The funny thing is, if you publicly state the obvious, you will be met with a HUGE backlash. Like for real, why else would Kim Kardashian wind up with Kanye West and not a bus driver?Hackenfall Backslash wrote:Men want the looks and body proportions, while women want the status and security. Hard pill to swallow, but it's hard to undo so many eons of biological wiring.NorthAmericanguy wrote:Women will never admit it, but a woman's love is directly correlated to a man's social standing in some way shape or form.
Join John Adams, world renowned Intl Matchmaker, Monday nights 8:30 EST for Live Webcasts!
And check out Five Reasons why you should attend a FREE AFA Seminar! See locations and dates here.
View Active Topics View Your Posts Latest 100 Topics FAQ Topics Mobile Friendly Theme
Discuss and talk about any general topic.
Met with blacklash or an eyeroll. I don't find any Kardashian attractive. I prefer women with curves and some build to their bodies. Skinny girls with voluptuous features don't do it for me -- looks rather cartoonish. I digress. I've stated this often enough, and I get a "that isn't the case".
This video by Sandman explains that women are biologically wired differently than men when it comes to love. Women love men for what men can do for them. Sandman explains it well in this video.
"When I think about the idea of getting involved with an American woman, I don't know if I should laugh .............. or vomit!"
"Trying to meet women in America is like trying to decipher Egyptian hieroglyphics."
You're an English teacher?
Why? Are you wanting to show distain for an English teacher?
Perhaps. But I can't find a definition for that word.
I don't think women love men based on what the men have done for them. They "respect" men for what the men CAN do for them. I.e., the future benefits. This was covered well in an article on Stickman.
http://www.stickmanweekly.com/ReadersSu ... er5546.htm
But all this is not LOVE. It is RESPECTING. Yes they DO have to respect you, generally. You DO have to have status to keep a woman.
Respect makes you ELIGIBLE.
But... women's deepest desires involve being NEEDED, and being USED, and THEN AND ONLY THEN, APPRECIATED. Think about how "Bill" motivated Beatrix Kiddo and the other females in his killer harem) in "Kill Bill", and especially "Kill Bill 2".
Women crave being put to use. They want to be seduced and dominated, f***ed, impregnated, and forced to undergo the outrages of childbirth. And then forced into years of drudgery as a mom.
Would YOU? Nope. Didn't think so.
Be a demanding bastard, and keep telling them you need them. They'll love you. Not because they think highly of you, but because you force them to bring out the best in themselves.
"Well actually, she's not REALLY my daughter. But she does like to call me Daddy... at certain moments..."
I think they want to be loved & to have something serious, but have a non-functional style of finding it. They look for the guy with the bling/job/assets and then totally forget about how the actual guy treats them. It would be like a man saying he wants a gun that shoots well, then buys one based on the shine/size/price & totally forgets to test out how it shoots!
Sure women want to be loved, but that's only part of it. The ones in the west who hold to a contrary philosophy may deny this, but I believe they want to be a loved by a strong man worthy of their respect and honor, someone who has got it together who can lead her.
A man who listens to her and loves her but acquiesces to her desires when she is wrong and unreasonable may loose her respect and she may become less attractive to her. A woman may lose respect for a man who let's her make all the decisions as well.
Love is an emotion and all emotions are for immature people. Emotions are a rapid-fire way of thinking. There are 4 basic emotions (joy, anger, fear and sadness) corresponds to the four things you can do: approach (food or sex), stand you ground and fight (equal-sized competitor invades your turf), run away (bigger animal attacking you), stop and think what you did wrong (in the aftermath of getting hurt). Love, obviously, falls into the approach/joy category. You feel love towards whatever it is that gives you pleasure: women, food, your dog or cat, an environment that makes you feel happy, a brand new smartphone, whatever. Hate falls into the anger/fear categories depending on the size of the person you are hating.
Emotional thinking is good under conditions of physical pressure, such as a physical fight, because it engages body and mind and works quickly. But emotional thinking is bad under all other circumstances, because it is over-simplified. Highly evolved people get rid of emotional thinking (other than some residual physical fear, since that is where you really need to move quickly) in favor of being purely logical. They don't love, they don't hate, they just think about what causes pain/pleasure and attempt to minimize the former and maximize the latter.
Women may want to be loved, but so what? They may also want you to marry them, support them, put up with their bullshit, etc, etc. Just because they want something doesn't mean you have to give it to them. I'm certainly not going to de-evolve myself to where I act like a teenager again and fall madly in love. If a woman gives me pleasure, I'll do the rational thing and stick with her and try to make her happy, but that is different from being emotionally attached to her.
Having a woman love me is nice, since it gives more power to me, but it is hypocritical for me to ask her to remain at a low level of development while I rise to a high level, so I don't expect women to love. What I want is for them to rationally appreciate what I can do for them, especially what I can do for them sexually. Unfortunately, there are not many women at this high level of development.
lasttry: There's quite a bit of emotion at work in what you're talking about. It reminds me of that whole things about ridding yourself of desire. That desire to rid yourself of desire IS a desire. Same goes for emotion. It doesn't make something unimportant just because there's no objective reason for anything. There's no objective reason for survival, either. Does that mean it's not important? Oh, survival's important so that the species is propagated? What's so important about that? So that the planent doesn't become a dead rock? So? See- there's no way to answer a question so that someone else can't just keep asking why.
I also don't agree at all about the sized-based decisions. Size doesn't do everything in a fight. Someone can be real fat & they'd be bigger than you, that doesn't mean they can beat you in a fight. Someone can be larger than you in the sense of having bigger muscles, that doesn't even necessarily mean that they are physically stronger. There have been guys that can bend steel with their bare hands that were 140lbs. Plenty of 250lb pro-football players can't do that. Another point is that there are a lot of situations that are not impact-based. Some things are more like knives than hammers, like claws on an animal. There, speed & placement apply much more than intensity of force. There's also cunning, which can be hard to articulate- still, it's a factor. Smaller men can & have beat bigger men in fights (done it myself). Bruce Lee was about 135lbs- does it really seem like he'd have gotten beaten-up by some couch-potato with an attitude that outweighs him by 100lbs?
Not for nothing, but you seem to be pretty arrogant about the whole thing (all that talk of being highly evolved/developed)- that's an emotion.