"Darwin was wrong about dating"

[edgygirl]

I'm surprised no one posted this NY Times article yet as people seem to love this kind of discussion on the dating forum.

 

Dating: based in evolution or sociocultural norms? What do you all think?

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/opinion/sunday/darwin-was-wrong-about-dating.html?pagewanted=2&src=recg

 

BUT if evolution didn’t determine human behavior, what did? The most common explanation is the effect of cultural norms. That, for instance, society tends to view promiscuous men as normal and promiscuous women as troubled outliers, or that our “social script” requires men to approach women while the pickier women do the selecting. Over the past decade, sociocultural explanations have gained steam.

[Nightsky]

Evolution and science is just a way of using the scientific process to better document stuff we already see. Gravity existed before Newton had an apple hit him on the head. Obviously understanding the science and math of Gravity allows you to do more. Same goes with Darwin, people already understood basic concepts of evolution whether it be with plans or animals etc. I mean we had domesticated both.

 

The differences between men and women are not SOCIAL CONSTRUCTS. Also if you read the article critically you will see what a piece of sht it is.

[mesmerized]

Evolution and science is just a way of using the scientific process to better document stuff we already see. Gravity existed before Newton had an apple hit him on the head. Obviously understanding the science and math of Gravity allows you to do more. Same goes with Darwin, people already understood basic concepts of evolution whether it be with plans or animals etc. I mean we had domesticated both.

 

The differences between men and women are not SOCIAL CONSTRUCTS. Also if you read the article critically you will see what a piece of sht it is.

 

You do realize that gravity is still a mystery and not exactly what newton thought, right? Same applies to other sciences specially psychology. You are a fool if you think gender differences are all a product of nature. I think its a combination of both with nurture actually having a much more significant effect than what the average person thinks.

 

The article actually made a great point about how evolutionary psychologists tend to work. They watch behaviors and try to find evolutionary explanations for it. There is tons of room for error in such methodology specially considering how complex humans are not to mention you can find some explanation for almost every behavior (even the ones that negate each other) that makes sense to the average person, it can get pretty ridiculous if not done with extensive research. It is called a pop science for a reason.

Edited January 13, 2013 by mesmerized

[ThaWholigan]

Its too simplistic to assume that men and women all biologically have to follow the same paths - biodiversity and neurodiversity will probably negate that. Adding to that, there are quite a few men and women who don't follow their designated norms because it isn't their norm. The energy that resonates in them is different and has its own equilibrium.

 

And our environment and society, as well as nurture definitely has a big part to play.

[salparadise]

I saw that article and began reading with interest, but it didn't offer much that would dispel the generally accepted theory of evolution or the interpretations by evolutionary psychologists. This is all soft science anyway––it can't be confirmed or disputed based on hard evidence. We can only assign meaning based on research that is almost always biased or flawed in some way, and the interpretation is always colored by what we prefer to believe. Anyone who thinks there is no basis whatsoever for evolutionary theory is naive, and anyone who accepts every nuance of its interpretation as truth is gullible. So citing a couple of tiny, minimally or uncontrolled research papers and concluding "Darwin was wrong," misses the mark so far that I had to force myself to read all the way through page three.

[dreamingoftigers]

I'm surprised no one posted this NY Times article yet as people seem to love this kind of discussion on the dating forum.

 

Dating: based in evolution or sociocultural norms? What do you all think?

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/opinion/sunday/darwin-was-wrong-about-dating.html?pagewanted=2&src=recg

 

I don't believe the current theories about women being "ultra-selective" are 100% correct at all. Or that Hypergamy is as widespread as sold.

 

I personally think that women will short-term mate frequently and than deduct that off of their personal tally because they will be shunned by men who would long-term date. I think really that men and women are probably a lot of equalized than most want to admit. I also think that many MEN need to buy into the social illusions, which is why they keep going.

 

It has to be about "their accomplishments and testosterone" instead of whatever random thing attracted a woman to them.

 

And honestly, I think women get attracted to a net suggestion of a combination of childhood history telling them what is attractive, society telling them what is attractive (and how susceptible they are to this), and what they can get their hands on for the long-term.

