Discussion in 'BHM/FFA' started by Sasquatch!, May 16, 2010.
I think I'm in love:bow::bow::bow::bow:
Aw you're too sweet hahaha :blush:
You think you're in love with every girl here.
Physical attractiveness really is the limiting factor, however.
Let me explain: Female mate choices consider only two unifying quantities of selective value which compete to monopolize female reproductive potential, and have thus co-evolved in a bivalent morphology.
The first strategic morphism, is Genetic benefits: Attractiveness based fitness traits(ie. physical 'chemistry'), which are more strongly correlated with female sexual choice(observed in its nearest correspondence) given that
sensory bias in sexual choice is 'fixed' by evolutionary success(biological 'viability' is communicated by the most 'rudimentary' of sensory cues, and since biological viability is selectively limiting, such cues retain 'primacy' - continuous signals which tend away from a direction of decreased viability will be favored by evolution), and impossible to
'expopriate' by rival males(unlike in the case of direct benefits below).
This strategy lends best to high turnover, short-term investments of 'mating effort' within mating systems where polygyny prevails.
The second strategic morphism is Direct benefits(benefits with implications for paternal investment): Where less physically ornamented males must rely more upon their utilitarian value than genetic contributions in securing
sexual access to receptive females.
Here it lends best to mating systems which ensure a tight correspondence between male utilitarian/economic proxy and female sexual fidelity(and thus reproductive success), by posing a selective advantage for long term paternal investment that trades off relatively low offspring yields for high survivability.
The thing is, that in any economically prosperous welfare-state(as prevails in Western populations), implicit system dynamics of inclusive fitness will severely marginalize paternal advantage(as a form of direct benefits), and corresponding male competencies(in rendering economic benefits, relationship security, etc) as a determinant in female mate choice(correlating with individual male reproductive success).
This has the effect of (severely) biasing females towards physical attractiveness in their mate choices.
So it is with PUA methods that the success rate is preponderantly weighted by physical attractiveness.
Evolution predicts this, and experiment demonstrates it.
Rape is the predictable consequence of sexual conflict - much like social monogamy, it evolved out of selective advantages in male control over female reproduction.
This observation is academically impolitic(if not controversial, per se).
Having once enjoyed some measure of success as a rogue fitness strategy, rape has since fallen out of favor with a hostile fitness landscape(where antagonistic strategies prevail), that has further rendered it a prohibitively high-risk venture.
True, only a minority of women can achieve their physically ideal mate, so the others will tend to optimize their prospects as best they can, leading to high relationship turnover as they proceed to 'trade-up', ad-nauseum.
What women claim to be looking for, and their decision weightings are often two very different(ie. contradictory) quantities.
No, you don't.
But if a man deviates significantly from male trait averages in the wrong direction(like with any BHM), he will incur a huge signalling handicap, and unless he can compensate with some exceptional characteristic(which likewise deviates from average, but this time in the direction of female choice), he will be relegated to the very few women who can't do any better(and such women will always be in short supply, as males are far less selective, and thus large populations of
females tend to 'share' and circulate relatively small populations of 'choice' males between them).
Run some experiments and you will see that regardless of what independent variables you might be considering(esp with respect to PUA assumptions), components of male physical attractiveness are always the confounding variable.
Control for the predictable effects of physical attractiveness, and you will note a greater sensetivity to the confounding variable - this tells us something about the relative dependencies.
Where PUA comes into its own is in respect to hair-splitting prospects once the physical attractiveness condition is satisfied.
One thing I have noticed is that women are highly credulous of conventionally attractive males as they will not ignore even a remote chance that such a male will turn out to justify some long-term value(which is difficult to determine in any acute interval of time) - this makes women strategically naive, and savvy guys know just how to play this(by parlaying into short-term mating opportunities).
So, PUA methods are all about manipulating initial female expectations(where the 'Halo effect' comes in *very* handy by letting a woman's *imagination* do most of the work for you).
But, the success PUAs attribute to their methodology is frequently spurious, and of limited value to BHM(who tend to fall below the minimum attractiveness thresholds for the *vast* majority of women, and thus will quickly become discouraged by their lack of success), in my opinion.
Don't get me wrong - I find PUAs harmless, and some happen to be really cool guys.
But I just don't find much value in their methods - I would rather invest in physical attractiveness(which is a very well known quantity - sufficiently physically attractive males never want for female companionship, regardless of their other defects).
I was speaking of justified expectations in confidence, so individual anomalies aren't very relevant.
But, it wasn't a dig at you(or anyone else), personally.
I didn't mean to imply that, but it is commonly inclusive of 'abusive' connotations.
It is possible, but much less likely.
You're already straining credulity.
Correction: looks aren't the only variable, but they are a significant one.
And this claim is absolutely justified(scientifically - I can back it up with evidence if you desire).
So, even if your anecdote is accurate(there are always two sides to every story, and your account is further biased by a second-hand source), we should still expect that BHMs would tend less to abusive behaviors.
Now why ya wanna go and do that?? :shocked:
He personally knows he was abusive. Admitted to it often, but didn't do a damn thing to change it. She knows he's abusive, but keeps running back. She THINKS he's the kind of guy she deserves when everyone KNOWS she deserves the complete opposite of the guy.
