JuneJulySeptember Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 Yes, a top tier man understands this intuitively and is solicitous of and engaging with women of all types. He's the type of man who can innocently seduce a lady's grandmother with his charisma and charm. Yep, and a top tier man knows how to sell this image; how to paint it with words Yep, it's very important for a woman to know she 'has' her man, or a man she wants to have, and a top tier man who hoards women understands how to elicit these feelings of 'having him' whether or not he actually wants to be or can be 'had'. He's a social expert which is no surprise since he's also expert in other aspects of social life which are key to success in the world. That's why he's top tier. And how many guys who suck with women do you think eat this stuff up and have tried for many years to become that top tier man by implementing this stuff? I would say 100% and I include a younger me in that mix. What do you think PUA is based off of? I really have no more desire to have multiple women, hot women, desired women. Just a good friend to share life with. If she happens to be cute or hot, all the better. Link to post Share on other sites
LookAtThisPOst Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 And how many guys who suck with women do you think eat this stuff up and have tried for many years to become that top tier man by implementing this stuff? I would say 100% and I include a younger me in that mix. What do you think PUA is based off of? I really have no more desire to have multiple women, hot women, desired women. Just a good friend to share life with. If she happens to be cute or hot, all the better. Yeah, I pretty much run in the same circles as JuneJulySept.'s as I'm sure that there's women in the same wheelhouse. That's why you see these profiles that say, "I'm looking to start off as friends, and see where it goes from there." or "I'm looking for my best friend..." I usually look for those buzzwords in dating profile and I zero in on those as they can appreciate a friendship that is followed up with romance. I recall the FIRST time I ever felt chemistry (or at least that what most people would call it chemistry) with a woman that I met online. It started out slowly in the email, then phone, then even ramped even in person! WE had the same sense of humor and we simply "got" each other. We even kissed on a first date. Never have I ever kissed a strange woman I met online on a first date. It was amazing! She even called me before I even got home to chat a bit...it was the only experience I had in a date where there the juices were really flowing. Then...I call her up for 2nd date, she answered, she had a completely different tone to her voice, very dismissive and claimed to be "busy" all weekend...never an ounce of getting back with me to do something. It was like light switch with her. Turns out it was just lust most likely and since then, I never put much stock in what the call "chemistry" and simply allow the getting to know you process happen gradually as a friendship and likely not even have sex until several dates in. Usually the opinions given here are subjective anyhow. That was poetic. Woops, git yer hip waders on and not go trippin in the bullcrap. LOL 1 Link to post Share on other sites
xxoo Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 Women should want me because the kind of person I am and because we have things in common. Not because I get their 'juices flowing'. I'm looking for a woman who appreciates me BECAUSE I'm her best friend. Not because she wants to romp in the sack with me because I'm so hot. That is the kind of woman I am looking for. I don't think anybody is more fundamentally apart than you and me, so it makes no sense for us to continue this particular conversation. I don't think we're so far apart. My spouse IS my best friend. But the reason we are married instead of just being friends is because of sexual attraction. Mating is a fundamental drive of humans. Even when we employ birth control technology to prevent pregnancies, the mating behavior remains a driving force for most adults. Link to post Share on other sites
Timshel Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 Woops, git yer hip waders on and not go trippin in the bullcrap. LOL Why not address me? This is your opinion of relationships and these opinions define your relationships. I mean, water seeks it's own level. You either believe in your own potential or not. The point is that this is a ceiling of your own making, not social prejudice. 5 Link to post Share on other sites
JuneJulySeptember Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 (edited) I don't think we're so far apart. My spouse IS my best friend. But the reason we are married instead of just being friends is because of sexual attraction. Mating is a fundamental drive of humans. Even when we employ birth control technology to prevent pregnancies, the mating behavior remains a driving force for most adults. You are the one who suggested I would be in a hypothetical sexless relationship. I just said I care less about looks. That doesn't mean I won't want to have sex with whomever I end with (if anybody). I only said given the choice of a sexless relationship with an awesome woman or hot sex with a biaatch, or nothing, I definitely without a doubt choose the first. Edited May 17, 2015 by JuneJulySeptember Link to post Share on other sites
xxoo Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 You are the one who suggested I would be in a hypothetical sexless relationship. I just said I care less about looks. That doesn't mean I won't want to have sex with whomever I end with (if anybody). Ok, then there must be sufficient sexual attraction, and that doesn't come simply from being friends. That isn't superficial, either. It's another level of interpersonal skill. Link to post Share on other sites
JuneJulySeptember Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 (edited) Ok, then there must be sufficient sexual attraction, and that doesn't come simply from being friends. That isn't superficial, either. It's another level of interpersonal skill. Seriously, do you enjoy these circular conversations? Can you accept that people do things differently from you and do not live completely miserable lives? Just as an end note, I know a number of people who have completely given up on relationships and love all together and are perfectly fine with their lives. And yes, choosing people for looks is not shallow. I only said I don't want to do that. Edited May 17, 2015 by JuneJulySeptember Link to post Share on other sites