 

I honestly believe we are far more susceptible to advertising than we let on.

 

If nerds in basements with computers and bad teeth were shown as being a popular commodity, all of a sudden girls would be fighting over them on World of Warcraft.

[ThaWholigan]

I don't believe the current theories about women being "ultra-selective" are 100% correct at all. Or that Hypergamy is as widespread as sold.

 

I personally think that women will short-term mate frequently and than deduct that off of their personal tally because they will be shunned by men who would long-term date. I think really that men and women are probably a lot of equalized than most want to admit. I also think that many MEN need to buy into the social illusions, which is why they keep going.

 

It has to be about "their accomplishments and testosterone" instead of whatever random thing attracted a woman to them.

 

And honestly, I think women get attracted to a net suggestion of a combination of childhood history telling them what is attractive, society telling them what is attractive (and how susceptible they are to this), and what they can get their hands on for the long-term.

 

I honestly believe we are far more susceptible to advertising than we let on.

 

If nerds in basements with computers and bad teeth were shown as being a popular commodity, all of a sudden girls would be fighting over them on World of Warcraft.

Probably a bit of an exaggeration there at the end . But in essence, I agree. I also think D'Argennes has some points worth thinking about, but I don't really agree with his assessment of some of the things he describes as "new age" .

[dreamingoftigers]

Probably a bit of an exaggeration there at the end . But in essence, I agree. I also think D'Argennes has some points worth thinking about, but I don't really agree with his assessment of some of the things he describes as "new age" .

 

Well, frankly, Wholigan. You're autistic, so in theory you "shouldn't have" gotten the chance to mate, and yet here you are. And frankly with your online attitude, I knew before you have up your v-card that you were going to be a man with options. (my brother and sister are both autistic, no dig intended. In fact in a big way, your perspective (in theory, I don't know exactly where you sit on the spectrum, so if I get it wrong don't hate me!) but you would not be as clouded with a lot of the tonal BS that clouds the obvious interactions between objects, and you could observe humans more empirically!)

 

I often wonder if I sit on the spectrum myself because I see so many mating interactions that I just can't see why they can't see they are in fir a whole world of misery. Plus my grades are ridiculously high in sciences and math, my memory appears to be much more non-biased and accurate than most I know (my sister is also a savant in this way and with spatial relations). But damn it all, I miss personal social cues like you wouldn't believe! In person I have trouble telling when someone wants to end a conversation. In many ways the written word is much easier to communicate! I have no idea if this simply a function of my brain/neuro structuring or if it is due to my history.

 

But back to where I am headed with this: I too has dating options! Quite a few, and quite a range. And not just for short-term. My choice of mate I believe had more to do with my personal history and impressions. Even what I surmised about him early on (without emotional clouding) has been pretty accurate. (his weaknesses being alcohol and that he didn't attach with sex properly.) However, I do believe that having worked on and seeing these issues for what they are, he is an excellent choice for a long-term mate. Despite the obvious awful periods I went through because of it.

 

The people I passed up to get to this point are interesting though. Many had the standard attractive qualities. I think my personality actually raised my attractiveness beyond my weight. I believe that upfront and in person I should a certain kindness, listening and outgoingness that makes one more attractive, which would explain why I would be selected as a long term option by people who wouldn't have noticed me on looks (quite probably ever, although my face is not bad, and I hear that men look for facial attractiveness for long-term options).

 

My societal influence for what is attractive is very low. Largely because I find myself an outlier in society. My parents also do not fit a conventional or presentable mold (unless you consider unstable alcoholic to be conventional and presentable in certain circles!) I was also taught to look for unconventional things by my mother, who chose my father despite the fact she was way out his league (to be quite frank). She was the daughter of a very wealthy man and honestly she was BEAUTIFUL and selected quite often by men in her league. I guess in a sense I respect her from shunning convention. She fell for my Dad, (and I've heard her history on loop for 27 years) largely because of his emotional side. He liked her tremendously (I swear he can smell vulnerability) and on their first date he gave her his childhood Teddy bear. Not "a" Teddy bear. "his" Teddy bear. By today's standards that would be nuts.

