[ReGroup]

How to Project a Sexual State and Bypass a Woman's Logical Defenses

Tommy, why haven't you shared this stuff w/ me?

Typical White Sox Fan.

 

[tom67]

Tommy, why haven't you shared this stuff w/ me?

Typical White Sox Fan.

 

[Decorum]

"Dude I am Social Scientist and its not a natural science so we cannot state anything as a fact" :rofl:
Are you sure? :rofl: No offense I hope.

Ok I guess I will just have to go with many years of observation and go with Mach.

The human animal is consistent here I think, as far as biology is concerned.

Cognitively some people rise above the wiring; of course the bias here on TAM is huge, but ha ha narrow is the way.

I saw it beginning in JR high school (ah! puberty) and it has held true ever since, I have no science either, just an opinion.

 

[tom67]

"Dude I am Social Scientist and its not a natural science so we cannot state anything as a fact" :rofl:
Are you sure? :rofl:

Ok I guess I will just have to go with 50 plus years of observation and go with Mach.

The human animal is consistent here I think. (Some people rise above the wiring, but precious few, ha ha narrow is the way.)

I saw it in high school and it has held true ever since, I have no science either, just an opinion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FIMvSp01C8
She blinded me with science 1983 I think.

 

[not recognizable]

Because age and looks are far down the list when it comes to things that women value in men, and that straight men value when it comes to competition.

I don't mean this in a rude way, but that's a bit of a generalization, and incorrect as well.
Appearance and attractiveness are top of the list for many women. Age is a bit more flexible, if the man is still looking good.

 

[not recognizable]

Essentially correct. Women exclusively look for youth, muscle, and masculine features at two times, and these two times frequently overlap: 1) during ovulation; 2) one-night stands and other STRs.

Youth has the advantage due to higher testosterone for more muscularity, greater impetuosity, and sexual aggressiveness.

"For my part I consider that it is better to be adventurous than cautious, because fortune is a woman... She is, therefore, always, woman-like, a lover of young men, because they are less cautious, more violent, and with more audacity command her." Il Principe, Chap XXV by Niccolò Machiavelli

Wrong again.
I give up.

 

[Machiavelli]

I need to move to Obamastan
Just sayin.

Nah. Just follow this guy's eating plan and train like these guys: brief and intense.

 

[Machiavelli]

Dude, I am a social scientist. And I will be the first to say social science is not natural science. We social scientist do not say "it is proven." We say "so far empirical evidence indicate this and that." And I haven't mentioned the technicality with social science research design since most social science research cannot be performed in a controlled environment. You cannot simply say a "conclusion" from some social science research as "fact." Fact is, something that will always be true. You repeat the same thing over and over again, in different circumstance, it will always be true. Your claims? Nope.

Then you know that it is alleged by a peer reviewed study from Europe back in 2011 that >55% of academic social science papers are outright fraudulent, unfalsifiable, and not capable of reproductive results, and hard science is racing to catch up. Like the work done by this guy. However, in the specific example topic at hand, female attraction during ovulation, there are multiple studies with various twists all pointing in the same direction. Since we see the conclusions of these studies played out right here on this website on a daily basis as well as IRL, I'd say the conclusions are fairly reliable patterns of female reproductive behavior.

And you probably know about the particular "hard science" mega $$$ fraud I was referencing when I used the "denier" bit.

I say "whatever floats your boat" because if it makes you feel better about yourself or beneficial for your professional life, good for you. But I thought I would say something because this whole thing perpetuates the fear of aging. And if you read in here, isn't this attitude of putting youthful attributes in pedestal, something to worship and thrive for, that in many cases here, a red flag of a cheating spouse? How many times we read: my spouse is feeling bad about getting older, they start to dress up younger, etc etc etc...and voila, yes, they are cheating. And to be honest, I don't really like the sexist attitude either.

Nature is "sexist." Nature is "ageist." When it comes to Mother Nature, you can run, but you can't hide.

 

[Machiavelli]

I'm going to have to go with Mach here...since I split with my wife in April last year, I tried to totally change my lifestyle, outlook, attitude, body-shape....the works.
Physically, pre-affair, I'd let myself go: I was 45 yrs old, 6'3" but was 230lb, out of shape, boring haircut, never really did anything but the odd running or cycling.

FF to today, I'm 200lb, BFI of about 17-20%, I only hit weights 4x a week, my 'Golden-Ratio' is looking TONS better than at anytime in my life, I shaved my head, I have a tanning session here and there (LOL - sad but true), I don't have a great job but I bought myself a BMW in Aug: since D-Day, my dates have aged 43, 36, 32, 40 and 28 - lookswise, none of them have been 8s or 9s...but beggers can't be choosers, eh?

Maybe it is my overall personality has changed, but there IS truth into what Mach is trying to put forward...

I salute you. Dropping 40# of fat and putting on 10# of muscle is a huge resculpting of the physique.

Most people would rather sit around and figure out why it won't work (per the latest feminist theory) than simply getting off their arse, doing it, and watching the pearly gates swing open.

