Scientific Dating Advice for Women

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: Entreri06

My point was that for you to make a scientific determination as to if women are or are not using or aware of using preselection, that would require you to acquire specific personal data from these women, which means asking questions of them and not just asserting some unproven theory in a general manner, then creating a thread to appear as if you are giving women 'scientific' advice on how to date. Which, you also failed to provide any advice, nor provide any scientific, reliable research or study source that we can peruse.

There was more then one reply saying I was 100% right about everything. Even the other women (for the most part) seemed to agree it was a reasonable assumption.


Your acting like some one is saying preselection is the ONLY trigger women have and all of their division making processes lead back to that one evolutionary strategy. When no one has said that, literally not one person (with the exception of you) . There are prob dozens of other remnant triggers in both sexes. Some that work in modern society and some that don't. Some that help usher is to martial bliss and others that lead to horrible abisive relationships.

Our intellect allows us to recognize that's what's happening and over rule it, but only if you know it exists!!!

Going "naw I don't have any negative evolutionary triggers ! Men do, they control and isolate women so they can abuse them!" Is only making things worse.

What's better and more logical. That abused women are really that in some magical loving bliss twards some meathead idiot. Who has artfully crafted a brainwashing tecnique that makes the CIA look like an infomercial. Mainly so they have some one to beat on.

Or

That the evolutionary remenants of when cave men kidnapped women and kept them as mates leads (in some situations)to a males need to control his mate even to the point of assaulting her to force her to stay. As well as from (prob the same stage in evolution) the time when women who left the protection of her mate mostly died. This leaving a genetic memory of , what in modern times, is an irrational fear to leave her chosen mate even tho the only real danger in her life is the idiot she sleeps net to every night.....


No your right, it's prob just that Jethro is just a secret government trained brainwashing speacialist..,.

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: Entreri06

My point was that for you to make a scientific determination as to if women are or are not using or aware of using preselection, that would require you to acquire specific personal data from these women, which means asking questions of them and not just asserting some unproven theory in a general manner, then creating a thread to appear as if you are giving women 'scientific' advice on how to date. Which, you also failed to provide any advice, nor provide any scientific, reliable research or study source that we can peruse.

My advise (again something else that's been stated repeatedly)

Tho it's a common practice. It doesn't work on MOST Men. Jealosy works on A pretty high percentage of women. But guys when jealous almost always do something criminally stupid. I shouldn't have to mention this again but that's not saying it's the cause of everytime a guy does something stupid. Just that you will almost never have him try harder in the relationship. Where you will have women work harder to win a guy that other women want. It's the groupie mentality.


None of this is a bad ting that it exists. None of it is an excuse for idiotic or criminal behavior. That's what being civilized is is ignoring all those primal triggers and doing the "right" thing..

a reply to: Entreri06

If a man I was dating (with an understanding) or my husband ever gave me a reason to be jealous I would feel threatened. I want my man or any man interested in jumping into a relationship (head first), to not give me any reason to have to think twice about his loyalty or fidelity and vice versa. Period. It really is that simple.

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: Entreri06

If a man I was dating (with an understanding) or my husband ever gave me a reason to be jealous I would feel threatened. I want my man or any man interested in jumping into a relationship (head first), to not give me any reason to have to think twice about his loyalty or fidelity and vice versa. Period. It really is that simple.

That's the way I am in a relationship. I avoid any situation that could even look bad. However I think there have been relationships that has ruined as illogical as it sounds. I'm not talking about first date attraction, I'm talking about semi long term relationships. I think a lot of women like the chase. While most men like the payoff. So when your so "dependable" (for lack of a better word) that there is no longer a chase involved. They lose interest. Once again I'm not saying that EVERY WOMAN in every situation feels that way or allows there primal instincts to rule their love lives....but of course there are more then a few that do. From my experience to negative results.

a reply to: Entreri06

The chase gets old really fast, when you are seriously looking for a wife or husband, for life.

a reply to: Entreri06
Ah dude. Most if not all of these things are set in stone, and looking at this thread its no surprise that women dont agree with you. But you got to remember something, the things women say, and believe are not the things women do. You would go crazy trying to rationalize it, because for millennia its been exactly not about that in the case of the female gender so much so that I do believe they are not even capable of it by now, it has been removed from the gene pool some centuries ago.

But I would not worry, most everything is as it should be, there are no real issues in these games that men and women play, in fact I would say that is the total sum of love, are merely the games they play and nothing more to it, if you think of all of it as a fetish you would come more closer to the truth of it all then anything else. And concerning such things. Always watch what they do, not what they say. Because frankly its all bull#.

