Personality Cafe banner
21 - 39 of 39 Posts
There is a lot of conflicting evidence about t-levels it seems. Most reports said it was a bad thing until the recent show on Netflix.

Actually, I have a gender-neutral question, based on my original premise. Would it be a good idea, generally, for people who have been abused by uncompromising assholes in the past to find nicer people? I think WickedDeer would say, "Just look for more mature people."
(@daleks_exterminate This was top content by the way well done.):

*If one of the colours starts to fall behind the females bring it back in line - because they tend to prefer whatever colour is rare that year.



They're just maintaining a balance:

  • Orange beats Blue
  • Yellow beats Orange
  • Blue beats Yellow
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kelly Kapowski
Yellow Mating Strategy:



I am the back door man
I am the back door man
Well the, men don't know, but the little girls understand

They took me to the doctor shot full of holes
The nurse she cried SAVE HIS SOUL
I was accused of murder in the first degree
The judge's wife cried LET THE MAN GO FREE
 
It's a never-ending balance between assholes and nice people.
It's the agonising paradox which has set the world on fire - s i n c e t i m e i m m e m o r i a l - Silvio, what two businesses have traditionally been recession-proof since time immemorial?

Certain aspects of Show Business and Our Thing.
Edit: [Prostitutes] / [Soldiers]

Jean Jacques Rousseau:



It's the notion that to abdicate or sacrement any freedom for a collective is to die - the Holy Spirit - WHAT DISTINGUISHES YOU FROM A ROCK: Is that you ACT, an object is acted upon - so to sacrifice Holy Spirit, your agency, is to die by that amount - no notions or conveniences are worth such sacrifices.

A freedom to wholly act according to your agency and nothing else - this is paradoxically what drives people into slavery or tyranny: “Man is born free but everywhere is in chains.”

A. They want either to be a slave and told what to do.
B. They want to be free of all rules and all self-restraint.

And the agony is being caught between the two: Selfishness and Selflessness - however there is no escaping this paradox by consciously resolving it.

Women like assholes because assholes break rules.

Breaking rules is an advantage selfishly but it has to be tempered by meta-observations about which rules can and should so as to service heterodox development and surival / flourishing / growth - these things can't be answered by anything other than style and intuition - it's deep processing: This is a sparring program. Similar to the programmed Reality of the matrix, what you must learn is these rules are no different than the rules of a computer system:



Some can be bent, others - can be broken, understand?
 
Nothing wrong with guys being nice or being high in agreeableness. Being a simp isn't being a genuinely nice person or having high agreeableness, it's just simple minded desperation, and out of whack standards I'd say - way too high or too low depending on how you look at it.

Simp originally is an acronym for Suckas Idolising Mediocre Pussy.
 
Nothing wrong with guys being nice or being high in agreeableness. Being a simp isn't being a genuinely nice person or having high agreeableness, it's just simple minded desperation, and out of whack standards I'd say - way too high or too low depending on how you look at it.

Simp originally is an acronym for Suckas Idolising Mediocre Pussy.


Never underestimate an agreeable man...

EDIT: BECAUSE YOU'RE STUPID VERBAL. BECAUSE YOU'RE A CRIPPLE.
 
OK, here's the actual Journal article with the 43% figure. This is a better source.

Ultimately, each couple has to negotiate their own gender roles. This may even be easier for couples that don't try to fit any norms. These gender roles have to adapt to a changing society that is obviously different from prehistoric times.
I don't see why a couple has to negotiate gender roles.

To me, gender roles are public. A couple connects on a more private, individual level.

And gender roles are superficial and mass produced. They obscure individuality, even if individuals have superficial and public sides.

If anyone brought up "gender roles" in a couple, as argument for why anyone should do anything privately, I would think it was a really poor argument.

I understand they could play a role in preferences, desires etc. Because they are tied to beauty standards and what we might see as familiar romantic behavior, but I don't think they play a deeper role than that. That is still all superficial, which is important, but it's not something that "has" to be negotiated, in my opinion.

Um...as for your question about being abused by uncompromising assholes...I still think it's individual. It would require looking at what worked and what did not work. I like to find silver linings, maybe more than I should. So I'm always looking for ways that bad situations teach me a lesson or they may have shed some insight to me, it might be part of how I practice resilience, though it's not necessarily enough on its own (certainly not to stay in an abusive relationship).

But...abusive asshole may be similar to "demanding and assertive person" and it's possible someone who is "nicer" DOES need to cultivate some of those qualities in themselves--being more demanding about what they want (or at least firmer about their boundaries) and being more assertive.

So perhaps that is something they should do--idk about finding someone more "mature"--certainly finding someone who doesn't abuse you.
 
