Hot Chicks, are they worth it?

EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 4108
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Hot Chicks, are they worth it?

I have a question for those of you who understand Evolution (or at least think you do).

Why are some people physically more attractive than others? Why aren't ugly people just bread out of existence? Is it just that ugly people breed with other ugly people, so we have no end to ugliness in the human race? It has been proven that ugly people have economic and social disadvantages besides just mate selection, so one might think they would be naturally selected away. Why is there such a wide range of attractiveness?

Could it be that ugly people have other advantages that the physically attractive don't have? This question comes up because as us guys know, the hotter the chick, the more effort we have to put into getter her and keeping her. The more crap we're willing to put up with from her if she's hot. So many of us ask, "Hot chicks, are they worth it?"

I read this article from Christopher Hitchens on "Why women aren't funny":

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2007/01/hitchens200701

I know it's very sexist, but it makes a lot of sense. Hot women don't need to be funny, they can just bring their looks to the relationship. This is how it seems to be with better looking women, they just bring their looks that's it. I have to be funny, rich, interesting, pleasant, etc... It's also interesting how he says women get funnier with age, their looks fade, so then women develop other qualities to attract people. I find this to be true, more mature women are generally better for a relationship.

So, is the problems with hot chicks just that they know they're hot so they can treat men badly and still have men treat them like a princess? Or is it evolution? Has nature give some women looks, but then to balance things out given less attractive women other qualities to attract and keep a man? Is physical beauty just a trick nature plays on men to get us to waist our time and money on women that are otherwise bad mates?

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


illeatyourdog
illeatyourdog's picture
Posts: 580
Joined: 2007-07-20
User is offlineOffline
greek goddess wrote:EXC

greek goddess wrote:

EXC wrote:

Do hot women just have it in their DNA to be high maintenence?

 

I'm not high maintenance!

 

 

And there is a God and he made me as a gift to all human females . . . .

" Why does God always got such wacky shit to say? . . . When was the last time you heard somebody say 'look God told me to get a muffin and a cup tea and cool out man'?" - Dov Davidoff


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Again, it seems your

Quote:
Again, it seems your argument is beauty is objective because each individual has their own objective standard and that, in a larger context, it is subjective because there is no real external standard.  You might accuse me of using terms wrong again but, doesn't objective imply some sort of external standard that applies to everyone instead of an internal standard that is regulated by each individual person?

You're using terms wrong again.  Through the whole post.

Objective: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

Subjective: pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.

Absolute: something that is not dependent upon external conditions for existence or for its specific nature, size, etc.

 

Ok.  Very, very simple.

You cannot decide to find something beautiful when you think it's ugly.  This is like belief in Jesus.  You can't just decide to believe.  Either the evidence convinces you or it doesn't.  Either something is beautiful or it isn't.  Your perception may change, but that will be because the evidence or circumstances or perception changes... not because you have the choice.  Once you believe it beautiful, you don't then have the choice to switch back to perceiving it as ugly.

This is objective, in the sense that you have no individual control over the matter.  For you, individually, you are controlled by your own perceptions.

Everyone is controlled by their own perceptions, most (all?) of which are equally valid.  They are in exactly the same boat as you, but they have different perceptions.  Taken as a set, beauty evaluations are subjective.

Beauty is dependent on many external conditions, most notably the perceptions of the viewer.  Therefore, it is not absolute.

 

Ok, there are at least a dozen definitions for objective, subjective, and absolute.  You can build a model in which my usage is incorrect.  However, the model I've described is internally consistent and valid.  If you don't like the words I use, substitute other words.  It doesn't matter.  The point is that you understand the distinctions I'm making.  An individual has no control over their perception of beauty, any more than you have the ability to decide that your hand doesn't exist.  There is no way to assign a constant algorithm to humans' perception of beauty (that we know of).  We can only speak objectively of an individuals' perception, and it doesn't necessarily apply to any other individual.  Beauty is intrinsic to perception, and is not an absolute.

 

I'm actually getting very aggravated at all this dickering over words.  I can't even remember what the argument is about.  I'm going to abandon this thread, not because I'm giving up, but this is going to require a more thought out essay dealing with as many objections as possible.  This subject is just too emotionally charged to piecemeal it together.

Look for an essay in my book section in upcoming days.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


illeatyourdog
illeatyourdog's picture
Posts: 580
Joined: 2007-07-20
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:You're

Hambydammit wrote:

You're using terms wrong again.  Through the whole post.

Objective: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

Subjective: pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.

Absolute: something that is not dependent upon external conditions for existence or for its specific nature, size, etc.

Sorry to get you aggravated but even with these definitions you are still arguing for what is essentially an is and not is.  You say objective is not influenced by personal feelings and is unbiased, etc and that subjective is characteristic of an individual.  The problem with beauty is, if what one finds attractive is based upon personal feelings, prejudices, and interpretations (not that they are in control of them which is a different issue), by your own use of the terms, beauty is subjective.  Unless you are trying to argue that what one finds beautiful is not, in ANY WAY, influenced by one's personal feelings or prejudices.

Quote:
We can only speak objectively of an individuals' perception, and it doesn't necessarily apply to any other individual.

So, Avril Lavigne is objectively beautiful because, within my individual perception, she is incredibly attractive?  Or is it because she meets the basic requirements of being mostly symmetrical and not obese?

 

Quote:
I'm actually getting very aggravated at all this dickering over words.

 

You're the one who began dickering over words by bringing up Absolutism out of nowhere claiming that I was, somehow, arguing for it or accusing you of conflating it with objective ( or rather you accused me of conflating the two terms).  Which I was not.  I was just saying that beauty is paradoxical because everyone pursues the beautiful, whatever they believe it to be, yet, because of our unique genetic make-up which we have no control over, each person finds different objects beautiful, thus, it is both objective (there is no one who finds nothing beautiful or does and prefers the non-beautiful) and subjective because what each individual person finds beautiful is entirely dependent on their unique genetic make-up.  And how your more scientific approach to beauty does not escape it since what you call objective about beauty is  every human being's desire for beauty and then base standards of (scientific) beauty on groups of individuals who may or may not find the same things beautiful. 

 

" Why does God always got such wacky shit to say? . . . When was the last time you heard somebody say 'look God told me to get a muffin and a cup tea and cool out man'?" - Dov Davidoff


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
I am giving up for now. 

I am giving up for now.  One of two things is happening.  Either I am currently incapable of communicating clearly, or you are incapable of understanding my communication.  I don't know which it is, and I'm not about to point a finger either way.

Like I said, there's going to be an in depth essay on sexual selection coming up.  Keep an eye out for it, and if you still have objections after reading it, we'll talk more about it.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
pyrokidd wrote:Quote:They

pyrokidd wrote:

Quote:

They are, however, good enough for whatever they're good at from time to time, whether it's listening to her gripe about some other guy, a booty call, or treating her to dinner.

I would call a girl who can and would use guys in such a manner a) lucky she was born that way, and b) VERY high maintenance. She's getting literally every intimate need she could ever want fulfilled by a variety of partners. I'm guessing they probably buy her stuff, too. Sounds like the definition of high maintenance.

That doesn't sound high maintenance to me, it sounds to me to be exactly what many gay guys do.  Perhaps the problem is that it's somehow less socially acceptable for her to get certain needs fulfilled by a variety of men?  I think any guy who would call a girl high maintenance is either jealous or knows he's not good enough for her.

Besides, I thought high maintenance described someone who was overly needy, emotional, materialistic and shallow.  I don't see how a girl who simply sees a variety of guys to fulfil different aspects of her needs is high maintenance.  It seems like you are basing this off of your supposition that she gets bought stuff.  So what if she does?  And so what if she's hot?  I'm sure there are high maintenance girls who are not particularly attractive to you.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


pyrokidd
Superfan
pyrokidd's picture
Posts: 253
Joined: 2007-02-03
User is offlineOffline
Quote:That doesn't sound

Quote:

That doesn't sound high maintenance to me, it sounds to me to be exactly what many gay guys do.

Uh...and since when are gay guys socially acceptable in mainstream society? Not saying they shouldn't be, but generally I think they're not. I wouldn't use the entertainment industry as a means to learn what most people accept. Everything anyone puts on T.V. these days pisses someone off.

Quote:

Besides, I thought high maintenance described someone who was overly needy, emotional, materialistic and shallow.  I don't see how a girl who simply sees a variety of guys to fulfil different aspects of her needs is high maintenance.  It seems like you are basing this off of your supposition that she gets bought stuff.

