Losers, Cheaters, Love & $ - split from da Eggy thread

[The Shake]

Seven - you're allowing your own frustrations with the opposite sex to make you sound foolish.

Looks and socio-economic status are generally two of the most important attributes in determining a guy's desirability - not the.

Let me be clear - as a general rule or assumption, you are more correct than Pool. A "hot-looking MPA", if given a choice between dating Bill Gates and yourself, will likely (at least at first), go out with Bill.

You underestimating, however, the importance of other human needs - compatibility, social skills, humour, kindness (yeah, I want to gag too, buts its true), faithfulness, mutual interests, etc.

If your outlook were accurate, then all rich guys would have hot young babes on their arms, and no attractive person would ever be at home without a date on a Saturday night. Neither is true.

People just aren't as simple as that.

 

[The Shake]

Re: More answers.

If you have a high level of currency, dating an ordinary girl would be like driving around town in a Geo Metro when you could upgrade to a Ferrari.

You've just disproved your own point.

I could afford a much nicer car than I drive, but I have other priorities when it comes to my discretionary spending. Its a choice that I make, based on a whole ranges factors.

The mistake that you keep on making is in assuming that everyone wants the same thing - they don't. Not with cars, and not with mates.

 

[seven]

Looks and socio-economic status are generally two of the most important attributes in determining a guy's desirability - not the.

Same thing. If looks and socio-economic status are generally two of the most important attributes then from the reference point of a guy they are the most important. Our life is the aggregate of specific instances.

Let me be clear - as a general rule or assumption, you are more correct than Pool. A "hot-looking MPA", if given a choice between dating Bill Gates and yourself, will likely (at least at first), go out with Bill.

I was only speaking in generalities and probabilities that are extremely high.

You underestimating, however, the importance of other human needs - compatibility, social skills, humour, kindness (yeah, I want to gag too, buts its true), faithfulness, mutual interests, etc.

My perspective is that they are the starting point for negotiations. It is beneficial to have those attributes that you listed once you pass the looks and socio-economic filter, but you have to pass through the filter to be further considered on those attributes/qualities. We believe the same thing basically, I just can't be bothered to expand on small exceptions to the rule.

If your outlook were accurate, then all rich guys would have hot young babes on their arms, and no attractive person would ever be at home without a date on a Saturday night. Neither is true.

You are trying to disprove a rule of thumb with exceptions to that rule. Not all rich guys, are rich when they get married, and not all rich guys have the same taste in physical beauty that you or I do. If you are making a choice of who to start a relationship with though, and you are rich, then chances are you won't start one with someone that isn't good-looking. Just look at professional athletes. And of course, there are exceptions to every rule, however small.

Granted attractive people stay at home by themselves sometimes. But that's by choice really, and if they are gonna spend their time with someone of the opposite sex then chances are they will spend it with someone who is the equivalent in physical beauty or can compensate for their shortcomings financially. Again, as always there are exceptions to the rule, which shouldn't be expected for under normal conditions.

With the car example I didn't disprove my point. If you had lots of discretionary income you wouldn't be driving around in a shitbox. That doesn't mean that you aren't gonna make trade-offs based on other priorities, needs and marginal returns of some kind, but really, how many guys that make six figures drive a piece of shit? I'm just making generalizations that happen to be true in the vast majority of cases. Do I have to specify that with every point I make though?

 

[The Shake]

My perspective is that they are the starting point for negotiations. It is beneficial to have those attributes that you listed once you pass the looks and socio-economic filter, but you have to pass through the filter to be further considered on those attributes/qualities.

Well said and, as you noted, we pretty much agree on this point. That's why, as it relates to the "Seven and Bill Gates walk into a Massage Parlour" scenario, I think your predicted outcome is far more likely than Pool's.

However, we disagree on the nature and consistency of such filters. In my experience, such "filters" are significantly influenced by the immediate environment. There are some environments, such as a Massage Parlour or a busy night club, where those filters will almost always be rigidly apparent. Outside of such environments, however, its a whole different ballgame.

Just as a quick example - how many poorly dressed, average looking profs have had affairs with really hot undergrads? And no, before you suggest it, I'm not talking about sex-for-grades type of stuff.

You are trying to disprove a rule of thumb with exceptions to that rule.

You call them exceptions - I call them the subtleties that define human relationships.