Discussion starter · #28 · (Edited)
I don't see why a couple has to negotiate gender roles.
I think we are defining gender roles differently. I was talking about the individual level. I wasn't saying everyone decides what everyone else's gender roles should be in society at large. Each couple has to decide for themselves what works best. Each interaction between a couple has some kind of yin or yang involved. For instance, one person in the couple may initiate sex more often than the other. One may make most of the financial decisions. One person might drive the car when they are traveling together. They may decide to have more traditional roles, more genderless roles, etc. I believe there is some truth that the opposite energy between a couple excites passions. All roles are customized for what works best for the relationship whether the couple is male/female, gay, or trans. It might be negotiated with or without words.
Nothing wrong with guys being nice or being high in agreeableness. Being a simp isn't being a genuinely nice person or having high agreeableness, it's just simple minded desperation, and out of whack standards I'd say - way too high or too low depending on how you look at it.

Simp originally is an acronym for Suckas Idolising Mediocre Pussy.
I think there might be cases where two people have such different levels of agreeableness that it might be a problem, especially if one or both are immature. If two people can't get along, it may be better to find a partner who is more mature, or with a closer level of agreeableness. Even two immature people might function better in relationships where attributes are more similar.

Would you say that agreeableness has nothing to do with SIMP males in a relationship?
 
(@daleks_exterminate This was top content by the way well done.):

*If one of the colours starts to fall behind the females bring it back in line - because they tend to prefer whatever colour is rare that year.



They're just maintaining a balance:

  • Orange beats Blue
  • Yellow beats Orange
  • Blue beats Yellow
I haven't ever learned about them (or seen them) though a different family of lizards are very common here, called bluebellies.

Also, with the side-blotched lizard:
The yellow ones can turn into blue ones with maturity. Yellow is also the most frequently lost morph of the colors.

But idk how much female choice is involved except in that the females choose to reproduce with the "sneaker males" (yellow ones).

I guess having a big, strong, dumb lizard is useful for the survival of the species but I can also see why females might prefer to, individually, have a male partner who can tell the difference between them and another female or male with the same color.
Or perhaps those females are the "alpha" ones, who, like the orange throated male, will reproduce more indiscriminately.

But its sort of like they have to choose between intelligence or strength, if choosing to pretend to be a female and sneak into a harem is a sign of intelligence, over being a big, dumb dominant orange-throated male who can't even tell how many sexual partners he's got going at one time or what gender they are. He's just stronger than everyone.

And it's interesting because one of the main benefits of sexual reproduction (compared to cloning--which is what life did before sex) is the genetic diversity.

In some ways, "choosing the rarer" is a method to preserve the diversity of a phenotype...the presence of other forms in a species, even if there is one "superior" form at the moment (best adapted to whatever environment, social or physical). Which could help prevent the population from getting into a genetic bottleneck where 90% of them die off because they were all the wrong color.

Monogamy also works to help preserve genetic diversity too though, but perhaps it doesn't help with creating "the strongest" male or whatever, because of the lack of competition. But I think it's helpful to remember that sex dominated over cloning because it is capable of preserving genetic diversity, rather than just one ideal (that will eventually fail when the environment changes and it is no longer ideal).

I think we are defining gender roles differently. I was talking about the individual level. I wasn't saying everyone decides what everyone else's gender roles should be in society at large. Each couple has to decide for themselves what works best. Each interaction between a couple has some kind of yin or yang involved. For instance, one person in the couple may initiate sex more often than the other. One may make most of the financial decisions. One person might drive the car when they are traveling together. They may decide to have more traditional roles, more genderless roles, etc. I believe there is some truth that the opposite energy between a couple excites passions. All roles are customized for what works best for the relationship whether the couple is male/female, gay, or trans. It might be negotiated with or without words.

I think there might be cases where two people have such different levels of agreeableness that it might be a problem, especially if one or both are immature. If two people can't get along, it may be better to find a partner who is more mature, or with a closer level of agreeableness. Even two immature people might function better in relationships where attributes are more similar.

Would you say that agreeableness has nothing to do with SIMP males in a relationship?
I guess--I just think each couple has to divide responsibilities and gauge aptitudes, regardless of gender. Perhaps because I grew up in a household in which there were only females and we did everything, no gender roles necessary. So it seems foreign to me that people would need to divide up responsibilities because of something society says about them.

I do wonder, thinking about the lizard idea, if couples who adapt to a more changing environment or a more diverse set of circumstances (like they travel a lot--perhaps between geographies or between classes or cultures), that they might need to have more diversity in their relationship (one more agreeable vs. one less agreeable) in order to adapt, whereas couples who live in a more stable environment could end up needing to be less diverse...

Just thinking of evolution and genetic diversity as figurative for personal development and "complementary" relationships (relationships between more different people).

Perhaps if you live in a very static environment, you might feel more desire to just find one ultimate, ideal form and also have that form reflected in a partner. But if you were in a very changing environment, you might prefer to have more diversity of skills in your relationship. idk

Also, perhaps if you rely more on yourself or you do have limited diversity around you, you must try to "evolve" yourself enough to deal with everything (as my example of my mother and I doing everything with no need for gender roles...working, making money, bringing home the bacon, defense, education, nurturing, domestic stuff etc.) Sort of like a clone...