It isn't biased if I know their stories first-hand because they openly and verbally admit to it, as well as visual evidence, and the stories all match up.
Yeah, I disagree with that too.
I'm saying that women tend to like conventionally attractive men, who in turn tend to be opportunistic assholes(because such behaviors have have proven adaptive with respect to problems in sexual conflict).
I'm just going to go ahead and try to sum something up here.
Based on common evidence and reports, one could say that BHMs have less opportunity for relationships in certain cases, where conventionally attractive people have more options. From this point of view, one may be able to infer that because BHMs would have a lower percentage of relationships, they would value a relationship more, and therefore tend to be less abusive.
However, because BHMs may have less opportunity, almost every statistic for them will be lower than that of the larger number of the other group. Plus, this does not account for abusive personalities, which are goign to be ever-present regardless of appearance based on factors unrelated to the attractiveness of an individual.
And I apologize that my attempt at "summing something up" was two paragraphs long.
An interesting anecdote, I will admit.
Thanks for clarifying.
Well, that's the nature of the dilemma.
1. It's not an actual dilemma.
2. You clearly didn't understand the idocy that was being mocked by the sarcastic tone of that post.
Or maybe I'm just not accepting the bait.
You can claim that, but it would not be very compelling as a universal statement of fact.
It really is trivial to observe how frequently women entangle themselves with abusive men(everyone can see this)
And like I said, conventionally attractive males will tend to be more abusive for evolutionary reasons.
This conclusion is justified, and I have case studies(would you like to see them, or would you just be inclined to dismiss them?) and a commonly held evolutionary synthesis to support my claims.
Personal incredulity is not a counter-argument.
When it comes to the BHM/FFA relationship ..the dynamic is different than most conventional relationships. When dealing with someone who can literally crush you, it really helps to know they are a nice sensitive person before you get "personal" with them. It also takes a certain level of maturity to really appreciate a nice huge guy. Likewise, a nice huge guy has to be mature enough to realize when he is being admired. I think that BBW/BHM's forget that they can be very intimidating up close.
Considering I have a muscle fetish...I have to add that when I see BHM/BBW's I just see barbarians and amazons who got soft because of modern society.
Yeah, but not many of us really do(yourself, being an apparent exception).
And yet another FFA who dates more skinny guys.
No offense, just very frustrating, being a BHM and all.
Delineator - Thats just to much to quote and I'm not sure I care to pick it all apart. One only has so much time in a day. Not sure where all the PUA stuff came from on that but ok whatever. I'm not about to say I'm an ugly guy, but being over 400 lbs really hasn't stopped me from finding a mate, a date, or anything else. If one where to study any dating advice be it PUA, a website, or just listening to friends, they are going to get advice to "clean yourself up". No girl wants a guy that looks like he can't take care of himself, or smells bad. So learning how to dress with style, and groom yourself go a long way in increasing "physical" (sensory) attractiveness.
Much of what you've said reminds me of what many guys who are "less successful with the ladies" have to say. I'm not saying you are, but there are undertones and comments that are exactly what many of "those guys" would say until they discovered blissful success.
There really is no need to pull out statistical data or over-analyze all of this. The facts are simple. If you want a date you have to put yourself out there enough to find one. Don't hunt, fish. Hunting is far to predatory and you'll probably creep girls out. Fishing, well hell, everybody can have fun when its catch and release based on having fun and giving things a chance to develop deeper.
This topic was started on "Nice girls love a bastard". The problem was "a bastard" was a rather fuzzy term that everybody put their own twist on as the thread went on. Hell, I've been called a bastard many times, its usually when I tease a girl to the point she can't resist me. I just don't see this as a bad thing. Its playful, its fun, its not meant to hurt anybody's feelings. If anything it should convey true affection and my willingness to let my guard down and let them play ball with me.
Does being a BHM thin the number of women who come up to me and try to just get in my pants? YES, I don't see this as a bad thing though. I wasn't always huge. At one point I was 325 lbs. Then I dropped to 250 buff as hell. I had so many women on me it made my virgin head spin. This isn't a brag its just the truth. It really felt like "its whats on the inside" was a lie. Problem was it was a 1/2 lie. It was also a 1/2 truth. You can't be just hot on the inside, or hot on the outside. Either one will only leave you with only 1/2 the relationship you want. At that point in my life I did not crave every woman (I had never even had one yet). I just wanted to find my soul-mate, and nothing more.
Oh and PS, many people simply realize there "Physical Ideal" isn't always perfect nor is it truly ideal. The person behind the Physical is more important than the physical itself.
There are more of us than you think, some tend to lurk and rarely post, many others are simply living out their daily life unaware of the term BHM/FFA. I had more FFA's before I knew what an FFA was myself. Often these girls identified themselves as, "Chubby Chasers", "Liking big men", or they just like guys with "meat on the bones", and I had one who simply said, "I love belly's". There are plenty out there.
Oh man now you sound like some of the BBW's lol.....don't worry they are like M&M's they do exist and sometimes they melt in your mouth and in your hands
Separate names with a comma.