Granted attractive people stay at home by themselves sometimes. But that's by choice really, and if they are gonna spend their time with someone of the opposite sex then chances are they will spend it with someone who is the equivalent in physical beauty or can compensate for their shortcomings financially.

I feel that you are correct when you talk about "compensating" (I'm sure that will bug the die-hard romantics), however your scope is way too limited and you again overestimate the financial factor. Most people (attractive or otherwise) are simply not as greedy or "goodies driven" as you think (although, to be realistic, many people are).

Compensation may come in the form of intellect, great sex, humour, caring, decency, common interests, a large penis, or any number of factors.

With the car example I didn't disprove my point. If you had lots of discretionary income you wouldn't be driving around in a shitbox. That doesn't mean that you aren't gonna make trade-offs based on other priorities, needs and marginal returns of some kind, but really, how many guys that make six figures drive a piece of shit?

Who said that I was driving around in a shitbox? I said that I could afford something better - but chose a more modest car. Again, your tendency to think in "either or's" undermines your generally sound understanding of the issues.

 

[EnergizerBunny]

My world ... my island in the stream ...

So far so many words! And to what end?

The XYY chromosome link was/is just one factor acting in combination with many other genetic influences. For instance, the frontal lobes in the brain of violent men tend to be smaller than average, and that’s where your feelings of emotion and empathy are derived from.

Like love maybe? The bigger the frontal lobe the more complex the experience of the emotion called love?

Let’s just go back to my friend Aldous’ Island comparison. If on your island you have never seen a rainbow; only with a great imagination will you even come close to getting an idea what it could be like.

Thousand’s fixation on DNA, which you Seven seem to share to some extent, is myopic.

DNA provides the start and makes up much of what we are. What role do chemicals and viruses play? What role do our own thoughts play? Is a druggie's [who has burn out parts of their brains] perception is due to DNA? What about all those who carry a DNA genetic marker for a certain disease and never develop that disease? What about those who have no genetic predisposition and who are put under certain stressors thus develop physical changes within their brains leading to clinical depression? Do you know that thoughts and feelings can change the physical (which includes chemical) structure of your brain?

Now back to love. Yes love is chemical. It quite often starts off as a biologically induced chemical reaction, which gives rise to thoughts and feeling, which in turn can result in further physical changes. These changes can thus be ideological as well.

Now if your ideological world consists of money and aesthetics … well your attractions and love will surely follow the same patterns.

However we must not discount that on other islands there exists other ideological worlds and hence other experiences of love. I personally have no clue of what they all look like, I can only see as far as my experiences and imagination can carry me. [Just as with empathy.]

For many their ideological values are to find companions who share their outlook and interests. Birds of a feather flock together and usually you get what you “deserve” by choice or luck [or the lack thereof]. Hey who said life was fair!

Hey I just strung along a few words myself. hehehe

 

[seven]

However, we disagree on the nature and consistency of such filters. In my experience, such "filters" are significantly influenced by the immediate environment. There are some environments, such as a Massage Parlour or a busy night club, where those filters will almost always be rigidly apparent. Outside of such environments, however, its a whole different ballgame.

I actually agree with that analysis to some extent. However, you can only expect your personality to count for so much no matter what the environmental setting is for the encounter. Most people, I believe, have unrealistic expectations based on what you just said.

Just as a quick example - how many poorly dressed, average looking profs have had affairs with really hot undergrads? And no, before you suggest it, I'm not talking about sex-for-grades type of stuff.

You mean sex for just the sake of sex? Realistically not many. A terb sister of mine once told me that you can't take intelligence to bed. There is a fair degree of truth to that saying. Some of the key attributes that you mentioned when deciding on the basis of a relationship - humour, kindness, and intelligence - are not enhanced through sex. For example, you can appreciate my enormous intellect just by conversing with me, right? ;-) You don't have to bang me to realize the potential of my intellect or derive further enjoyment from it. Can you really appreciate physical beauty to its fullest w/o partaking of it? My question would be, what would the girl be getting through "just the sex" that she couldn't otherwise get on a more casual level? There has to be incentive for everything. Having a sweaty, balding, chubby professor with a bad comb-over going "ooooooooooooh fuck I'm gonna cum" in her ear, wouldn't further her needs or desires in any way.