But perhaps people who allow themselves to depend on others more have less pressure to become EVERYTHING, and can instead become more specialized while also becoming weaker in some areas...like a woman who can't drive a car because it's not gender role or a woman who is extremely assertive because she has a male partner to smooth things over for her and take over in situations that require more agreeableness.
 
Discussion starter · #30 · (Edited)
The evolutionary argument is that a less agreeable mate would be quicker to fight when something threatens his family in a dangerous situation than a more agreeable mate. As far as gender roles, a polarity of masculinity and femininity between partners does improve the expression of sexuality. A completely genderless approach may not be the best approach in certain circumstances.
 
I think there might be cases where two people have such different levels of agreeableness that it might be a problem, especially if one or both are immature. If two people can't get along, it may be better to find a partner who is more mature, or with a closer level of agreeableness. Even two immature people might function better in relationships where attributes are more similar.

Would you say that agreeableness has nothing to do with SIMP males in a relationship?
Well, I can't say that there aren't any simps who score high in agreeableness, but with the simps you see online, are they agreeable people in general?
Their acts of niceness appear localized to just their person of interest, do they extend the same amicable personality to others? If not then it's less likely they're high in agreeableness. If one's acts of agreeableness are viewed as a prerequisite to get something from someone then that's not really the same as having an agreeable personality.

High agreeableness is often correlated with higher levels of empathy. With many simps and "nice guy" types, I find their empathy is more likely on the lower end.
Lower agreeable types might see a need to feign agreeableness and be manipulative in some areas to get ahead like the dating field, since they at least realize being unagreeable isn't viewed as a particularly attractive quality, but since that's not their natural preference their attempts at it can end up seeming shallow, disingenous or trying way too hard.
 
I haven't ever learned about them (or seen them) though a different family of lizards are very common here, called bluebellies.

Also, with the side-blotched lizard:
The yellow ones can turn into blue ones with maturity. Yellow is also the most frequently lost morph of the colors.

But idk how much female choice is involved except in that the females choose to reproduce with the "sneaker males" (yellow ones).

I guess having a big, strong, dumb lizard is useful for the survival of the species but I can also see why females might prefer to, individually, have a male partner who can tell the difference between them and another female or male with the same color.
Or perhaps those females are the "alpha" ones, who, like the orange throated male, will reproduce more indiscriminately.

But its sort of like they have to choose between intelligence or strength, if choosing to pretend to be a female and sneak into a harem is a sign of intelligence, over being a big, dumb dominant orange-throated male who can't even tell how many sexual partners he's got going at one time or what gender they are. He's just stronger than everyone.

And it's interesting because one of the main benefits of sexual reproduction (compared to cloning--which is what life did before sex) is the genetic diversity.

In some ways, "choosing the rarer" is a method to preserve the diversity of a phenotype...the presence of other forms in a species, even if there is one "superior" form at the moment (best adapted to whatever environment, social or physical). Which could help prevent the population from getting into a genetic bottleneck where 90% of them die off because they were all the wrong color.

Monogamy also works to help preserve genetic diversity too though, but perhaps it doesn't help with creating "the strongest" male or whatever, because of the lack of competition. But I think it's helpful to remember that sex dominated over cloning because it is capable of preserving genetic diversity, rather than just one ideal (that will eventually fail when the environment changes and it is no longer ideal).



I guess--I just think each couple has to divide responsibilities and gauge aptitudes, regardless of gender. Perhaps because I grew up in a household in which there were only females and we did everything, no gender roles necessary. So it seems foreign to me that people would need to divide up responsibilities because of something society says about them.

I do wonder, thinking about the lizard idea, if couples who adapt to a more changing environment or a more diverse set of circumstances (like they travel a lot--perhaps between geographies or between classes or cultures), that they might need to have more diversity in their relationship (one more agreeable vs. one less agreeable) in order to adapt, whereas couples who live in a more stable environment could end up needing to be less diverse...

Just thinking of evolution and genetic diversity as figurative for personal development and "complementary" relationships (relationships between more different people).

Perhaps if you live in a very static environment, you might feel more desire to just find one ultimate, ideal form and also have that form reflected in a partner. But if you were in a very changing environment, you might prefer to have more diversity of skills in your relationship. idk

Also, perhaps if you rely more on yourself or you do have limited diversity around you, you must try to "evolve" yourself enough to deal with everything (as my example of my mother and I doing everything with no need for gender roles...working, making money, bringing home the bacon, defense, education, nurturing, domestic stuff etc.) Sort of like a clone...

But perhaps people who allow themselves to depend on others more have less pressure to become EVERYTHING, and can instead become more specialized while also becoming weaker in some areas...like a woman who can't drive a car because it's not gender role or a woman who is extremely assertive because she has a male partner to smooth things over for her and take over in situations that require more agreeableness.
May I ask:

Was that drive for internal diversity always a question of circumstance - or was there something you feared you'd miss if you hadn't been eclectically distributed...

Because this is not nothing - as you say: Why have sex?
 