So a girl getting a variety of guys to listen to her talk, take her out, have sex with her, buy her junk, etc. isn't needy, emotional, or shallow? Honestly, I don't care how she lives her life, but I'll bet at least one of her "boyfriends" is jealous. The thing is, when we're romantically involve with someone, we typically like to think we're the only one, at least at the time.  Still, I don't care what she does with her life if it's not affecting me, but I'm guessing most people would consider that pretty high maintenance. Or do you consider it someone who demands all the things she gets but from 1 person?

"We are the star things harvesting the star energy"
-Carl Sagan


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
pyrokidd wrote:Uh...and

pyrokidd wrote:
Uh...and since when are gay guys socially acceptable in mainstream society? Not saying they shouldn't be, but generally I think they're not. I wouldn't use the entertainment industry as a means to learn what most people accept. Everything anyone puts on T.V. these days pisses someone off.

I was making a comparison.  I didn't state that gays are socially acceptable in mainstream society, I was just describing a behaviour that's acceptable within 'gay society'.

Quote:
So a girl getting a variety of guys to listen to her talk, take her out, have sex with her, buy her junk, etc. isn't needy, emotional, or shallow?

I think you intentionally misunderstood me.  She is not necessarily any of those things because she does that stuff.

Quote:
Honestly, I don't care how she lives her life, but I'll bet at least one of her "boyfriends" is jealous. The thing is, when we're romantically involve with someone, we typically like to think we're the only one, at least at the time.

That depends on the nature of the relationship, doesn't it?  It also depends on the people involved, no?

Quote:
Still, I don't care what she does with her life if it's not affecting me, but I'm guessing most people would consider that pretty high maintenance. Or do you consider it someone who demands all the things she gets but from 1 person?

I explained exactly what I thought 'high maintenance' meant.  I'll repeat again that just because someone sees different people for their 'needs' doesn't make them high maintenance.  I would think that you were a prude who had never heard of promiscuity sexual or otherwise.  Now, I hope it's apparent why I chose to compare the behaviour with that of some gays.  I don't find that such behaviour necessarily reflects that one is high maintenance, I think high maintenance people are those as I explained in my previous post.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


greek goddess
Rational VIP!Science Freak
greek goddess's picture
Posts: 361
Joined: 2008-01-26
User is offlineOffline
Ok, I'm still confused about

Ok, I'm still confused about this, especially since there seems to be disagreement. What would you guys consider to be high maintenance?

Also, why do you all think that every attractive woman out there is on a mission to fuck you over?


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
greek goddess wrote: Ok, I'm

greek goddess wrote:

Ok, I'm still confused about this, especially since there seems to be disagreement. What would you guys consider to be high maintenance?

Also, why do you all think that every attractive woman out there is on a mission to fuck you over?

Excellent questions.  To the first I already answered.  As for the second, I don't fuck girls so I don't assume they want to fuck me... or fuck me over.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
To be honest I don't really

To be honest I don't really care if a woman is "high maintenance." Hell, I don't care if she beats the shit out of e on a daily basis. I'm just so sick of being alone I'd take almostany woman of about average appearance or better that would have me.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
greek goddess wrote:Ok, I'm

greek goddess wrote:

Ok, I'm still confused about this, especially since there seems to be disagreement. What would you guys consider to be high maintenance?

Also, why do you all think that every attractive woman out there is on a mission to fuck you over?

 

I will go on the record saying that I don't think that every attractive woman is out there to fuck over men (since attractiveness is a matter of opinion). However I have met a few, High Maintenance women, that the majority of society consider to be hot. Now what do I mean in the term high maintenance, a woman the requires constant attention, praisal and lots and lots of spending money, one that needs or desires to have the best of everything. Just like a car, there are cars that are low maintenance meaning not a lot of money is required to keep it running, and then there are high maintenance, one that you will be spending tons of money on the upkeep. Now I have met some hot women that are not high maintenance, which are great fun to be with, but from what I have experiences and seen it has alot to do with their upbringing, usually many of them have what I call spoiled princess syndrom, that many of them got whatever they wanted as they grew up, not because of their brains or achievements but because they were simply cute/pretty. However you goddess I can not say if you are high maintenance or not, so I will go with your original statement that your not, i have no other reason not to believe ya.


pyrokidd
Superfan
pyrokidd's picture
Posts: 253
Joined: 2007-02-03
User is offlineOffline
greek goddess wrote:Also,

greek goddess wrote:

Also, why do you all think that every attractive woman out there is on a mission to fuck you over?

I don't think that's how it works. I've know a variety of girls with varying attractiveness and needs. I think the stereotype is mostly created by the media's portrait of attractive women being gold digger bimbos. But in real life I have seen girls that have had a lot handed to them because they're pretty, so they don't have much need to be smart, then they ditch school, tend to gravitate towards being superficial, etc. Of course I've seen some 2/10 type girls spoiled by their parents who act in a similar manner. I think we should just give the stereotype a rest already. File it under the irrational precepts if you like.

Thomathy wrote:

I think you intentionally misunderstood me.  She is not necessarily any of those things because she does that stuff.

first of all I don't intentionally misunderstand. I think the problem is we're working off of largely different definitions of the term 'high maintenance'. I'm going by what I'm thinking most people see as high maintenance, like the need for many different people for many different things. The typical societal standard these days is "only 1 person you're with, able to be financially independent of that person, capable of solving most of your own emotional problems, but able to talk to your partner if you need them" among other things. Of course this is a generalization, specifics change between genders, economic class, personality types, all sorts of things. But in general I think the hypothetical woman discussed here is not typical of what society expects from her.

Thomathy wrote:

That depends on the nature of the relationship, doesn't it?  It also depends on the people involved, no?

Well, yes and no. I know there are some people capable of handling it, but we evolved to be sexually jealous. It helps insure OUR genes and not the competitor's are passed on.

Thomathy wrote:

I explained exactly what I thought 'high maintenance' meant.  I'll repeat again that just because someone sees different people for their 'needs' doesn't make them high maintenance.  I would think that you were a prude who had never heard of promiscuity sexual or otherwise.  Now, I hope it's apparent why I chose to compare the behaviour with that of some gays.  I don't find that such behaviour necessarily reflects that one is high maintenance, I think high maintenance people are those as I explained in my previous post.

Men, including gay men, are quite different than women. The standards of high maintenance vary vastly between genders. A lot of girls think I'm 'high maintenance' because I have some deep-rooted intimacy issues stemming from early childhood. The fact I can very rarely open up and get close to people has ensured I've had no real long-term romantic relationships for quite a while. that's more than most girls care to work past, therefore I'm high maintenance. Does the same apply to a woman? I don't know. I personally don't care, but that's for the guy contemplating dating her to decide. Maybe all he wants is sex, someone to go to dinner with, or maybe he wants a deep love-type connection. If he does, maintaining the relationship with her emotional walls up is too much, therefore she's high maintenance.

And I added the part about me not caring if a woman behaves in such a manner because I wanted to contrast my views from what I think most of society thinks. I am all for sexual promiscuity, so long as I don't catch anything. More than that, I really couldn't care less what a woman, or for that matter a man, does with their life if it's not hurting me. Their's is not my life to live.

 

But all in all, I think this is largely irrelevant, because we should just bury this stereotype of the beautiful, needy, shallow, stupid, "high maintenance"(whatever definition you prefer) woman.

Sorry some of this makes no sense, I'm hella tired right now....

"We are the star things harvesting the star energy"
-Carl Sagan


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
I think a lot of the time

I think a lot of the time the stereotype appears to exist at least as a front, and I've never really had enough time for loud, outwardly ditzy women to know if there's anything underneath that front. And generally speaking I find that type of person incredibly irritating and probably won't have the time for them. I'm the kind of person who has to have a lot in common with someone in order to socialise with them, I can't talk about nothing in particular like most people seem to do. Therefore, anyone I get close to, either as a friend or as a girlfriend has to have similar interests and personality to me. I think I prefer average looking women to super hot looking women. I see a hot woman, and I can appreciate that, but I know they're way out of my league and so I lose interest after a few seconds. Average looking women and slightly mental women are, from my own experience more likely to go for me, and so I'm actually more attracted to less attractive women, it's kind of paradoxical, they're more attractive because they're less attractive.

 


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Hot Chicks, are they worth

Hot Chicks, are they worth it?

As if we have a choice  .....      Stop all lying ..... Let it be < Girls Rule <

   "Boys Gone Wild"

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk3Ei_yoI4c

          

 


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
greek goddess wrote:What

greek goddess wrote:

What would you guys consider to be high maintenance?

You, clearly.

greek goddess wrote:
Also, why do you all think that every attractive woman out there is on a mission to fuck you over?

I'm glad you added the "over" at the end there. I was confused.

