher male optimal mating rate, we also come to an inescapable conclusion: that not only should the most attractive males mate with the most attractive females(duh), but also a significant proportion of average females as well(given the higher male mating rate).
Which, of course, renders less available ‘average’ females to be mated with average guys – necessitating an imbalance that progresses down the attractiveness scale(rendering a sexually asymmetric mating dynamic).
This is why it is so easy to observe that even relatively unattractive females are still much more successful than unattractive males at disassortative mating(ie. such as with fat women being able to commonly mate with non-fat men, etc).
You forgot the picture, and I'm curious as to what you think a 10/10 is.
>I live by the philosophy that you shouldn't love a woman more than she loves you and it has worked out fabulously for me.
You realize that PUA/Game proponents also say this right?
When I was a teenager, I was planning on getting sterilized really early in life.
>shit didn't go according to plan
Not having sex anyways because >>39561859 >>39562115 and >>39561547 >>39561407.
Economic systems should have an impact on what is perceived as fit and unfit, correct?
I was watching a C-SPAN discussion with Christopher Hitchens (he was much younger than his late self) and he referenced a study of children in some Scandinavian country
where students were pulled from class, all measurements were taken, and their families socioeconomic status was indeterminable based on those measurements. Here in
America on the other hand, you can usually gauge a child's families socioeconomic success or unsuccess at a glance.
>>39562644 and the only reason I was even able to embrace even the idea of sex was by sharply differentiating it from reproduction and attaching it to an elaborate idealism
So.. nobody alive is ever going to put their dick in me.
I don't buy into the whole PUA culture, but they are right in some regards. Just because you disagree with the general idea, doesn't mean that you disagree with every single one of their individual points.
It works very well in practice.
Women can smell desperation from a mile away, and
detachment is the opposite of desperation, even if it is fake.
Correct. Ecological factors weigh in very heavily in sexual evolution.
Paternal advantage(sufficient ecological selection pressures will pose paternal investment advantages in offspring success, favoring females who mate with strategically inclined males).
The prevailing latitude of female sexual choice(ie. following from their economic/political independence in developed world populations) is only possible through a complex, density dependent(on population) system of mediated prosperity, which compensates for inferior female aptitudes/contributions by expropriating male contributions for the unequal benefit of females.
But, once these density dependent systems are destabilized(through indicated tendencies to sub-replacement fertility, and increasing marginalization of paternal advantage through welfare state dynamics), paternal advantage once again becomes a determinant factor in exerting pressures on female sexual choice, with evolution selecting for systems
which render higher population fertility in outcompeting rival systems.
And this is precisely why every nascent civilization has been intolerant and unforgiving of a general latitude in female sexual choice: because civilizations entail systems of co-operation and specialization that are highly density dependent, and thus have always followed from populations that exceed a rate of replacement(and eventually demand a sufficiently large male breeding population), while encouraging high numbers of male participation and co-operation through an inclusive male breeding population(by imposing systems that limit on female sexual latitude)
None of this is reconcilable with female selectivity run-amok, which is the inescapable consequence of female sexual liberation.
It means that as a manlet, you are unattractive to all women as a whole. Even if a girl is short, she still shares the same views on attraction as other women.
See this post for a better understanding:>>39562489
You can fuck off too.
>this bitch is all mine
>and she is still yet a virgin because
>she reserved herself for me
I'm keeping her.
See this entire ideology is self defeating.
Women's biology as you claim it supposedly is, can not exist if men have kept them under control and prevented the 'hypergamous' genes from spreading.
If you say all women would cheat in an instant if they had a choice, you are just a pessimistic and depressing faggot.
my opinion is probably not very popular here on /pol/. I think compassion and the "barn raising" social science hypothesis are far better ways at looking at the world. I think something like %90 (just spitballing) of /pol/ hasn't really thought much about existential existence, basing judgment and happiness on external input.
what I really wanted to know is how does this thread account for breadwinning moms. both my parents where pretty attractive. My dad is 6'4, I'm 6'2, while they both had good jobs they lived in a place they didn't like. my dad ran away from home at 16 and is still estranged from his family so they decided to move close to my mothers family. however, my father being a contractor with an astro-space firm and really only having those kinds of jobs on his resume couldn't find great employment in the midwest where they settled to raise me and my sister. So, he became a stay at home dad until we both left for college.