Because this was so universally condemned, I thought that I would at least support what I said. Actually, I did some googling and found out that there is research on the topic that women find disagreeable men more attractive. I'm not finding the study now, but I remember there was a study where men who disagreed with their dates on the first date were seen more favorably by women than men who didn't. I may add more studies and articles to this as I find them.

India Times article.
BASED. That is the truth as well. Being disagreeable in a functional way isn't something bad. It's also part of the bad boy complex that most women have a fetish over. There are exceptions, but not enough to make a majority. If you get massive pushback just remember, it is all COPE.

I'll add some gasoline to that fire


If disagreeable men earn more than agreeable men and women like a guy with money and social status then we can add this to the pile. You hear a lot about women that just love nice guys. But I hear no stories about massive panties drop near nice men.

The COPE must flow...



PS: I love it when someone says something inconvenient and it takes an army of deniers to come plug the hole. Gives me ideas for threads. I have a library of links filled of hard facts and numbers that will make little minds explode.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mark R
May I ask:

Was that drive for internal diversity always a question of circumstance - or was there something you feared you'd miss if you hadn't been eclectically distributed...

Because this is not nothing - as you say: Why have sex?
It wasn't reflecting my personal drive.

But regarding evolution of many many species (not just humans but flowering plants and other sexually reproductive organisms)...Idk.

It was probably just advantageous...with flowering plants, I think it was maybe because seeds were stronger than other methods of asexual reproduction? But idk because I'm not a biologist and am not that knowledgeable.

But maybe it was also just the genetic diversity required to be able to survive a really long, dark period with no sunlight, when the sky was filled with volcanic clouds? Though spores also last a long time.

Perhaps it was just such a big change on earth that most of the other organisms that cloned themselves had a disadvantage, because it's much harder to change quickly from cloning.

So the sexual species were able to have more diversity--some of them worked better in the dark, the heat, the cold, etc.

It would be interesting to see how it first evolved though, because it does take at least two organisms to do it.

But even cloning and asexual organisms probably evolved from symbiotic relationships between different species. So there were other methods of utilizing qualities from other organisms--like lichen that is fungi and also algae, they don't have sex as they are different species, but they just work together to create an almost-individual organism. But that's not like sex. idk

I do think that there is a huge component of life's success, that is cooperation--whether it's sexual reproduction that spreads genes around in different combinations, or just species in an ecosystem that all hold special jobs and matter to each other, even if they don't consciously understand that. Because fungi and algae might not really understand, but together they form a creature that can live in frozen tundra or desert landscapes and can even fly to the moon and back alive (along with humans too, because we built the rocket).
 
I've been getting into the Big 5 lately. One of the categories is agreeableness. As women are shorter than men on average, women are nicer than men, by about half a standard deviation. There are advantage to being nice, and there are advantages to being not so nice. To a certain extent, nice guys finish last. Less agreeable people earn more than more agreeable people. My theory is that most women prefer a man who is less agreeable than they are. A man can become less nice with some practice, but it takes a lot of effort to stay consistent. Men should do this to improve current relationships. Some men have an unhealthy niceness. Some behaviors like covert contracts, giving to be accepted, and men resenting their wife for decisions made with their wife are unhealthy.

Since agreeableness is a core part of personality and not easily changed, men and women should initially choose their partner more wisely. Since women are shorter than men, even a short man can find a wife who is shorter. In the same way, a nice guy can find a woman who is nicer than he is.
----------------- EDIT ---------------
Because this was so universally condemned, I thought that I would at least support what I said. Actually, I did some googling and found out that there is research on the topic that women find disagreeable men more attractive. I'm not finding the study now, but I remember there was a study where men who disagreed with their dates on the first date were seen more favorably by women than men who didn't. I may add more studies and articles to this as I find them.

India Times article.
I agree.

I usually think of it like this: women are a lot smaller than men on average, life is far more threatening for women, if I were a man going at 3 AM in a notoriously bad neighbourhood worse case scenario I get robbed, for women, it's not that simple, worse case scenario they get raped. So they need to be extra careful with at. Not only that, but the likelyhood a woman gets raped in a notoriously bad neighbourhood is higher than the likelyhood that I get robbed in a notoriously bad neighbourhood. I'm a pretty muscular guy, they could carry a weapon or knife and I might get robbed but they'll have to pick their chances because they know might I'll put up a fight, so putting up a fight is not worth it so they may be looking for a weaker target. If there's only 1 guy he may almost never try to rob me because he doesn't know how the robbery will turn out. With women, women are a lot physically weaker than men, so if that same guy who wants to rob me wants to rape her, he doesn't even need to consider his chances, he knows he will win.

The notoriously bad neighbourhood is a metaphor for life in this case, it doesn't happen all the time, it doesn't happen everywhere, but it's something women keep in mind as far as I can tell, the world is a far more dangerous place for women than it is for men.