We live in a world and society were everything is just an inverted pseudo reality to what is actually real to suit the make believes going on inside peoples heads, and women have been coddled for centuries, imagine if you will even in such a simple things as this relationship thing somebody who for centuries has never had to put any effort into things and who by there very biology has has things set up for them so much so that in all societies they never have had to do anything but wait around, and I am not even talking about today, but right down to millions of years ago as well, and in every age out there leading to this one. You would come to the female gender of today, and all the inconsistencies.

But the thing your talking about. Its been known for a long time long past the dark ages, or even ancient Egypt, and its also been known that women dont like to look at it, even today everybody knows that if you want to get anywere with the fairer sex all it takes is just nodding your head at the things they say, its the basis of all relationships, not thinking on things to much least you come to any sort of realization or heaven forbid a truth, the truth in our society and social circles is an anathema to it all, because for millennia it has been based on lies and bull#. All of history for a matter of fact is merely just agreed upon bull# for the purpose of not having to look to deeply at it.

Though it all leads to some serious cognitive dissonance in a majority of them and in the whole of the human race, but words are meaningless and so are words on a screen, actions say all you need to see and more. And going by empirical evidence, you more or less hit the nail on the head.

But in all there are no real issues here, as everything is exactly like people wanted.

It is as they say, at optimal capacity, to put it bluntly its as good as it gets, and as its going to get.

What you aren't taking into consideration here is that evolution is still happening.

It is not something that is in the past and is now finished.

How does evolutionary behavior work?
Variations in behavior continually emerge, and according to the environment and conditions, some become bigger factors of survival and procreation, and some become less, dying out. This is called differential fitness, and is what allows a species to adapt to the environmental changes.

We have, and continue to, adapt and change.

There is a general underlying split we can see in mating strategy- short term or long term. Short term mating strategies for women include being attracted to physical characteristics in a male which suggest good genes (body symmetry, low vocal pitch, facial features, and behavioral dominance). These are indicators of health, disease resistance, and behaviors which would be passed on and increase the offspring's chances of survival.

Then there's long term mating strategy, which focuses more on ambition and social status, and fidelity, as indicators of their access to resources, and whether they would invest those in the survival of their offspring.

These tend to show changes according to different environments- like the ratio of marriage-age men versus marriage-age women in the population. That ratio influences the mating behaviors. The more abundant sex will increase competitivity for the scarcer sex.

The need for bi-parental care also, influences drastically the behaviors- in nations where it is more necessary for two people to provide for a child, the cost of having uncommitted sex are much higher. Long term strategies become more active than short term.

-The threat of infectious diseases is also a powerful influence- in countries where there is a large pathogen prevalence, women are more attracted to the physical characteristics which can indicate good health and resistance (more than behavioral indicators of loyalty and ambition). Short term strategies are more active.

So take these into consideration... in your particular environment.

In the USA, disease prevalence is less important than, say, some parts of Africa. Physical attributes are going to be less what women look for than ambition and loyalty.

Thus you get the observation that "women like men with money" - in our current environment, having money is perceived as a result of being ambitious, driven, and being able to stay focused on a goal in an enduring fashion despite challenges, competition and obstacles.....being LOYAL.

The observation is true on a superficial level, and is probably all a guy interested in getting sex needs to know,
but the intelligent guy could look into the reason for that, and find other ways to attract and display that ambitious loyalty- like being dedicated to a cause, or sport, or hobby, or person, in a long term, determined and focused fashion.
The first guy could give an appearence of material abundance, and attract females- except that he'd be attracting ones interested in long term partnering, who will react quite negatively with time as the truth becomes clear that he is NOT a man of ambitious endurance and loyalty, just a horny one who put up false appearences. Then you get the "I don't understand, she just changed into a hostile nut for no reason!" complaints! LOL!

The concept of loyalty, or fidelity, is an important one. Males have a real reason to prefer females capable of loyalty, to increase chances that their offspring really are genetically theirs.
Especially in environments where there is high need of bi-parental care and they will be taking part in protection and providing for that offspring.

Thus, you get women showing their capabilities of loyalty- through showing the many potential mates at their door, that they are capable of refusing.

You also get them looking for that characteristic in men- how capable are they of being loyal to a chosen goal, with endurance? Whether it be their career, or their current or past love life, it is the ability to remain tightly focused upon their chosen path that is attractive.