Who said that I was driving around in a shitbox? I said that I could afford something better - but chose a more modest car. Again, your tendency to think in "either or's" undermines your generally sound understanding of the issues.

My point is that you expect a certain "standard" based on your currency / working capital. But really, we agree on most everything. Your main problem is not with what I'm saying, but how I'm saying it.

Originally posted by EB
Like love maybe? The bigger the frontal lobe the more complex the experience of the emotion called love?

That just shows you that it's DNA derived. You would have to prove the size of the frontal lobe didn't matter (no correlation) for you to believe "love" is something other than the influence of our genes acting on us.

DNA provides the start and makes up much of what we are. What role do chemicals and viruses play? What role do our own thoughts play? Is a druggie's [who has burn out parts of their brains] perception is due to DNA? What about all those who carry a DNA genetic marker for a certain disease and never develop that disease? What about those who have no genetic predisposition and who are put under certain stressors thus develop physical changes within their brains leading to clinical depression? Do you know that thoughts and feelings can change the physical (which includes chemical) structure of your brain?

Have you heard of self-modified coding as it relates to computer programming? Same idea, and I can predict the outcome based on variable inputs.

 

[EnergizerBunny]

A terb sister of mine once told me ...

And who could that beacon of enlightenment possibly be?

That just shows you that it's DNA derived. You would have to prove the size of the frontal lobe didn't matter (no correlation) for you to believe "love" is something other than the influence of our genes acting on us.

Ok you are right. That is like saying that it is human derived. Who would argue with that. But then what? You think that by looking at my DNA you would be able to predict how I would experience and show love? DNA is not the absolute you and Thousand want to make it in context of emotional experience. There are many other factors at play.

Our disagreement, I think is: in our differing views on love's individual experience. If I understand you, your take is that eros love [which is quite narrow in context of love, granted that is how this whole conversation got started so that is fine] is entirely based on and experienced in context of material and/or asthetic enjoyment gains. I disagree.

Have you heard of self-modified coding as it relates to computer programming? Same idea, and I can predict the outcome based on variable inputs.

OK! There are variable outcomes based on variable inputs. But just like the financial markets it is too complex for you to deal with all the variables or you would be a rich man and you could then get any super model you wanted.

 

[pool]

Thousand,

For example, if you are hungry, the choice of foods you would want to eat would depends on what your body (stomach, mouth, tongue, etc) desire.

I wouldn't say that would be attributed so much to individual DNA than the basic needs of all humans. I would only take that on a level of food vs water, depending on whether you are thirsty or hungry, soup vs lasagna depending on your state of health etc. People learn what foods they desire, that is why different cultures desire different foods. This, through exposure, can also be relearned or developed, but only if we have an open mind.

I think how each person perceive as beauty varies. Also, appearance is just what gets the relationship going. What keeps it a relationship going are the partner's qualities.

I agree, but it in many cases it can work in reverse and it's the qualities that create or enhance that beauty, before the physical attraction is even apparent. It may seem out of your grasp, but there are many people in life who end up becoming partners with people they become friends with first. Maybe it's just me, but many times I don't feel any attraction to a persons physical beauty until they become animated and that is what draws me in.

I am assume that she believe in him and that one day he would be a successful person?

You would most likely be right, but I think , in part, it would be for his own sake more than anything, because although not well off, they do make ends meet. Unconditional love is a powerful force and contentment in that feeling is completely outside the realm of $. This has nothing to do with being romantic. It's just stuff I've experienced and observed and I'm completely bemused if others haven't at least observed it. I've also experienced and witnessed the more superficial, monitory, side which you and seven seem so determined to believe as being the largest portion of the whole picture. The difference between myself and others in this discussion, in contrast to yourself and seven/picky, is that we realise there is truth to your theories overall. They are just not the whole picture and there are far more variables and relationship scenarios in the real world.

Her old bf does have the money, but I don't think he would be a good provider to her, especially if he see her only as a trophy.

You are most likely correct and her current husband although struggling to make ends meet, partly due to her obsession with monetary things, does provide for her and fulfil other levels of support, needs and desires. Unfortunately her upbringing and social circle dictate that monitory things are important and translate into security on an emotional level. The ikea nesting instinct. I probably should have left real life scenarios out of the picture, because in this case, as in most, there are way to many variables and dynamics involved, aside from DNA

Well, beauty is in the eyes<DNA Inside> of the beholder. An important thing she got is youth, which give our subconscious mind the perception of good health and an optimal child bearing ability.