You are correct that your personality will change as your body continues to change. The 8s and 9s (rarely) will come as you approach six pack land, and along with them will come absolute hordes of 6s and 7s. That really changes your personality as the veil is lifted on reality (as you have already experienced, only more so). Nothing breeds success like success. Your swagger changes, your stance changes, the apparent "danger factor" goes up.

If you haven't already done so, read up on body language. You're probably missing a fair portion of the cues women are sending your way.

 

[Machiavelli]

Wrong again.
I give up.

Be specific. If women aren't looking for muscle in ONS, what is it they are looking for?

 

[Machiavelli]

PhillyGuy,

Sorry for the (additional) thread-jack!

Based on what you've said in this post, I think you're alright here.
I'd be very surprised if your wife had a one-night-stand with this guy let alone start an affair.

PI on the trip will be a good indicator.

As has already been pointed out, may BHs on here had just as much info in as timely a fashion as PhillyGuy, warned all the principals off, yet the wife still went on to do the deed eventually. Some women get it in their heads that they are owed a fling with that guy come hell or high water. Such is the power of dopamine.

 

[tom67]

PI on the trip will be a good indicator.

As has already been pointed out, may BHs on here had just as much info in as timely a fashion as PhillyGuy, warned all the principals off, yet the wife still went on to do the deed eventually. Some women get it in their heads that they are owed a fling with that guy come hell or high water. Such is the power of dopamine.

Then they keep chasing that initial high and go from man to man and never really getting that first high again.
Quite sad.

 

[tom67]

Philly, we all hope this is nothing. It is a good idea to trust but verify for now.

 

[Stronger-now]

"Dude I am Social Scientist and its not a natural science so we cannot state anything as a fact" :rofl:
Are you sure? :rofl: No offense I hope.

Yes I am offended, because you don't know how to paraphrase. Actually, you didn't even try to paraphrase me first, you quoted me and that's not even what I said.

But I can say this: the only way I would reconsider what this guy peddles as (possibly) fact if these scientists experiment with a group of people they have observed from birth, isolated and never expose to and bombarded with what media and yea people like this guy's idea of what attractive is.

I also can say: we all can look at history, and it has been observed for more than 50 years (roll my eyes here), that certain race is considered superior than others. What the hell was Mandela thinking right? This guy even intimated to someone that the guy is inferior because he is an introvert. Honestly? I will paraphrase another poster here, if you must look up and learn about how to be an "alpha," you most probably are not. I have a very low tolerance to bull, I was born with it. I didn't have to look it up.

Wrong again.
I give up.

Me too.

 

[Nucking Futs]

Me too.

Hurray! Now if we can get everyone else that wants to argue about this to just take it to a dedicated thread the rest of us won't have to see it spread all over the boards.

 

[thummper]

My goodness! This thread has certainly gone off in a different direction hasn't it? :scratchhead: How ya doin' Philly?

 

[PhillyGuy13]

I'm doing good lol. You know, there is a guy in comic books that is bombarded with Gamma Rays, turns himself into an Alpha male. But I guess the fact that I read comics made me a Beta male...

Friday was a good day. Woke up to unexpected, uninitiated-by-me "fun". Kids were downstairs watching Disney. First time she had ever been comfortable doing that without the kids being fast asleep. Also snooped on the iPad history. She had been looking up hotel rooms and restaurants in our hometowns for weekend in February. (3 hours away in opposite directions). Didn't book anything, but that still made me feel good. She was also looking at garage shelving at Home Depot. Didn't feel as good there.

We are heading on a better path. Just hope to get though the work trip unscathed. I think we will. But will verify.
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[See_Listen_Love]

I don't know if this is common knowledge or not, but since years I think this book tells it all:

Sperm Wars: The Science of Sex
by Robin Baker

It made me look at thinks like Machiavelli does for a long time, still not seen anything that suggests things are otherwise.

 

[thummper]

I'm doing good lol. You know, there is a guy in comic books that is bombarded with Gamma Rays, turns himself into an Alpha male. But I guess the fact that I read comics made me a Beta male...

Friday was a good day. Woke up to unexpected, uninitiated-by-me "fun". Kids were downstairs watching Disney. First time she had ever been comfortable doing that without the kids being fast asleep. Also snooped on the iPad history. She had been looking up hotel rooms and restaurants in our hometowns for weekend in February. (3 hours away in opposite directions). Didn't book anything, but that still made me feel good. She was also looking at garage shelving at Home Depot. Didn't feel as good there.

We are heading on a better path. Just hope to get though the work trip unscathed. I think we will. But will verify.
Posted via Mobile Device

Ahhhhhhhhh. Nothing like a little "morning delight" to get the ol' ticker going for the day! :smthumbup: And looking up hotel rooms, too. My, my.

 

[theroad]

You seem to place much importance on female youth and sexual prowess of older men. Nothing wrong about that, if it floats your boat. What I don’t understand is this:

1. So, according to you: hot, older women only get casual sex with younger men because younger men rarely want to have long-term relationship with them. Makes sense to me. Not for reasons you list here, but I think with age-gap that wide, what could they possibly have in common.

Child bearing is the reason. Time to settle down and have kids takes more then any gym can do for the 50 year old bee-itches.

It never amazes me how the Feminazi's forget basic biology and how it subconsciously drives us.