It is not whether other women chose him- it is whether he is loyal to HIS OWN choices! That's why a man who shows lack of loyalty to his mate is not attractive!
He's probably not going to be very loyal to protecting his offspring.
This is what is at work with the women that get involved with a married man, and find him irresistable despite his repeated refusals to leave his wife- it is his capability to stick with his investments that makes him attractive!

These environmental factors come into play in studies all across the world. I often get into discussions elsewhere on the differences in french mating and coupling behaviors, which make no sense to Americans...but they have less need for bi-parental care, because of their system, so fidelity is less of an issue for either sex. Both look more at physical indicators of health and immunity- even dominant male behavior is not an issue too much, with less competition for resources. Though males will look more for ambition and maternal-type loyalty in women, to insure they will securely provide and protect the young, whether he decides to stick around or not.

Evolution is not just about "survival of the strongest" it is about survival of those the most adaptable to the environment.

originally posted by: Bluesma
What you aren't taking into consideration here is that evolution is still happening.

It is not something that is in the past and is now finished.

How does evolutionary behavior work?
Variations in behavior continually emerge, and according to the environment and conditions, some become bigger factors of survival and procreation, and some become less, dying out. This is called differential fitness, and is what allows a species to adapt to the environmental changes.

We have, and continue to, adapt and change.

There is a general underlying split we can see in mating strategy- short term or long term. Short term mating strategies for women include being attracted to physical characteristics in a male which suggest good genes (body symmetry, low vocal pitch, facial features, and behavioral dominance). These are indicators of health, disease resistance, and behaviors which would be passed on and increase the offspring's chances of survival.

Then there's long term mating strategy, which focuses more on ambition and social status, and fidelity, as indicators of their access to resources, and whether they would invest those in the survival of their offspring.

These tend to show changes according to different environments- like the ratio of marriage-age men versus marriage-age women in the population. That ratio influences the mating behaviors. The more abundant sex will increase competitivity for the scarcer sex.

The need for bi-parental care also, influences drastically the behaviors- in nations where it is more necessary for two people to provide for a child, the cost of having uncommitted sex are much higher. Long term strategies become more active than short term.

-The threat of infectious diseases is also a powerful influence- in countries where there is a large pathogen prevalence, women are more attracted to the physical characteristics which can indicate good health and resistance (more than behavioral indicators of loyalty and ambition). Short term strategies are more active.

So take these into consideration... in your particular environment.

In the USA, disease prevalence is less important than, say, some parts of Africa. Physical attributes are going to be less what women look for than ambition and loyalty.

Thus you get the observation that "women like men with money" - in our current environment, having money is perceived as a result of being ambitious, driven, and being able to stay focused on a goal in an enduring fashion despite challenges, competition and obstacles.....being LOYAL.

The observation is true on a superficial level, and is probably all a guy interested in getting sex needs to know,
but the intelligent guy could look into the reason for that, and find other ways to attract and display that ambitious loyalty- like being dedicated to a cause, or sport, or hobby, or person, in a long term, determined and focused fashion.
The first guy could give an appearence of material abundance, and attract females- except that he'd be attracting ones interested in long term partnering, who will react quite negatively with time as the truth becomes clear that he is NOT a man of ambitious endurance and loyalty, just a horny one who put up false appearences. Then you get the "I don't understand, she just changed into a hostile nut for no reason!" complaints! LOL!

The concept of loyalty, or fidelity, is an important one. Males have a real reason to prefer females capable of loyalty, to increase chances that their offspring really are genetically theirs.
Especially in environments where there is high need of bi-parental care and they will be taking part in protection and providing for that offspring.

Thus, you get women showing their capabilities of loyalty- through showing the many potential mates at their door, that they are capable of refusing.

You also get them looking for that characteristic in men- how capable are they of being loyal to a chosen goal, with endurance? Whether it be their career, or their current or past love life, it is the ability to remain tightly focused upon their chosen path that is attractive.

It is not whether other women chose him- it is whether he is loyal to HIS OWN choices! That's why a man who shows lack of loyalty to his mate is not attractive!
He's probably not going to be very loyal to protecting his offspring.
This is what is at work with the women that get involved with a married man, and find him irresistable despite his repeated refusals to leave his wife- it is his capability to stick with his investments that makes him attractive!

These environmental factors come into play in studies all across the world. I often get into discussions elsewhere on the differences in french mating and coupling behaviors, which make no sense to Americans...but they have less need for bi-parental care, because of their system, so fidelity is less of an issue for either sex. Both look more at physical indicators of health and immunity- even dominant male behavior is not an issue too much, with less competition for resources. Though males will look more for ambition and maternal-type loyalty in women, to insure they will securely provide and protect the young, whether he decides to stick around or not.

