I've been holding off for awhile.


TS, you must realize that money isnt everything... just as beauty isnt everything to guys.


That said, girls would much more readily empathize (ie. notice the "nice" characteristics) with guys who have money. And guys would much more readily empathize (ie. notice the "nice" characteristics) with girls who are fit and fertile (read: hourglass figures & youth).



I disagree on your point regarding monogamy.

Despite what I've written in my threads (that deal with the first step of dating), I do realize that in the CIVILIZED world, infedelity is quite inconvienient. Even IF a guy has the desire to fvck around, MOST GUYS WILL NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY to do so with women they find reasonably attractive (as those women are likely to be taken/attached).


Hence, society does not break down even in first world secular countries. It's all about supply and demand. Yeah, the pretty girls that the guys hunt are almost never available to the guys who hunt em. That's reality.


..of course, the human ego is such that they would rather tell themselves that "love is more important" or "I am being a good muslim/christian/buddhist/jew/hindu/etc". EVEN when they never had the opportunity to fvck around. Sheesh... the things people tell themselves to feel good about themselves.

I contend that MOST PEOPLE ARE MONOGAMOUS NOT BY CHOICE BUT OUT OF NECESSITY/CIRCUMSTANCE.


Face The Truth™

This post has been edited by ezralimm: Mar 23 2009, 06:19 AM

chill dude.

Nothing wrong about that, just that on the long run it is very counterproductive.



Oh and pls dont misunderstand the title of my threads. FACE THE TRUTH™ is gonna be the title of _my_ book one day. It will not only deal with relationships but will actually focus on the kinda stuff you see in RWI (i've already got a few threads there but only one is up the standard).

Erm.. women dont get rich making porn films. A vast majority are out for a quick buck. VERY FEW become pornstars.

---

Added on March 25, 2009, 10:28 pm Ouch.

This post has been edited by ezralimm: Mar 25 2009, 10:28 PM

Ohhhh SNAP!

Everybody likes to think that they are not shallow...

Girls want the good providers and genetic material for their children - socially dominant, rich, tall(er), and not too deficient in other aspects such as looks.
Guys want the fertile ladies - youthful, hourglass figured with glowing complexion.

Relationships are based on empathy and understanding... it's not surprising that girls are more willing to be empathetic and understanding towards the socially dominant, rich, taller and reasonably good looking guys... in the same way guys are more willing to be empathetic to the hot fertile ladies.


Face The Truth™.

Dont Be BIGOTED!

Just because a man has standards and chooses to ask a pretty girl out and ignores an ugly girl, it does not mean that he is only looking for sex. He just wants to make sure he FALLS IN LOVE WITH A PRETTY GIRL.

Just because a woman has standards and chooses to ask a rich dominant guyl out and ignores poor shy losers, it does not mean that she is "money minded". She just wants to make sure he FALLS IN LOVE WITH A GOOD PROVIDER who could help raise successful offspring.




How the hell did you come to the conclusion that people who have standards dont believe in love?????




EVERYONE BELIEVES IN LOVE. It's just that some people are picky and want to fall in love with other people they perceive they can attract. The game of love is cruel... many end up settling for less...and falling in love with people who arent jessica alba or some hot, monogamous rich guy.

1) Money is nothing compared to love.

2) Love more easily blossoms when there is enough money.

His name is GuitarWanker

*snap*


ouch that's gotta hurt.

You hypocritical SOB.

---

Added on April 28, 2009, 6:22 pmI agree very strongly with that statement.


Let me rephrase it from the guy's perspective.

Ugly or beautiful both have equal rights to start a family, but if a boy is given a chance (a beautiful/fertile/attractive girl comes along who loves him) to make a decision for his future and his children, and if he takes it, I dont see anything wrong with that, and that was why the topic be proud and never fear ppl calling you names because its your life and future you;re planning, it is you who will feel the pain.

Ultimately, EVERYBODY wants AWESOME children. Awesome children need awesome genes. Thus the game of love is born. Everyone wants the genes that THRIVE and are successful... Women with good genes have nice hourglass figures and a glowing complexion. Guys with good successful genes PWN others in real life...and tend to be socially dominant (which equals having money in the modern world).

