mASF post by "finalD"
posted on: mASF forum: Playettes Discussion, March 3, 2005V wrote at Sat, 12 Mar 2005 21:04:00 GMT in
news:[email protected]:
> Why would I want to sarge
> someone who's behaviour was predominantly AFC? :-)
>
>
Well, you are demonstrating characteristics of an "aggressive"
or "dominant" partner in a relationship, by indicating you
understand the notion of rational analysis, are interested in
(at certain points) taking the initiative, and believe that your
own proactivity has bearing on the level of success in your
results. This set of characteristics is often accompanied by a
person's desire to BE the leader in a relationship, and
therefore have a follower as a partner, rather than a leader.
It's not always the male who leads and the female who follows,
and sometimes a female with a "proactive" overall energy might
prefer a male with an AFC outlook on life. Hell, he'd be easy to
control, if nothing else!
This is the funny thing, and I've posted on this before.
Sometimes we all assume that opposites attract, and that if one
partner is a bit out of the norm the other partner needs to
counterbalance by going out of the norm in the opposite
direction. At other times, we all assume that like prefers like,
or at least that like is needed to control like, so that if one
partner goes a bit out of the norm in one direction, the other
partner needs to go in the same direction too.
For example. A very feminine woman, it is generally assumed,
will prefer a very masculine man. Therefore, a small retiring
shy sweet demure girlish person would be best dating a giant
behemoth of hairiness and gruff aggression who is handy with
tools.
But for a counter example. A very strong woman, it is generally
assumed, requires an EVEN STRONGER man to control her.
Therefore, a square-jawed weight-lifter six-foot-tall female
would be best dating a giant behemoth of hairiness and gruff
aggression who is handy with tools. Basically, what we typically
assume is the SAME two solutions for two EXACTLY OPPOSITE
problems.
But in generaly, solutions are much more varied. The very
feminine woman does best with a primping, preening, boy-toy-
looking but quite self-confident and dominant man; the very
strong woman does best with a carefree amd emotionally flighty
but tall and physically strong man (or any of a number of other
possibilities).
I didn't know which one of these you are. And you congratulate
yourself that you look good -- always a risk. I'd think you were
about a 6.5 or 7, which is three or four points too low for most
men to be interested in you. :P No, seriously, when women make
some offhand comment like, "I presume that's not referring to me
:)" (in response to "if you don't look good, then don't bother")
I read some degree of self-congratulation that is risky.
I don't know how good you look. I do know that AFCs will settle
for what they, themselves, define as a 7 or 6 or (if they're
desperate) even worse. But meanwhile, I also know that "quality"
men (here we call them PUAs; but the high-quality man may
actually lack PU skills as he simply applies his problem-solving
energy to something other than women) generally simply reject
all women they rate as a 7.9 or lower. Being an 8 or better is a
VERY tall order. Most women think of themselves as "attractive
enough" and are not.
Do certain rather forward but kind of skill-less men ACTUALLY
follow you down the street begging you for your phone number.
Like, you walk past a restaurant and the waiter puts his tray
down and sprints out still wearing his apron, and the table he
was serving is like, "umm, WTF ..." while he chases after you?
Do you find that, at parties, most of the men at the party
ignore their dates when you walk in? Is it genuinely the case
that you have tried, in a vaguely reasonable way, to be a
photographer's model -- and not, as in, "I have an interesting
look that art photographers like"; rather, as in, "I am
beautiful and fashion photographers want to photograph me
because I am beautiful"? Are these statements the case for you?
Probably not. In which case, you are not beautiful enough.
I don't mean to be "harsh" about this concept, but what I read
behind nearly EVERY female comment on EVERY internet board
discussing relationships is a consistent failure to understand
the MANDATORY nature of VISUAL APPEAL for ANY adult human
heterosexual male. It isn't a "choice" or "preference," it isn't
something he even THINKS about. It's a simple sine-qua-non. I
just really think most women don't "get" it, and so "he's just
not that into" her really is a simple concept -- he isn't,
because she isn't hot enough.
At a high-ether level, REALLY HQ men like Franco here will
dispute this idea, saying they reject the "super models" to find
women who are "together" or who have "sexual adventurousness" or
any of a number of other characteristics. It's true, the
extremely successful PUAs do take a step back from their need
for visual beauty and reject the MOST physically stunning of
women when those women are simply dull or unintelligent or
whatnot. But if you were to see the women they're rejecting and
the women they're instead "lowering" their standard of beauty
for, you'd be amazed that ALL of them -- the accepted AND the
rejected -- are 9s and 10s. ALL of them know and follow every
single social convention about skinniness (and not excess
skinniness), dress, makeup, body language, shoes, style,
accessories, attitude, laughter, conversational tone, walking
skill, panty lines, not snorting when eating, how to address
their mother, how to give a blowjob. ALL. So I'd suggest, don't
allow false hope to arise in the less-than-stellar girl's breast
until after she loses weight.
Are you a "little pudgy" but it's excusable because you're
"zaftig" or perhaps "big boned" or maybe "I'm not the typical
boring typical dishwater typical normal blonde"? Then you aren't
hot. Learn to be more mainstream. Be a boring hot blonde, just
like all the other supermodels and club rats. Be a boring hot
brunette, exactly the preferred proportions. It isn't what men
think of as "standard," it's what we think of as erection-
causing.
See what I'm getting at? I don't know what you look like, but
the "I guess you're not talking to me" comment REALLY suggests
to me that I GENUINELY AM TALKING TO YOU.
Show a pic? Nah, that's not necessary. It's only your own
consciousness-raising I'm after. I don't think any male can EVER
go too far to explain to any female just how pervasive the
visual is in his assessment of the value of human connection. I
cannot fall in love with a physically ugly person. I cannot fall
in love with someone who is not "sexy" because she is
"comfortable in her skin." I cannot fall in love with anyone who
doesn't know how navy blue and black don't match. I cannot fall
in love with a girl laughs in a hee-haw horse-like bray. I
cannot fall in love with anyone who has a markedly regional
speech accent and then says, "I talk normal but you have a funny
accent." I cannot fall in love with someone whose shoes make her
look like she has large big toes, or like she walks clumsy.
"Shallow Hal" is one big fat lie designed to make Joe Black
money. It worked.
:)
--
The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in
higher esteem those who think alike than those who think
differently.
Friedrich Nietzsche
|