To turn it around: really attractive women have lots of options, so if they know that, it can really mess with their minds. "Should I stick with this guy, or would my looks be put to better use attracting a millionaire? Will I be wasting my time?" The choices they have at that point, knowing the power available to an attractive woman, can be overwhelming and detrimental to their self-esteem. A woman knows it's not her personality that's being appreciated when a guy's looking straight at her chest while he talks to her.

So "high maintenance" is relative. If you want to keep an attractive woman interested, she has to consider you her best option. In a city, especially, there are always better options (or at least the grass always looks greener), so guys get chucked around a lot by women who are really attractive. It's difficult for most to keep their objectivity at that point. Not me, of course: I'm made of tank parts and scrap plastic, but I mean the guys with hearts.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Ok, I'm still confused

Quote:

Ok, I'm still confused about this, especially since there seems to be disagreement. What would you guys consider to be high maintenance?

Also, why do you all think that every attractive woman out there is on a mission to fuck you over?

Just to be clear, one of the things that's been making this difficult is that there are two conversations overlapping.  On the one hand, we're talking about the dynamics of sexual selection, and on the other, we're talking about cultural values.

From a sexual selection point of view, high maintenance doesn't really exist.  High value does.  Physical attractiveness is one of many factors that contribute to an overall sexual attractiveness.  If a species puts a lot of weight towards physical attractiveness, like a peacock or a human, very physically attractive individuals are pretty much automatically high value.  High value simply means that they generally can (and do) obtain attractive mates.

There's a LOT more to the human equation, of course.  Money, power, intellect, humor, social position, etc, are all factored in, so all we can say authoritatively is that in general, pretty people attract pretty people, rich people attract rich people, etc.  The exceptions are so numerous as to make the observation mostly meaningless on an individual level.

On a cultural level, I think it's silly to think that all women are out to screw men over, just as much as it's silly to say that all men are lying cheating pigs who are just looking for a lay with a hot chick.  Most people, men and women, are looking for a healthy relationship.

High maintenance is pretty hard to define, I think.  This is partly because "maintenance" to one man is fun to another.  So, one man gets annoyed when a woman calls him at work every day, and another thinks it's endearing.  Still another gets jealous if he doesn't hear from his wife every day.

A lot of the disagreements in this thread come from very poorly articulated ideas, if you ask me.  If you're going to say "high maintenance," you need to explain exactly what you mean in terms of real behaviors.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Blind_Chance
Blind_Chance's picture
Posts: 124
Joined: 2008-01-09
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:greek

HisWillness wrote:

greek goddess wrote:

What would you guys consider to be high maintenance?

You, clearly.

Did you come to that conclusion because of nickname, AIM user name and facial expression on forum photo ?

Human learns from his/her life experience and he/she acts accordingly to his/her conclusions.

You can't blame her that she uses the easiest way to impress men in who's she is interested, that just logical actions. Fact, Greek Goddess has more possibilities to choose between men and find that one which she will think about as the best partner. But just for time being, relationships based on sexual attractiveness fades with time and man/woman age. In long run it doesn't seems to be the best option for engage in such relationship.

And that's why I believe that physical attractiveness can actually be a curse in same time, if you are not mature enough you can't miss fact he/she is not with you for something more then sex attractiveness.

 

I am very sorry for all possible language slips in that post.

Ecrasez l'infame!


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Blind_Chance wrote:Did you

Blind_Chance wrote:

Did you come to that conclusion because of nickname, AIM user name and facial expression on forum photo ?

I'm just teasing her - I don't really mean it. We'd have to have her boyfriend on to tell us whether or not she's high maintenance, but I wouldn't want to put the guy on the spot.

(Hint: I was telling her she was "clearly high maintenance" to put her in the "hot chicks" category.)

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Ohhh yeah, devoted

Ohhh yeah, devoted maintenance , SUPPORT Screaming Vaginas ..... hear that music in your ears  !   HEAVEN it is ....  

 


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

SUPPORT Screaming Vaginas 

There's a t-shirt slogan for you. Or are The Screaming Vaginas a band? All-girl punk group?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Well, yes,  all of that,

Well, yes,  all of that,

Lets help them girls to be girls  ....  to the greatest of all the cosmos , GIRLS  


Blind_Chance
Blind_Chance's picture
Posts: 124
Joined: 2008-01-09
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:I AM GOD

HisWillness wrote:

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

SUPPORT Screaming Vaginas 

There's a t-shirt slogan for you. Or are The Screaming Vaginas a band? All-girl punk group?

There is actually a play with similar title.

Ecrasez l'infame!


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 4108
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:A lot of

Hambydammit wrote:

A lot of the disagreements in this thread come from very poorly articulated ideas, if you ask me.  If you're going to say "high maintenance," you need to explain exactly what you mean in terms of real behaviors.

It's a combination of a lot of things. A cold standoffish attitude when you meet them. Part of it is you have to spend a lot of money on them. You have to have a job that pays instead of one you enjoy. You have to buy things to impress chick instead of what you want to buy. They are not often available for dates. They expect the guy to do everything to make the relationship work. They'll make you wait a long time for sex. If you do get them in the sack, there are many they won't do. They can be very demanding and angry if you don't do everything their way. In general just a selfish attitude.

Many hot women figure out early that they can play men for what they can get from them.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
"Bitches ain't shit" - Lil'

"Bitches ain't shit" - Lil' Jon.


illeatyourdog
illeatyourdog's picture
Posts: 580
Joined: 2007-07-20
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:I am

Hambydammit wrote:

I am giving up for now.  One of two things is happening.  Either I am currently incapable of communicating clearly, or you are incapable of understanding my communication.  I don't know which it is, and I'm not about to point a finger either way.

Or, you don't understand your own terms.  Of course now I am sounding no different than you with that charge.

Quote:
Like I said, there's going to be an in depth essay on sexual selection coming up.  Keep an eye out for it, and if you still have objections after reading it, we'll talk more about it.

Sexual selection and beauty are two different things.  Nevertheless, i will try to read it when it comes out.  However, since its on sexual selection as opposed to beauty, my objections might either be radically different or non-existent.

" Why does God always got such wacky shit to say? . . . When was the last time you heard somebody say 'look God told me to get a muffin and a cup tea and cool out man'?" - Dov Davidoff


illeatyourdog
illeatyourdog's picture
Posts: 580
Joined: 2007-07-20
User is offlineOffline
greek goddess wrote:Ok, I'm

greek goddess wrote:

Ok, I'm still confused about this, especially since there seems to be disagreement. What would you guys consider to be high maintenance?

Quote:

Guys might differ on this but if you spend more than a half an hour on your hair because you are using various conditioners, sprays, gels, and complex hair configurations, you are hight maintenance.  If you spend more than 7 minutes picking ouy a shirt or any other apparal of clothing to wear, you are hight maintenance.

Quote:
Also, why do you all think that every attractive woman out there is on a mission to fuck you over?

 

I don't think its they are on mission to do so.  I think it just logically follows with me since I'm an honest guy when I talk to them.

" Why does God always got such wacky shit to say? . . . When was the last time you heard somebody say 'look God told me to get a muffin and a cup tea and cool out man'?" - Dov Davidoff


illeatyourdog
illeatyourdog's picture
Posts: 580
Joined: 2007-07-20
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:Most

Hambydammit wrote:

Most people, men and women, are looking for a healthy relationship.

 

I think most men and women are just looking for a good fuck and rarely think about what exactly "having a relationship" means because both sexes have no problems faking like they care about the other just as long as it gets them in the bedroom or backseat.  Becuase, there are many relationships that last a long time but the two individuals are miserable which strongly suggests the relationship is anything but healthy.  Furthermore, people have no problem acting like this are ok and healthy just so they fell better about themselves or make the one who is not in a relationship look foolish and sad.  TO put it simply, people are too self-centered to really actually desire or want a relationship. 

" Why does God always got such wacky shit to say? . . . When was the last time you heard somebody say 'look God told me to get a muffin and a cup tea and cool out man'?" - Dov Davidoff


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1389
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:I have a question

EXC wrote:

I have a question for those of you who understand Evolution (or at least think you do).

Why are some people physically more attractive than others? Why aren't ugly people just bread out of existence? Is it just that ugly people breed with other ugly people, so we have no end to ugliness in the human race? It has been proven that ugly people have economic and social disadvantages besides just mate selection, so one might think they would be naturally selected away. Why is there such a wide range of attractiveness?

Typically, the only universal revulsion to mate selection is disease.

While physical attractiveness is one aspect that leads to the assessment of mates, typically, these come into play after such an initial assessment. To be blunt, genetic abnormalities that are readily physically assessable pretty much turn ALL of us off.

