To all the guys asking girl questions...

Student Lounge College Life
21

<p>These issues are very politically incorrect - so don't expect to see college socio-biology or evolution pych courses ever bring them up - as they are generally labeled as making excuses for bad behavior by males. However, explanation does not equal advocacy. In any case, it is just about females following their DNA and males following theirs. Modern constructs like marriage and committment are just that "modern" (last few thousand yrs -quite recent) - often not even recognized by genes</p>

<p>Note this is not about conscious rational thinking, that is an entirely different factor. However anyone that thinks the "chemistry" females crave so badly has anything to do with rational thinking -is mistaken</p>

<p>Everyone knows the normal attraction points for women as it concerns men: typically things like:</p>

<p>looks, money (ie resources), height (sometimes), strength, confidence, intelligence etc - however everyone knows this already - not much of a surprise</p>

<p>The reason I brought up the (perceived) nonmonogamy issue is many don't recognize it and it's often overlooked and on the surface (in non-evolutionary terms) seems quite illogical, however it's not only true if could be THE major factor in attraction. The evidence is quite overwhelming in fact (call this the first half of the equation) that seed spreading males had major advantages in terms of evolutionary genetic survival for the first 3 to 5 million years of man's early development. Pair bonding was a late stage evolutionary invention - very recent in fact. The man that hung around helping his kids survive during evolution - would still generally lose out in the genetic survival game - to the man mating with large volumes of women</p>

<p>As for the second half of the equation: "Do modern females have an innate (subconscious) attraction (apart from all other factors) to males fitting the dominant nonmonogamous male evolutionary norm?</p>

<p>It would be a bit odd if they didn't </p>

<p>If Bill Clinton for example were a just a liquor salesman - he would still attract women, because he would be perceived (correctly in his case) as a cheater - thus fitting the evolutionary norm</p>

22

<p>
[quote]
As for the second half of the equation: "Do modern females have an innate (subconscious) attraction (apart from all other factors) to males fitting the dominant nonmonogamous male evolutionary norm?</p>

<p>

[/quote]
</p>

<p>lol u lost me there.</p>

23

<p>From another girl's perspective:
Nerdy guys are HOT!
Maybe that's just me...</p>

24

<p>
[quote]

[quote]
As for the second half of the equation: "Do modern females have an innate (subconscious) attraction (apart from all other factors) to males fitting the dominant nonmonogamous male evolutionary norm?

[/quote]

lol u lost me there.

[/quote]

"Do girls like players?"</p>

25

<p>we can safely come to the conclusion that different girls like different things in guys, and vice versa.</p>

26

<p>In reference to the two tiers of (for want of a better term) the "equation"</p>

<p>First its widely accepted today that male nonmonogamy was the evolutionary norm for the first 3 to 5 million years of human development. Stated another way, monogamous males would have been the exception, and in fact many would have (in genetic terms)died off. Nonmonogamous (seed spreading) males would have had major advantages over monogamous males in the genetic lottery of life -as they simply were better at getting their genes moved forward</p>

<p>Once someone accepts that basic premise (i.e male nonmonogamy as the evolutionary norm) and also recognizes that genes (unlike environment) are very slow to change - one then has to ask - why would it be logical today for modern women (who w/o any doubt carry some degree of evolutionary baggage in their DNA) to be actually attracted to monogamous males - when in evolutionary terms mating with such males had a severe disadvantage in terms of genetic survival?</p>

<p>Therefore the 2nd part of the equation: it would in fact be quite natural for females (despite their best efforts) to be attracted to males most likely to increase the odds of moving THEIR (the female's and their children's genes and so forth) genes forward</p>

<p>There is no question "chemistry" as the word is defined has to have some connection to raw evolutionary survival, as we know humans are in some sense survival machines</p>

<p>The open question is whether genes (subconsciously) in effect make mating selections for females. The answer is no doubt: yes </p>

<p>Few if any females today would ever consciously choose a man to get involved with she knew to be cheating, however "chemistry" and the process that generates it - is clearly not a rational process</p>

<p>I guess the only practical advice might be: if you don't cheat - keep quiet about it, otherwise you might hurt the relationship</p>

27

<p>Citation, you are eithering pulling this stuff out of your ass or you actually have studied this at one point or another. Crazy **** man.</p>

28

<p>it makes perfect sense really and i have thought about it some before....the way we now have marriage and monogamy is totally backwards to our insticts...</p>

29

<p>Actually it's quite legitimate</p>

<p>Consider that's its been well accepted for years that certain females (particularly younger highly attractive ones) tend to repeatedly seek out controlling, deceptive, and nonmonogamous males. In other words, they seem to get alot of that "chemistry" ratcheted up from being cheated on, lied to, and bossed around (even threated by) - all of these of course excellent skills as it conerns evolutionary survival</p>

<p>HOWEVER, the explanation for this (for years) had been something like this: "these women who chase the bad guys, lack self-esteem and in most cases are simply reliving their bad relationship they had with their Fathers, and simply want to right past wrongs"</p>

<p>Of course:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>The fact is is that none of this ever made much sense anyways. How does a female actually "right" any "wrongs" by serially seekig out men that cheat on them and abuse them? They might simulate what happaned as a child (assuming it did happen) but I cannot fathom where the correction occurs. </p></li>
<li><p>Nor was it noticed that many of these females in fact came from excellent families and many had great DADS - those 2 factors were never explained. except only in one way which is the standard nonsensical feminist explanation: "many families are rotten and/or their Dad's are rotten yet they simply hide it from outsiders"</p></li>
</ol>

<p>The result is: the evolutionary explanations make much more sense - and this is where the science will soon be going anyways</p>

<p>Humans are in essence survival machines and female mate selection 'choices" derive from constantly optimizing their (genetic) survival chances by mating with males optimizing THEIR (the male's genetic) survival chances. </p>

<p>In simplest terms females generally will "select" seed spreading males - as in the end it's all about perceived genetic immortality</p>

30

<p>Since I'm 5'3 and Asian living in America, there's a good chance my sperm won't be fertlized?</p>

<p>My future looks bright, laugh my A** off.</p>

31

<p>As a girl, I'll give you all some advice. Just be confident and play hard to get for a while.. It always works for me.</p>

32

<p>i dont think any guy is going to like you less if you are easy...</p>

33

<p>
[quote]
Wu-Tang Financial comes through again and again. All day, everyday. Word is bond n***as.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>LOL! :eek:</p>

34

<p>
[quote]
i dont think any guy is going to like you less if you are easy...

