Looks or Game? - Page 2

Shove some poker chips in your mouth that will help you spit game.

On February 13 2008 19:56 kantoiki wrote: Being good looking helps you at initially but then its pretty much game. pics already!!!!

I think so too.

On February 13 2008 20:08 Floofy wrote: what about a troll killer? i kill them with milk

lol am i the only one who understood that one? floofy laughed at himself making an allusion to an Ernest movie

btw Ive seen pictures and she's some hot jailbait material (but unfortunately not real jailbait cause shes legal here)

game > all

game and confidence 100% yo

and oh ya

pics or this shit NEVER fucking happened!!!!!!!!!!!!

little of both never hurts, but ive seen some sub par guys get chicks way above their level with some sick game

game obv

if an ugly fucker like me can get tail then it has to be game
although i must say i was pretty shocked how girls were more into me after i got my lip pierced

it's only natural for guys to value looks from an evolutionary standpoint. What we see at attractive are the exact same qualities that make a girl ripe for breeding children...

age - wrinkles
hip to waist ratio (it makes sense that in some very northern cultures they find fatter women more attractive, that fat helps conceive healthy children under the conditions)
symmetry of face/body
height (obv a midget is less attractive)
breast size
ability to grow long healthy hair (symptom of healthy body/diet)


For a girl however
a man's providership potential is far more important
-- in the caveman days this meant body strength primarily, but even then it meant ability to maintaingain status in tribe
today's western man is attractive to women through much more elaborate and only perceived factors... confidence is obviously one of them / looks are too to a degree but only as an initial factor to gain attraction, attraction however can be developed through many different venues, looks are only one of the venues but it is also the least sustainable IE without game she will not remain interested

for an attractive man to get a high value woman he must still have game or tons of social proof IE rockstars without game still get tons of girls

it's so cute when people rationalize cultural aspects with evolution

i didn't really explain why a girl looks for other things too
from an evolutionary perspective a man should have sex with as many women as he can

women have competing interests bc they want a high value guy but also one who can protect them while their pregnant and help provide for the family

it's only natural instinct

this is why right before sex for the first time with a new guy, girls will almost always hesitate and verbalize their concerns (common questions are: what do u want from me? Do you want a relationship? they may start talking about family values and previous relationships to show you their expectations) ... sex is much more of an investment for them

On February 14 2008 02:18 KeanuReaver wrote: it's so cute when people rationalize cultural aspects with evolution

these are not cultural aspects, attraction and what causes it has been academically studies for decades and this is well founded and well accepted material. You can search attraction in wikipedia, i'm sure you'll learn some cool stuff

ya cuz we have such a nice sample for that shit

don't forget to cite the bible next time

argue the genes if you want. don't cite evolution in a vacuum. that's just fucking retarded.

On February 14 2008 02:23 Steal City wrote: Show nested quote + On February 14 2008 02:18 KeanuReaver wrote: it's so cute when people rationalize cultural aspects with evolution these are not cultural aspects, attraction and what causes it has been academically studies for decades and this is well founded and well accepted material. You can search attraction in wikipedia, i'm sure you'll learn some cool stuff

lol

"In a species that reproduces sexually, sexual attraction is an attraction, usually, to other members of the same species for sexual or erotic activity. This type of attraction often occurs amongst individuals of a sexually-reproducing species, although in many species it serves no immediate reproductive goal – indeed, some sexual behavior among primates is undertaken as a social activity. Certain aspects of what is sexually attractive to humans may differ amongst particular cultures or regions. Influencing factors may be determined more locally among sub-cultures, across sexual fields, or simply by the preferences of the individual. These preferences come about as a result of a complex variety of genetic, psychological, and cultural factors. The sexual attraction of one person to another depends on both people."

good read

it's one thing to say that people will generally attempt to obfuscate and defend while lying

it's quite another to say that it's cuz of evolution or culture or both with a nonexistant sample

argue the genetic basis if you want. compare us to monkeys.

