It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Scientific Dating Advice for Women

page: 8
9
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Entreri06

Interesting that in the olden Inuit culture, if a man did not find another man's wife desirable then they consider that an insult.




posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 08:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: Entreri06

Interesting that in the olden Inuit culture, if a man did not find another man's wife desirable then they consider that an insult.



It's an insult to tell some one there wife is ugly today..... The question is was it an insult in Inuit culture to not want to screw another's wife. That's a whole different question.


But even if Inuit culture was cool with people boning or wanting to bone their wives. That's one out of tens of thousands of cultures were it was one of the more offensive things to say to someone.



posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 08:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: Entreri06

Interesting that in the olden Inuit culture, if a man did not find another man's wife desirable then they consider that an insult.



The reason guys don't use preselection is because we don't carry he children. A female can't be cuckholded into raising a competitors kids. When a chic gets pregnant she knows it's hers. So it's beneficial to mate with the strongest candidate even if he isnt monogamous. Because your genes get passed down either way.

Ours don't! We had to be territorial because if we let some guy knock up our mate our genetics dies with us.



posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 08:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Entreri06

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: Entreri06

Interesting that in the olden Inuit culture, if a man did not find another man's wife desirable then they consider that an insult.



It's an insult to tell some one there wife is ugly today..... The question is was it an insult in Inuit culture to not want to screw another's wife. That's a whole different question.


But even if Inuit culture was cool with people boning or wanting to bone their wives. That's one out of tens of thousands of cultures were it was one of the more offensive things to say to someone.


Therein lies your confusion, discounting people egos and desires...only focussing on the sex.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 01:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Entreri06

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: Entreri06

Interesting that in the olden Inuit culture, if a man did not find another man's wife desirable then they consider that an insult.



It's an insult to tell some one there wife is ugly today..... The question is was it an insult in Inuit culture to not want to screw another's wife. That's a whole different question.


But even if Inuit culture was cool with people boning or wanting to bone their wives. That's one out of tens of thousands of cultures were it was one of the more offensive things to say to someone.


Therein lies your confusion, discounting people egos and desires...only focussing on the sex.


I'm not just focusing on the sex....I listed the reason that is an evolutionary strategy in the first place. The reason multiple great apes, fish and other mammels do.... In fact they even have the same "male =territorial mating stategy" and "females use preselection drive".

It's nothing derogatory to either sex. Just the science behind attraction and pair bonding.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 02:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Entreri06


Just that the specific instances ,where in my opinion, they use jealousy thru parading the others that want them infront of their prespective mate. To gain more attention or spur them into action. That that strategy goes goes back to the preselection drive.


Which in most cases males don't have. We have other "evolutionary back doors" to gain the attraction of a male you want. That just isn't one of them. That because of our territorialness, it's far more likely to back fire.


I think because a lot of women know they find men (in part) more attractive if they are being pursued by other women. That they , for the most part subconsciously, assume since "it would work on me". That means it would work on him. But because we have different evolutionary mechanisms, most ofter it backfires.


Nope. This difference seems to me to be more based on the self confidence and competitive nature of the person, regardless of sex.

A woman with lower self confidence or insecurity will not at all want a man that is being chased by other women,
and a man with high self confidence and secure in his capabilities to deter or be victorious over challengers will be easily drawn to a woman who has many potential suitors competing for her.

The tactic you describe, of women speaking about how many other men want her (as tasteless as that seems to me) is probably a fine screening method as well! The less confident and insecure man will be turned off by that and distance himself- which is great because obviously that is not the kind of man she is looking for, and it would be a mistake for those two to get together!
edit on 4-6-2015 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 07:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluesma

originally posted by: Entreri06


Just that the specific instances ,where in my opinion, they use jealousy thru parading the others that want them infront of their prespective mate. To gain more attention or spur them into action. That that strategy goes goes back to the preselection drive.


Which in most cases males don't have. We have other "evolutionary back doors" to gain the attraction of a male you want. That just isn't one of them. That because of our territorialness, it's far more likely to back fire.


I think because a lot of women know they find men (in part) more attractive if they are being pursued by other women. That they , for the most part subconsciously, assume since "it would work on me". That means it would work on him. But because we have different evolutionary mechanisms, most ofter it backfires.