 

Darwin didn't see the "Teddy bear factor" coming for sure.

 

I am sure Darwin did not see the "spare change" factor when I met my husband either. Homeless men are hardly though of as "alpha" or "the evolutionary choice." However, like my mother who had a niche of deeply personal connection to be linked with, I, too had my niche.

 

My niche was that I was always worried about my life and finances. I also wanted to love and take care of someone and vice-versa. I also wanted to HAVE FUN AND TRAVEL. The boys before my husband were often social outliers, so there was a bond there since I had been advertised to look for social outliers. And franky the ones that weren't were nice and attractive BUT often something was missing on the long-term front that I could see. One, I could see would have not been a super-involved father. You could just SEE it. Girls were always trying to pick him up. He was "a catch." but I could see a road of little boys and girls wanting attention from a Dad that wasn't going to give it. I nested him. I'm sure he wasn't on the market long.

 

So my husband with his "spare change" and the most horrible plaid pants you have ever seen, had a conversation with me. We wound up talking until 5 a.m. He showed me how he lived. He had a niche. He also LISTENED. He didn't judge me. He was unconventional, he made me laugh, he was highly sexual. And he was willing to share what he had. The guy who lived out of his backpack under bridges was willing to SHARE (turns out that's part of why ge had nothing LOL). He showed me how to live worry-free and travel and have

fun.

 

I showed him how to get some savings and live indoors.

 

After 7 years of marriage, I can say that he fills the niches I had quite well. Even though we live indoors now (LOL) we have quite the bond, we share, we are not particularly filled with angst and he is a GREAT DAD to our three year old. Always looking for opportunities to spend time with her and do fun kid things (because his childhood was about no fun and a screaming, crazy Mom). We discuss parenting goals and marital goals together. He cooks! I mean come on.... I saw this years ago after a couple months of hanging out with a bum! (although he was sober after a week of meeting me).

 

Part of why this "alpha theorum" doesn't universally apply is because it ISN'T universal. It just isn't. Even if 50% of women buy into it, that leaves a lot of women who want no part of it. And a whole bunch of guys out there who won't get into the scene because "it's hopeless or the 10 I want won't pay attention to me."

 

There are too many outliers like me (even if it is because of a mental disorder that someone has, guess what? That still counts!) and my husband that contribute to the gene pool. We got here somehow!

 

In fact all of our ancestors managed to find a mate and reproduce, so we must've had something "worthy" pass into our own genes.

 

I think we get too wrapped up in the mating habits of the "so-called" top tier. Humanity is fascinated by power and influence. BUT it isn't universally power and influence that attracts people. With women it's almost a mystery. Men practically have to advertise and sell to us to get our attention.

 

If Tom Cruise lived in Fox Valley, Saskatchewan, and kept his savings hidden under his mattress, and tried to keep to himself, women would be banging down the door because "we know there's an alpha in there!" Practically no one would know or care who he is. it's the advertising machine surrounding men like this that say "this is the guy you want." he's not even an incredible physical specimen, seriously. He's short. By that definition, he would've been disqualified right off the bat. But somewhere along the way he got his teeth fixed and became a sellable commodity (he ain't my type).

 

We don't look at non-trend mating enough! I think it has just as much influence at "trend" or "evolutionary" mating!

 

If a red Teddy bear and some spare change create the majority of my history, that tells me that Darwin has some holes to patch.

[aed]

I'm surprised no one posted this NY Times article yet as people seem to love this kind of discussion on the dating forum.

 

Dating: based in evolution or sociocultural norms? What do you all think?

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/opinion/sunday/darwin-was-wrong-about-dating.html?pagewanted=2&src=recg

 

I always find the socialcultural explanation hillarious. Allot of women really want tho believe this. Mostly the same that say: 'Yeah but guys also do this and they are not called sluts'. Scientist, feminist etc tried so many times to raise boys as girls or visa versa. Boys mostly engage in masculine behavour and girls in femine behavour. Girls mostly like to play with dolls and boys like to play war, cops and thief, and how does that colomnist explains transsexual disorders etc?