This post has been edited by ezralimm: Apr 28 2009, 06:22 PM

NOBODY is saying that men are evaluated SOLELY by how much money they have.
in the same way NOBODY is saying that women are evaluated SOLELY by how pretty/attractive/fertile they are.

That said, it is a stereotype because it's true. Men do leave women they are with if there is a hotter girl coming on to them. Women do leave men who are weak and pathethic in the game of life (in the modern sense, money plays a big part in this).


EVERYONE uses ad hominems.... But not all are hypocritical condescending SOBs.

---

Added on April 28, 2009, 7:51 pmIn practice, just about every man in his right mind would do that...and be proud of it whether they like to admit it or not. But not every man is awesome and can woo the attractive girls. MOST will have to settle for less than their dream princesses... Because Face The Truth™, they arent exactly dream prince's either.

EVERYONE settles for the best that is AVAILABLE to them.


...and what is available to a girl depends LARGELY (not solely) on how beautiful/attractive/fertile she is.

...and what is available to a guy depends LARGELY (not solely) on how socially dominant he is.


In the modern world social dominance is difficult, but not impossible, to achieve without money.

This post has been edited by ezralimm: Apr 28 2009, 07:51 PM

I COMPLETELY AGREE.

which part of "LARGELY (not solely)" do you not understand?

Now look at all the women in the world... In the same way a guy cant just simply leave his wife for another woman, a girl cannot just simply leave her husband for another man.

Picture this:
1) Guy and Girl, highschool sweethearts marry when they are 28yo.
2) hav kids etc.. make a family when they are 30.
3) Next 10 odd years raising small kids.

Now both the guy and girl are in their 40s/...
Do you think the woman will have much opportunity to be with a younger (like madonna ), successful, socially dominant, good looking guy? NO..
Do you think the man will have much opportunity to be in a loving relationship with a young girl? NO..

It's not simplistic.. It's just human nature. By the time people settle down (40s), most people are content with monogamy - and for all practical reasons IT IS THEIR ONLY CHOICE. Men who DO have a choice, ... socially dominant men like Chua Soi Lek, can play around and get away with it... Most men will just have to stick with what they have.

LOOK AROUND YOU at the marraiges that do break up: It is usually because:
1) The girl thinks she can do better and is discontent
OR
2) The guy think he can do better and is discontent

Normally the one desperate to hold on to the marraige is the one that stands to lose out... eg the 40 yr old woman who KNOWS that it is unlikely she will be able to find someone reasonably attractive as all the eligable bachelors have more attractive women available to them.

...Chua Soi Lek's wife stood by him even after the videotape emerged.

Edit:

Now using your POV:

Imagine that woman looking at a more successful man than her husband... she likely wouldnt stand a chance: that successful man is likely attached/taken to a more attractive woman.

Imagine that man looking at a hot young lady by the pool... he likely wouldnt stand a chance: that hot young lady mixes with hot young guys her age... and yes there are plently of acceptably wealthy hot young guys around (looks do matter to ladies too)

---

Added on April 28, 2009, 9:39 pm ... What an idiot. mannerisms do not exist in text laa.

This post has been edited by ezralimm: Apr 28 2009, 09:40 PM

"can and will leave their partners" ???? Where did that come from??
There is nothing that needs to be retracted.
Dont put words in my mouth. You have possibly just made the most pessimistic assumptions from what I said.


What I am talking about is reality. Ok, consider this:

1) Generally, everyone settles for the most attractive (soc dominant for women, fertile body for men) partner they are culturally compatible with
2) By the time a couple settles down, there will be emotional baggage. LOVE... yeah L-O-V-E...plus children and social connections common between them.
3) People stay monogamous because of LOVE....


BUT IF

1) The guy finds out that there are more attractive girls going after him...
OR
2) The girl finds out there are more eligable guys going after her...

Then there is a chance that the marriage will hit the rocks and that's when divorce comes to mind.


HOWEVER
By the time most people have raised two or three kids.. ie. they are in their late 30s:

1) Most men will never have more attractive girls going after them
2) Most women will never have more eligable guys going after them


EXCEPTIONS
1) Rich, socially dominant men can actually find more attractive girls - sleep around.
2) Pretty, attractive women who marry young (eg. early 20s) to a guy who turns out to be a loser (ie. non-socially dominant)... and knows that she should be with someone more worthy can actually find more worthy guys - sleep around.