Yes, that must be it, he chose to be with her not because she is the same age as him and therefor met her within a peer group of that age, but because she seemed the most youthful of the group, despite not having those physical attributes you deem to be valuable in creating superior offspring. Why wouldn't he go for the hot chick with big tits and rounded hips who is also of the same age.

 

[pool]

Seven,

I don't believe you. How can you not think the two most important attributes for a guy in determining his level of desirability are looks and socio-economic status?

OK, if I were to try and determine my own desirability, I would definitely apply looks as being an important attribute ( I am superficial to a large degree and will not deny that ), but not my socio-economic status. I would never want someone attracted to me because of my money status. If I were good looking, I'd have np accepting that her attraction to me was in a large part due to that and it would no doubt be flattering, but it could never be that alone ( aaaaaw ). They would have to appreciate me and accept me as I am with all my annoying attributes and idiosyncrasies intact. Otherwise I'd just feel like I'm being used for my money and my body ... : ( ... hehe, sorry, but this is getting too absurd to take completely seriously anymore.

For a hot-looking MPA to actually choose one of us over Bill Gates it would mean that we would have to captivate her interest to such a degree, that she would actually consider giving up all the fancy cars, fine dining, shopping sprees with unlimited credit, weekend getaways to exotic destinations, huge mansions with hired help, etcetera, etcetera, that computer geek boy would inevitably enchant her with.

Well none of those luxuries really appeal to me, but I know for sure that many people, both men and women, do appreciate such things. They are however no necessities. Like I said I don't know this Bill fellow, but I'm sure that some MPA's would rather pass on these luxuries than have to spend time with some dude that may have nothing else much going for him and most likely, even if these luxuries appeal to them for a while, the novelty would wear off and ol bill would be left high and dry, with nothing but alimony to pay off.

Do you really think you are that good in bed?

Actually no, not particularly.

Me and you are definitely not doing it on the money angle, so the only thing left is our looks (uh oh).

Oh no, I'm screwed; I'm not that good in bed, I don't have sufficient funds to attract a woman and picky doesn't find me attractive : (

I mean if you were fucking model hot chicks all the time, would it really be possible for an ordinary girl to capture your attention?

I'm not sure what you mean by "ordinary". Some MPA's, I know can be very shallow and to me that makes them boring. I'm also not sure why you hold MPA's in such high esteem as being girls that have looks that are out of our grasp, so to speak. Some are very hot, yes, but to be perfectly honest there are only a few that I find particularly attractive. Of those, its their demeanour and mannerisms that completed the package. I don't particularly like the Barbie Doll look, and I happen to be one of those freaks of nature that prefer small breasts. The model look, to me and based on physical appearance alone generally lacks character and is not that appealing.

Basically, picky, most of your assertions, are insinuating that my life up to this point has been one big illusion and never really happened. You also seem to think that my feelings and outlook on love, life, money etc are all wrong, which is your prerogative, but I think I'll stick to my own devices as there's many things I wouldn't give up for all the cash in bill M$ gates safe.

 

[pool]

Energiser B: Now if your ideological world consists of money and aesthetics … well your attractions and love will surely follow the same patterns.

Very true.

 

[The Shake]

OK, if I were to try and determine my own desirability, I would definitely apply looks as being an important attribute ( I am superficial to a large degree and will not deny that ), but not my socio-economic status. I would never want someone attracted to me because of my money status.

Well, I don't think attractive women dating ugly, rich men walk around saying "Oh baby, the size of your portfolio makes me sooooo wet", but....

I've pointed out what I see as flaws in Seven's "worldview" as it were, but he is correct in pointing out how large of a factor socio-economic status is in determining both initial attraction and, to a lesser degree, compatibility.

For example, clothes often make do make the man, and those with the financial means will often spend more money in order to make themselves fashionable. Following the same line, you can throw in dental work, a decent haircut, and perhaps even physical fitness.

How about your ability to entertain the woman in question and "make her feel special"? If you have the means to spoil her, you're going to seem all the more attractive. People might say that its the thought that counts, but being able to "think" by sending roses, or going to a fancy restaurant does make a difference.

I don't share Picky's cynicism, mostly because my personal life experience is much closer to yours than his. All that said, though, there are a lot of guys that feel the same way as he does, and those feelings must be based in reality.