Yes some girls also did take part in those games as boys also did play with girls. But on the other hand 95% of human poplution can relate to the other gender their interest but with soly their own gender they behave more in their genders natural behavour.

 

also it is scientificly proven that we humans adept tools and our brains begin to see the tools as part of our body. (when a child is learning to eat with a vork, the brain will think that fork is part of our body).

 

Taking this in consideration: how will the female brain react on birth controle pill?

 

 

For the people that don't believe the hypergamy hypothesis, its never bin proven wrong, and the counter hypothesises never last long and are their ain't hard emperic evidence that back's it up.

 

on the other hand: the alpha male myth etc are not as the pua community proclaims it, last deccenia. you have always a bigger alpha male like your self.

 

But the alpha of a the geeks will attract most of the girls that hang around those guys. the alpha male of the group of guys that are as group slightly under average will attract most of the girls that hang out with them. Etc.

This is the same for guys: the hottest girl of your street is mostly not the hottest of the neighbourhood, and the hottest of the neighboorhoud is mostly not the hottest of the hole city, etc. This is explains for me the commen thing: when a guy was 'friendzoned' by a girl (don't believe in the friend zone) and 2 years later he dated a few other other women, he suddenly is hot for that same girl.

 

but here come the old biological problem: Guys want to be selected and girls want to desired (See why men always find it more difficult when their women have PA and girls ask in the same situation did have feelings for her). Girls base their selection on other girls their selections. (This doesnt mean that a guy has to sleep with x girls, it means that when 2 women say a guy is attractive this will tricker other girls their interrest. For me this is logical because mostly girls are attracted to behaviral traits (Status, charme etc, comes from behavour not from having big shoulders or a big jaw ))

 

Girls can select easier because their is less risk for them, but guys dont have a drug that encounters this change in female behavour. But you see a change in masculine behour: guys begin less to accept the phrase: the past is the past. They setup behaviral traits, and according old post here you see a big change in that. and are thaking more the lead in their interactions with women.

look at very old infidelity threads: from 2001 till 2008 most reaction from women when a woman cheated: 'you must have mist something in your relationship, your current partner reholds your needs' etc and guys reacted with the same why. Now look at contemporary threads with the same subject.

 

I blame us guys for this dis balanced mating landscape then the girls. Because we guys accepted it even when mostthe same guys had deep inner problems with their wifes behavours, but they believed that it their own feelings where socialy conditioned. When men will behave like men again, you will see that 'this problem' will solve it self.

 

I work with allot of women and most of them i have a very open and great bond with. They al want their man to let them be 'free', but they also want the same man to take the lead so they can feel save.

[JuneJulySeptember]

People just use evolutionary biology to justify getting the best they can get.

 

"I have limited eggs so I want the best guy I can get."

 

"I can't help who I am attracted to."

 

If I followed Darwin's theories to justify my life actions, then I would take a baseball bat out my trunk and bash in the head of the next guy who stole my parking space at the mall.

 

We're people. We can choose to break free of social constructs, but those who have an advantage in the game refuse to give up their favorable positions.

 

Dog eat dog. So, yep, Darwin was right.

[SteveC80]

I don't believe the current theories about women being "ultra-selective" are 100% correct at all. Or that Hypergamy is as widespread as sold.

 

I personally think that women will short-term mate frequently and than deduct that off of their personal tally because they will be shunned by men who would long-term date. I think really that men and women are probably a lot of equalized than most want to admit. I also think that many MEN need to buy into the social illusions, which is why they keep going.

 

It has to be about "their accomplishments and testosterone" instead of whatever random thing attracted a woman to them.

 

And honestly, I think women get attracted to a net suggestion of a combination of childhood history telling them what is attractive, society telling them what is attractive (and how susceptible they are to this), and what they can get their hands on for the long-term.

 

I honestly believe we are far more susceptible to advertising than we let on.

 

If nerds in basements with computers and bad teeth were shown as being a popular commodity, all of a sudden girls would be fighting over them on World of Warcraft.