Now, not all this big muscular guys are brutes, I'm not going there that "all men bad" etc, but some are, so you have to prepare for that. Some are good people, some are bad people, but you don't want to pick your chances with the bad people. I'm not saying all men are bad, but the fact that good men exist doesn't mean that bad men magically poof out of existance.

I remember one time I was at the mechanic to fix my car, and right behind me was this big muscular guy twice my size maybe about 1.95 waiting for his car. He crew impacient and started to help the mechanic, without asking the mechanic, and I was like "wtf is this guy doing with my car". I only thought it, didn't say it, because I hesitated. If the guy was just like me or weaker I would have no issues saying it and even doing something about it. So while I was contemplating there whether to say something or not the mechanic said "hey, wtf are you doing, wait for your turn", he mechanic was a small and weak guy but he had the authority because he was the mechanic. I imagine my comparsion with this big muscular guy of 1.95 cm is how women feel about men all the time "he could beat my ass".

So women live in this more dangerous world with these brutes called men around them, some are good, some are bad, but one thing is clear, men are stronger, they are weaker, men are bigger, they are smaller, they aren't the top of the food chain, the men are, and they have to be extra careful with men because even 1 bad man is enough for a bad experience.

But what if, you could have 1 of these brutes called men and turn him on your side?

What if you could have 1 man around you on your side? preferably one who is good. But what does good mean? morally good and strong. Morally good but capable of violence to protect you. Because that's what this is all about. She doesn't mean good in the same way men mean good when think about women, like innocent and such. She means morally good but perfectly capable to protect her and kick some ass if it comes down to it. She doesn't want a weak man who would run up from a battle because that won't help her with anything, she's already a woman, what does she needs another woman for? or a weak-willed man who don't do anything to better his lot. Even the man is poor, he better do anything to better his lot, to improve himself, otherwise it's unattractive.

It's okay to be poor, it's not okay to excuse yourself from bettering your lot and simply living a life where you will always want to be poor, that's unattractive, ambition in this case is attractive even if you're poor. Not saying you should date based on ambition alone but it's a factor, a weak-willed man who don't do anything to better his lot is unattractive, being poor is excuseable as long as you do something to better your lot, to improve yourself, as long as you have ambition for the grind. Not a man who has resigned himself with what he has. A man who wants to do stuff.

All of this is a methaphore but you get the underlying theme.

Women's advantage over men is that men are attracted to them. So they use that, to sway one of these brutes on their side. (I'm not literally calling men brutes, making a metaphor here to emphasize the size and strength difference between men and women)

This is why nice guys is a problem for women, but nice girls not a problem for men, in fact men prefer girls to be nice. It's not that they are nice, it's that they are weak. Either weak physically or weak willed. They don't have that stepping power in them.

Ok, it's not only the boyfriend/husband the woman has as 1 of these brutes called men and turn him on your side. She has a father, she may have brothers and uncles.

So she certainly knows what's it's like to receive protection from a man, at least she got her from her father. She has been protected by men in her past. But she certainly wants that from her future boyfriend/husband as well.

And there is an interesting statistic here, if you are raised by a single mother, you are 3 times more likely to commit violent crimes in your adult life than if you were raised by both parents. But here's the interesting thing. If you are raised by a single father, you are just as likely to commit violent crimes in your adult life as people raised by both parents. I don't know what the correlation is here, the study didn't draw any conclusions itself either, but certainly there's something about the father role that is important.

After all, the stereotype goes that women with "daddy issues" are "easy prey" not women with "mommy issues". I think it's something about not having a father figure in your life that you can look up to and compare to your father whenever you see a dating material boyfriend/husband. If you have nothing for comparison, you'll take any crap because "that's how men are", if you have a father figure for comparsion you will not take any crap because you already have a standard to compare with "my father isn't like this, this man just sucks, this man is terrible, I shouldn't be treated like this". The father figure in your life allows you to have standards for men, for how men are and how they are supposed to be.

I remember watching the documentary about Marilyn Monroe and my girlfriend was like "what a hoe" while I felt quite sorry for her because I knew where she was coming from. She saw a hoe I saw a big tragedy. Which again, another interesting subject, but women are more likely to call other women "hoes" than men are. When women call women "hoes" it's with hate, when men call women "hoes" (unless he was specifically rejected by her, and does that just to cope) is not out of hate but rather a statement, an analysis, like "yeah, she's a hoe". Because men are "I might not date, marry this women, but certainly I will try to score with her because she's an easy target" while for women it's pure hate, maybe because they take their men off the market or provide easy sex or stuff like that. Same with the body count, men don't feel hate towards women with high body count but rather disgust, repulsed, women on the other hand feel hate. For men, and I've heard this comparsion from a man, easy women are like a low budget supermarket, sure you are not proud to be in one, you will not take selfies to show your friends, or post about it on social media, but are damn happy they exist.

So interesting dynamics there.

Ok, so women want to have 1 of these brutes called men and turn him on your side. But the emphasis is on "1", which is not the case for men.

