Quote:
Being good with women equates to being able to understand their wants, needs, and perspective. Knowledge of these things helps you sleep with them of course. But after you have sex you're still left with the person attached to the vagina.
For example who is better with women?
The PUA who has had 0 intimate relationships but has slept with 50 women in total
or
or the PUA who can relate to most women (platonic and intimate relationships) and has had 10 meaningful relationships with women up to his standard.
But digressing to your original point. Power, money, and social status do play a great part in attracting women. But personality, charisma and charm play the roles in keeping them. If you don't work on both factors you're destined to mediocrity.
I see your point but this is irrelevant to PUA and anything game-related.
This game is about getting laid consistantly with hot females. If you want bonding or meaningful connections with people then work with children or volonteer to help the needy(old or sick people). This is great if that's your goal but we are here to discuss
promiscuity with hot girls. Have a look at the cheesy ads on this very page they remind you what we're here for.
All this self-improvement postive talk is great but seduction is a dark art. This is a gangster game. Sexual attraction is a primitive process and chicks might give you props if you've visited smelly third world shitholes to feel better about your self. But this wont get you LAID WITH HOTTIES.
One thing I can't stand either is all this bullshit about "leaving the girl better than you found her" and multiple LTR's, all that delusional harem management advice. No sane woman, even the ugly ones, enjoy getting pumped and dumped or sharing a man they actually dig. They might enjoy rare ONS's after a long night of partying in RNB clubs and making the guy jump through her hoops(even clubbing is jumping to a female hoop no straight man can dance to RNB music without sarging in mind). But fuckbuddy deals and multiple relationships arent natural for a female. If you are dating multiple chicks expect a lot of drama, sleepless nights and regular serious trouble. I've been there(actually banged 6 girls a week as advertised on top of the page) and I might have made mistakes but let me tell you this in not realistic. There is no win-win situation. You are here to pump and dump and many women will get hurt if you are successful. You'd better be a sociopath.
Quote:
I think you are unfairly putting labels and stereotypes on people just because of superficial appearance, the three most promiscuous people I've ever met in my life were all girls, 1 was really average (might even go far enough to say unattractive), one just sort of cute and one was a complete hottie, my roommate used to hook up with the hottie on and off for a while and she cheated on a few boyfriends with him until he heard she contracted herp
not that I am saying finding a girl who has contracted an STI is the object of your desire, but man, people are people, there are promiscuous guys out there and there are promiscuous girls, girls tend to typically be a little less open and more skeptical to immediate sexual offers with strangers because that can result in some serious social consequences and brings the guys history into question for them (as it would if some random girl approached you and immediately put sex on the table without even knowing you), but if you just meet some girls and gain their trust, let her know you will help her not get found out and you won't judge her while at the same time giving her some comfort that you don't seem mentally disturbed or anything, a little bit of discretion can go a long way
they are just people, a girl who is a 9/10 when she is talking to a guy who's for argument sake a 6, the girl is going to see a 6 all the same as a girl who is a 2/10, but that's the beauty of dating, everyone has different tastes and attraction is a completely subjective thing, some guys only want BBW, some guys only want asian girls, some guys just want white girls, some guys like them modelesque tall and skinny as shit, some like them curvy with huge asses, some guys want barley legal girls who just hit adulthood and have a young look to them, and some guys are suckers for a bubbly personality and a quick wit, you'll find both guys and girls are all over the place with what they respond to but mostly it's going to come down to being likable, healthy and having your life order to produce a nice quality of life and it works that way for both guys and girls
how important these things are, are completely subjective from person to person, just like you might think angie verona is a 10, other guys might think she looks too young and not black enough, in the same way there are girls out there who would want nothing to do with brad pitt/channing tatum, in the same way one guy who has worked his whole life to become a ceo wants an independent woman, another guy might not give a shit if a girl is financially stable and if you realize it or not getting good at getting to know people can really help expand your options in plenty of walks of life, you're never going to meet a girl like the one in the above caption if you never try and don't risk putting yourself out there, and you will be unlikely to succeed at even getting to know her or starting a conversation if you have never succeeded before at starting a conversation and have no idea how to get to know someone, and if you don't know there is help, and if you do know, then you can still improve in what ever way helps you the most
On my view of a ten: I agree with you we certainly dont all have the same type of woman we label as a top of the genetic ladder hottie. However take a look at this and tell me they are 10's afterwards:
On hot women and promiscuity, here is an excellent article:
http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2013/02/1 ... asual-sex/
Quote:
The Most Attractive Women Have the Least Casual Sex
What I’ve always suspected now has some solid evidence behind it:
Less attractive women seek casual sex as a compromise, and more attractive women avoid it.
The University of Notre Dame has issued a press release highlighting the research of sociologist Elizabeth McClintock (H/T: Stuart Schneiderman):
Handsome Wants as Handsome Does: Physical Attractiveness and Gender Differences in Revealed Sexual Preferences
“McClintock studies the impacts of physical attractiveness and age on mate selection and the effects of gender and income on relationships.”
Perfect for HUS!
By way of background, McClintock buys into the sexual economics model of relationships:
Couple formation is often conceptualized as a competitive, two-sided matching process in which individuals implicitly trade their assets for those of a mate, trying to find the most desirable partner and most rewarding relationship that they can get given their own assets. This market metaphor has primarily been applied to marriage markets and focused on the exchange of income or status for other desired resources such as physical attractiveness, but it is easily extended to explain partner selection in the young adult premarital dating market as well.
…Just as good looks may be exchanged for status and financial resources, attractiveness may also be traded for control over the degree of commitment and progression of sexual activity.
This confirms what David Buss said in The Evolution of Desire nearly 20 years ago:
Women desire a lasting commitment, and the most desirable women are in the best position to get what they want.