Nope. This difference seems to me to be more based on the self confidence and competitive nature of the person, regardless of sex.

A woman with lower self confidence or insecurity will not at all want a man that is being chased by other women,
and a man with high self confidence and secure in his capabilities to deter or be victorious over challengers will be easily drawn to a woman who has many potential suitors competing for her.

The tactic you describe, of women speaking about how many other men want her (as tasteless as that seems to me) is probably a fine screening method as well! The less confident and insecure man will be turned off by that and distance himself- which is great because obviously that is not the kind of man she is looking for, and it would be a mistake for those two to get together!



Except for the fact preselection is a proven fact.....

Your completely ignoring the fact That preselection exists in women. Does it hurt your feelings that bad to have evolutionary hold overs from pre human ancestors? Do you think it means your inferior because of it? Lol


You know the hiccup reflex is from when we were water mammels.

Chill bumps are from when we were still covered in fur. It's the same reflex as when a dogs hair stands up when threatened.


You do realize that knowing all this stuff is the only way you would ever recognize it if it happens and let your logical Mind choose to reject your initial evolutionary response. Right?


Much better to ignore science and pretend evolution doesn't exist..... You must be religious! Lol



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Entreri06


Except for the fact preselection is a proven fact.....

Your completely ignoring the fact That preselection exists in women. Does it hurt your feelings that bad to have evolutionary hold overs from pre human ancestors? Do you think it means your inferior because of it? Lol


Oh grow up. Hurt my feelings? What a dingbat thing to say. I am quite interested in evolutionary behaviorism, and write about it a lot.

"Proven" is not used in studies of Evolutionary Psychology.
Theories require cognitive and evolutionary assumptions, and lack testability.





You do realize that knowing all this stuff is the only way you would ever recognize it if it happens and let your logical Mind choose to reject your initial evolutionary response. Right?


There is nothing "inferior" about evolutionary response, and no reason to "reject" it. If it has developed, there is a good reason!
But something to consider is the complexity of human psychology, and the way modern society can twist psychology in ways that cause it to deviate from those behaviors. Low self esteem, insecurity, are factors today, which were not when we were closer to our primitive communities, and become influencing factors in behavior today. (along with things like ADD, Autism, Narcissism, PTSD, etc. etc. ) .

You are free to cling to whatever theory you believe in. Mine is based on my own personal experience.
I found that these personality characteristics made ME deviate from what you are calling the norm and suggesting that only if I made conscious effort to "reject" this natural behavior, could I deviate from it.

I tend to follow my instincts because I trust them, and never found myself attracted to the guys who were attractive to many women, and my husband only is attracted to women who he knows are desired by many. He likes to see and hear evidence of it.
In my age of childbirthing instinct, the attractiveness of married men IS evolutionary, AND also a product of individually developed thought processes. Thus the feeling attracted- but not attempting to seduce, or compete for him. If I was purely a product of this evolutionary behavior, then I would feel drawn to entering competition with other women. My lack of self confidence and esteem repulses me from that.
It took no effort on my part to feel repulsed to competition, in fact I just cannot bring myself to do it WITH effort. Just any suggestion that a potential mate had other women vying for him would turn me away quickly.

I know many other people too, who do not fit your description.




Much better to ignore science and pretend evolution doesn't exist..... You must be religious! Lol


No, I am not religious in the least bit, and I love science and feel there is no doubt about evolution.


edit on 4-6-2015 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-6-2015 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-6-2015 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 08:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Entreri06

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Entreri06

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: Entreri06

Interesting that in the olden Inuit culture, if a man did not find another man's wife desirable then they consider that an insult.



It's an insult to tell some one there wife is ugly today..... The question is was it an insult in Inuit culture to not want to screw another's wife. That's a whole different question.


But even if Inuit culture was cool with people boning or wanting to bone their wives. That's one out of tens of thousands of cultures were it was one of the more offensive things to say to someone.


Therein lies your confusion, discounting people egos and desires...only focussing on the sex.


I'm not just focusing on the sex....I listed the reason that is an evolutionary strategy in the first place. The reason multiple great apes, fish and other mammels do.... In fact they even have the same "male =territorial mating stategy" and "females use preselection drive".