More subtle features, such as weight, hair and eye color get more subjective. It is only in recent times have we begun to see the svelte and thin as attractive. Only a few generations ago, you looked for mates with a bit of meat on their bones, because this indicated a mate who was well fed, and thus not malnurished, or a good provider.

About the only physical feature I know of that is almost universally attractive to the opposite sex is height in males and body symmetry in general. Females seem to overwhelmingly prefer tall men.

http://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/daniel.nettle/procroysoc.pdf

Tallness in males gives an indication of genetic fitness, but height in females does not give an indication of fertility (not does breast size or waist size or facial features to a degree), which is primariliy what men are looking for from an evolutionary and genetic POV, whether they know it or not.

 

Quote:
Could it be that ugly people have other advantages that the physically attractive don't have? This question comes up because as us guys know, the hotter the chick, the more effort we have to put into getter her and keeping her. The more crap we're willing to put up with from her if she's hot. So many of us ask, "Hot chicks, are they worth it?"

Well, the thing is the modern age complicates things a bit. Physical fitness is becoming less and less an indication of how successful your offspring will be. With advantages in technology, physical disadvantages are easier and easier to overcome - mental fitness is becoming increasingly important, for the exact same reasons physical attributes were - today mental aspects provide. And mental abilities certainly provided thousands of years ago as well, but brute physicality was also much more important.

But we haven't really changed much in those few generation either. We do still place a lot of emphasis on the physically fit, because physically fit mates certainly don't hurt your gene's chances in the long run.

 

Quote:
I know it's very sexist, but it makes a lot of sense. Hot women don't need to be funny, they can just bring their looks to the relationship. This is how it seems to be with better looking women, they just bring their looks that's it. I have to be funny, rich, interesting, pleasant, etc... It's also interesting how he says women get funnier with age, their looks fade, so then women develop other qualities to attract people. I find this to be true, more mature women are generally better for a relationship.

A woman who is "hot" will likely reproduce, but if "hot" is ALL she brings to the party, she is LESS likely to secure a semi-permanent or permanent mate, and her offspring WILL suffer for that. Physical attractiveness is but one part of what we subconciously look for in a mate, albeit it usually is the first and initially most powerful. But it takes more than that  to raise your offspring to have a chance of reproducing as well unless you're simply a baby factory, as, granted, some people are, going for the quantity over quality route (as has been the norm for most of human existence).

Quote:
So, is the problems with hot chicks just that they know they're hot so they can treat men badly and still have men treat them like a princess? Or is it evolution? Has nature give some women looks, but then to balance things out given less attractive women other qualities to attract and keep a man? Is physical beauty just a trick nature plays on men to get us to waist our time and money on women that are otherwise bad mates?

No, in the end, the problem is that you let the physically attractive have power over you, and that is seen as weakness and makes you less desirable as a mate.

Evolutionarily speaking, there is never a problem. There may be certain things that sway things a bit on way or the other, but your genes don't dictate who you'll be or your success with the opposite sex to the degree you're painting it (though they DO to a degree, certainly).

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Good points Yellow. I wonder

Good points Yellow. I wonder what that sex maniac Hamby would add ? 

    "A Man and a Women"  My Dad use to play this recording.   

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPf4UvMl9Mc

http://www.geocities.com/lyricalmusings/lyrics/a_manandawoman.htm

 

   

 


greek goddess
Rational VIP!Science Freak
greek goddess's picture
Posts: 361
Joined: 2008-01-26
User is offlineOffline
 Before I delve into

 

Before I delve into comments, I wanted to point out that “high maintenance” behavior may stem from the fact that usually women are given the opportunity to be the choosier of the two sexes, analogous to a rate-limiting step in chemistry. Generally, men are the first to initiate “mating signals” and it is up to the woman to decide whether or not she wants to accept his advances. We see similar courtship rituals play out in nature, and oftentimes the way a male attracts a female is by giving her food or other resources to prove that he is a good provider for their future kids; or he may compete with other males for higher status and mating rights. In modern human society, this translates to taking a woman out to dinner and earning a high salary. Even though we don’t have sex solely for procreation purposes nowadays, the innate behavior to judge potential mates based on these criteria still exists. Some women take this to the extreme, making men jump through hoops just to get some, leading to what many would consider to be high maintenance behavior.  

Ok, I'm going to try to address everyone's comments thus far in a few posts. Here we go..

 

Thomathy wrote:

Besides, I thought high maintenance described someone who was overly needy, emotional, materialistic and shallow.  I don't see how a girl who simply sees a variety of guys to fulfil different aspects of her needs is high maintenance.  It seems like you are basing this off of your supposition that she gets bought stuff.  So what if she does?  And so what if she's hot?

That's what I thought too. For the record, I don't consider myself needy or emotional, but I do ask that any guy involved in a relationship with me respects me, is loyal to me, and is willing to spend some time with me. I don't think that's too much to ask for, as I was under the impression that these are foundational aspects of any relationship.

I'm not materialistic. I don't ask that a guy spend a lot of money on me - money can't buy happiness. I'd rather share good conversation over Chinese food at the place around the corner than go to an expensive restaurant with someone I don't connect with.

And I don't think I'm shallow, as the guys I've dated have been vastly different. I don't have a "type," as I tend to go for guys based on personality. Obviously, I am attracted to them physically as well, but I have rejected hot douchebags, and dated not-as-hot nice guys. Physical attraction and sexual compatibility are certainly important to me, but they are not my sole criteria.

Additionally, I'd like to know how you get guys to buy you stuff, as this has never happened to me. Is there some female secret I've been missing out on? There was a period of time during which I had several booty calls at my disposal, complete with ranking order in my head. It was emotionally messy, however, for all parties involved. None of these guys bought me dinner or things though. The benefits were purely sexual. I couldn't even get any of them to ask me to their fraternity formals.

latincanuck wrote:

Now what do I mean in the term high maintenance, a woman the requires constant attention, praisal and lots and lots of spending money, one that needs or desires to have the best of everything.

I tend to have low self-esteem at times, so I do require support or praise, in order to boost my own confidence, but I wouldn’t say that I do any of this stuff just to play mind games with people and assert my dominance. Almost everybody needs reassurance during tough times.  

latincanuck wrote:

Now I have met some hot women that are not high maintenance, which are great fun to be with, but from what I have experiences and seen it has alot to do with their upbringing, usually many of them have what I call spoiled princess syndrom, that many of them got whatever they wanted as they grew up, not because of their brains or achievements but because they were simply cute/pretty. However you goddess I can not say if you are high maintenance or not, so I will go with your original statement that your not, i have no other reason not to believe ya.

You may be onto something with the upbringing thing. Although this is NOT something I advertise, my dad is rich; but you’d never know it. Sure, we live in a nice house in a nice neighborhood (well my folks do, I’ve moved out). But my dad grew up on a tight budget, and is to this day very frugal. He has always stressed the importance of saving money to his kids. We rarely got what we wanted when we wanted it. If there was a toy we coveted, we had to be patient until Christmas or our next birthday. And tantrums were NEVER tolerated; we were always reprimanded or, in extreme cases, spanked.

I also was involved in a number of activities from a young age, so even though my parents always said I was their princess, it wasn’t the only thing I had going for me. I could also feel proud of my skills at ballet, playing piano, etc. They also ingrained in me that education should always be my first priority, and so it’s always been my intention to pave my way to a lucrative career and be independent, rather than use my looks to attract a sugar daddy.

Basically, coming from a rich family and having good looks has never exempted me from the fact that I still have to get good grades and establish a career for myself in order to be successful, because my dad has made it clear that none of his kids will be moving back in and living off his fortune. So that is still where I put my priorities. I remember being secretly mad at him when I first found out he was a millionaire, because I hadn’t gotten any special treatment all those years like the girls on “My Super Sweet Sixteen.” But looking back, I think that was a good thing…


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
maniac?... Anyway... yes. 

maniac?

...

 

Anyway... yes.  I can't add too much to what Yellow has said.  It's pretty much the same things I've been saying from a different angle.

Quote:
To be blunt, genetic abnormalities that are readily physically assessable pretty much turn ALL of us off.

This is a more precise way of saying what I said.  Perception of physical beauty does have limits.  Beauty is largely in the eye of the beholder, but not completely.

Quote:
About the only physical feature I know of that is almost universally attractive to the opposite sex is height in males and body symmetry in general.

Yep.  The more we look into it, the more we discover just how much symmetry affects our beauty assessments.

We've known the height thing for a long time.