I carry most of these "alpha" traits, tall, high handsome face (people say I look like daniel day lewis) and I provide, though not super well at 29 I am a union worker in the film industry and make around $72,000 a year.
I am monogamous. that is self imposed. before I dated the woman I am with, I was poly with a number of women. I ended my relationship with my primary partner because we were abusive to one another. when my current partner and I got serious she knew my past and asked if that was how I wanted our relationship. I said no, I wanted to be mono with her because I knew she had such strong feelings toward me and I wanted a committed relationship with her.
we are talking about marriage and being 'monogomish' because the only true way to be happy is to be trusting. And forever is a very long time to fuck one person. the weird thing no one seems to talk about is genetics tests. I carry a gene that is hereditary recessive, and not very normal. I and my sister want to select that gene out, which is easy to do.
Strangely enough, shes almost as beautiful in person as her pictures are, and she doesn't have this slutty appearance that a lot of "hot girls" have.
Personally, I prefer women on the curvier side, but no one can disagree that this girl is gorgeous.
Can you define PUA culture?
What exactly do you disagree with then?
There is PUA/Game material focusing on long-term relationships and marriage
>It works very well in practice
So PUA/Game is right?
>his tripcode is b&
>he borrowed my tripcode just to say that
>no one can disagree that this girl is gorgeous.
Even with the makeup she has caked on and the contrast filter on the camera, she looks likt a 7/10 and clearly at least half nonwhite
no, she isn't 'gorgeous'
>I'm going to assume OP is correct
You're a fucking moron. OP is good at dressing up his opinion, but that's literally all this thread is. It's based on one really long winded opinion, backed up by some more of OPs opinions.
The fact that you're so willing to follow in faggot OPs footsteps could mean two things. Either you're faggot OP, or you're a retarded beta who will agree with anything that justifies your world view.
She has a great figure, but I don't find her appealing. I'm more interested in cute girls.
This "ideology" bodes well with science. Women's hypergamous desire exists because by default, it was necessary for our survival. No matter how you slice it, you will come to this conclusion. It was necessary.
More ecological pressure on women will only make them think twice about their sexual choices but it won;t stave off their true desires.
What is sexual dimorphism, lek mating systems,sexual selection etc..
Opinions backed by science, ruled by objective testing.
the faces arent even the same size
this is how you know this is all pseudo science
cant even take more than 1 picture? the guys head is tilted on the right
how pathetic and unscientific can you be
I disagree with the idea of chasing for women for the sole purpose of sex and not companionship, and I disagree with the numbers game that pickup artists play.
In college, I knew a guy who would get laid by as many as 3 different women a week. This sounds unbelievable to most people, but it was true. How did he do this? He would go to bars and have a "script" ready for women that he talks to. He was an average looking guy, and wouldn't be successful by any means, but he played the numbers game. He would bring home a new girl almost every night, but that's because he would hop between 4-5 bars and clubs and ask as many as 50 women in a single night if they would have sex with him.
Statistically speaking, there are enough women in those 50 that are gross enough, drunk enough or careless enough to take him up on his offer. He wasn't too discriminate on appearance either.
I believe this sort of lifestyle is unfulfilling emotionally and degenerate as for the negative societal impacts that it has.
To be more precise, I agree with the idea that you shouldn't ever love a woman more than she loves you. This idea happens to be present in PUA guides, but it isn't wrong.
Are you glad that things didn't go according to your plan (you were an atheist when you made that plan)? That you remain unsterilized while you remain a virgin.