[/quote]

If I like a girl and would like to date her and she is easy, I would definitely like her less. I like the challenge.</p>

<p>Now if I all I want is some bang-bang, then the easier the better : )</p>

35

<p>Since Citation's posts seem to be a tad dense, I'll try to interpret an then evaluate his statements.</p>

<p>Citation X's statements (correct me if I'm wrong):</p>

<ol>
<li>Men are evolutionarily wired to prefer multiple partners.</li>
</ol>

<p>*No argument there. It's rather obvious that guys have the wandering eye and love threesomes, etc. However, sometimes guys do develop a mindset over one particular girl (and this particular 'crushing' can be destructive if not already in a relationship with the girl) and build up (a rather inflated) image of her, and begins distorting her by perceiving her as a goddess, etc, and really fall in love with this 'image' of her. So many guys truly believe they are with the best girl, and monogamous long term relationships can last, although I don't know how evolution has caused this.</p>

<ol>
<li>Girls prefer Bad Boys over the "Nice Guy"</li>
</ol>

<p>Not really. Again, bad boys more often express qualities that are attractive to girls, such as confidence, not being outcome-dependent, not reaction seeking, not approval seeking, being dominant, being cocky, probably being funny more often, being more fun, more adventurous, being ALPHA MALE, not denying their sexuality, confidently expressing that they like a girl (very powerful if you don't come off as needy). However, any guy can be all these things without being bad whatsoever. Nice guys more commonly act needy, clingy, desperate, supplicate, deny sexuality or emotions, etc but it not the ncie vs bad itself that means diddly.</p>

<ol>
<li>Girls prefer multiple partners; aka cheat a lot.</li>
</ol>

<p>Evolutionarily, females do not prefer multiple partners at all. In fact they dislike intimacy infidelity by males greatly, because only males that 'stick around' help spread the female's genes by caring for her offspring. There is absolutely no reason for a female to like a male that can 'spread his seed' more effectively. The male has 0% genetic commonality with her and thus, to simplify, the genes of the female do not give a f*** about the male <em>spreading</em> his genes, she mearly cares the male has <em>high quality</em> genes to give her offspring.</p>

<p>So females are wired to prefer monogamy it seems. However in practice, females often find themselves in unsatisfying relationships (the guy is a wimp, doormat, boring, who knows what) and with unsatisifed desires, they OFTEN cheat. In fact, a lot more so than the average guy thinks. Females may actually cheat even more than males (pretty hard to find any data on this topic) because males generally value a logical sense of 'loyalty' more than females do for whatever reason. Advice to guys: yes, keep her attracted by being adventurous/spontaneous/ being a challenge for her. It will probably lead to better sex or something anyhow.</p>

<p>So point 1 is valid; point 2 and 3 you made seem misguided.</p>

36

<p>
[quote]
Evolutionarily, females do not prefer multiple partners at all. In fact they dislike intimacy infidelity by males greatly, because only males that 'stick around' help spread the female's genes by caring for her offspring.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I read an interesting article (or it was conveyed to me...I forget) that suggests that men cheat to spread their seed. Women cheat when they find a good but wimpy man who will raise the offspring, but aren't quite the "studs" they want to be making the baby.</p>

37

<p>I certainly didn't say women "cheated" or desired to cheat as much as males -and of course it was alpha males who would dominate the existing supply of women - at the expense of other men.</p>

<p>Biology itself in fact requires female to be primarily relationship-centric and of course in evolutionarary terms coould hardly be nonmonogamous (relative to males) as they would in effect be nearly constantly (once attaining fertility) be either pregnant or (temporarily infertile) while nursing</p>

<p>Romantic "love" was a later stage evolutionary development perhaps representing increased civility on the part of males - however the evidence is very clear (in a modern context) that most men will tire of nearly any woman (in a fully consumated relationship) within 6 to 24 months - which by the way concides with the ability of the offspring (to a varying extent) to not require abolute protecton from the males - as for example a 1 to 2 yr old child would first begin to have (although extremely minimal) some evasive abililty as it concerns predators and other potential harms</p>

<p>The point is: romantic "love's" adhesive qualities (i.e the man staying committed to the female - would only last as long as nature required to assure minimal survival of the offspring</p>

<p>To presume that sincere, monogamous, non-deceptive males (aka "nice guys) are by definition boring/doormat/wimp/marshmellows -is absolute nonsense, as they would come in all stripes and those factors would hinge to a large degree according to the type of family they were brought up in, and for example the role model their father did or did not provide in the way he treated their mothers.</p>

<p>The central problem from a "chemistry" standpoint in a modern context is these males simply cannot offer the excitement and promise of genetic immortality that nonmonogamous/cheaters can offer - such promise of course illusive in reality however in genetic perception terms - very real</p>

<p>Once again pair bonding- i.e males sticking around - was a late stage evolutionary development having very little impact on the ultimate winning strategy which was clearly volume seed spreading and the (subconsious) desire of females to mate with males most successful in the genetic lottery of life</p>