Quote:
But we haven't really changed much in those few generation either. We do still place a lot of emphasis on the physically fit, because physically fit mates certainly don't hurt your gene's chances in the long run.

I suspect that if Yellow and I really had a serious discussion about this, I might come out a little more behaviorist, but our disagreements would not affect our general agreement on sexual selection.

Our best guess is that our big brains are largely the result of runaway sexual selection.  In function, it's not a lot different than a peacock's tail.  At some point, females decided they liked males with big brains, and the next thing you know, we have the interwebs and subways and DVDs.

The thing that puzzled Darwin the most when he was first describing natural selection was ornamentation.  Long colorful tails, elaborate antlers, gaudy coloration, and many other features that showed up primarily in males simply couldn't be explained by natural selection alone.  Occam's razor cut through the confusion.  If an anteater only uses its long snout to get food, then the snout evolved to get food.  Similarly, if a peacock only uses its tail during mating, then the tail evolved for the purpose of mating.  The principle that Darwin discovered was sexual selection, and most of his writing after The Origin dealt with sexual selection, not evolution as a whole.

Darwin got a lot of things wrong, but in the last century, we've learned a lot more.  As we move through the animal kingdom, we see a general pattern:  The smarter the animal, the more complex the mating rituals, and the more variables that effect a female's mate choice.  Humans are the smartest animal, so it is not surprising that our courtship rituals and mate selections are very complicated.

Even when it appears that someone is "just interested in looks" it's not entirely true.  The most shallow person still goes for a certain "type" that includes age, intelligence level, social group, style of dress, types of ornamentation, and many other factors.

Quote:
No, in the end, the problem is that you let the physically attractive have power over you, and that is seen as weakness and makes you less desirable as a mate.

Good observation.

Quote:
Evolutionarily speaking, there is never a problem. There may be certain things that sway things a bit on way or the other, but your genes don't dictate who you'll be or your success with the opposite sex to the degree you're painting it (though they DO to a degree, certainly).

It's the $64,000 question.  How much is nature, and how much is nurture?  Or, to make things even more complicated, how much of nurture is nature?

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


greek goddess
Rational VIP!Science Freak
greek goddess's picture
Posts: 361
Joined: 2008-01-26
User is offlineOffline
pyrokidd wrote: I think

 

pyrokidd wrote:

I think the stereotype is mostly created by the media's portrait of attractive women being gold digger bimbos. But in real life I have seen girls that have had a lot handed to them because they're pretty, so they don't have much need to be smart, then they ditch school, tend to gravitate towards being superficial, etc. Of course I've seen some 2/10 type girls spoiled by their parents who act in a similar manner. I think we should just give the stereotype a rest already. File it under the irrational precepts if you like.

I agree with what you said. There are a lot of girls that ditch school & rely on their looks to get what they want. But I’ve met many that have not followed suit, even though they technically could, and so I agree that the stereotype really does not hold true often enough.

Jacob Cordingley wrote:

I think a lot of the time the stereotype appears to exist at least as a front, and I've never really had enough time for loud, outwardly ditzy women to know if there's anything underneath that front. And generally speaking I find that type of person incredibly irritating and probably won't have the time for them. I'm the kind of person who has to have a lot in common with someone in order to socialise with them, I can't talk about nothing in particular like most people seem to do. Therefore, anyone I get close to, either as a friend or as a girlfriend has to have similar interests and personality to me.

Agreed. Hopefully, people have read enough of my posts to figure out that I’m not a ditz. And, like you, I have to have a lot in common with a potential partner. My current boyfriend and I are both studying science, so it’s great to be able to talk about such a huge portion of my life, and have the other person understand. But it’s not even necessary that he has the EXACT same interests… just as long as a guy likes learning, and is open-minded, somewhat athletic, interested in what I have to say, and loyal, there’s a good chance we’ll be on the same page. My first high school boyfriend was honestly stupid as rocks… I ended up breaking up with him because I couldn’t stand it anymore.

HisWillness wrote:

The choices they have at that point, knowing the power available to an attractive woman, can be overwhelming and detrimental to their self-esteem. A woman knows it's not her personality that's being appreciated when a guy's looking straight at her chest while he talks to her.

Attractiveness can be a curse. I definitely have a hard time finding a guy that appreciates my personality and not just my looks. It is a bit overwhelming, because often when I’m single I have several guys interested in me, and it’s difficult to determine which ones are just looking for a short-term fling, and then which ones are truly compatible with me. It can be sort of stressful.

I’ve learned that I have to be more bitchy in certain situations, which is totally contrary to my nature. But honestly, if I tried to be nice to every guy that approached me on the street, every IM from a stranger, every guy that asked for my number, and every invitation to hang out, I’d end up wasting so much time. I usually have to be curt and just say “I have a boyfriend.” Or give them a fake number. Or tell random IMers to fuck off, and then block them. And in fact, this is why I deleted my myspace account over a year ago; I got tired of being harassed.  

Hambydammit wrote:

High maintenance is pretty hard to define, I think.  This is partly because "maintenance" to one man is fun to another.  So, one man gets annoyed when a woman calls him at work every day, and another thinks it's endearing.  Still another gets jealous if he doesn't hear from his wife every day.

 

You made some good points, Hamby, and I like this one in particular. I think it’s largely an individual thing… I sometimes am surprised to learn what my male friends are putting up with in relationships; other times, they’ll say they broke up with a girl because she was “too clingy,” but when they describe her behavior, I’ll say it wasn’t that terrible. Even the same person can have different maintenance standards in different situations. It depends on the relationship dynamics and on how worthwhile they think their partner is.

 

Blind_Chance wrote:

But just for time being, relationships based on sexual attractiveness fades with time and man/woman age. In long run it doesn't seems to be the best option for engage in such relationship.

 

I agree. That’s another reason why it is important to me to find someone who has a lot of good qualities and isn’t with me just for looks. I know that I’ll have kids one day, and get fat. And someday my hair will gray, and my skin will wrinkle. My parents look younger than they actually are, and I hope that I can also take good care of myself to avoid aging or letting myself go. But still, it's nice to know that when I'm going through tough times and I'm not at my physical peak, my partner won't be totally repulsed by me.

 

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

SUPPORT Screaming Vaginas

errr... screaming vaginas? Not sure I've ever experienced that phenomenon..


greek goddess
Rational VIP!Science Freak
greek goddess's picture
Posts: 361
Joined: 2008-01-26
User is offlineOffline
illeatyourdog wrote:Guys

illeatyourdog wrote:

Guys might differ on this but if you spend more than a half an hour on your hair because you are using various conditioners, sprays, gels, and complex hair configurations, you are hight maintenance.  If you spend more than 7 minutes picking ouy a shirt or any other apparal of clothing to wear, you are hight maintenance.

On a regular basis, I don't spend more than 10 minutes on my hair - even that's generous for most days. I don't really keep track of how long it takes me to pick out clothes. But usually it takes me about 45 minutes to go from just-woke-up to ready-to-go-to-class.

 

illeatyourdog wrote:

 

I don't think its they are on mission to do so.  I think it just logically follows with me since I'm an honest guy when I talk to them.

I'm not sure exactly what you meant by this - could you maybe clarify?


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
greek goddess wrote:And I

greek goddess wrote:
And I don't think I'm shallow, as the guys I've dated have been vastly different. I don't have a "type," as I tend to go for guys based on personality.

Here's where language and popular perceptions confuse things.  Everyone has a type, but some people's type is based primarily on personality and some are based on looks.  Goddess, your type is someone who fits within a certain set of personality traits.  I bet if you thought about it carefully, you'd discover that you have a physical type, too.  The easiest thing to do is think about it in reverse.  List the things you really don't like a man to look like, and you're well on your way to discovering what you do like.

Also, having a type and only dating that type are different.  I freely admit that I have a physical "type."  I like short proportional girls with long hair.  I like B cups the best, and I'm partial to darker hair.  The girl I'm dating is almost as tall as me with short hair, but it is dark and she does wear a C cup.

There are lots of reasons I'm not dating someone who's exactly "my type."  First, my type also includes several other things I can't live without.  She's got to be atheist.  No kids.  Not having kids.  Political liberal.  Smart.  No major sexual dysfunctions.  Second, though there may be a dozen women in my town that fit this description, I would need to know them to date them.  Odds are that at least sixty percent of them are already in a relationship even if I knew them.  Third, even if I knew them and they were single, I'd have to be their type, too.

When we're choosing mates, we are always working from a small pool of candidates, relatively speaking.  (Yes... very hot people tend to have larger pools, but remember, so do very funny guys and very smart women.)  We date someone when a number of events converge:

1) We are attracted to them and they to us.

2) We want to be dating more than we want to be single.