My mad levels: 0 (in fact, you are actually much less of a slut than most women)
In a way, the fact that I'm the only person you can fuck without reproducing binds you to me, but I am actually the first person person you ever had sexual feelings for, and also, as has been proven to both of us, you will always love me (you never did stop loving me, you just kind of buried it in your psyche for a while).
>Which, of course, renders less available ‘average’ females to be mated with average guys
And thats why marriage came around to exist. To give all men a shot at mating with a female. It also relieves women of a economic restraint, win win for both parties
This bread started out with some potential, given its interesting subject matter and scientific basis. Now it has become shit.
Now that its pretty shit, r8 my dimorphism pls
I can't even, literally.
All OP's posts are saying is that women select partners by resources and attractiveness and that attractiveness is a reality (male with feminine features vs. male with masculine features).
What on earth could you even disagree with from this?
Typical /pol/ logic: If you're not an aryan tall chad thundercock you will never get laid and no woman will bear your children, you will, at best, be a cuckold to a more attractive man.
Reality: Short people exist because short people find reproductive success. The average woman is shorter than the average man, and most women on average settle for a man 1-3 inches taller than them.
Plenty of shorter women will still find you attractive, and there's still plenty of tall women who will at least fuck you for funsies.
Both of the casual sex relationships I've had before my current girlfriend were with a white woman who was 6'0" and a black woman who was 6'2" respectively.
I am 5'7"
Not in college or working on a degree
Live with my parents
Freelance employment, usually working from home
I'm not a pussy slayer or a cassanova, there's no magical trick, no golden nugget of advice I can dispense apart from just keep a healthy weight, groom occasionally, and put yourself out there and work for it and you won't have to pay a dime for sex. I mean I bought the first one a burger once, but we almost always split the bill.
First and foremost, women go for status and money.
Theeeen they go for attractiveness.
Women are happy to go for men who will provide for them and give them a higher social or class standing before going for looks.
Your theory is flawed OP, also that other guy mentioned that western women don't particularly want children in this day and age.
>I believe this sort of lifestyle is unfulfilling emotionally and degenerate as for the negative societal impacts that it has.
A lot of the PUA/Game people also believe that but they're sort of the "lounging by the poolside watching everything burn down" sort of people.
They do but it's when they're old and can't hit the clubs anymore.
Also worth noting that there -is- a point in size disparity where it becomes too much for smaller women and they become very genuinely intimidated and bothered by how awkward the prospect of having to bend over or kneel to kiss is. Some women find it attractive, but many women just want a guy that's big enough to feel like they're small and delicate by comparison, but not so big that they're going to get crushed.
>western women don't want children
Most of this stuff operates on a subconscious level. They can yell and scream about how they don't want children all they want but in the end, actions speak louder.
>the faces aren't the same size
that's partially the point of the study in determining the fWHR.
Correct. Monogamous mating rituals were created because our ancestors must have known just how selective women can be when left to their own devices.
game is a scam. re-red my posts.
>most will settle
Settle is the keyword there. When a woman can't find an ideal mate, she'll give in to biology and find someone who slightly passes her threshold of attractiveness. This is, of course, after she's been passed around with a second thought amongst other men she found physically attractive.
A desire dynamic is at play here, too. But that's still too much to cover here.
Women go for looks first and foremost. Did you even read my first post?
>Females consider only two quantities of selective value in their mate choices: genetic benefits (physical attractiveness – optimized in high-rate short-term mating), and direct benefits (optimized in long term mating). Thus, long-term relationships (i.e. long term mating), and short term relationships are each just one of two time-variant fitness strategies.
That's the key to understanding it all.
I don't think OP's ever had a g/f.
Women don't give a fuck about genetics or 'alpha/beta' bullshit.
They'll literally fall in love with anyone that makes them feel good. This is why you see ugly/short/fat guys with hot chicks all the time.
Go outside you retarded faggot.
Because she doesn't like babies and is instinctively inclined to avoid their presence. To a certain extreme. That's probably the best reason to not reproduce.
I like your subjective view here. Really bodes well with the general populace.