It's nothing derogatory to either sex. Just the science behind attraction and pair bonding.


We really are not talking about selecting a mate for procreation, now are we? The real subject is dating, or at least from your opening post that was the subject. My main point is that you cannot generalize using evolutionary strategies (especially referring to non-human behaviours) when people are in a dating situation, or meeting someone face-to-face for potential future dating, where the intent most likely does not involve procreation.



posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 10:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Entreri06

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Entreri06

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: Entreri06

Interesting that in the olden Inuit culture, if a man did not find another man's wife desirable then they consider that an insult.



It's an insult to tell some one there wife is ugly today..... The question is was it an insult in Inuit culture to not want to screw another's wife. That's a whole different question.


But even if Inuit culture was cool with people boning or wanting to bone their wives. That's one out of tens of thousands of cultures were it was one of the more offensive things to say to someone.


Therein lies your confusion, discounting people egos and desires...only focussing on the sex.


I'm not just focusing on the sex....I listed the reason that is an evolutionary strategy in the first place. The reason multiple great apes, fish and other mammels do.... In fact they even have the same "male =territorial mating stategy" and "females use preselection drive".

It's nothing derogatory to either sex. Just the science behind attraction and pair bonding.


We really are not talking about selecting a mate for procreation, now are we? The real subject is dating, or at least from your opening post that was the subject. My main point is that you cannot generalize using evolutionary strategies (especially referring to non-human behaviours) when people are in a dating situation, or meeting someone face-to-face for potential future dating, where the intent most likely does not involve procreation.


Where do you think our evolutionary dating strategies come from??! From procreation!!!


We didn't date when we were still living in caves or roaming the African plains covered in hair. Our evolutionary dating/procreation strategies don't come from the 1850s lol. They come from a couple million years ago. Long before we were modern homosapians. Preselection/territorialism prob isn't even the most effective strategy anymore. But it's still wired into us, just like the fear of the dark, maternity instincts, exc, exc exc.



posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Entreri06

My point is that you can't generalize on people's motives for dating, some may only seek sexual dating and nothing more.




Perhaps these phenomena exist. Perhaps men do, over all, pursue more short-term mating. But given new research, continued rigid reliance on evolution as an explanation seems to risk elevating a limited guide to teleological status — a way of thinking that scientists should abhor.


www.nytimes.com...
edit on 5-6-2015 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Want to know the worst person to talk to about how women really feel in relationships?


No it's not the OP!

The answer: It's another women.

Sorry, but I'm dead serious. I see women here trying to "defend" their stances and saying I'm not like that etc etc.
Sure, maybe you really are different! But chances are, you are just like most women and don't even understand yourselves.

Entreri06 is almost 100% right in every post but it's ok if you can't agree. We are only animals in the end.



posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: theMediator
Want to know the worst person to talk to about how women really feel in relationships?


No it's not the OP!

The answer: It's another women.

Sorry, but I'm dead serious. I see women here trying to "defend" their stances and saying I'm not like that etc etc.
Sure, maybe you really are different! But chances are, you are just like most women and don't even understand yourselves.

Entreri06 is almost 100% right in every post but it's ok if you can't agree. We are only animals in the end.


The answer is: the people who study men and women specifically, not those who generalize and sterotype each gender so as to fit into their unrealistic view.




The ever-present reminders that are so prevalent in our society, may never be addressed sufficiently in order to replace them with the more healthy ideals associated with focusing on what is on the inside, rather than so much as what is on the outside. Age and gender will most likely, continue to perpetuate the stereotypes associated with them. But we, as individuals, can help to dissolve some of the negative impact associated with them by refusing to embrace and live by the standards presented to us. While it is not an easy task, it can begin with how we look at ourselves, which will in turn, help us to more fairly view those around us. And by doing that, there is a much stronger possibility, that we will broaden our sphere of social contacts, such that we will attract a higher quality of people in our own, individual worlds. All the better to increase the odds of meeting the types of people we wish to become romantically involved in. It is in this way, that we can begin to take a pro-active, positive approach to dispelling the negative impact of stereotypes in our society.


www.onlinedatingmagazine.com...

So, the scientific advice for all people is leave the negative stereotype profiling and get to know the person first.

Warning... adult only skit at link below...stereotyping skit.

www.upworthy.com...


edit on 5-6-2015 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: theMediator
Want to know the worst person to talk to about how women really feel in relationships?


No it's not the OP!

The answer: It's another women.

Sorry, but I'm dead serious. I see women here trying to "defend" their stances and saying I'm not like that etc etc.
Sure, maybe you really are different! But chances are, you are just like most women and don't even understand yourselves.

Entreri06 is almost 100% right in every post but it's ok if you can't agree. We are only animals in the end.


The answer is: the people who study men and women specifically, not those who generalize and sterotype each gender so as to fit into their unrealistic view.




The ever-present reminders that are so prevalent in our society, may never be addressed sufficiently in order to replace them with the more healthy ideals associated with focusing on what is on the inside, rather than so much as what is on the outside. Age and gender will most likely, continue to perpetuate the stereotypes associated with them. But we, as individuals, can help to dissolve some of the negative impact associated with them by refusing to embrace and live by the standards presented to us. While it is not an easy task, it can begin with how we look at ourselves, which will in turn, help us to more fairly view those around us. And by doing that, there is a much stronger possibility, that we will broaden our sphere of social contacts, such that we will attract a higher quality of people in our own, individual worlds. All the better to increase the odds of meeting the types of people we wish to become romantically involved in. It is in this way, that we can begin to take a pro-active, positive approach to dispelling the negative impact of stereotypes in our society.


www.onlinedatingmagazine.com...

So, the scientific advice for all people is leave the negative stereotype profiling and get to know the person first.

Warning... adult only skit at link below...stereotyping skit.

www.upworthy.com...




It's not stereo typing or trying to influence behavior or excuses for disinterest from other women or anything else. It's math. In the animal kingdom procreating with males who had helped create healthy offspring. Almost insured having healthy offspring your self.

1+1=2


We added all the romance, dating and fetishes and such, long after preselection was in place.

The only way a woman could protect against getting suckered in to a horrible situation because preselection kicked in. Is knowing it exists!

How many women have been suckered in by horrible men because the guy they knowingly or unknowingly used preselection to gain her attention?

The WORST thing you could do is pretend it doesn't exist.



posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 04:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: theMediator
Want to know the worst person to talk to about how women really feel in relationships?


No it's not the OP!

The answer: It's another women.

Sorry, but I'm dead serious. I see women here trying to "defend" their stances and saying I'm not like that etc etc.
Sure, maybe you really are different! But chances are, you are just like most women and don't even understand yourselves.

Entreri06 is almost 100% right in every post but it's ok if you can't agree. We are only animals in the end.


The answer is: the people who study men and women specifically, not those who generalize and sterotype each gender so as to fit into their unrealistic view.




The ever-present reminders that are so prevalent in our society, may never be addressed sufficiently in order to replace them with the more healthy ideals associated with focusing on what is on the inside, rather than so much as what is on the outside. Age and gender will most likely, continue to perpetuate the stereotypes associated with them. But we, as individuals, can help to dissolve some of the negative impact associated with them by refusing to embrace and live by the standards presented to us. While it is not an easy task, it can begin with how we look at ourselves, which will in turn, help us to more fairly view those around us. And by doing that, there is a much stronger possibility, that we will broaden our sphere of social contacts, such that we will attract a higher quality of people in our own, individual worlds. All the better to increase the odds of meeting the types of people we wish to become romantically involved in. It is in this way, that we can begin to take a pro-active, positive approach to dispelling the negative impact of stereotypes in our society.


www.onlinedatingmagazine.com...

So, the scientific advice for all people is leave the negative stereotype profiling and get to know the person first.

Warning... adult only skit at link below...stereotyping skit.

www.upworthy.com...



It's strongly believed that it's a different evolutionary trigger that leads to "battered woman syndrome". Where women seem deathly afraid to leave an abusive spouse. From when leaving your mate meant you and the kids starved to death (or maybe your mate would kill you, who knows we are talking about pre-caveman times. What if these women were educated enough to recognize it's just an evolutionary throw back. No different then a hiccup (literally the muscles that cause hiccuping are a throwback from when we were water mammels).