3) Our circumstances allow us to date.

4) We feel sufficiently sure that this is our best option at the time.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


DamnDirtyApe
Silver Member
DamnDirtyApe's picture
Posts: 666
Joined: 2008-02-15
User is offlineOffline
 I've not sallied forth

 I've not sallied forth into this thread yet, but I'm amazed by its staying power.  Evidently, there are a lot of dudes on the RRS who have had terrible experiences with women they initially pursued primarily because of their physical beauty.  Well shit, fellas.  Count yourself lucky, especially if you got some.  Those of you who claim they won't talk to you, period--you're probably not interesting to them.  Sorry.  

To the original question posed, I can offer very little in the way of new observations.  "Hot chicks" are worth it in exactly the same sense as any "chick" is worth it, at least from an evolutionary point of view.  There's nothing about "hotness" that is a perfect predictor of good offspring.  You can talk about hip to weight ratios and good health markers and symmetry all you like, but there's no guarantee she isn't carrying the dominant allele for Huntingdon's chorea or has 250+ CGG repeats in FMR1 (fuckin' science education.  Hell yeah).  You'd never know from her face or how her ass looks.  By the same token, the gal who sits next to you at the movies who's 3 inches shorter than you standing up but 6 inches taller sitting down might carry the delta 32 mutation in CCR5 that makes human beings effectively resistant to HIV infection.  Again, you'd never know.  If you want to maximize the chances that your genes will find a safe harbor, your best bet is to fuck around indiscriminately and pay a lot of child support, that is to say, take the philosophy that there's a threshold under which they're all worth it.  Even if you come down with a lethal STD, odds are your progeny are geographically dispersed and genetically varied and collectively have a good chance of surviving an asteroid strike, superflu or the sabretooth tigers coming through the TimeGate (tm) in 2015.  

I don't recommend this, however.

"The whole conception of God is a conception derived from ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men."
--Bertrand Russell


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
DamnDirtyApe, that paragraph

DamnDirtyApe, that paragraph is a thing of beauty.  Really.

I'm going to add to it as if I understand what you were getting at. 

Quote:
You can talk about hip to weight ratios and good health markers and symmetry all you like, but there's no guarantee she isn't carrying the dominant allele for Huntingdon's chorea or has 250+ CGG repeats in FMR1 (fuckin' science education.  Hell yeah).

A rabid dog bites other dogs.  The dog has no knowledge of the genetic material in the virus that has programmed him to behave this way.  He just feels... whatever he feels... and bites.   Humans have been historically unwilling to admit that many of our behaviors are programmed, especially when it comes to sex.  We are just sure that we've got high ideals and goals and that we are thinking of the future, and certainly we are.  However, we are programmed to do things for the benefit of our genes.  Our knowledge of or concern over this fact is irrelevant to our behavior most of the time.  It's  humbling to think that all of our philosophical musing about it doesn't really matter.  Our genes are sitting together smoking cigars and laughing at us.  "Look at those silly appendages.  They spend so much time worrying about all that shit and in the end, they're doing exactly what we want anyway!"

Put another way, whatever we care about in a mate is rather irrelevant.  What matters is that we care about mating.  Hip/waist ratios, symmetry, and perky boobs are all things that have worked as general indicators.  We care about that stuff not because it's good for determining reproductive value, but because our genes are clever little buggers, and they learned a long time ago that giving us a rush of pleasure is a good way to motivate us to do things.  We see boobs, we like boobs.  We get pleasure.  We screw.   If we take the "high road" and mate with someone who's charming, witty, caring, and emotionally supportive, guess what?  We get pleasure from it... because our genes programmed us that way.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 4108
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
DamnDirtyApe wrote: I've

DamnDirtyApe wrote:

 I've not sallied forth into this thread yet, but I'm amazed by its staying power.  Evidently, there are a lot of dudes on the RRS who have had terrible experiences with women they initially pursued primarily because of their physical beauty.  Well shit, fellas.  Count yourself lucky, especially if you got some.  Those of you who claim they won't talk to you, period--you're probably not interesting to them.  Sorry.  

I think the problem is we were never taught to view the world, women, relationship for an evolutionary/rational viewpoint. So, just like religion, not seeing the world accurately creates a lot of problems. I'm tring to fix that in my own life. I've gone though the God has desitined be to be with one woman or it's all fate and luck. Now it's time to be rational and understand who I am and who hot and not so hot women really are and how we got to be this way.

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


DamnDirtyApe
Silver Member
DamnDirtyApe's picture
Posts: 666
Joined: 2008-02-15
User is offlineOffline
EXC,I'm beginning to see the

EXC,

I'm beginning to see the source of confusion here.  You must understand that good lookin' women don't pop out of bed lookin' good, usually.  It's a baseline set of characteristics that are genetic in origin that are perfected by lots and lots of work and backed up by centuries worth of experimentation.  They read about this shit, son.  Consequently, a whole fuckin' lot of them haven't read anything substantive by anybody talented.  Their conversation is dull.  They're without essential cultural referents as far as you'd be concerned.  I think that may be what you meant when you used the term "high maintenance".  Of course they are!  They're constantly doing maintenance on themselves for what they imagine to be some future mate's benefit and their own social standing.  If you aren't up to their standard of grooming, you aren't going to have anything to talk to them about for one.

Now, that being said, I realize completely that there is a feminine mystique apart from magazines and whale brain squeezings.  But that's a kind of sexiness that relies upon the physical aspect as the chair leg, not the part where you put your ass.  As for the other chair legs, they are:  1) a perverse and occasionally juvenile sense of humor, 2) tap-dancing ability and 3) willingness to jump over shit on motorcycles.  This of course refers to my own preferences, but the physical thing is always there.

"The whole conception of God is a conception derived from ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men."
--Bertrand Russell


Blind_Chance
Blind_Chance's picture
Posts: 124
Joined: 2008-01-09
User is offlineOffline
DamnDirtyApe wrote:To the

DamnDirtyApe wrote:

To the original question posed, I can offer very little in the way of new observations.  "Hot chicks" are worth it in exactly the same sense as any "chick" is worth it, at least from an evolutionary point of view.  There's nothing about "hotness" that is a perfect predictor of good offspring. 

You are more then right here, it is like a Aryan Race Theory it has nothing common with science. However we can't underestimate "love" factor, anyhow you will define love it has huge influence for your decisions. I personally was in realtionship with a girl who has SM. It that time I was completly sure we share similar values and looks for life, and she was really pretty in time when I met her first time and finally became a beuty when we start to date few years later. Fact that she has SM not only didn't disturbed my feelings, but actually assure me about them. And here all possible scientific theories about genes atractivness, reason factor and  love f*** up, at least when it comes to me. Later it has changed with other experiences including high maintaince isuee,but it is another story.

greek goddess wrote:

Blind_Chance wrote:

But just for time being, relationships based on sexual attractiveness fades with time and man/woman age. In long run it doesn't seems to be the best option for engage in such relationship.


I agree. That’s another reason why it is important to me to find someone who has a lot of good qualities and isn’t with me just for looks. I know that I’ll have kids one day, and get fat. And someday my hair will gray, and my skin will wrinkle. My parents look younger than they actually are, and I hope that I can also take good care of myself to avoid aging or letting myself go. But still, it's nice to know that when I'm going through tough times and I'm not at my physical peak, my partner won't be totally repulsed by me.

 

It depends how you understand good qualities, I learned that good qualities matter same like...physical attractiveness. Now I see as more important respect, sharing same values and ways of thinking, next come similar life styles, interests and personalities. In another way fact that he is so caring, responsible, spontaneous, handsome ( whatever you value ) can become - after some time - just another excuse for conflict.

EXC wrote:

I think the problem is we were never taught to view the world, women, relationship for an evolutionary/rational viewpoint. So, just like religion, not seeing the world accurately creates a lot of problems. I'm tring to fix that in my own life. I've gone though the God has desitined be to be with one woman or it's all fate and luck. Now it's time to be rational and understand who I am and who hot and not so hot women really are and how we got to be this way.

I will not expect from such threads solutions for that problem,  I know since maybe one year what I would like to see in my potential partner for life ( Oh yes, I am pretty conservative and I would like to be with somebody I can count for ), I am sure it was related to development of my own personality. However I am fully aware of fact that that knowledge is still often ignored by me.

So I can only wish you EXC knowledge about what you are and what you are looking for and ...good luck Eye-wink

I am going back to perfecting my basic instincts control.

 

Ecrasez l'infame!