 

[EnergizerBunny]

I don't share Picky's cynicism, mostly because my personal life experience is much closer to yours than his. All that said, though, there are a lot of guys that feel the same way as he does, and those feelings must be based in reality.

Experiences range far and wide. There is money and good looks at one end. Compatibility of various nature in the middle. And maybe ... people who stay with their love even when they are abused on the other end, and everything imaginable in between.

I guess that is my point, it is all much more complex than the oversimplifications we all want to neatly categorize things in.

 

[seven]

Oh no, I'm screwed; I'm not that good in bed, I don't have sufficient funds to attract a woman and picky doesn't find me attractive : (

Poolie, if we were both gay you would probably be too good for me. Just ask J***.

Basically, picky, most of your assertions, are insinuating that my life up to this point has been one big illusion and never really happened.

Hahahaha. I can't believe you took offence based on something I said. I really wasn't aware that I was asserting the "one big illusion" theory. What I actually think is that you are this really deep and sensitive guy that tends to look at the world through rose coloured glasses. I think that because you are a nice guy, when a girl has the hots for you, you tend to mistakenly attribute her attraction to your personality and not your tough guy looks. I can see why you would do that. Try being mean (or at least not so nice) and it won't make much of a difference. Trust me.

 

[pool]

slowness - at the risk of redundancy ...

Shake: However, we disagree on the nature and consistency of such filters. In my experience, such "filters" are significantly influenced by the immediate environment. There are some environments, such as a Massage Parlour or a busy night club, where those filters will almost always be rigidly apparent. Outside of such environments, however, its a whole different ballgame.

I'd agree with that with emphasis on "almost".


I'd also agree that within the MP scene there is likely a general mindset just like in most social groups. I still maintain however that given their constant exposure to superficial triggers and the importance placed on $ and monetary value, they could easily, in some cases, realise that these things cannot fulfil their needs or become repulsed, hence leaning toward other traits as more significant. The same theory could also be reversed.

Let me be clear - as a general rule or assumption, you are more correct than Pool. A "hot-looking MPA", if given a choice between dating Bill Gates and yourself, will likely (at least at first), go out with Bill.

As a general rule picky might well be more correct and I don't think I ever alluded that his or thousands basic outlook is wrong. If I did, I was wrong. I just don't see it as being the only set of variables within the diverse and complex dynamics of humans and environmental influences. I still maintain, however that $ alone in many cases could not sell old Bill M$.

Funny thing is, that if someone were ranting and raving about something without taking into consideration an individuals chemical balance, I'd be the first to jump in. It's also more in line with, my thinking used to lean toward as it being a primary factor, but now give some credence to the capability to change, to some degree, how our individual chemical balances effect our outlook, through practise, association and perspective modification.

Seven,

Poolie, if we were both gay you would probably be too good for me. Just ask J***.

Why should KY Josh or anyone else for that matter determine what you or I think ?

I won't argue your assessment of me, as it is your perspective. Does this mean we still have a chance ?

There is some truth to it and I believe some of it to be wrong, but my view would vary, depending on the individual. I'm not as nice as you may think, but many people become nasty/evil as a jerk reaction to feeling hurt. They just don't embrace it. As I'm sure you are aware, generally when someone is perceived as not being nice it is just an extension of internal issues and only exposes oneself for all to see. It's actually much easier to be an a$$hole, but generally counterproductive. I've been working on a peace treaty with my demons for years, so I think I'll just leave Lemmy to RIP, but thanks for the advice.

No offence taken, sweetums. I was trying to make a point without bringing my self into it too directly. I really wish I did have some of those rose coloured glasses you speak of. The widescreen edition of the world can be very ugly. Them there glasses sure could save me a lot of grief and aid in the relief of my senses, both close to home and in the over all picture. There are so many misguided isolated people struggling and hurting, with a tendency to compensate, rationalise, place blame and lash out at others, rather than look within and realise we are our own worst enemies. I'm far from immune to these things.

I tend to think that being aware and experiencing the tragedy and ugliness of life, is what causes us to become jaded and can lead to our appreciation, while enhancing the value of, the subtleties in life. We develop a "slowness" and stop to smell da roses. *


*I don't particularly like roses. Acidanthera is far more subtle and peaceful.