 

I would agree that women have more of a sheep mentality and like what every other women likes or what society tells them they shoud like

 

I tell short guys all the time if there was a show about how hot short guys were women would all of a sudden want to date them

[ThaWholigan]

I would agree that women have more of a sheep mentality and like what every other women likes or what society tells them they shoud like

 

I tell short guys all the time if there was a show about how hot short guys were women would all of a sudden want to date them

You've given me an idea

[ThaWholigan]

I tell people all the time that women are more likely to adopt a herd mentality than men are. But does anyone listen? No... That's why girls date certain guys - because they have the approval of their friends. Men are more likely to date girls their friends don't approve of than girls are more likely to date guys their friends don't approve of. I believe this goes back to when men were largely independent and women were largely dependent on others. We are only now seeing a shift where a woman is dependent on herself rather than some type of male figure for survival.

 

The problem with a lot of PUA material is they take this herd mentality belief to the very extreme and belief that all scenarios are applicable to all women. That was the downfall of a lot of early PUA material. Now, the approach is more utilitarian. Current day PUA focuses things the *most* women respond to *most* of the time in *most* scenarios.

 

The rise of the "nerd" in popular culture can largely be attributed to movies and such that glamorize nerds, A more women say they like nerds now compared to a couple of years ago. Still, by and large, nerds are passed over in favor of the more popular and socially adjusted guys.

Nerds could use it to their advantage to become more well-rounded as individuals.

 

In school I was sort of half-jock, half-nerd.

[dreamingoftigers]

I would agree that women have more of a sheep mentality and like what every other women likes or what society tells them they shoud like

 

I tell short guys all the time if there was a show about how hot short guys were women would all of a sudden want to date them

 

Honestly, I think that men have as much the "sheep mentality" if not more. They are trying to keep up and compete with other men BUT thry dont see how they are all obviously fed the same tools. AXE body spray sends guy the message that if they spray it women will run after them down the street. Now you can smell the damn stuff everywhere. Women see a deodorant commercial for a new smell that makes them more attractive and they hem and haw about whether they should switch brands and what is everyone else doing.

 

You tell a guy: this is what women want, he does it: twice.

You tell a woman: this is what EVERYONE is doing, she'll do it.

 

Both are sheep. Women just see what the other sheep are up to. Men just want to be the one that gets the most female sheep so he acts like a sheep with no other reference points.

 

However, women's mating preferences are malleable with social proof.

Men's are JUST AS malleable it turns out BUT it depends on the averages of women they are exposed to. If they are exposed to 200-300 pound women all over the place, than the are generally attracted to the ones with the most healthy features of the bunch. If they were to be transplanted from an environment of the fat women to an environment of average healthy weight women, it actually takes their brains a little time to ADJUST to the new norms (believe it or not!) and than the top tier of those women become the most attractive.

 

Not what most would expect.

[ThaWholigan]

Honestly, I think that men have as much the "sheep mentality" if not more. They are trying to keep up and compete with other men BUT thry dont see how they are all obviously fed the same tools. AXE body spray sends guy the message that if they spray it women will run after them down the street. Now you can smell the damn stuff everywhere. Women see a deodorant commercial for a new smell that makes them more attractive and they hem and haw about whether they should switch brands and what is everyone else doing.

 

You tell a guy: this is what women want, he does it: twice.

You tell a woman: this is what EVERYONE is doing, she'll do it.

 

Both are sheep. Women just see what the other sheep are up to. Men just want to be the one that gets the most female sheep so he acts like a sheep with no other reference points.

 

However, women's mating preferences are malleable with social proof.

Men's are JUST AS malleable it turns out BUT it depends on the averages of women they are exposed to. If they are exposed to 200-300 pound women all over the place, than the are generally attracted to the ones with the most healthy features of the bunch. If they were to be transplanted from an environment of the fat women to an environment of average healthy weight women, it actually takes their brains a little time to ADJUST to the new norms (believe it or not!) and than the top tier of those women become the most attractive.

 

Not what most would expect.