^Im not saying everyone is like that... In fact.. most people will never be put in that situation and will never have the opportunity to do so. Not all guys are rich and socially dominant. Not all girls are hot. In the same way a poor hapless peasant who never had the opportunity to be corrupt cannot REALLY claim to be clean. Most monogamous people who never really had the opportunity to sleep around with more attractive people cannot REALLY claim to be moraly righteous.


EVEN IF
1) A guy knows he can do better, he may choose to stay monogamous due to personal convictions (eg. religion and spirituality), practical reasons (scared of STDs/ JAIS raids) and LOVE!!!
2) A girl knows she can do better, she may choose to stay monogamous due to personal convictions (eg. religion and spirituality), practical reasons (scared of STDs/ JAIS raids) and LOVE!!!

This post has been edited by ezralimm: Apr 28 2009, 11:45 PM

LOVE = commitment lah...

Hmm, you're right. Perhaps I should rephrase myself and add Love + Commitment to my post.

Although I could argue that commitment comes naturally with true love... and that even the most commited relationships can fail when love erodes... when one partner thinks he/she can do better. Hence the people who cheat arent really in true love.

Very well said. I've been saying pretty much the same thing all along. Social dominance, along with the charm, confidence and charisma that comes with it is very difficult to achive without money in the modern world.


If you have cash, you can spend on your dates. You can take her to places and spend more time with her...increasing your chances of clicking on an emotional level and building a relationship. If you are successful in your career, you would be a more confident person... and charisma is built on confidence.


Money and social dominance are very intertwined in the modern world.

---

Added on April 29, 2009, 5:59 pm dude, read the sentence properly lah... it was a RHETORICAL argument that I myself do not quite believe in.

---

Added on April 29, 2009, 6:02 pmI agree... though you must admit that "depth of character" aka charm/confidence/charisma in guys that is just so appealing to women comes naturally when a guy is thriving... It is VERY DIFFICULT to build depth of character without money in the modern world...Without social dominance, you could have a very complex evolved character...but it would not be the right type of character that attracts women

---

Added on April 29, 2009, 6:03 pmHAhahahahaha. ROFL. Should be pasted into Jokes Haven..




This post has been edited by ezralimm: Apr 29 2009, 06:03 PM

Let me ask you this: Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Same thing.
But i guess it can be agreed upon that money and (attractive/desirable) character comes together.

Thanks for bringing up the point. Personally, I think it is 50:50... some people become successful before standing out.. while some people stand out to become successful... and there's a huge grey are in between. Everyone finds their own path.

Awesome.FTW!

MOST OF US will have no other choice. Not all guys are prince charming's... Not all girls are supermodels.

Therefore, EVERYONE wants to settle for the MOST ATTRACTIVE person that they are comfortable (read: culturally/emotionally compatible) with... who is willing to go out with them.

True, GIRLS ARE NOT TEMPTED BY MONEY... it's just that the guys with money are more likely to be successful: Girls are drawn to success/social_dominance just like guys are drawn to physical beauty. GIRLS ALWAYS SEEM TO WANT TO KNOW MORE ABOUT (ie. empathize) THE SUCCESSFUL GUYS.

True, GUYS DONT ONLY JUDGE GIRLS BY LOOKS... it's just that the girls with hot fertile bodies are more likely to be thriving in life: Guys are drawn to beauty/fertility just like girls are drawn to success/social_dominance. GUYS ALWAYS SEEM TO WANT TO KNOW MORE ABOUT (ie. empathize) THE PRETTY GIRLS.

The first step in building a relationship is EMPATHY - sharing feelings so to speak.
If you are attractive, more people will want to share their feelings with you. This works both ways for men and women.

Ask yourself:
If you're a single woman: Would you choose
A) a successful guy, thriving in life with a good career, stable income, nice house and car - and the personality to boot (ie. charm, charisma and fidelity).
B) a loser. Good for nothing guy who changes jobs every few months. Lives in a one bedroom apartment and rides a motorcycle. Sure, he has a nice personality (charm/charisma/fidelity)... but seriously.

If you're a man: Would you choose
A) A beautiful young woman in her early 20s. Nice personality, culturally compatible.
B) An unattractive woman in her mid 30s. Nice personality, culturally compatible.