DamnDirtyApe
Silver Member
DamnDirtyApe's picture
Posts: 666
Joined: 2008-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Blind_Chance

Blind_Chance wrote:

DamnDirtyApe wrote:

To the original question posed, I can offer very little in the way of new observations.  "Hot chicks" are worth it in exactly the same sense as any "chick" is worth it, at least from an evolutionary point of view.  There's nothing about "hotness" that is a perfect predictor of good offspring. 

You are more then right here, it is like a Aryan Race Theory 

 

You calling me a Nazi?  'Cause I swear to God I'll invade your country and bust up your place of business if you keep that shit up!

 

"The whole conception of God is a conception derived from ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men."
--Bertrand Russell


Blind_Chance
Blind_Chance's picture
Posts: 124
Joined: 2008-01-09
User is offlineOffline
DamnDirtyApe

DamnDirtyApe wrote:

Blind_Chance wrote:

DamnDirtyApe wrote:

To the original question posed, I can offer very little in the way of new observations.  "Hot chicks" are worth it in exactly the same sense as any "chick" is worth it, at least from an evolutionary point of view.  There's nothing about "hotness" that is a perfect predictor of good offspring. 

You are more then right here, it is like a Aryan Race Theory 

 

You calling me a Nazi?  'Cause I swear to God I'll invade your country and bust up your place of business if you keep that shit up!

 

Bitte, nicht schiessen! lol

 

I meant "theory" that physical beauty means the best genetic material. Wait...you actually knew it...damn sarcasm should has its own HTML tags Eye-wink

Ecrasez l'infame!


illeatyourdog
illeatyourdog's picture
Posts: 580
Joined: 2007-07-20
User is offlineOffline
greek goddess wrote:On a

greek goddess wrote:

On a regular basis, I don't spend more than 10 minutes on my hair - even that's generous for most days. I don't really keep track of how long it takes me to pick out clothes. But usually it takes me about 45 minutes to go from just-woke-up to ready-to-go-to-class.

I know how this will sound but I dont care, is a shower included in the 45 minutes? 

Quote:
I'm not sure exactly what you meant by this - could you maybe clarify?

I suppose honest is not the most accurate word but, in a sense I am acting honestly.  For instance, I believe that girls are perfectly capable of performing various activities as guys are.  So, I judge whether or I would hlep a girl in an activity on if I would help a guy, thus, if I would not help a guy in an activity, I won't help a girl.  Of course, many girls apparently "require" more help than guys do becuase everybody constantly gets on me to help girls in acitivities that they would not necessarily get on me for if the guy needed help, in fact, it would be the opposite, they would require that the guy do the activity on his own.  A simple example of this is carrying stuff.  Girls apparently need more help carrying things than guys do.  I honestly don't think that they do but when I point out that they can do just fine on their own I am called a jerk.  If we are to suppose that guys and girls are equal in capablility I do not see why one situation calls for aide whereas the other calls for the refusal of aide.

It is becuase I am like that, that girls, at most, have a mild curiousity about me and not much else, since, some do get curious as to why I am like that and I explain why I am and then they go "oh" and then go off and do something else.  TO be clear, I am not blaming them for not being interested in me, I am taking credit for being uninteresting and they are simply reacting to it. 

 

" Why does God always got such wacky shit to say? . . . When was the last time you heard somebody say 'look God told me to get a muffin and a cup tea and cool out man'?" - Dov Davidoff


illeatyourdog
illeatyourdog's picture
Posts: 580
Joined: 2007-07-20
User is offlineOffline
Blind_Chance wrote: However

Blind_Chance wrote:

 However we can't underestimate "love" factor, anyhow you will define love it has huge influence for your decisions.  

This next statement will probably say more about me than any attempt at a well structured argument: Love is total bullshit.  And I am referring specifically to romantic love or the love of someone whom is not in your family and whom you want to fuck.  That type of "love" is bullshit.

" Why does God always got such wacky shit to say? . . . When was the last time you heard somebody say 'look God told me to get a muffin and a cup tea and cool out man'?" - Dov Davidoff


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 4108
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
illeatyourdog

illeatyourdog wrote:

Blind_Chance wrote:

 However we can't underestimate "love" factor, anyhow you will define love it has huge influence for your decisions.  

This next statement will probably say more about me than any attempt at a well structured argument: Love is total bullshit.  And I am referring specifically to romantic love or the love of someone whom is not in your family and whom you want to fuck.  That type of "love" is bullshit.

Romantic love is a drug. Just like any drug it has it's bad side effects and depression when you can't get your fix anymore.

So the love factor is just like wanting to eat cheeseburgers, pizza and other fattening foods. You want it but, your rational mind should take over and limit your intake for your overall health. Same thing with high maintenance chicks, at some point your rational mind has to take over and say no, no matter how hot she looks.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


illeatyourdog
illeatyourdog's picture
Posts: 580
Joined: 2007-07-20
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote: Romantic love is

EXC wrote:

 

Romantic love is a drug. Just like any drug it has it's bad side effects and depression when you can't get your fix anymore.

So the love factor is just like wanting to eat cheeseburgers, pizza and other fattening foods. You want it but, your rational mind should take over and limit your intake for your overall health. Same thing with high maintenance chicks, at some point your rational mind has to take over and say no, no matter how hot she looks.

Love is not a drug, its nonsense.  People who let themselves get into such situation with high maintenence chicks, or even low maintenence chicks (just beucase they are low maintence does not automatically mean they are better persons than high maintenance) do so beucase they believe they will get rewarded, by a friendly fuck, for doing so and thats it.  Guys do not put up with such shit if they truly care about the girl unless they knew the girl for a long time and either a) accepted that she is simply high maintence and are fine with ti or b) the girl did not start off that way but grew into it as she got older.  But in regards to a girl they just met on campuss, at a club, or wherever guys meet girls at, they would only put up with high maintenence nonsense (or lowmaintenence nonsense) if, for some resaon, they really want to fuck that girl which usually is no reason at all aside from them simply wanting to fuck them. 

" Why does God always got such wacky shit to say? . . . When was the last time you heard somebody say 'look God told me to get a muffin and a cup tea and cool out man'?" - Dov Davidoff


greek goddess
Rational VIP!Science Freak
greek goddess's picture
Posts: 361
Joined: 2008-01-26
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:greek

Hambydammit wrote:

greek goddess wrote:
And I don't think I'm shallow, as the guys I've dated have been vastly different. I don't have a "type," as I tend to go for guys based on personality.

Here's where language and popular perceptions confuse things.  Everyone has a type, but some people's type is based primarily on personality and some are based on looks.  Goddess, your type is someone who fits within a certain set of personality traits.  I bet if you thought about it carefully, you'd discover that you have a physical type, too.  The easiest thing to do is think about it in reverse.  List the things you really don't like a man to look like, and you're well on your way to discovering what you do like.

You know what, you're right. I hadn't really thought about it from the reverse standpoint. But yeah, there are certain things that are deal breakers for me. I guess that I was looking at it from the perspective that I don't date only blonde guys or only guys with facial hair or something like that, so I figured I must not be picky. But yeah, when I think about it, there are certainly things that I am picky about - it's just that hair color isn't one of those things.

 

Hambydammit wrote:

1) We are attracted to them and they to us.

2) We want to be dating more than we want to be single.

3) Our circumstances allow us to date.

4) We feel sufficiently sure that this is our best option at the time.

This is very accurate. I had never really analyzed why I date who I date, but now I better understand the concept of "settling" as you've explained it.


greek goddess
Rational VIP!Science Freak
greek goddess's picture
Posts: 361
Joined: 2008-01-26
User is offlineOffline
illeatyourdog wrote:greek

illeatyourdog wrote:

greek goddess wrote:

On a regular basis, I don't spend more than 10 minutes on my hair - even that's generous for most days. I don't really keep track of how long it takes me to pick out clothes. But usually it takes me about 45 minutes to go from just-woke-up to ready-to-go-to-class.

I know how this will sound but I dont care, is a shower included in the 45 minutes? 

Most days, no, as I usually shower at night - bf likes to hog the shower in the morning. I do sometimes stick my hair in a shower cap & take a quick 3 minute shower to wake myself up. My morning pretty much plays out like this:

8:00 - wake up

stretch out, pee, brush my teeth, wash my face or take fast shower

8:15

check the weather & put on clothes, jewelry, shoes

8:25

put in contacts, put on make-up

8:35

do whatever I'm gonna do with my hair (either put it up or just comb it out, since I wash it at night)

8:40

get my backpack, purse, & stuff together & grab a breakfast bar

8:45

leave for class

 

If any of that routine makes me high-maintenance, well you're entitled to your opinion, and I will agree to disagree. I think I do pretty well compared to many women. (Trust me, I've waited for over an hour for some of my friends to get ready to go out somewhere on a number of occasions.)  For the record, I spend half the days of the week in a lab with my hands in mouse shit or mutagens (I wear latex gloves, obviously). Thus I'm usually in pretty comfortable clothes, & flat close-toed shoes, and I have my hair tied back in a french braid or something like that. I try to be fashionable nonetheless, but there are limits.

