Jump to content

An interesting email I got this afternoon ;)


ThaWholigan

Recommended Posts

  • Author
No offense TW but the brunette he's basing his hypothesis on, sounds like a hooker with two johns. :laugh:

The point really is that guys get hung up completely on getting laid and more specifically getting laid with hot women rather than anything of a little more substance. And even if it's not about getting laid, it is about how hot she is.

 

I don't think it's wrong to want to date someone you are physically attracted to at all, but if that's the only hook that you need to jump into something, it can create problems.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Author
Decent article. I don't disagree with the premise, but I do have one question though about the logic...

 

 

 

 

The author's guidance requires the assumption that high-value, high self-esteem women can actually identify and avoid the guys who only want sex.

 

Can this assumption hold honestly true in the "real world"...?

I guess it's a risk you have to take - just like all those "high value" women take the same risks.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Disregard my last transmission...

 

Value women on a deeper level than purely as sexual conquests, and

gain the advantage of more quickly identifying the most fantastic,

beautiful women out there who also happen to have tremendous

emotional health and stability.

 

The author still encourages the high-value men to focus on physical beauty and treat emotional health and stability as an ancilliary quality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If only people could break out of this and realize that relationships are personal connections, where what matters is the connection, one where sex and intimacy act like glue to cement all the rest of the human emotions tied into being together with someone you love.

 

No doubt. But how do you initially determine which connections are worth exploring? The reason why physical and outwardly expressed traits become such a focus is that they're easy. It's the quickest and most "efficient" way to evaluate who we'd consider exploring personal connections with. You can't share the intimate personal connection of a relationship with everyone in the world, right? So how do you decide who to develop that connection with? Sure, you could tell yourself that you only consider non-physical traits, but that certainly would take a long time, since those character traits often can't be seen on the surface.

Link to post
Share on other sites
No doubt. But how do you initially determine which connections are worth exploring? The reason why physical and outwardly expressed traits become such a focus is that they're easy. It's the quickest and most "efficient" way to evaluate who we'd consider exploring personal connections with. You can't share the intimate personal connection of a relationship with everyone in the world, right? So how do you decide who to develop that connection with? Sure, you could tell yourself that you only consider non-physical traits, but that certainly would take a long time, since those character traits often can't be seen on the surface.
Sure but why solely target HB 10s?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Well they try for the hot babes, doesn't mean they "all" can get them.
It's still the primary fixation. So, a million guys will target maybe 50,000 women. How many will fail over a silly fixation?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Sure but why solely target HB 10s?

 

Well, the author as stated below seems to suggest exactly what you're saying.

 

Value women on a deeper level than purely as sexual conquests, and

gain the advantage of more quickly identifying the most fantastic,

beautiful women out there who also happen to have tremendous

emotional health and stability.

 

 

However, I wholly disagree with his approach, just as I disagree with the traditional 1-10 "rating system." I'm much more a fan of the binary system that does away with quantifying a person's desirability and instead assesses a person as either desirable or undesirable, based on the totality of their qualities, both good and bad.

 

So I would adamantly disagree with the approach of chasing "10's"...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, the author as stated below seems to suggest exactly what you're saying.

 

However, I wholly disagree with his approach, just as I disagree with the traditional 1-10 "rating system." I'm much more a fan of the binary system that does away with quantifying a person's desirability and instead assesses a person as either desirable or undesirable, based on the totality of their qualities, both good and bad.

 

So I would adamantly disagree with the approach of chasing "10's"...

Holy Dinah! Are we actually agreeing on something? Did the angels sing and the choir hit summit? :laugh:
Link to post
Share on other sites
Holy Dinah! Are we actually agreeing on something? Did the angels sing and the choir hit summit? :laugh:

 

:laugh::laugh:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Author
Well, the author as stated below seems to suggest exactly what you're saying.

 

 

 

 

However, I wholly disagree with his approach, just as I disagree with the traditional 1-10 "rating system." I'm much more a fan of the binary system that does away with quantifying a person's desirability and instead assesses a person as either desirable or undesirable, based on the totality of their qualities, both good and bad.

 

So I would adamantly disagree with the approach of chasing "10's"...

He doesn't actually say 10s, he says "the most fantastic, beautiful", which doesn't really have to mean what you think it means :laugh:. At least I didn't take it as "go for the HB10s" :lmao:

Link to post
Share on other sites
He doesn't actually say 10s, he says "the most fantastic, beautiful", which doesn't really have to mean what you think it means :laugh:. At least I didn't take it as "go for the HB10s" :lmao:

 

Same here. He was thinking about women like his wife.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Meh it's written in a very convoluted way. What he said that makes sense is simplified as:

 

"Stop looking at women as sex toys and look at them for who they are, people!" Once you keep your junk in check and stop objectifying them you'll make a deeper connection on a level that quick sex can never touch.

 

Cheers.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh good, it's still getting read!

 

I agree CG, but I don't think you're necessarily its intended audience. I think some people need to be persuaded about the above (hence the convoluted, easing towards the conclusion). You're not one of them.

 

Nice to 'see you' again, btw. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...