I do wonder that too.

I touch type much faster than i write.

You two have already asked me this in another thread so im copy pasting the reply:

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.

Again, I quote myself.

1) Raw attractiveness determines the pool of people willing to empathize with you.
2) The larger the pool, the more likely you will have lots of candidates who are COMPATIBLE with you...ie. people who you click with and have no problem bonding emotionally with.
3) Almost everyone will eventually settle for the most attractive person from that group of COMPATIBLE people.


Compatibility and the ability to bond emotionally is the key to any relationship as they are the precursor to empathy.
...being attractive just means that the number of compatible people available (ie. willing to go out and reciprocate your interest and empathize with you) would be higher - and hence you could be picky. Not everyone can be picky. Those that can tend to get choice selections..and call it love after awhile. Those that wait till their late 20's often have to settle for what is available at the end of the day..and call it love after awhile.


This post has been edited by ezralimm: May 3 2009, 10:08 PM

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

Raw physical attractiveness: An hourglass figure for women. Reasonable build (size/height) for men plus a deep voice and manly features.

Answer me this: If you had taller guys going after you, would you consider going out with a guy who is 10 inches shorter than you? Assuming that culture/values/religion/income/etc are the same...Ok, the shorter guy is a very nice guy, but since you didnt go out with him and spend time to empathize with him, the chances of a relationship blossoming with him will be less.

Now you can argue till the cows come home that looks dont matter, but the fact is that it DOES. Love is derived from empathy. Humans are picky with whom they empathize with... and people are more inclined to want to empathize those who posess high levels of raw attractiveness. The pretty girls in class got all the attention for a reason.


Tolerance, compromise and sacrifice comes AFTER emotional bonding (from deep empathy and time spent together). Nature has a way of discouraging people from falling in love (ie. bonding emotionally) with people who are (subconsciously) considered not good enough.There is a reason why there are so many "nice guys" out there who find it so difficult making girls see them as a lover - lack of raw attractiveness.... They will always be the "friend"... not the lover... no matter how hard they try to empathize and connect with the girl.


NONONONONONO.
Love will blossom if you spend enough time/experiences with someone who is reasonably compatible and shares the same values...REGARDLESS OF RAW PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS. It's just that nature programs us such that everyone wants to spend time/experiences and empathize with people whom we consider attractive. Pretty girls get alot of attention for this reason -everybody wants to empathize with them.

Most people will eventually start feeling lonely and if they arent attached... will start to spend time with those not previously considered - ie. they will bond emotionally and love will blossom

Different people have different standards and expectations, but generally:

Attractive guy: tall(er)_than_girl/masculine/handsome/reasonably buff/charming/polite/socially active/good income

Attractive girl: curvy/feminine.

---

Added on May 4, 2009, 12:12 amVisit any old highschool reunion of your aunties/parents (in their 50's and 60s).


I know beauty and attractiveness is subjective, but even using YOUR standards...

1) Look at the women who never married - What could you tell me about their physical appearance?
2) Look at the men who never married - What could you tell me about their ability to thrive in life?

Next:

1) Look at all the couples who married in their early 20s.
2) Look at all the couples who got together in their 30s and only married when they were in their mid 30s.



I rest my case.

This post has been edited by ezralimm: May 4 2009, 12:12 AM

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?

Hey dude, actually u cant tell the differences these days. I've seen good looking women and rich successful men who are not married. In fact getting married is a bit over rated to some ppl.

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.

I believe what the academics here are loudly discussing about is Darwinian ideas on Natural Selection as published in On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Species
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

I believe this was what moorish wanted to highlight when she started the thread. And the two academics having the debate are also have different interpretation of Darwin's works.

Darwin's theory is based on key facts and inferences drawn from them, which biologist Ernst Mayr summarized as follows:
-Individuals less suited to the environment are less likely to survive and less likely to reproduce; individuals more suited to the environment are more likely to survive and more likely to reproduce and leave their inheritable traits to future generations, which produces the process of natural selection
-This slowly effected process results in populations changing to adapt to their environments, and ultimately, these variations accumulate over time to form new species

I believe what everyone is discussing here is a modern interpretation of his ideas on Natural Selection. - money(being rich), being confident(believe in oneself), being successful, being attractive, younger, stronger, smarter etc(the dominant trait), are all different intrepretation of being suited to the environment. The more suited you are the higher chance you will be selected, again depending on the environment(standards/context) that you are in, the parameters of it will differ. No point again we argue on a standard(environment/reference) that we are using.

The jist of the whole arguement is that there are traits that attract people and the opposite sex. We cannot argue on which trait/parameter/character/class/etc are the dominant/critical one unless you are refering to a very specific environment. In the TS(moorish)'s environment, obviously she puts money as the dominant trait of attractiveness, whereas Hawk's has his own set of ideas as do Ezra.

Step a few steps back(further plesae...) and you will see that it all comes down to Natural Selection and the survival of the fittest. It is just that in the environment that you are in, what do YOU term as the dominant trait?

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

That is the environment that he is in. We are not to judge on that.
He is talking about natural selection(set of trait that make ppl attractive)

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.

No, I'm just exposing the weakness in your writing. I'm not putting those words in your mouth... you are doing it yourself albeit sub-consciously.


I don't think ad hominem means what you think it means I insist you miss the point, because to me and several others, its quite obvious you miss the point. The simplest summary I can give you is that you're talking about techniques, but you're lacking in the foundation.


Perhaps I do. Got a problem with that?


I believe they have, one topic was pinned within 15 minutes, another has written several topics but has never been pinned


Did you know in some cultures, fat women are considered attractive and the women we deem physically attractive are considered ugly because they look malnourished? Any assumption of "raw attractiveness" is as flawed as the ideas of eugenics. It all assumes there is a perfect standard to thrive to, but in fact "raw attractiveness" is highly influenced by culture and not biology.


He can't answer you... because he's a guy Did you not know that?


What I teach others, has nothing to do with natural selection

looking at the topic, cant help it to say, "Guys are dirty minded and be proud of it".

---

Added on May 4, 2009, 3:28 amand here come the flames...

This post has been edited by elru: May 4 2009, 03:28 AM

I am totally agree with the statement "Girls are money minded".

Just look around you, especially in shopping malls.

I OFTEN see ugly or fat guys even ahpeks with a beautiful/sexy lady in some luxury shopping mall. LOL

so dirty minded guys hangs out with money minded girls eh?

well its quite true too, lets observe a little bit and you'll notice that majority of them definitely have bought something by the plastic/paper bags they're carrying be it Jusco or Gucci.

Unfortunately, these so-called 'rules' are not that ideal. As much as in mathematical systems, real-life systems are dominated by usually non-linear systems. In another words, they are totally not ideal at all.

Attraction is a different thing in every each person. Yeah, of course I do like women with slim figure, but of course, I met nice girls with not-so-ideal body shape, but who cares? And hell, of course I'm even into men with deep voice and stuff, but that's not the only thing I want anyway. There are many qualities in a man and/or a woman to enjoy, besides those 'ideal' characteristics.

Bishop, you forgot to add in Fate...

(1) An ad hominem is when you attack the credibility of the author rather than the points presented by the author.

(2) An example of an ad hominem. To other readers, the pinning of threads are at the discretion of the moderator (im guessing Baronic). As far as I know, Baronic does not agree with my views on this topic. That said, I have received alot of positive feedback for my thread. Below are just some examples from a poll where 29 people voted for one of my earlier threads to be pinned. Look at the responses to Silverhawk's thread (How To Get The Girl You Want)and My (original, outdated) thread (Real Game of Love). I leave it to the reader to judge for himself/herself.



(3) Again, I quote myself:



Silverhawk, i was not expecting you to go this low in attacking my credibility.

To Silver and Happy, the other points you raised will be replied to shortly. An update to Face The Truth™: L O V E is pending and should be ready soon. It will address the key issue that that you raised (yeah, i do actually agree that raw attractiveness is not a pre-requisite for love). I know that it may sound contradictory, but it's not. Stay tuned