xxoo Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 Seriously, do you enjoy these circular conversations? Can you accept that people do things differently from you and do not live completely miserable lives? Just as an end note, I know a number of people who have completely given up on relationships and love all together and are perfectly fine with their lives. And yes, choosing people for looks is not shallow. I only said I don't want to do that. Yes, I can accept that people do things differently. I have trouble accepting misrepresentations about dating and relationships (ie: attraction is all about looks). It's just not true. Link to post Share on other sites
JuneJulySeptember Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 Yes, I can accept that people do things differently. I have trouble accepting misrepresentations about dating and relationships (ie: attraction is all about looks). It's just not true. OK. It's not all about looks. End. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Jonp219 Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 OK. It's not all about looks. End. People always assume that being attractive something to do with appearance, it doesn't. Yes, looks might be the first thing you notice, but it has nothing to do with first impressions. I use to know this guy who by 'normal' standards would be considered handsome, and this other guy was ugly as sin. Turns out the guy who was ugly as sin can get more girls (above average women) why though? They both act differently around women. The ugly guy is very playful and fun around the females, but the handsome guy comes off as desperate and in need of approval. Females don't flock to anything they're not birds, (OK, maybe some) they look for an energy that makes them feel comfortable in their own skin. It has everything to do with how you make someone FEEL, that's not something money can buy. Link to post Share on other sites
calvincline47 Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 Absolutely possible and IMO that is dependent upon the interaction of the id and superego and the psychological development arising from socialization. Each of us uses the advantages in life we are afforded and achieve in our own unique ways. Also, there are top tier men and then there are top tier men women are attracted to. I presumed the OP was referring to top tier men women are attracted to. Even with their enormous worldwide recognition, philanthropy, and social success, women aren't dropping their panties for guys like Bill Gates and Ross Perot, yet these guys define top tier men in some realms. Then again, they define your assertion of a top tier man being monogamous. Interesting, isn't it. Perhaps that ties into the OP being more specific about what top tier means, since a top tier man who isn't widely sexually attractive will lack the potential of hoarding women. He may, however, have all the other attributes of top tier and be quite monogamous with one woman. Hence, perhaps the OP painted 'top tier' with too broad a brush. Since they disappeared from this thread I guess the specifics may remain a mystery. From what I gather from the OP (and in my own opinion), Bill Gates and Ross Perot are not top tier men. They have money and power, yes, so many women will see fit to use them for these things. Top tier guys are physical good-looking tall guys that also have very good social skills. If a guy is simply charming and charismatic, he may not be top tier because he is not good-looking enough and, therefore, will not elicit that much attraction from women (without a ton of work). If he is simply good-looking but has poor social skills, he is also not top tier. Link to post Share on other sites
JuneJulySeptember Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 People always assume that being attractive something to do with appearance, it doesn't. Yes, looks might be the first thing you notice, but it has nothing to do with first impressions. I use to know this guy who by 'normal' standards would be considered handsome, and this other guy was ugly as sin. Turns out the guy who was ugly as sin can get more girls (above average women) why though? They both act differently around women. The ugly guy is very playful and fun around the females, but the handsome guy comes off as desperate and in need of approval. Females don't flock to anything they're not birds, (OK, maybe some) they look for an energy that makes them feel comfortable in their own skin. It has everything to do with how you make someone FEEL, that's not something money can buy. Ehh. It's not necessarily that I'm ugly. I just have a very small pool because of race and physical size. Even without me screening for looks, it's really, really small. If I were ever to get serious about meeting as many women as possible, moving is probably a good idea. Unfortunately, my job is here. Link to post Share on other sites
carhill Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 I did go back and read the OP again and, indeed, they were focusing in only on looks and social skills as a definer of the different tiers of men, with the best looking and charismatic being defined as 'top tier'. I probably would take issue with that as a definition but, given those parameters, yup, Bill and Ross need not apply. Link to post Share on other sites
xxoo Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 As a woman, I don't consider the womanizers "top tier". Is getting a lot of women in bed the height of dating success? 1 Link to post Share on other sites
GoodOnPaper Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 As a woman, I don't consider the womanizers "top tier". Is getting a lot of women in bed the height of dating success? I'd say having the option to do so would be. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
jay1983 Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 As a woman, I don't consider the womanizers "top tier". Is getting a lot of women in bed the height of dating success? You're kinda missing the point. Link to post Share on other sites
Rejected Rosebud Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 If I was going to die in 4 years, would I rather have a sexless relationship with a fun, kind woman or wild sex with a bitch? If I were going to die in 4 years I would rather hang around with my mom and family and friends than be in a relationship with a guy who didn't make me feel a special way, attraction is a part of love for most people and not just women!! And no matter how much some of you guys want to go on about how that is just plain wrong and shallow doesn't make it so!!! Sorry! 1 Link to post Share on other sites