This is so true. I love to hear men talk about how women are sheep and follow media trends - men are susceptible to similar levels of social engineering but we like to think we are immune to it .

[somedude81]

Honestly, I think that men have as much the "sheep mentality" if not more. They are trying to keep up and compete with other men BUT thry dont see how they are all obviously fed the same tools. AXE body spray sends guy the message that if they spray it women will run after them down the street. Now you can smell the damn stuff everywhere. Women see a deodorant commercial for a new smell that makes them more attractive and they hem and haw about whether they should switch brands and what is everyone else doing.

 

You tell a guy: this is what women want, he does it: twice.

You tell a woman: this is what EVERYONE is doing, she'll do it.

 

Both are sheep. Women just see what the other sheep are up to. Men just want to be the one that gets the most female sheep so he acts like a sheep with no other reference points.

 

However, women's mating preferences are malleable with social proof.

Men's are JUST AS malleable it turns out BUT it depends on the averages of women they are exposed to. If they are exposed to 200-300 pound women all over the place, than the are generally attracted to the ones with the most healthy features of the bunch. If they were to be transplanted from an environment of the fat women to an environment of average healthy weight women, it actually takes their brains a little time to ADJUST to the new norms (believe it or not!) and than the top tier of those women become the most attractive.

 

Not what most would expect.

Of course men are going to do something if they are told it would help them get women.

 

What would you expect a man to do?

 

Of course a little bit of common sense is also required.

[Disenchantedly Yours]

Dreamingoftigers, you need to post more of your life! I find you wonderfully fascinating!

[Disenchantedly Yours]

I would agree that women have more of a sheep mentality and like what every other women likes or what society tells them they shoud like

 

I tell short guys all the time if there was a show about how hot short guys were women would all of a sudden want to date them

 

It isn't a matter of women having a "sheep mentality". That is terribly degrading anyway.

 

It is a matter of our social sphere affecting our choices. I do think that women fall victim to this. But guess what Steve? You men do the same thing. You buy into the convention of what women society tells you, you should be lusting for. If women have a "sheep mentality", then men do too. Except I don't believe either have "sheep mentality". I blame the social and media bubble we live that creates so many ideas for us since birth, many of us don't even know what ideas we are taking away from that vs how we would really be without these messages thrust on us.

 

This goes for BOTH men and women. Not just women.

 

Please stop acting like men are such free thinkers that think outside the box and make choices for themselves when you see every man on the planet drooling for whatever most popular "celebrity" is getting the most press coverage at the time.

 

Women are sheep? Is that really what this topic is going to come to. And men are what? Totally, free thinkers with more intelligence then women? Thanks alot guys once again for another post that tells women how dumb and worthless they are.

Edited January 13, 2013 by Disenchantedly Yours

[2.50 a gallon]

Actually one of the reasons that I had good luck with women is that I am one of those who does not always follow the herd.

 

One of the ways a short common looking guy can stand out is to be different than the norm.

[Disenchantedly Yours]

Goddamnit' date=' no one said that men are immune from a herd-mentality. Guys fall victim to it all. the. time. From the Jersey Shore wannabees to the douchebags who wear backwards fitted hats. It's just *less* prevalent in males and males are more likely to be individualistic than females. Males are more likely to date the unpopular girl than girls are to date the unpopular guy. Also, despite what media tells us, most males actually prefer Curvy Cindy over Bone-Thin Betty.[/quote']

 

Give me a break. It is not "less" prevalent in males. It just shows up in men differently from women. Please stop with the idea that men are so much more individualistic more often simply because it makes you good to believe os. Men are more liketly to date the unpopular girl ? Bullcrap. So much more often you see women dating the unpopular guy then you see men doing the reverse.

 

Yeah, men prefer "curvy" girls as long as they are 'curvy" in the right places and live up to the ideals of big breasts, big butts and tiny little waists.

 

Which within reason is fine. However, the way society demands women's bodies look go beyond what is reasonable and everyday, hordes of men are online looking at the same women, the same porn, beating themselves off. Or they are at the news tand buying their Maxim magazine...yeah..those are such "individualistic" behaviors.