The study also features a methodology that should please those HUS readers who put little faith in surveys and hypothetical “what if” questions:
Rather than using a direct measure of sexual and romantic goals, this paper uses reported outcomes to infer goals. The advantage to this approach is that individuals may not know what they most value in partners and relationships and/or may answer questions about preferences and priorities in accordance with gender-stereotyped sexual and romantic scripts. Indeed, for men there is evidence that the sexual behavior they expect of themselves is not consistent with their actual experiences.
McClintock also points out that a preferred strategy isn’t very useful if you don’t have the power to bring your dreams to fruition:
Actual sexual and romantic outcomes are interesting because they reflect compromised rather than ideal choices: Individuals’ ideal preferences may be unattainable, forcing them to compromise and enter sub-optimal unions (or to remain single).
McClintock’s background summary cites many studies that show physical attractiveness to hold a relatively low place in the hierarchy of desired attributes, for both women and men. However, she questions the validity of these responses, much as HUS readers did when looking at the results of the Single in America survey.
In contrast, in experimental studies designed to measure individual’s acted preferences (as opposed to stated preferences), physical attractiveness is highly valued by both genders. The consistency of findings over a wide range of studies makes the conclusions reasonably credible: Both women and men value physical attractiveness highly in actual choices but value it less when reporting their preferences.
McClintock hypothesized that the most attractive people should be able to more effectively realize their goals in mate selection. She explores and contrasts “social structural” effects, i.e. a sexual double standard constraining female sexuality, vs. evolutionary theory, i.e. genetically determined gender differences, on outcomes.
Social Structural Perspective
Gendered sexual norms vary over time and place and respond to changing social conditions.
Women’s and men’s relative valuation of physical attractiveness and financial potential have become increasingly similar as women’s labor force participation increases, and this trend is stronger in more gender-egalitarian regions of the United States.
Age, education, feminist ideology, and political orientation are also important, modifying the effect of gender on the valuation of partners’ physical attractiveness and status.
The sexual double standard, still prevalent today, penalizes women and forgives (or rewards) men for accumulating sexual experience.
Women favor committed, long-term relationships.
Evolutionary Theory Perspective
Men may choose between short-term mating strategies, in which they mate with many women without committing resources to potential offspring, or a long-term strategy, in which they offer support in raising offspring in exchange for sexual access.
Women may also pursue a mixture of short- and long-term mating strategies. They use short-term mating to acquire “good genes,” generally identified by physical attractiveness and bravado. They use long-term mating strategies to acquire material support in raising offspring.
Women will be more selective than men in picking casual sex partners.
Findings
Women
1. For women, the number of sexual partners decreases with increasing physical attractiveness.
2. Very physically attractive women are more likely to form exclusive relationships than to form purely sexual relationships.
3. Attractive women are less likely to have sexual intercourse within the first week of meeting a partner.
4. Underweight and normal-weight women are more likely to report romantic experience.
5. Overweight women report approximately 10% more partners than normal-weight women whereas obese women report approximately 10% fewer partners.
6. For women the effect of being underweight on within-relationship outcomes resembles the effect of being very physically attractive.
(This suggests that the factors influencing romantic and sexual desirability are at least in part socially structured because underweight women are less fertile so the evolutionary perspective predicts that they would be less able to obtain desired outcomes.)
These results are consistent with the social structural model that posits that women’s romantic and sexual goals are shaped by the double standard of sexuality.
Men
1. For men, the number of sexual partners increases with increasing physical attractiveness.
This suggests that men seek a greater number of sexual partners than women: Physically attractive men do better in the resulting competition for sexual access.
2. For men, being very physically attractive increases the chance of reporting purely sexual relationships (versus exclusive relationships).
3. Being physically attractive also increases the chance of having sexual intercourse in the first week of acquaintance.
4. Normal-weight men report the most partners.
5. Underweight men are predicted to report 17% fewer partners, and obese men are predicted to report 27% fewer partners.
These results are consistent with an evolutionary model in that partnerships characterized as “only having sex” and partnerships in which sexual intercourse occurs after a brief period of acquaintance are indicative of a female short-term mating strategy.
General
1. Very physically attractive individuals are more advantaged than unattractive individuals are disadvantaged.
In many instances, only very physically attractive individuals differed significantly from average/attractive individuals (the reference group) whereas unattractive individuals did not differ.
2. Women and men who are more educated and/or who have higher-status parents are rated more attractive and tend to have lower BMI.
Conclusion
It is clear that sexual and romantic outcomes are at least partially socially structured.
First, the sexual double standard unequivocally indicates that women will favor committed sexual relationships whereas some formulations of the evolutionary perspective suggest that women may pursue both long- and short-term mating strategies.
Second, the sexual double standard predicts that women will prefer delaying sexual intercourse whereas the evolutionary model does not make a clear prediction regarding gender differences (or similarity) in the preferred timing of sexual intercourse.
Third, the evolutionary model clearly indicates that more physically attractive men will have a greater propensity to form casual sexual relationships whereas the social structural model provides less guidance in predicting men’s behavior (the sexual double standard is directed at women).
McClintock notes that the two theories may overlap:
Perhaps the sexual double standard has persisted in part because the difference in sexual behavior that it enforces is evolutionarily determined and would exist regardless. An alternative explanation is that evolutionary theories of human mating behavior have been developed post hoc to explain observed behavior: Insofar as observed behavior is consistent with the sexual double standard, evolutionary theories will tend to make similar predictions.
You're welcome.
CHAT
are you telling me men actually pay for this shit? Outrageous. If you can earn a fuckload of cash teaching men, then I SURE as shit can. Time to go set up my sales page. Honestly if you're so obsessed with changing lives and self-improvement, then why are you so fucking fat? Take your own advice and lose some weight.