aussietigerwolf Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 If you had ever played wow then you would have noticed that it is not the realm of socially awkward live in their basement types... There are many husband/wife bf/gf players in wow. Me and my bf knew quite a few. As for the other stuff, well... I can only speak for Australia but here it is rather insulting crap sprouted by people whose personalities/attitudes turn others off. We all know of a "Jake" or "Chad" who are generally Very good looking, charming and have strong social skills( to a lesser extent they may also have alot of money). Jake and Chad do well with women. In fact they do so well, it seems as if no women can resist their charms. Then we have John and Mike. John and Mike aren't playboys by any stretch of the imagination. They do however manage to get a date or a girlfriend if they try hard enough. Finally we have Billy and Timmy. Billy and Timmy both look far below the accepted threshold of the looks requirement to get a girlfriend. Men like Billy and Timmy will likely spend their whole life alone; Maybe if they're lucky enough a girl might fall their way, but Billy and Timmy aren't holding their breath. Billy and Timmy will likely attract women solely due to their salaries; If Billy and Timmy don't make enough dough... well then they'll be introduced to the world of WoW and pornography. As much as many of us try to deny it, by and large we have all met Billys and Timmys. They are the acquaintances we know that never seem to have a girlfriend, despite being strictly heterosexual. As much as some will try to deny it, In the dating game women are not dating men in an equal 1:1 ratio. More often it's One guy like Chad dating, hooking up with or having a one night stand with 5 or even 10 women. It is an ironic paradox; Women often complain that men are hungry sex hounds, yet will fall straight into the arms of Jakes and Chads, while avoiding Timmy and Billy like the plague. Scientifically, however it makes perfect sense as it falls in line with Darwins theory of natural selection. So my question to you is: Which tier do you fall in? Jake and Chad? Mike and John? Or are you like me, just a typical Billy(minus the video games which I have never played in my life) 1 Link to post Share on other sites
frogs88 Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 Just because I've largely removed the looks requirement doesn't mean it's not hard. It's still really hard because the women who will give me a chance don't necessarily click with me at all. Is it then that you typically have a hard time 'clicking' with people (not in the romantic way necessarily)? I mean no it will still require some effort but I have a hard time understanding why it would be really hard. I mean, that click is just sort of like meeting someone who might be a friend. Link to post Share on other sites
ascendotum Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 Honestly, I don't care about the Cosmopolitan spiel. I'll do things my way and if no women want me, no women want me. Women should want me because the kind of person I am and because we have things in common. Not because I get their 'juices flowing'. I'm looking for a woman who appreciates me BECAUSE I'm her best friend. Not because she wants to romp in the sack with me because I'm so hot. That is the kind of woman I am looking for. Dude, now you hit 40s, women now being like this should now be coming out of the woodwork. Link to post Share on other sites
JuneJulySeptember Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 (edited) If I were going to die in 4 years I would rather hang around with my mom and family and friends than be in a relationship with a guy who didn't make me feel a special way, attraction is a part of love for most people and not just women!! And no matter how much some of you guys want to go on about how that is just plain wrong and shallow doesn't make it so!!! Sorry! Whatever. You just want to argue. Take it to somebody else. I already told XXOO. I have NO PROBLEM with the way she does things and no I don't think it's shallow. E-N-D. Everybody does things their own way. And again, trying to make it into men versus women. I CLEARLY said that I am looking for a woman who thinks like me. Stop trying to incite me and leave me alone. Edited May 18, 2015 by JuneJulySeptember Link to post Share on other sites
JuneJulySeptember Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 (edited) Is it then that you typically have a hard time 'clicking' with people (not in the romantic way necessarily)? I mean no it will still require some effort but I have a hard time understanding why it would be really hard. I mean, that click is just sort of like meeting someone who might be a friend. It's not really easy. We really don't click with that many people. I have had maybe a handful of friends, male or female, that I have clicked with over my LIFETIME. Like truly clicked with. Now, I have dated a woman who I have clicked with in that way. But our outlook on life is different. She's a little too superficial and she's not that kind to other people. That kind of stuff is important to me. She's better than she was when we dated, but still. I think it would blow up. But my goal is to find someone better than her. Better for ME that is. But I have yet to find a woman that is even close to the way we clicked. And my pool is really small, so it seems like the odds that I will are small. Dude, now you hit 40s, women now being like this should now be coming out of the woodwork. No way man. Go on Match.com. Every woman (or man for that matter, NOT a gender issue) has rigid race and height requirements. Doesn't matter the age. Edited May 18, 2015 by JuneJulySeptember Link to post Share on other sites
frogs88 Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 Well, I suppose the click is made easier or harder for different people. Personally I just click easier with a lot of people on a rather superficial level than with one or a few on a much deeper level. Sole exception being my partner but that's a gray area because of the relationship. If that deep and intense click is absolutely mandatory then I suppose it's a more stringent requirement. Combine that with needing attraction, chemistry, sexual compatibility and bla bla its almost incredible that people actually find partners who cross all their boxes. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
xxoo Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 I'd say having the option to do so would be. Probably. But choosing to bed lots of women would make him a less attractive partner for most "top tier" women. Is he "top tier" if he can not attract a "top tier" woman? These women probably aren't sharing with anyone. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts