What do you reckon? survival of the fattest?

All I know is, Ezra has a lot to learn. His face the truth writeup is only scratching the tip, and most of the time, are speculations.

Besides, not every guy wants a pretty girlfriend. They may physically admire them, but not really into getting one. Love doesn't depends on physical traits. It depends on a lot more things.

For me, getting a soul mate would be the utmost priority above sex and physical appearance. To be able to communicate well, to share, to laugh, to sob, etc everything together, till death. Being as selflessly as possible to be the Mr/Miss Right for the other half, even to the point of neglecting your own self's desires, just to please the other. This is commitment, conviction and unconditional love.

It isn't for us to argue about, but to journey through life, having loved and ached by love. Its the journey that matters. Its a great teacher to us.

What is "raw attraction"?
And what i found out was this: the stone in which the builders rejected, turned out to be the capstone.
What we perceive to be attractive or not, does not mean that person is really what we perceive.

Not really.
From what I know, tolerance, compromise, and sacrifice are more important than compatibility.
My fiance and I aren't compatible at all. But we stuck on to each other for the past 7 years and still going on.

Can you elaborate on what constitute to being attractive? In what aspect?


So you're saying that those "left overs" are what you call "unattractive" people that nobody else wants except by other "unattractive" people?

My my. Where have you been living all this while?

This post has been edited by happy4ever: May 3 2009, 11:14 PM

Thats a pretty shallow assumption. I've seen real fugly women/men but has lots of people of the opposite gender going after them.
Tou fa wan, a chinese term to label these people. They have intangible attractiveness that isn't physical at all.

I would go out with ANYONE without due prejudice, just as long as he/she isn't smelly and dirty.
You're missing one thing, the first stage in courtship is to assume everyone to be your friends, and to take off as friends. So your physical attractiveness requirement isn't applicable anymore

So this makes your assertions moot.


Perhaps it does TO YOU. Your definition and perceptive truth is only relative to you and only you and isn't shared among others.
To prove otherwise, you need demographical data from a survey first before asserting your assumptive conclusions.

To me, anyone can be my friend, and I can go out with anyone, ugly or not.

For my case, we never fell in love. We grew in love. We started of as friends and started to know more of each others' strength/weakness/attributes/characters etc. We were able to communicate and there wasn't a time in which we would run out of things to talk about. Hence the "attractiveness" here is the ability to communicate and to relate, not physical attraction. it never was.

I've been out with pretty people many times and when communication can't take off smoothly, it would be a NONO for me, even if he/she does goes after me. A lot of relationship fail is because of the breakdown in communication, especially when one party never know what the other party really felt or longed for.


That would be only skin deep. When you can't maintain the most basic attribute in a relationship, which is communication, no matter how well you empathize with the other person, or no matter how physically attractive he/she is to each other, it would still be futile.


What makes you think "most" is accurate? You interviewed all of them to make such conclusion?
And what makes you think they FAILED in getting attached? Ever wondered that being single is also a CHOICE they favour instead?

Not everyone is as cheap as you to feel so low and down just because they can't bait in a physically attractive mate and would lower their requirement to settle for porkchops. That is a gross generalization on your part.

GENERALLY?

Why don't you show me the consensus/survey facts to prove your point instead of speculating here mindlessly?

Again, sweeping statements from you.

I have friends who are rich and capable, good looking and are single, because they CHOSE to be single

I've seen ugly ones too. Look at the papers during V day where mass wedding takes place.
Besides, in the past (60s, 70s) people get married right after high school in their teens.
Now?
Due to change in culture and career and lifestyle, people are focusing on career and education FIRST prior to marriage, mostly due to financial burdens and obligations or simply they are looking for the right mate before jumping in.

I have friends who would rather remain single for life while waiting for the right one instead of simply jumping into a relationship even if that one is good looking.

Flimsy as always.

For humans, survival of the fattest is possible, thereby negating natural selection.
For ezra, its more on the survival of the prettiest.

The traits are physical and assumes that people who are physically attractive gets hitched sooner than those who aren't.
There are those that choose not to inspite of those traits you see...so it isn't on natural selection anymore.
Favourable traits or not isn't a determinant factor to procreation anymore, especially in the human world.

Again with your simplistic generalization.

With the culture and lifestyles, people are getting married later and later. Soon, marriage from 30 onwards will be the norm.

Get your facts right first, boy.

As mentioned, please provide sound facts and not speculations. This isn't Ad hominem on you. But you're doing a generalization fallacy over and over again.

