To the same end then, men are mentally programmed to general pattern of behaviour which, one could say, should naturally match that of this general mentality of a woman, call it natural instinct, or "what makes us human"?

I get where you're coming from, going back to basics you can look at animals and you see that dominant males are dominant because they go through the motions, they then spread their genes throughout the pack or throughout a given area.
I think as humans we do have natural instinct, but there is a lot of intellect there also. It's not the basic natural instinct that we choose partners on, if we did then society would be different, we choose partners to match our intellect, our interests and feelings.
True, some people will go for someone because they look appealing, but looks isn't everything and not everybody works like that.

As I said, not all women are the same, and anyone who claims as such must also take into account that men must also all be the same, at which point everyone has a similar general mentality to get along.

You're right in the respect that men are basically programmed the same as each other. You're also right to say that we're not completely bound to our instincts but it probably makes up more than double what role our intellect has to play in our social interactions. We're not forgetting about the role that our socialisation and the norms and values that society play on how we interact.

Sometimes those norms and values of a society impinge on the way that our nature would drive us.

You are wrong, though not completely, that we should naturally match a woman's mentality. We obviously have to have a layer of compatibility there, but nature evolves us to our environment, and our biggest factor in our environment is not actually women, but other males. Other males are the one that will do us harm if we should step on their toes so to speak. Women have played their part too in making males reticent about approaching them. Women are vociferous communicators, and so putting a bad move on the wrong one would basically lead you to have no chance of reproducing in you small 'pack' back in pre-history.

So women want us to be confident and approach them, but, nature has selected us to be extremely careful about approaching women. The two are not compatible, obviously.

Anyway, women play by rules that have evolved in our social pack, whether they understand them or not. You're partially right that we don't choose our mates entirely on instinctual level, but it plays it's part due to the rules that women play by; not that they know that they do.

May I ask when you gained it and at what level? Essentially even if you're at doctorate level in this country, you'll be behind the curve of the Americans, BSc/MSc level will have been out of date when you were learning by a deal of time as, of course, it takes year to get the books out there that have the latests discoveries in them.



The game is essentially an autobiography. The rules of the game is a step by step guide to meeting and being confident around women; which is what they want out of you.



I think you should read the Mystery Method if you want a good level of background from what I've read of it so far. I've not read for over a week and I'm trying to get through that and a fiction novel at the same time. He's the guy that trained at Stanford whilst Steven Pinker was highly placed there.



Well, I've not seen anyone throwing money into researching the area.



Unlikely to have read the ones that I have pointed out as most men haven't even heard of them.



Nope, there is no need to lie though, it makes the whole thing harder. Also the idea is to replace your old way of behaving with the better more confident you, not just in the area of women but letting it flow out into the other aspects of your life. It will inevitably do so if you have people responding positively to you a lot.



Actually, in 'the rules of the game' they tell you to do certain things, certain things that you might have done before, but they're designed to show you that there is a very essential element missing, that they are trying to point out to you for the following day's mission.

If you have read 'the game' then you'll know that he went through a good deal of failures before he got successes.



Who determines what a 'proper' experiment is eh?



Can't really argue with that.

Out of curiosity, what are the rules men play by? If a woman was to take the same course as you, what would they find? The same advice but with the him/her switched?

The angle of the response comes over as a bit sexist, from what I gather with the responses, men can roam free and do as they please, individually, not as a sex. Women on the other hand, you seem to suggest, seem to conform to this pattern, or mentality.
I don't see this, I see equals, and talking to women they see themselves as equals...OK, take 5 year olds and the girls will always say that they are better than boys, take many business people and their arrogance will say the same. But when I talk to women I talk to them as my equals, and they back. There have been occasions when I've been talked down to, and possibly rightfully so, but then a male in the same authority would have talked down to me too.

Increasingly in this society, women are equal, they work, they vote, they do everything a man can do. Relationships have turned around with stay-at-home Dad's while the mother/wife goes out to be the provider...This switch of roles, the increase of women being equal, show how much on par we all are with each other...

I would suggest that if someone doesn't see the same, then they are in the wrong situations for them. The pick-up at the night club wouldn't work for me, it might for others. A town full of chavs wouldn't work for me either, but might work for someone else.
Don't make generalisations, because they can be wrong. For a sample of 100 people one could assert one thing, take a sample of 1,000,000 people and the outcome could be quite different...