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 05:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Entreri06


My point, again, is that you are generalizing, in that, you believe every woman is using, aware or not aware, this Darwinian (unproven) evolutionary idea.

You really have no facts or knowledge as to why the women you met are dating because you are focusing on the behaviour, rather than asking pertinent questions that will actually aid you both in finding out who you both are, and what is the ultimate intent. People could be dating for many reasons, such as for fun and adventure, friendship, networking, or just plain old sex; procreation may not be on the table, so, again, your guesswork flies out the window.


edit on 6-6-2015 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 05:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Entreri06

That is a psychological condition generated via absolute control and manipulation with the complete chipping away of one's self-esteem, not an evolutionary throwback. In some ways, your behaviour (stereotyping) on dates, with women you know nothing about, appears to be an attempt at control, to whittle away at their self-esteem, to manipulate.

Just curious, did it ever occur to you the woman discussing previous relationships with you, was actually doing a comparison? Did this bother you? Why didn't you counter with reasons why you are the better choice? Also, why don't you want to let a woman know they are desirable and wanted? Isn't that the best dating advice for each gender?

For the record, when I was single and childless, I never wanted another woman's man and many 'taken' men tried with me and failed. What I wanted was my own loyal man, because some of us are a one man woman who want a one woman man.
edit on 6-6-2015 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-6-2015 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: Entreri06


My point, again, is that you are generalizing, in that, you believe every woman is using, aware or not aware, this Darwinian (unproven) evolutionary idea.

You really have no facts or knowledge as to why the women you met are dating because you are focusing on the behaviour, rather than asking pertinent questions that will actually aid you both in finding out who you both are, and what is the ultimate intent. People could be dating for many reasons, such as for fun and adventure, friendship, networking, or just plain old sex; procreation may not be on the table, so, again, your guesswork flies out the window.



I'm about done...... I Have stated repeatedly that everyone is different and there is no box you can squeeze all of any group into.


That said tho. Pre selection is in every woman as well as some men who ended up with some female wiring. That doesnt mean that some women don't completely ignore it. That doesn't mean that the women smart enough not to deny science and evolution so they feel they have 100% free will. That there are no negative genetic triggers that worked in some primordial past but don't fit modern society. Just like men have but just different triggers.

You have ignored the actual topic and tried to twist my posts into some woman bashing thing. That it wasn't ever meant or presented. You didn't like the way it made you feel so you went on the attack rather then have a logical conversation. Using point and counter point.


No different then saying "no women don't get hemroids from pregnancy! Hemroids are yucky and better to deny them then admit a totally natural part of life!"


We were never talking about why people date. We were talking about initial attraction. Something else that has been said at least 5 or 6 times PROB TO YOU SPECIFICALLY!!!

Preselection is just one of many female mating strategies. Not the only one (something else that's been stated multiple times, I'm sensing a common thread here). Every point you have made has a disclaimer, usually in the same post your quoting, yet you've ignored that to try (and fail) to turn this thread into some thing it never was.



You must be a conservative evangelical....



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 09:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: Entreri06

That is a psychological condition generated via absolute control and manipulation with the complete chipping away of one's self-esteem, not an evolutionary throwback. In some ways, your behaviour (stereotyping) on dates, with women you know nothing about, appears to be an attempt at control, to whittle away at their self-esteem, to manipulate.

Just curious, did it ever occur to you the woman discussing previous relationships with you, was actually doing a comparison? Did this bother you? Why didn't you counter with reasons why you are the better choice? Also, why don't you want to let a woman know they are desirable and wanted? Isn't that the best dating advice for each gender?

For the record, when I was single and childless, I never wanted another woman's man and many 'taken' men tried with me and failed. What I wanted was my own loyal man, because some of us are a one man woman who want a one woman man.




Your just too crazy for me....



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Entreri06

My point was that for you to make a scientific determination as to if women are or are not using or aware of using preselection, that would require you to acquire specific personal data from these women, which means asking questions of them and not just asserting some unproven theory in a general manner, then creating a thread to appear as if you are giving women 'scientific' advice on how to date. Which, you also failed to provide any advice, nor provide any scientific, reliable research or study source that we can peruse.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join