Women do give a fuck about genetics.
I'm pretty sure I'm weird, and..
>pic related, it's how mad you were when you told them to fuck off in >>39562935 >>39562989
>doesn't like babies
>instinctively inclined to avoid their presence
A 10lb little you that just makes noises all day? How could someone hate babies, that's some deep seated psychological shit.
Oh, it's very simple.. I hate babies, and everything about them disgusts me, and when I see one, I want to get as far away from it as possible. It's always been that way. (even when I was 3-5 years old)
In this era, we all want entertainment and women crave this even more so as they are initialized/seen as sexual objects. Added to the nihilist current view that nothing lasts and so on, they do not compromise their sexual life which, btw, they have all year long as it is no longer tied to their hormonal cycles.
So the archetypal relationship is/will be the open relationship : they will get fucked by handsome men and the hubby/bf will be here to support the woman emotionally and financially, to share the daily life, the rent the chores, the holiday souvenirs, the family to construct something. This will be pure rut, which has its charm, but to feel alive they will get a few affairs on the side, more or less acknowledged by the bf. Alpha Fuck- Beta Bucks applied openly. Looks for men is predominant but finances certainly helps in entertaining our women. Plus ofc the ability to make them come. Women demand orgasms, colorful sex life.
Open relationships plus celibacy is where we are going to, for both men plus women. I think men should stay out of serious relationships, that is to say, they must always love less the gfs than the gfs love them and be the lovers rather than the hubby.
>This is, of course, after she's been passed around with a second thought amongst other men she found physically attractive
And what is wrong with this, exactly? Sorry to break it to you, but unless you married and impregnated your childhood and highschool sweetheart, any girl you end up settling for, no matter how attractive, will have likely gone through a number of sex partners and relationship partners.
>using extreme examples from internet trolls
they're not exceptions. look at the majority of the population. ever been inside a mall?
look at the women you consider 'cute' even and look at their bf's or husbands.
you need to go outside with OP and stop cucking up /pol/ with pseudo shit
You should wait until you see how VR tech turns out. Or sexbots if you're into that.
I wasn't sure what the hell you were comparing me to, so a google search has yielded images of a man named Channing tatum that is far more traditionally attractive than I.
Intelligence is if anything, a turn off to most women I've met that aren't extremely intelligent themselves. A girl in a bar might ask me what I do, and when I reply that I'm studying physics engineering, they get excited and their eyes glaze over with dollar signs. They will in most cases follow up their initial inquiry with further questions such as "isn't that, like, something like, Idk this old guy had an apple under a tree? And started that stuff?"
Then if I attempt to explain what it really entails, they get annoyed, assuming that I'd have the tact, charm, and social prowess to handle them with kid gloves and not talk about things that are "boring" or "lame".
They usually then realize that I'm not the typical manwhoring dude bro chad thunderscrote that they're used to dealing with and stagger off to find another dick to grease that will take considerably less effort
>my anecdotes disprove everthing lel
>there is NO such thing as desperate women who settle for less
>how i perceive attractiveness is objective and it's not my perception of attractiveness that might be flawed
>not filtering tripfags
I’m going to go over instructions on how to block the retarded trips ITT, Art Admirer, his many trips, and how to permanently save these changes w/troubleshooting advice. Can't we just ban this fucker already? Check out the archive sometime to see how many times he changes his trip.
>Go at the top of the page and click settings
>set presets as desired
>go down to 'filtering'
>add # separate trip codes in # separate filters
>you can ADD as many as you want
>make sure they both have ON and HIDE checked
>set type to tripcode
>once you are done adding your filters, click SAVE
>go back to the settings box and scroll to the bottom
Now return to the main /pol/ page (not the catalog)
>go back to Settings
>save again for good measure
>on the bottom it says EXPORT
>click it and drag the link to wherever you save your bookmarks
It's important that you save and export on 4chan.org/pol, because WHAT you export will lead you back to WHERE you exported. So if you save/export this thread, it’ll 404 by the time you use it again. Personal experience has been that it takes you to the 404 page and invalidates your saved settings. Also, in your bookmark link you exported, you just need the URL/location, not the name (right click -> properties).