Men can fk around endlessly and leave a trail of 10 single mothers behind them. They don't need to raise a child, they just need to impregnate a woman and the woman will do all the work. They only need to raise a child if they want to, their genes will carry on. So they can easily sleep with 20 women with no consequences (there's alimony now, but that's more of a legal thing than biological, genetic or social thing, it's not something we developed in nature over the years but something we've imposed now).

Women on the other hand, need to carry the baby 9 months in the womb, and when he is small she needs to ensure she raises him to become an adult whether or not the father is around for him. So the women, unlike men, need to invest a lot in their offsprings to ensure their offsprings' survival. They can't just go around and play the numbers' game like men can. For this reason, women are the opposite of men, they are very selective, if they are going to carry the baby 9 months in the womb and raise him to ensure he survives and becomes an adult she doesn't has time for counterfit genes from weaker men, if they are going to invest in him go through all that trouble for 1 child she needs to make sure it comes from a good man with good genes, this is why women are naturally more selective than men. She needs quality genes. Men don't care.

Again, metaphors, I'm not saying men don't care about their babies, it's that men don't care they can play the numbers game, genetically speaking, where as women have to play the quality game, they must, they can't afford to carry the baby 9 months in the womb, and when he is small she needs to ensure she raises him to become an adult whether or not the father is around for him, they can't afford to invest a lot in their offsprings to ensure their offsprings' survival since they can't play the number's game, they can't afford to go through all that trouble only for him to have poor genes, genetically speaking, this is how we are biologically inclined to do.

And there are in fact studies confirming this. There was a study where women & men were asked to rate men/women based on attractiveness on a scale from 1 to 7. For men, it's what you would normally expect, most women were rated 4, then women of 3 and 5, then women of 2 and 6, then women of 1 and 7. Kind of average. But for women, most men were rated 2, then men of 1 and 3, then men of 4, then men of 5, then men of 6, then men of 7. It's not that women don't care about looks, women do care about looks a lot more than men in fact. It's that women are way more selective than men when it comes to looks.

So yeah "looks vs personality", "I prefer personality", throw that in the trash.

Just be hot/good looking and she will want you. Simple as that.

And there is another study confirming this. Testosterone, which is the hormone predominant in men, also has the function to make less attractive people seem more attractive. It has the function to make men less selective than women (since by default we are all women in the womb, the Y cz is the last to activate, everything that differentiates a man from a woman is in that Y cz, man is basically like woman patch 1.1, so it needed something added to make men different from women, rather than something removed to make women different from men). In other words, the more testosterone a man has, the less selective he is going to be. This is probably the source of that stereotype that "big ripped muscular guys are more likely to cheat" and why "skinny with glasses are more likely to stay loyal". Like if you think of a feminine man with glasses and skinny or like a K-Pop artist cheating is not the first thing that comes to mind, but if you think of The Rock for example for plenty of women "cheating" would probably be the first thing that comes to mind. Sure, you can also blame it on "having options". But at the same time having options is not the entire story (although I agree it's a factor, a woman might consider a woman may consider a feminine man with glasses and skinny or a K-Pop artist more "safe", due to lack of options, but then again K-Pop artists do have a lot of options reinforcing the idea that this is all biological) because in another study when compared with multiple body types: slender, typical, chubby, toned, built, brawny. Women ranked the one they found most attractive as the and the one they wanted to be in a relationship with different. They ranked brawny the most attractive, and toned & built the one they want to be in a relationship with.

The reason? the women argued that while brawny was the most attractive body type they also found it the most likely to cheat. No reason, it was just an impression. So there seem to be biological reasons for this.

There seem to be biological reasons for this dynamic between testosterone and less selectiveness in women for men who have that testosterone. And women, even if they can't point it out, are subconsciously aware of this. As pointed out above, it's not about the options, because both the toned & built body types and K-Pop artists have plenty of options, but women just consider them more safe. Women want testosterone in a man, enough to be strong, but not enough that you will be very likely to cheat.

It's kind of funny that women are doing the game of make up and trying to look as good as possible where as it's in fact men who should be doing that.

Because men are far more appreciated for their looks than women are. Since women care more about looks since women are more selective while men are less selective, due to testosterone.

Imagine you're this small woman looking to date men and all men are bigger and stronger than you in comparison. Wouldn't you find that strength attractive? the more the better, the stronger he is the better, just not enough to cheat. Like, you look around, and see all these attractive men around you, and not so attractive, some hitting on you, some not hitting on you, while you are scouting for the best genes who would hit on you (or maybe make a move or 2 to him to make it clear you are interested, hopefuly he would hit on you and you get those good genes), of course good looks matter but wouldn't strength also be a factor? strength can protect you, and good looks are good for carrying on to your child so you enjoy having a great child not to mention feeling good in the moment while actually being with that man because you look at his face and get enjoyment out of it, all men being potential gene givers, but you want the best, you want that one with the good genes. You could sleep with any one of them, but you only want to sleep with the best. Because it's not worth it otherwise, not also because of "hoe" but because there's no point. Why? because you like those genes, and because if it comes down to it, it's going to take 9 months for you to invest in a child and a further lifetime of investment to actually raise that child, while in theory a man could just disappear, so you are looking for a moral one with a strong family commitment while also having those good genes I was talking about.

