The Top Pickup Artist Forum On The Internet: Fast Seduction 101

Home | 

Anyone here NOT trying to get laid?

mASF post by elloco

<< Home ... < Relevance Matches ... "postings"

Anyone here NOT trying to get laid?
You can search for more articles and discussions like this on the rest of this web site.

Acronyms used in this article can be looked up on the acronyms page.  To get involved in discussions like this, you can join the mASF discussion forum at [posts in this section may be edited, but only for spelling corrections and readability]

mASF post by "elloco"
posted on: mASF forum: General Discussion newsgroup, May 5, 2005

i read the responses to my posts. i reread my posts. i realize that given the
complexity of the topic and the title of the thread my attempt at communicating
was a really clumsy one. after all i am new on this board, you do not have any
info on me as to where i am coming from etc. i should have been a lot clearer
in laying out my thoughts.

"I understood what you said, perhaps not what
you meant to say. Happens all the time."

i don't know whether this proverb exists in english, but we say 'the message is
made by the receiver'. i communicated badly. i evoked a completely different
message in your minds than what i was actually trying to say. i have only
myself to blame. i guess the best thing would be to clarify a few things:

"At any rate, if I didn't want to get laid
all the time, I would hang out somewhere other
than here."

i agree with you. but, that *is* what i am currently working on. i guess i
should definitely have clarified this considering the topic of this thread.

"You presumed that speculation is truth, you announced to
the world with your tone that you were dispensing gospel from on high"

actually i consider any theory to be just that, speculation (some better,
others worse). i do not at all consider anything i mentioned as gospel. i
definitely did not intend to preach. and definitely not what i guess you have
assumed i preached. rereading the posts i realized that one *can* interpret
them that way. my postings were of purely *technical* interest and in no way
intended to have any moral implications!

"Provider strategy is a successful strategy
for WOMEN to get men to raise their children."

i have read a lot of the content on this site. considering the meaning
'provider strategy' has on ASF you are absolutely right. i meant something
slightly (actually fundamentally) different using the term 'provider strategy'.
with 'provider strategy' i meant the strategy of parents (whether male, female
or even with asexual reproduction) to invest into the nurture of their
offspring. i thought that actually was the meaning of the term as it is used in
evolution theory. please correct me if i am wrong.

so basically what i was saying was that, despite the achilles heel of not being
able to know for sure whether it is actually his own offspring he is nurturing,
investing energy in the nurture of his offspring also makes sense for
men/males. thus 'provider strategy' is a succesful strategy. (no great
revelation, i know. blush)

"You are assuming that the provider strategy is passed on genetically, whereas
in fact it is passed on socially and circumstantially; provider is a
"He's also assuming that "provider-ness"
or "alpha-ness" (you know what I mean) is a 100% sex-linked

imo very good points. i do not assume that 'provider strategy' (in the sense of
my definition) is passed on 100% genetically. i do not assume it is passed on
100% socially either, though. i believe it to be a mix of both. the famous
'nature vs. nurture' debate...! i *do* believe the genetical (instinctual)
component to be a strong one though. wont argue these technicalities and go
into further detail any more though as i consider it to be rather tangential
with regards to the aims of this board. unless of course someone should be

"So that if an alpha male fathers a child, that child can
only be craven and sex-starved if it is a boy. Girls are always born
with maternal instinct, regardless of status of her father. Doesn't seem
plausible to me."

i agree. to be honest, i find it almost amusing that i came accross as assuming
that 'that child can
only be craven and sex-starved if it is a boy'. i *know* women crave sex from
personal experience (and since a long, long time before i discovered this site.

"maybe providers are necessary to the survival of the species, but they still
have no personal evolutionary advantage."

here i disagree. i find the evidence and reasoning regarding this question in
books such as 'the selfish gene' (a very insightful and fun to read book imo)
quite convincing. i have no problem to agree to disagree, though.

"Thank god someone else jumps at evo-psych and rejects it when it's being
silly, aside from just me. We at mASF need to realize there are
weaknesses to it, even though it does sometimes support our agenda and

i have strong reservations regarding evo-psych myself. it always involves a
*lot* of backwards rationaliting. scientific method requires one to first
postulate a theory and afterwards try to verify it with empirical data. a
theory *has* to be empirically falsifyable. with evo-psych you have the
empirical evidence first and *then* you invent a theory that seems plausible
with the empirical data. evo-psych theories are practically not falsifyable
(too long timescale, severe ethical problems, etc).
there's this joke: do you know why men feel more attracted to women in
miniskirts than women in long skirts? it's because in the stone age women with
long skirts had a higher risk of getting caught in the shrub, which made it
more likely for them to drop their baby, which diminished the chances of
survival for the baby. thus men are programmed to feel more attracted to women
in miniskirts because in the stone age wearing miniskirts used to be an
evolutionary advantage.

"Not necessarily the most successful strategy for HAVING A GOOD LIFE."

couldn't agree with you more. it is only a theory after all. i dread people who
life their lives according to theories or dogmas instead of persuing their
passions, desires and dreams. theories can give interesting insights as to how
to be able to make ones dreams come true more successfully, though.


just as a last note: regarding the no sex before mariage/stable relationship
i say, to each their own. regarding *myself* however, i would definitely not
consider such an approach as a healthy relationship with my sexuality.

"How's that workin' out fer ya on the dating front?"

well, actually i have observed that my way of debating/discussing often turns
women on. ddb looks all around. ...though to be honest, if i were
miscommunicating like i did in this thread, i would definitely be shooting
myself in the foot. ;)


okay, it's far too late, my weekend only starts on saturday, have to get up
early i hope i was able to clear some things up.

peace. out.

Unless otherwise noted, this article is Copyright©2005 by "elloco" with implicit permission provided to for reproduction. Any other use is prohibited without the explicit permission of the original author.


 Learn The Skills StoreStore
Learn Pickup By Watching