Your theories are nothing more than just theories. There's no breadth and depth to it. This explains why your face the truth thread isn't popular at all.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/h...ralization.html go read it

Until then, come up with a proper demographic facts or sample size to back up your assertions.
In the mean time, "women like xyz" should be appropriately re worded as "SOME women like XYZ"
The same goes with your statements that assume those who are 30s and above are desperados, which is easily debunked when all one needs is to show just at least ONE 30 year old and above who isn't desperate. This is your fallacy in generalizing one particular demographic.
Ever seen a marriage counsellor who has never been married before or has been divorced so many times?

Nope. the determinant factor isn't absolute. People do choose the weaker, less dominant, inferior, poor, ugly etc as their mate.
Because humans don't go by their instincts all the time, unlike animals. They go by emotions, driven by emotions, and somethings they reason based on emotions, regardless of the environment. Its an unpredictable and unanticipated anomaly, which isn't uncommon


Don't forget Joan Collins, Elizabeth Taylor, Madonna etc. They choose younger men.

and people at that age who get desperate are those who desires a family yet failed at that. It doesn't apply to those who chose to remain single by choice. The problem statement he made was to assume that "most" people past 30 must be desperate, of which is unfounded, unless he has the statistics to back it up.


Nope. Human species are unpredictable and doesn't go by instincts. survival of the fattest happens all the time.
There are many instances whereby those possessing the least desirable traits, or least suitable, easily got themselves a spouse and lead fruitful lives, while those of the most desirable traits remained single and desperate.

Nothing is absolute here. What you anticipate to be can turn out something else. Humans are not like animals. Humans don't go by instinct in a lot of times.

First you agree that men are loser who don't improve on themselves,
Secondly you insult her when she prefers men who do improve on themselves?

Poor men also will wreck havoc to the family, philandering with women, drugs, booze and gambling. THats just men who thinks with their sosej (*yummy*)

so either way the woman is going to get such a men...so might as well choose one with the most money. At least if he flaunders his wealth on other women, the wife can use the money to pamper herself in the arms of hansome young men too.

---

Added on September 28, 2009, 3:27 pmWoman goes for the money, while man goes for her siham with fattchoy.
Woman gets moeny, men gets to eated her siham. woman happy, man also happy.

Gals independent financially, will go flirt with young hot sexy boys also... don tell me u don stim when u see a hot lengchai doing pole dance for you, rubbing you, massaging you.... oooooohhh...

This post has been edited by happy4ever: Sep 28 2009, 03:27 PM

No you didn't insult her.
You were praising her how good you will be laughing when her men dumps her. Very thoughtful of you ya.
Yea...and whats wrong with being poor? Like you know, the whole world owes you so you don't have to work. Who needs money anyway

Well, rich men sees us women as walking Vaginas, we see men as walking ATMs.

Nah, rich men aren't superior. Poor men are. They have no money but somehow they can afford to buy beer and play toto, while rich ppl have to work like shit, poor people are just content with their income but somehow money sure fall from sky so they can buy house, raise 10 kids, buy motor and take the kids "longkai" on his motor. Pretty awesome actually. When they get sick, they got malay mail to appeal to public for more free money. Why need to work so hard la.

Rich people are jerks u know. damn them!


I think its only rich men with those bad atitude and activities la.

Poor people normally sit at home after work drinking beer and tody. sometimes just rearrange their wife's face when they are drunk, so she no need spend money for facial. cum shots are good too, occasionally. Pretty wholesome family. Rich people sucks!

Wokayyyy...

enjoy your time in cupid corner. Lots of poor people here who never womanize wan.

All rich people dies in hell liao.

Poor boys are tak guna
Rich boys go pau yee lai
Either way, women are screwed

So...

All boys should be caged and be let out to sextify wominz, and be locked back in. Women should rule the world.

no need fallin love. grow in love la.

whack the girl head. fall asleep. den plant yr seed. let it grow. as it grow, so does her love, coz deflower adi...

den her love grow, yr pocket oso grow big big.

Case solve.

In the animal kingdom, male animals will do their best to lure the females. Like birds. The one with the bestest nest wins the female, etc...

in human world, women too chooses the bestest male to mate. But, in humans, things get screwed up, and goes haywire. Thats why animals live in harmony to their ecosystem, but humans will destroy everything they touch. In the human kingdom, the weak survives equally with the strong. So you have weak genes running about.

So one cannot apply animal kingdom rules to human kingdom rules.

Women must know their place. Be submissive and feed the family & work WHILE taking care of it (ie cooking, washing cleaning etc). Husbands just relax in front of TV and read newspaper.

Thats all folks

I've heard of many cases where men with money will be philanderers. 99% of their mind they think about sex. 1% on other things.