>Then if I attempt to explain what it really entails, they get annoyed, assuming that I'd have the tact, charm, and social prowess to handle them with kid gloves and not talk about things that are "boring" or "lame".
Yo dude you gotta work on that game. Most guys don't want to talk about physics at a bar, let alone girls that are there looking to find a pole to ride.
Always. Always. Always. talk about the girl. Keep your details mysterious and only give small amounts of information. Keep her going about what she's doing, where she wants to go, where she sees herself etc.
You've got a leg up cause you're smart (physics) and not hard to look at (no homo), just work on that game
Just a tip if you want to save space. I’d also recommend using the advanced presets if you want to mass save image dumps. Instead of using an image downloader, you can click/expand all the images you want, save the entire webpage and go through what you want to keep/trash (and yes, images will be saved as full size). Keep a back-up list in case your URL goes tits up. Congratulations, you just blocked your first annoying tripfag and have refined your ability to browse 4chan. And don’t forget to use the catalog!
Yes. I fucked a 6'2" black girl.
No, she wasn't a dude. She wasn't crazy. She was, in personality, very similar to myself: Asocial, not very trusting, but kept herself in decent physical shape and kind of went her own way in life. She hung on to my every word, and responded in kind. She had dreams of moving out and secluding herself from larger society and joining a small self-sustaining community somewhere. Took her out for a bike ride around a lake, we went back to my place, watched a movie, and fucked. Lasted for about 3 months or so before I met my girlfriend.
Again, I'm a little latino manlet. I have a decent face, but my accomplishments are meager and I have only enough money for myself and the occasional dinner treat. I may give off the impression that I'm educated on account of brandishing a good spoken vocabulary (without pulling esoteric million dollar words like a pompous faggot), but in reality I'm about as dumb as they come. I only maintain the facade by never really espousing opinions on things that I know I could never possibly substantiate beyond "because I just feel that way." If people ask, I tell them I did a couple years of community and gave it up to invest time in passion projects. Maybe women like dreamers? I don't know. Like I said, I'm not a pussy slayer. I had trouble with women when I was young, didn't get laid until I was 22, but once I realized that it was possible for me, it came much easier.
I don't know who is disagreeing with who but
zyss wasnt white
most white women do not want non whites
so a bunch of women liking his juiced up pecs is literally a sample of outliers
It wouldn't be the same. VR won't make me feel like any less of a failure.
>>Always. Always. Always. talk about the girl. Keep your details mysterious and only give small amounts of information. Keep her going about what she's doing, where she wants to go, where she sees herself etc.
I agree if only the nerd cannot sell what is doing. so to the nerd : If you cannot make the girl dream, then talk about her
Don't disagree that those things are real, the conclusion you claim to derive from them are wrong and are a misinterpretation of said things.
Moreover your attempt at taking responsibility away from women in their sexual behaviours is clearly coming from a place of trying to pander to them.
If you just bucked up and talked to a woman in real life, you probably wouldn't feel the need to create this white knight thread.
this is where it comes from:
I've slept with somewhere around twenty women and I'm only 21 years old. I have a social circle and I've honed my game to a razor edge through out high school and uni. Basically, I've gotten tired of sleeping around and I usually go to bars just to see friends. That's why I talk to women the way I do these days. Eventually I'll meet one that knows what the hell I'm talking about and she'll be worth keeping around. The rest can fuck off. Honestly once you sleep with enough women for no reason other than them being hot, it stops feeding your ego and you start to hate the idea of it and want more from life
Here's something sort of similar that I like: A woman marries a man expecting he will change. A man marries a woman expecting she will not change. Both inevitably end up disappointed.
No you faggots posted PUA shit GAME GAME GAME while he was posting refs about attractiveness and stature.
In a way you PUA idiots don't even disagree but see it that way because you're idiots.