Evolution is not just about "survival of the strongest" it is about survival of those the most adaptable to the environment.

Because of technology we really have stopped a lot of evolution. We still have a social evolution, but good ole fashion "survival of the fittest" doesn't apply to us anymore. We protect our weak and infirm.


I'm not seeing how anything you posted changes anything. Even if we still used survival of the fittest. You would still have evolutionary throw backs, that hang around for millinia.

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: Entreri06

If a man I was dating (with an understanding) or my husband ever gave me a reason to be jealous I would feel threatened. I want my man or any man interested in jumping into a relationship (head first), to not give me any reason to have to think twice about his loyalty or fidelity and vice versa. Period. It really is that simple.

I like that! and agree with you. though I have to say, I wouldn't call it simple. People are people, and some things are inevitable, but that doesn't mean they can't be ironed out quite easily with a frank and healthy discussion.

a reply to: Entreri06

originally posted by: Entreri06


Because of technology we really have stopped a lot of evolution. We still have a social evolution, but good ole fashion "survival of the fittest" doesn't apply to us anymore. We protect our weak and infirm.

That was a momentary fad belief- but is largely rejected nowadays.

Without going into the common misconception of "survival of the fittest" as being part of Darwin's natural selection (it was Herbert Spencer that coined that, in reference to his economic theories). Evolution and adaptation continues.

In 2007, a team led by University of Wisconsin-Madison anthropologist John Hawks estimated that positive selection just in the past 5,000 years alone -dating back to the Stone Age - has occurred at a rate roughly 100 times higher than any other period of human evolution.


"In evolutionary terms, cultures that grow slowly are at a disadvantage, but the massive growth of human populations has led to far more genetic mutations," says Hawks. "And every mutation that is advantageous to people has a chance of being selected and driven toward fixation. What we are catching is an exceptional time."

source< br />
But besides the biological changes occuring, what the OP is refering to is
evolutionary psychology and behavior.

I meant to point out that that that area of research is much more complex than he seems to be suggesting. There is a lot of research out there, studies done which compare a lot of subjects, under different conditions, from different parts of the world!
The hypothesis he has presented is over simplified, does not take into account the many influencial elements involved.
I used one aspect - the different behaviors of short term and long term mate selection- which make both men and women act totally different in their rituals.

The pre-selection hypothesis has been proposed before, but hasn't been supported well by evidence. Yes, the evidence is clear that married men will tend to be seen as attractive more often than females, but the reason behind that has not been well defined and established as pre-selection.

Here is one hypothesis I ran across and found thought provoking-

The human female, on the other hand, runs into a real problem: the human mind. Remember that females must apply more criteria to select a male than males apply to a female. It is not the nearest possibility, but the best possibility that she desires. (Ehrlichman & Eichenstein, 1992) A woman's mind allows her, and indeed forces her to examine possible criteria to a much greater extent than any other animal. She can also project the consequences of choices into the future. What constitutes an alpha male, the best male with which to mate and produce the best possible offspring, depends on far more factors than any other animal on earth. The criteria for her to desire sexually a man can include strength or health or fighting ability, like the lion or the wolf. However, they can also include intelligence, money, power, prestige, position, status, attitudes, political or religious convictions, any number and combination of factors. It's whatever she believes a man should be that will result in 1) the best possible genes for her offspring, and 2) the offspring's best chance for survival and ability to pass on its genes. It is the human mind that allows her to consider the possibilities, the criteria, the future outcome of her actions. She does not go into heat and mate with the closest best bet. She makes plans, examines her choices, makes conscious decisions. Only the human female can make conscious, planned decisions about her sex life.
Women's ability to think consciously about their sexual lives does not mean she doesn't have instinctive desires as strong as a man's. What it does mean is she will often subordinate that desire: she may desire a physically attractive man, but she will not actually have sex with him until he has satisfied more than physical criteria.

source

Now that persons hypothesis on mate selection in men was very simplistic- men are instinctively looking for healthy fertile females- so beauty, in the ways we mostly understand it (symmetry of features, good skin with a healthy color and quality, etc.).
That is the most common hypothesis on male behavior. If men are happier with a female mate that other men find unattractive, as the OP suggests, that counters the theory!

I'm not seeing how anything you posted changes anything. Even if we still used survival of the fittest. You would still have evolutionary throw backs, that hang around for millinia.