Like literally as a man imagine you're shorter than a woman and women are stronger than you and you have to carry the child.

So I said above that "so the women, unlike men, need to invest a lot in their offsprings to ensure their offsprings' survival. For this reason, women are the opposite of men, they are very selective. They can't go around with counterfeit genes that they don't want for 9 months, and then raise those counterfeit genes", but that's not the whole story.

Because women actually want 2 things: (1) good genes, (2) a man that will commit.

Yes, I talked above about good genes, but it's not enough that he has good genes and just leaves. That's how single moms become single moms. Women want a man who will commit, a good man, a morally good man, who also happens to have good genes and is good looking. And don't forget strength, as we discussed, women like strength. Because we live in this world where women lack strength and they want that in a partner.

In fact, have you ever heard a woman saying "feeling protected", as a compliment. Like "I'm feeling protected with you". It's cute. But I have never heard it the other way around, a man telling a woman "I'm feeling protected with you" or even in boys talk I never heard a man saying "yeah bro, I'm feeling protected with her". He's feeling a lot of great things with her but protected is not one of them.

Yes, they want strong quality genes that they will be glad and happy to have, but they also want, a father for their child.

Which is why paternal investment is a big thing for a woman. Such a big thing. Why does a woman like when a man pets a dog? if women want men to be all this strong aggressive brutes who protect them but loves them, like this total brute and evil man except for 1 thing that he loves them (have 1 of these brutes called men and turn him on your side) that wouldn't make sense, because it's already there, what does it matter if he pets a dog or not? heck what does it matter if he's a good person or not as long as he loves you? but there's a sense behind that - paternal investment.

Women don't just want a good partner, they want a good father for their children as well.

As men, this is easy to overlook, because paternal investment is a big deal for women, or potential paternal investment.

"If he was to have a child, would he be invested in it?", women want to hear an "yes", and to see by behavior and actions a behavior that reflects an "yes".

It's is why you can't be just a bad boy. You need to be a bad boy and a nice guy. A bad guy and a good guy. In the specific sense mentioned above. Strong, good looks, willing to take a fight, all that good stuff, masculinity and so on, things women like and find attractive, while also a paternal investment side, a more sensitive and soft side. Literally, a few weeks ago I was in a park with a group of friends, and there was a couple with a 1 years old child next to us, the guy was huge, twice to 3 times the size of the woman, but he was so gentle, playing with the child and such, hugging his wife and such, and generally seeming like being a good human being, and all the women in the group found that so attractive. That man had all the masculinity you could ask for, but he was also such a soft and gentle guy. If there was a fight, there's no doubt that guy could mop the floor with anyone, including myself. But because he was such a soft and gentle guy, I don't think he would mop the floor with me, he would defuse the situation, he seemed like that kind of guy, even though he could.

I know I went around the corner with this one but I hope you can see how my answer intersects with your original post. Yes, you need to be a bad guy as well, in a very specific sense. Also a good guy, in a very specific sense. A weak defenseless guy is not that good guy in a very specific sense, he is weak, like a rabbit, and nobody likes the rabbit. If you had to pick from a list of animals which animal you would become, would you pick the cobra, or the tiger, or the rabbit? almost nobody would pick the rabbit because he's weak, defenseless, and there's no value or honor in that. You might pick a dog, a certain strong big breed of dog, who you know is powerful and big but also has a good soul at the end of the day. Which non-ironically but sarcastically and metaphorically I think it is what women pick when it comes to men. A dog of breed, someone who is strong, and powerful, but also has a good soul and a good heart. That good specific combo between a bad boy and a nice guy I was talking about.

Even in countries, why so many countries have their emblem as the eagle? like there's literally so much with an eagle as the emblem. And not a rabbit or a worm for example? because one is weak and defenseless while the other one has that aggressiveness. Sure, you wouldn't call an eagle a company animal like a dog, but these are countries not women we are talking about, they are not looking for that paternal investment.

They are a predator, a territorial animal that's preying on others, the rabbit is not the norm when it comes to countries picking their emblem, the eagle is.

That's not to say women go around thinking "will this be a good father?", likely it doesn't even cross their mind, it's subconscious.

Just like men don't know why make up makes women more attractive to them, it just does. They don't see the cause, or the reason, just the result, it's a subconscious process.

For women, when they are younger say 13-18, the ideal male while still attractive is more of a "boyish prince charming" type of good looks. Not beta but not alpha either. He also has a sweet sensitive side, not alpha. He has outwards strength that he displays to the rest of the world, which signals that he can protect. But he is on the nurturing side and can take care of them as well.