People always like to believe what makes them happy:
#1) WOMEN who claim that "rich/successful/dominant" men are unfaithful.
#2) MEN who claim that "beautiful/hot/fertile" women are unfaithful.

People who claim this are usually average jane's/joe's who have settled for less than their ideal (because their ideal partner was unavailable to them - they werent attractive enough and had lost in the game of love). The tell themselves #1/#2 to feel good about themselves.

For single people who claim that: If that is your logic then please go ask the most unattractive person that you know out for a date...you know, the helpless loser guy who never dated in his 30s.. or the unattractive, pot-hole'd faced girl in her late 20's who has never had a guy ask her out. Im sure after spending some time with him/her you will start noticing how "nice" his/her personality is...and fall in love... after all, love is blind right???


In the same way you cannot say that a rich person is corrupt, you cannot say that a successful/attractive person is unfaithful. The poor hapless peasant never had the OPPORTUNITY to be corrupt... and the ugly/unattractive person never had the OPPORTUNITY to fvck around. Only some powerful people are corrupt. Only some successful/attractive people are unfaithful.

Assuming compatibility (religious/cultural/language) is the same between two potential partners - one attractive, one unattractive. Given the chance, would you rather be with an attractive person or an unattractive person?

Personally, I want to build a meaningful relationship with the most (culturally compatible) attractive person with who's willing to go out with me...and im sure most people will do the same. It's basic human nature.

This post has been edited by ezralimm: Apr 30 2009, 01:36 PM

"having standards" + "getting a life" = "social dominance"

You may have used different words, but it still means the same thing..

In the modern world, "getting a life" and "having standards" is difficult too achieve without money

wait a sec...
"having standards" and "getting a life" could mean different things to different people.

Im not going to argue on that, I'll leave it to the readers to think about it.

I think it's important is that we do not get caught up in semantics.

Just for the record: I have never claimed to be anything. I believe that just like one cannot claim to be beautiful/handsome/attractive, I believe that a guy cannot claim to be socially dominant - for that is for others to judge.

Regarding the bolded part, please do read in context. Anyway, assuming the most negative connotations of the phrases:

What i I were to rephrase (still carrying the same meaning) the sentence. Im also going to make it gender neutral (non-sexist).

"Everybody wants the most attractive compatible partner possible. If one thinks that he/she has not reached his/her full potential for attracting a partner, then he/she has all the right to strive and do better in the game of love - for by doing so will make more attractive partners available to him/her."

This happens all around us. Guys strive to be successful and thrive in life - becoming good providers. Girls strive to thrive and look their best (cosmetics and clothes are big industries!) - proving themselves worthy to guys (subconsciously) as potential partners.



Btw, regarding green bolded quote: If that is really your definition of "having standards" and "getting a life", then it really runs contrary to the title of your thread "how to get the girl that you want". Because often people cant get the girl they want because THEIR STANDARDS ARE TOO HIGH or they dont have the means (physical/material/emotional/social) to "get a life".

I understand those phrases with the connotation that it involves somehow raising one's standards and setting the bar higher: eg to "get the girl that you want".


This post has been edited by ezralimm: Apr 30 2009, 10:42 PM

As far as I can tell, you're saying the glass is half full, im saying the glass is half empty - it means the same thing.

Either way, bottom line long story short, the message is that a guy has to THRIVE and succeed in the game of life to be successful in the game of love. For many desirable characteristics in a guy comes from thriving in the game of life (asides from physical traits that are genetic of course). For only when one is desirable can he "have standards" - the poor hapless ugly short guy who cant keep a job telling himself that he "has standards" and will only date a really hot chick is in for lots of dissappointment. That was the key message in the Face The Truth™ (love) articles: People need to find their standard, or work to raise it.

You seem pretty bent on claiming that I dont understand you. Well, I've explained my POV a few times already - It's up to the others reading this thread to decide. Anyhow, would you like to come to a concensus on a few simple statements? Simple clear statements... i'll draft it over the weekend.


btw, yeah.. debate is awesome. I kinda like debating here more than in RWI nicer crowd.

---

Added on May 1, 2009, 6:34 amit's best not to reply to ppl who abuse ad hominems to avoid starting a flame war

This post has been edited by ezralimm: May 1 2009, 06:34 AM