Quote: (02-12-2013 06:48 PM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:
Upon re-read, perhaps I was harsh, I apologize for that.
In short my disagreement is that you're giving the evo-psych theory far too much power, and you're ignoring everyday evidence of the contrary.
1) Manly men don't always get the girl, more often than not they fail.
The warrior class in our society, those men that embody the essence of what you're talking about, are often as clueless and dateless as other so-called betas.
2) Under your theory, "girly" men should never get the girl, or it should be infrequent at best
Yet there are plenty of examples of "weak", emotive, type guys that do well with women.
3) The alpha/beta/omega paradigm does a huge disservice as it gets people to worship the concept of nature (hence how much it attracts the HBD nuts). Failing that, the role of environment becomes the focus of discussion.
4) The theory poses women (or at least their genes) as demigods, with the ability to sniff out alpha in seconds, weigh her options rationally, and trade up the second that her horizons change.
WIA
I get what you're saying, absolutely. I'm not trying to use evo-psych as some sort of iron-clad rule on how to game, nor am I saying that environment doesn't play a gigantic role, because it does. (I can understand how I might have come off that way, but it was not my intent.)
All I'm trying to provide is a deeper look into how acting a certain way (confident, dominant, aggressive) can make a man more attractive to a woman than not acting in that way. It's analogous to saying that being thin will make a woman more attractive to men than being fat. Will being skinny ALWAYS get a girl the man she wants? Of course not, like you say, there are plenty of other variables in play. But will being thin make her MORE attractive than being fat? Absolutely, and for good reasons.
Just like being young and thin will often (not always) make a woman more attractive to a man, acting confidently and dominantly will often (not always) make a man more attractive to a woman. And just like there is a biological reason for the former, there is a biological reason for the latter. It's just more difficult to intuit, because whereas men can easily describe what turns them on (physical characteristics), women have a more difficult time understanding the situational and contextual interactions that so characterize their sexual attraction.
Women may not always act on that attraction, and they may often pick men without those characteristics (like post-wall sluts settling down with betas). However, just like most men will feel arousal for a young, slim, large-breasted woman, so too will most women feel arousal for a confident, dominant man, even if they don't act on that arousal. That's the whole point of sexual arousal-you don't control who you're attracted to, you just ARE.
I think we both agree that a man can do certain things and act a certain way around a woman in order to "push her buttons". No one here is debating the fact that being high status, acting confidently, having lots of money, or being ripped will generally make you a more attractive man. All I'm pointing out is that most people stop there, at the HOW. Guys on this forum spend 95% of their time talking about the HOW. I'm simply trying to explain the WHY. And just like the question "Why are men attracted to young, beautiful women?" can be answered using biology and man's evolutionary history, so too can "Why are women attracted to masculine, dominant men?"