Evolutionary theories

The evolutionary theory of human interpersonal attraction states that interpersonal attraction most often occurs when someone has physical features indicating that they are very fertile. The only purpose of relationships is reproduction, thus people invest in partners who appear very fertile to increase the chance of their genes being passed down to the next generation. This theory has been criticized because it does not explain relationships between same-sex couples or couples who do not want children.

Another evolutionary explanation suggests that fertility in a mate is of greater importance to men than to women. According to this theory, a woman places significant emphasis on a man's ability to provide resources and protection. The theory suggests that these resources and protection are important in ensuring the successful raising of the woman's offspring. The ability to provide resources and protection might also be sought because the underlying traits are likely to be passed on to male offspring.

Evolutionary theory also suggests that people whose physical features suggest they are healthy are seen as more attractive. The theory suggests that a healthy mate is more likely to possess genetic traits related to health that would be passed on to offspring. People's tendency to consider people with facial symmetry more attractive than those with less symmetrical faces is one example. Although a test was conducted that perfectly symmetrical faces were less attractive that normal faces. [3]

It has also been suggested that people are attracted to faces similar to their own. Case studies have revealed that when a photograph of a woman was superimposed to include the features of a man's face, the man whose face has been superimposed almost always rated that picture the most attractive.[citation needed] This theory is based upon the notion that we want to replicate our own features in the next generation, as we have survived thus far with such features and have instinctive survival wishes for our children. Another (non-evolutionary) explanation given for the results of that study was that the man whose face was superimposed may have consciously or unconsciously associated the photographically altered female face with the face of his mother or other family member.[citation needed]




- notice that while it says the theory is criticized for not explaining homosexual relationships, it doesn't say it hasn't been accepted. It is very well accepted and received. There are many other well-based theories in that involve and explain homosexuality without negating these evolutionary theories. Finally, for instance, we know that our 'Survival Instinct' is the most basic and thus URGENT of our hierarchy of needs... right? that's still a theory but find me one academic that doesn't believe it. So how does that explain masochistic habits such as smoking or sky-diving, where pleasure (a very non basic need) is put in front of survival? There are extreme examples of this obv... even suicide... it's not seeking pleasure but the cessation of pain... it doesn't! But, there are still other non-mutually exclusive theories regarding the nature of these habits or functions which are universally accepted

btw i got that from wiki, interpersonal attraction

lol @ u trying to argue against well established theories with one-liners

thoroughly amusing

On February 14 2008 02:28 KeanuReaver wrote: Show nested quote + On February 14 2008 02:23 Steal City wrote:   On February 14 2008 02:18 KeanuReaver wrote: it's so cute when people rationalize cultural aspects with evolution these are not cultural aspects, attraction and what causes it has been academically studies for decades and this is well founded and well accepted material. You can search attraction in wikipedia, i'm sure you'll learn some cool stuff lol "In a species that reproduces sexually, sexual attraction is an attraction, usually, to other members of the same species for sexual or erotic activity. This type of attraction often occurs amongst individuals of a sexually-reproducing species, although in many species it serves no immediate reproductive goal – indeed, some sexual behavior among primates is undertaken as a social activity. Certain aspects of what is sexually attractive to humans may differ amongst particular cultures or regions. Influencing factors may be determined more locally among sub-cultures, across sexual fields, or simply by the preferences of the individual. These preferences come about as a result of a complex variety of genetic, psychological, and cultural factors. The sexual attraction of one person to another depends on both people." good read

by the way notice it says psychological.... evolution has a HUGE impact on our personal psychologies... it's the nature vs nurture argument here, both come into play and one can be more dominant than the other depending on the intensity of our experiences (IE traumatic experiences can fuck up the natural order of things)

more explanation
0 anecdotal evidence

i guess it's hard to test this sort of thing so because it sounds logical it should be accepted

arguing this point is severely cutting into my masturbation time