 

Please, men are not more individualistic. And the idea that you are putting yourselves on a pedestal as if you are is so freaking hateful toward women. But it shouldn't surpirse me. Lets see what I've learned from this site:

 

Women are sheep

Women get old and worthless

Women are whores and sluts

Women are vapid

 

We get it. Women worthless, men superior. No reason to discuss anything further with that thought process.

[JuneJulySeptember]

Give me a break. It is not "less" prevalent in males. It just shows up in men differently from women. Please stop with the idea that men are so much more individualistic more often simply because it makes you good to believe os. Men are more liketly to date the unpopular girl ? Bullcrap. So much more often you see women dating the unpopular guy then you see men doing the reverse.

 

Yeah, men prefer "curvy" girls as long as they are 'curvy" in the right places and live up to the ideals of big breasts, big butts and tiny little waists.

 

Which within reason is fine. However, the way society demands women's bodies look go beyond what is reasonable and everyday, hordes of men are online looking at the same women, the same porn, beating themselves off. Or they are at the news tand buying their Maxim magazine...yeah..those are such "individualistic" behaviors.

 

Please, men are not more individualistic. And the idea that you are putting yourselves on a pedestal as if you are is so freaking hateful toward women.

 

Have you had men attracted to you in your life?

 

Have men hit on you and asked you out and confessed that they like you?

[Disenchantedly Yours]

Oh and what happens to women that do act like individuals? Usually they get shamed. They get shamed for not being prim and proper. They get called sluts and whores. They get called feminists. So this isn't about wanting women to be individuals. This is about women wanting to follow all the rules of a bunch of insecure men that don't really seem to even like women that much to begin with.

[dreamingoftigers]

Actually one of the reasons that I had good luck with women is that I am one of those who does not always follow the herd.

 

One of the ways a short common looking guy can stand out is to be different than the norm.

 

I was hoping you'd show up

 

I remember your cookies, cooking and decorating for holidays.

 

And here an "alpha" wouldn't be caught dead doing that.

 

However: I can see you method yielding far better results with better longterm implications. Also your memory for details about women. It's a shame (if I have this right) that you didn't put ten sons into the world!

[dreamingoftigers]

Women are sheep? Is that really what this topic is going to come to.

 

 

 

Jay: So you're in this for the pussy, right?

Brent: No, I'm in this because I LOOOVE animals, stupid?*

Jay: Even Sheep?*

Brent: Of course. Sheep are beautiful creatures.*

Jay: So would you **** a sheep?*

Brent: What is your damage, little boy. You have a sick and twisted world perspective.*

Jay: No, you're misunderstaning me, Prince Valiant. I'm saying if you were a sheep, would you **** a sheep, if you were another sheep?*

Brent: Well, in that case, you bet your sweet ass I would.*

Jay: Thought so.*

[Yelling]*

Jay: Yo, this mother****er ain't one of us. He said he'd **** a sheep!*

Brent: No! No! No!*

Jay: [Throws Brent out the door of the van, flips him off as he's looking out the door as they're still driving] WHO'S STUPID NOW, DIRTY SHEEP ****ER!*

[ThaWholigan]

Jay: So you're in this for the pussy, right?

Brent: No, I'm in this because I LOOOVE animals, stupid?*

Jay: Even Sheep?*

Brent: Of course. Sheep are beautiful creatures.*

Jay: So would you **** a sheep?*

Brent: What is your damage, little boy. You have a sick and twisted world perspective.*

Jay: No, you're misunderstaning me, Prince Valiant. I'm saying if you were a sheep, would you **** a sheep, if you were another sheep?*

Brent: Well, in that case, you bet your sweet ass I would.*

Jay: Thought so.*

[Yelling]*

Jay: Yo, this mother****er ain't one of us. He said he'd **** a sheep!*

Brent: No! No! No!*

Jay: [Throws Brent out the door of the van, flips him off as he's looking out the door as they're still driving] WHO'S STUPID NOW, DIRTY SHEEP ****ER!*

:lmao:

 

JUSTICE!!!!!!