 

illeatyourdog wrote:

Quote:
I'm not sure exactly what you meant by this - could you maybe clarify?

I suppose honest is not the most accurate word but, in a sense I am acting honestly.  For instance, I believe that girls are perfectly capable of performing various activities as guys are.  So, I judge whether or I would hlep a girl in an activity on if I would help a guy, thus, if I would not help a guy in an activity, I won't help a girl.  Of course, many girls apparently "require" more help than guys do becuase everybody constantly gets on me to help girls in acitivities that they would not necessarily get on me for if the guy needed help, in fact, it would be the opposite, they would require that the guy do the activity on his own.  A simple example of this is carrying stuff.  Girls apparently need more help carrying things than guys do.  I honestly don't think that they do but when I point out that they can do just fine on their own I am called a jerk.  If we are to suppose that guys and girls are equal in capablility I do not see why one situation calls for aide whereas the other calls for the refusal of aide.

It is becuase I am like that, that girls, at most, have a mild curiousity about me and not much else, since, some do get curious as to why I am like that and I explain why I am and then they go "oh" and then go off and do something else.  TO be clear, I am not blaming them for not being interested in me, I am taking credit for being uninteresting and they are simply reacting to it. 

 

Ok now I get it. I wasn't sure if you were saying that you're honest and girls are dishonest, or something. But from what I read, it looks like you're upfront about who you are, but some of your qualities turn most women off.

It depends on individual basis, but I think some women do need help carrying stuff. Obviously, there are very big or very strong women for whom it doesn't matter, but humans exhibit slight sexual dimorphism, and so men tend to be bigger than women. They also tend to have more muscle mass proportionally, because of hormonal differences. Don't get me wrong, I'm perfectly capable of carrying my own groceries or picking up my bike or something. But my mom and I are 125 and 115 pounds, respectively, while my brother and my dad are both 180-ish. If you were to pair us up and ask us to move a couch, my brother & dad would have an easier time of it than my mom and I. It's just a size issue - the guys have over 100 lbs more mass between them. Additionally, I'm very short, so I often have trouble getting stuff on or off shelves without the aid of a stepstool or another person.

I'm not saying your views are wrong, but it's just that they can come off as harsh. I never fuss about whether a guy opens the door for me or carries my bags or some shit like that. I'm strong and perfectly capable in most circumstances, so I understand your point. But it comes off as sounding like you're discriminating against women on the basis of something they can't help. I'm not sure why the issue of carrying stuff would even come up if you were trying to pick up a girl at a bar or something, but that's beside the point I guess.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:You know what, you're

Quote:
You know what, you're right.

It's nice to hear from time to time.  I usually only hear when people think I'm wrong.

Quote:
I hadn't really thought about it from the reverse standpoint. But yeah, there are certain things that are deal breakers for me. I guess that I was looking at it from the perspective that I don't date only blonde guys or only guys with facial hair or something like that, so I figured I must not be picky. But yeah, when I think about it, there are certainly things that I am picky about - it's just that hair color isn't one of those things.

We don't like admitting that we have types.  When people swear that they don't have a type, what they usually mean is that they'll date someone who is below their own level of attractiveness.  There's an interesting false perception that humans have.  It's built into what we call the Commitment Model, which is a type of game strategy closely resembling human behavior.  It's pretty complicated, so I'm not going to try to explain the whole thing in this post, but the part that's relevant is that altruism has an over-elevated place in our psyche.  In other words, we think we're more generous and giving than we are.

The irony is that this false perception is the basis behind a lot of the actual altruism that takes place, so we can argue that it's necessary for us to be somewhat delusional in order to be functional.

What that all means for dating is that there's a twofold benefit to believing that we don't have types.  First, we believe ourselves to be a "good person" because we don't "judge" people by their looks.  Second, we get to show off for potential mates how open we are to anyone who might be a good mate.  This goes a long way, of course, because most of our potential mates also believe they're less type oriented than they are, too.  You're just like them!

(Just watch, even though I'm saying this, someone is going to insist that they don't have types... It's almost hardwired into us to protest when someone challenges our egalitarianism.)

Nevertheless, the bottom line is that we do have types, and physical appearance is figured into it.  The only question is how much we are willing to move away from that type and why.  There are lots of possible reasons.  Low self esteem is probably the most common.  We don't think ourselves good enough to get somebody on our level, so we move down.  EXC does the reverse, where he convinces himself that anyone that good looking is a poor partner and not worthy of his time.  Still others have a Knight in Shining Armor syndrome, or a mother complex.  The list is long.

 

Quote:
This is very accurate. I had never really analyzed why I date who I date, but now I better understand the concept of "settling" as you've explained it.

We don't like to use the word "settle" because it implies that we could have done better but chose not to.  This doesn't usually go over very well as a compliment first thing in the morning.  "Wow, honey.  You look great this morning.  Granted, I could probably have found someone without a unibrow if we hadn't started dating, but given that we are, you look very good for your potential."

I've mentioned a few times how emotions help us to do irrational things.  This is one of the best examples.  Everyone always settles.  That's because nobody is a perfect match for anyone else, and we can never know who else might be available.  The most rational thing to do would be for people to form short term bonds and trade up anytime they get the chance.  That way, as they get older, they'll be getting better partners.  To some extent, people do this, but usually not very often.  Why?  Because we're hardwired with a sense of loyalty and compassion that defies pure reason.  We become emotionally attached to people at the same time we are emotionally attached to the idea of our own egalitarianism.

As with all things behavioral, it's a matter of keeping our perspectives straight.  From an individual point of view, it is irrational to commit to a long term bond with someone who is less than our equal.  From a group dynamic point of view, it's the only way to balance a giant group of people all looking out for their own interests.  We must be part of a machine, not individuals.  Therefore, natural selection has programmed us with emotions that push us away from admitting to some basic behavioral traits, and given us an inflated sense of our own generosity and good will.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 4108
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
illeatyourdog wrote:Love is

illeatyourdog wrote:

Love is not a drug, its nonsense. 

Doesn't seem to be what science tells us:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3236328.stm

I could show you many other sources where scientists come to the same conclusions.

 

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


illeatyourdog
illeatyourdog's picture
Posts: 580
Joined: 2007-07-20
User is offlineOffline
greek goddess wrote::15check

greek goddess wrote:

:15

check the weather & put on clothes, jewelry, shoes

8:25

put in contacts, put on make-up

THis is where other guys will definatrly disagree with me.  Wearing make-up and or jewelry makes you high maintenence becuase, make-up at least, requires a careful steady hand and a little skill if it is done correctly.  However, it is absolutly unnecessary for anyone to wear makep-up unless they are appearing in a movie where they have to look a certain age or look like they are seriosuly injured.  Jewelry, while not as bad as make-up (depending on the type of jewelry of course) is simply pointless unless you are trying to garner attention yb someone else.  However, evne if you wear all that stuff becuase, as many girls claim to "For me and not for you" its still high maintenence since, in every sense of the term, they absolutley unnecessary in regards to what you need when going to school, work, or going out.  Make-up espcially, again, almost requires constant checks in mirrors to  make sure its not smudging and whatever the hell else can go wrong with make-up. 

Quote:

I'm not saying your views are wrong, but it's just that they can come off as harsh. I never fuss about whether a guy opens the door for me or carries my bags or some shit like that. I'm strong and perfectly capable in most circumstances, so I understand your point. But it comes off as sounding like you're discriminating against women on the basis of something they can't help.

I figured as much but I rarely ever, seriosuly anyway, demand that two small girls move something as large as a couch on their own.   

Quote:
I'm not sure why the issue of carrying stuff would even come up if you were trying to pick up a girl at a bar or something, but that's beside the point I guess.

You could say that since I don't go to bars and don't really believe in "picking up" chicks.  Im using the more inifficient yet, hopefully, more honest apporach of waiting for the ones who are geniunly interested in me approach me.  Needless to say this 1) makes me sound a tad arrogant and 2) Makes most of my saturday nights and friday nights free for GTA IV or watching movies.  Which, again, is why I do not blame girls for quickly losing interest if they ever develop any.

 

 

" Why does God always got such wacky shit to say? . . . When was the last time you heard somebody say 'look God told me to get a muffin and a cup tea and cool out man'?" - Dov Davidoff