Well I hope you will try once rested. I wish to hear your 'rationale'. So far it seems to have been laced with prejudice due to emotionally involving yourself in the subject matter by bringing up your own personal past experiences.

That's such an "in the movies" thing to do...I know guys that act like that, that think they are all it...They hop from one relationship to another which never lasts more than a few months, a year at most. They aren't happy in the relationships, the girl thinks he's an arrogant dick, and he thinks she's crazy because he just got it off with her best friend.

I'm afraid I'm with Ziggy on this one. From my experience (and what else can I reasonably draw upon?), girls prefer sensitive, interesting, caring blokes who might act up at times around the lads, but is above all, honest and respects them.

Edit: Sorry, I've been back reading...

Men are quite simple. They want to have sex with the best looking most healthy woman going, who can bare many healthy children for them. Ever heard of the saying 'punching above his own weight' in reference to an individual's partner? In a male's ideal world he would have the ability to have sex with many women but concentrate his resources on the best of them. There are factors such as social stigma that can come into play depending on your culture's norms and values.



I never said that this is how it should be, I said that this is how we are designed to be. A woman is designed not to have sex with a male, unless she thinks he really is honestly going to invest in her and the offspring that she bares. If the man is just out for sex, and men are designed to try to spread their genes far and wide, and isn't going to invest in her she will have no support for her offspring and thus the likelihood of her surviving and successfully raising the child minimal. Women need extensive social support whilst in pregnancy, especially in the latter stages, when they need food and protection.

You have to remember that our brains formed and evolved in a time prior to contraception, and so coupling was quite likely to lead to conception.



You have fallen into the trap of seeing what is now and assuming that it will be the case for all time. If we have a global epidemic of virulent and deadly swine flu next year which leads to 25-50% population loses, what do you think is going to happen to the global economy, the global transport of food stuffs? Civilization as we know it could very well collapse within months.

At the end of the day, men have a greater deal of strength, which makes them unequal in that respect. That's not ever really going to change. Sure a weasely guy might hook up with a stronger woman but there are not enough weak men and strong women to go around for that to be more than a minutia of the population, and of course it's not likely that all weasely men and strong women will be inclined to each other. In fact I'd say you're more likely to find that it's quite the opposite.

That strength can be put to use in a great deal of tasks but most prominently it was designed for hunting food. If civilisation collapses, then that will come into play again. And as the population continues to increase in size the likelihood of that increases rather than decreases.

I never suggested that you should act like that the whole time. You're doing it to gauge interest. If you act a dick all your life then you deserve to be unhappy.

No probs about the time warp post, at least you actually do read back and gain an understanding of where I'm trying to come from.

If that's the way men are designed, I fear there is something wrong with me then. I don't see someone and think I'd like to do them, it doesn't even come to mind that I should.



Yet there are couples out there, even on this forum, who have decided against having children for one reason or another. Meaning both man and woman have lived a life for many years without wanting offspring, but instead sharing the company of each other. A suggestion that of all time, today is different?



I don't think society will turn around over night making every church a brothel and doing it like rabbits to repopulate. There may be losses, but we don't live in a society where we hump someone in the street because they look strong and healthy and we might not see them again...



Men are stronger in what sense? Pure brawn? Not necessarily. Will power? No, I can think of women who have better or equal will power to myself. Logic? I wouldn't go there, I know how much a clever woman can confuse (about the same as a clever man it so happens...).



Personally, I find that first impressions stick, if someone comes across as a dick to me when I first meet them, I'll take a dislike to them which is hard for me to like them after that...I know a good friend who is quite the opposite and likes most people regardless of first impressions.

Why are you even looking at them then? The ultimate goal of you getting into a relationship with someone is sex and reproduction. Our evolution has led up to find sex pleasurable as this will lead to us having sex which should lead to the continuance of those genes.



Because of modern contraceptives they have a choice over that matter. Do you think that they would still happily be together if one or the other didn't want to have sex because they didn't want children? They would be fine if they both didn't want to have sex, but such people are quite rare; as far as males go.