As the grow older, they start to become more interested in more Chad more masculine type of looks. But still with that sweet sensitive side to them that not everybody sees. To have a bit of generosity and do things for other. Why? because that shows paternal investment, it shows they are less likely to cheat and more likely to stay with the child. They don't want a brute, they want a nice guy who can be a brute. A nice guy who can be a brute when necessary and is also good looking, but most of the time he is nurturing and kind.

Not a weak-willed "beta" simp either, that's not very fitt-y with the nice guy who can be a brute when necessary and is also good looking, but most of the time he is nurturing and kind, it's actually quite weak and submissive, and I talked in the beginning about being a weak or weak-willed man, either weak physically or weak willed, not the way to go. Simps who think they just need to simp harder and then they will get the girl are just ridiculous.

In fact, funny thing, there are simps out there who think that if the "good men would dissapear" then they would have a chance. Like, if there was a 2-to-1 ration of women-to-men they will have a chance. No they won't. Because women will still have the preferences that they have and they just won't be one of them. In fact, if that would be the case and top 50% the most attractive men would dissapear, women would be more likely and more willing to share the "good leftovers", the few good looking and hot men left, than to pair with the simps even if 1 on 1. By a simp I imagine the stereotpyical fat man living in his mom's basement jerking off of anime and simping for Belle Delphine. Who just think that if they just, invest harder, they will see how much he loves her and she will finally want to be with him just for the simple fact that he loves her that much despite him provinding no value. I saw a TikTok once like "omg, I love you so much, this is all my life savings, I hope you will do great with them, I love you so much" and the girl was like "wow, thanks dude, but you know, it's your poverty. Hey babe, someone just gave us 10.000$" and the title was "POV you're a simp".

So if you take something from this, be hot, and paternal investment also help. But literally above all else, be hot, that's all it takes to be instantly attractive to women. Have good genes (when I said that I don't mean literally, because you can't change your genes, but genes translate as good looks, so it's literally 'take care of your face and your body', it doesn't matter if you are an IQ of 9000 or own 7 companies and have 3 Bugatti of a color Andrew Tate likes, if you don't have good looks you don't have good genes according to biology, but good looks is something you can work on. You can be born good looking and be lucky, good looks and allow yourself to fall off by not taking care of yourself, or born bad looking and literally max out your looks by taking care of yourself by making improvements and then you will see results, good looks translates to good genes, but our brain doesn't know that it's actually good genes + talking care of yourself = good looks, because in the ugga bugga time you didn't really had time to take care of yourself, so men and women likewise had to work with what they had, what they saw in front of them).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mark R
I find the idea I am more agreeable for being female and prefer someone less agreeable, eh barfy.

Like I actually scoffed at this premise and was all like ‘as if’

I do not actually think women are just for being female more agreeable.

I am short as fuck and look over few peoples heads. Cut me off at the store I fucken dare ya. And also catch me if ya can. Being a big giant does not mean shit. I can turn outta their swing, and walk not even need to run the fuck away
 
Well, I can't say that there aren't any simps who score high in agreeableness, but with the simps you see online, are they agreeable people in general?
Their acts of niceness appear localized to just their person of interest, do they extend the same amicable personality to others? If not then it's less likely they're high in agreeableness. If one's acts of agreeableness are viewed as a prerequisite to get something from someone then that's not really the same as having an agreeable personality.

High agreeableness is often correlated with higher levels of empathy. With many simps and "nice guy" types, I find their empathy is more likely on the lower end.
Lower agreeable types might see a need to feign agreeableness and be manipulative in some areas to get ahead like the dating field, since they at least realize being unagreeable isn't viewed as a particularly attractive quality, but since that's not their natural preference their attempts at it can end up seeming shallow, disingenous or trying way too hard.
I would say theres truth in that as in some "simps" and "nice guys" are putting on a show but simultaneously, there are people who don't have the mental energy to go around being empathic to everyone, there are 2 many damn people in the world and so said "empathetic" person might want to dumb it down to 1-2 people coz thats all he/she has the energy for. So the only way to tell the diff is look at their long term relationships, are they pretending or just selective?

Furthermore, I want to empathize that there are 2 kinds of people, some may see it as Fe vs Fi but;

1. Type of people has a shit tonn of friends and acquaintances, everyone seems to like him on a surface level but has no extremely deep ties to anyone and seemingly treats everyone fairly equally. hes the guy that tries to read the room and keep the peace, often taking the losing side's argument to try balance things out. This I view as the Fe types.

2. Type of people who has only a very few close friends/people in their lives but their ties are deeply rooted, they do not treat everyone equally and tend to prioritize people based on their connections with them. They may side with the person they're closest to if they share the same values when push comes to shove regardless of whats socially acceptable/right/wrong. This I view as the Fi types.

Comes back to the saying from that anime "Boku wa Tomodachi ga Sukunai" what would you rather prefer? 100 friends or 1 really close friend?

Different people, different values, neither are right nor wrong if the person is healthy. Of course theres no clear separation, type 1 can still have close friends and type 2 can have a lot of surface level friends, I merely exaggerated the scenarios to try categorize or differentiate the 2.
 
21 - 39 of 39 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top