You didn't get what I meant. Fairly simply, do you still expect law and order to remain with such devastating loses. They wouldn't even be able to dispose of all the bodies easily. As soon as you can't do that you run into the problem of disease that's not the primary causer of death.



Yes brawn, and yes as I said, the vast majority of men are stronger than the vast majority of women. Don't bloody try to argue that that's not the case, it's just blatantly not true. Most fully grown women are weaker than the average 16-18yr old boy.



First impressions do stick, which the reason why a friend of mine will always act completely outrageously on first meeting someone, because first impressions also set the limits of what a person will accept from you in the future.
You're assuming that the woman knows what you're about. If you do these things subtly she will see you not as a game player but just as a confident individual. If you suggest that you meet up again sometime, after saying what a good time you had in her company, she'll override any impressions that you were uninterested during the date, with the current impression that you're interested in her because you want to meet again.

I think at this point we are going around in circles. I don't believe that all women are the same, I don't believe that men just want sex. I think today, yes with the help of contraceptives, this natural instinct is useless because the relationship won't bear offspring.
And your books, and in turn yourself, believe quite the opposite.

Like you said to Jon, if he gained his qualification in physiology even just a while ago he'd be behind the times, so could these books also be behind the times? With research being a decade old or more?

I think it's best to agree to disagree, at the end of the day, even if they can be, people don't want to be broken down into "three easy steps" (so to speak), they want to be treated as a human, not as a bunch components.

I agree, my first gf we were BOTH not interested in sex, and this date I go on today, If we get together I know for a fact that she isint that bothered about that kinda stuff so...

id easily cut off my *insert rude part here* and still live a happy couple

How can you not think that all women are the same. It would be like me saying that some cats are cats and some cats are dogs, some cats are birds, so cats are lizards, because they're not all the same. Some cats are lions and some cats are lynxes, but they are still cats and have similar behaviours, due to them having common ancestry. Lions are a case of an extreme, in that they are the only socially grouping species of cat.

Yes, women are different from what they have formed from their experiences through life. But that doesn't change the underlying fact that they are what they are, which is female homo sapiens. As female homo sapiens they generally behave in certain ways just like female cats. That there is additional level of complexity in the social arena for the species homo sapiens just means that there can be variability of behaviour towards certain things that one might try.

In fact the research is indeed ongoing, but I see them as being on the right track.

I don't know how interested you are in what I've been saying but if you want a brief outline of why evolutionary psychology is so high in my regard there is a brief outline here

Edit: An interesting female EP blog post
Edit2: Bugger, you've got me reading Here

The point is Bratty, that your kind is a brief lived abnormality. And the same is true of all such people that are of your disposition. You see, eventually you will die and the genetic combination that led to you being the way you are will disappear, unless you do actually have children. And if they are the same as you, then they might not be that bothered about having sex or kids either.

Let me make another point then so that you and others can understand. The men that get out there getting women pregnant, but not sticking around, are, by and large, having more children than the rest of the 'normal' people not doing that. Now, fast forward a few generations, if we assume that they are formed differently to you, then they are the ones that nature is more likely to heavily select for as they are diluting you out of the gene pool. Eventually, nature will find its balance where the people who aren't after sex, and competing fully in the genetic race, are greatly diminished because their genes can't compete with those that do and get out there having children.

I can see where you're coming from, that is if such traits (the... "need" for sex") are passed through the gene pool and not just in built within each person to the start. I.E, a genetic "condition" such as a stranger hormone imbalance might predispose someone to be more inclined towards a higher sex drive, however that doesn't necessarily mean they don't mentally resist the need for it.

But does it really matter? How many people go around today having as many children as possible just so they can expand their gene pool? I agree that quite a few people people usually want children so they have a legacy as such, but i don't see them trying to have children with multiple partners.

Also, i'd argue cause and effect really... i personally doubt that men "instinctually" try and have as many partners as possible since they aren't usually in it to get women pregnant. I believe that sex feels good because, as you say, it "rewards" you for doing it, thus propagating your genes, however in this day and age with protection etc. the point becomes moot really and i would say humans do it more for pleasure than anything else.

And finally.... why should this whole gene pool matter in the long run? And so i ask again, who in their right mind wakes up and thinks "i better get a few more girlfriends/partners today to ensure my genes are sustained throughout multiple generations"?