It questions and challenges the hypothesis, that is one of the best ways to develop your idea- is through such feedback from peers. What changes about his idea here is up to him to develop.

Uh, I am not sure what your second phrase meant? I think most of the world these days accepts evolution and evolved behaviors as fact, that is not something I would question. The only questions that arise in this area is "why" adaptations grew- in response to what part of the environment.

originally posted by: Bluesma
a reply to: Entreri06

originally posted by: Entreri06


Because of technology we really have stopped a lot of evolution. We still have a social evolution, but good ole fashion "survival of the fittest" doesn't apply to us anymore. We protect our weak and infirm.

That was a momentary fad belief- but is largely rejected nowadays.

Without going into the common misconception of "survival of the fittest" as being part of Darwin's natural selection (it was Herbert Spencer that coined that, in reference to his economic theories). Evolution and adaptation continues.

In 2007, a team led by University of Wisconsin-Madison anthropologist John Hawks estimated that positive selection just in the past 5,000 years alone -dating back to the Stone Age - has occurred at a rate roughly 100 times higher than any other period of human evolution.


"In evolutionary terms, cultures that grow slowly are at a disadvantage, but the massive growth of human populations has led to far more genetic mutations," says Hawks. "And every mutation that is advantageous to people has a chance of being selected and driven toward fixation. What we are catching is an exceptional time."

source< br />
But besides the biological changes occuring, what the OP is refering to is
evolutionary psychology and behavior.

I meant to point out that that that area of research is much more complex than he seems to be suggesting. There is a lot of research out there, studies done which compare a lot of subjects, under different conditions, from different parts of the world!
The hypothesis he has presented is over simplified, does not take into account the many influencial elements involved.
I used one aspect - the different behaviors of short term and long term mate selection- which make both men and women act totally different in their rituals.

The pre-selection hypothesis has been proposed before, but hasn't been supported well by evidence. Yes, the evidence is clear that married men will tend to be seen as attractive more often than females, but the reason behind that has not been well defined and established as pre-selection.

Here is one hypothesis I ran across and found thought provoking-

The human female, on the other hand, runs into a real problem: the human mind. Remember that females must apply more criteria to select a male than males apply to a female. It is not the nearest possibility, but the best possibility that she desires. (Ehrlichman & Eichenstein, 1992) A woman's mind allows her, and indeed forces her to examine possible criteria to a much greater extent than any other animal. She can also project the consequences of choices into the future. What constitutes an alpha male, the best male with which to mate and produce the best possible offspring, depends on far more factors than any other animal on earth. The criteria for her to desire sexually a man can include strength or health or fighting ability, like the lion or the wolf. However, they can also include intelligence, money, power, prestige, position, status, attitudes, political or religious convictions, any number and combination of factors. It's whatever she believes a man should be that will result in 1) the best possible genes for her offspring, and 2) the offspring's best chance for survival and ability to pass on its genes. It is the human mind that allows her to consider the possibilities, the criteria, the future outcome of her actions. She does not go into heat and mate with the closest best bet. She makes plans, examines her choices, makes conscious decisions. Only the human female can make conscious, planned decisions about her sex life.
Women's ability to think consciously about their sexual lives does not mean she doesn't have instinctive desires as strong as a man's. What it does mean is she will often subordinate that desire: she may desire a physically attractive man, but she will not actually have sex with him until he has satisfied more than physical criteria.

source

Now that persons hypothesis on mate selection in men was very simplistic- men are instinctively looking for healthy fertile females- so beauty, in the ways we mostly understand it (symmetry of features, good skin with a healthy color and quality, etc.).
That is the most common hypothesis on male behavior. If men are happier with a female mate that other men find unattractive, as the OP suggests, that counters the theory!

I'm not seeing how anything you posted changes anything. Even if we still used survival of the fittest. You would still have evolutionary throw backs, that hang around for millinia.

It questions and challenges the hypothesis, that is one of the best ways to develop your idea- is through such feedback from peers. What changes about his idea here is up to him to develop.

Uh, I am not sure what your second phrase meant? I think most of the world these days accepts evolution and evolved behaviors as fact, that is not something I would question. The only questions that arise in this area is "why" adaptations grew- in response to what part of the environment.

Amazing work!! Really, That's good stuff.


That said I don't know how any of it contradicts anything I've said.

A: This study might not have confirmed preselection but it sure as hell didn't debunk it either.

B: On top of that I never said pre selection was the only mating tactic. Just that women had it in there arsenal and men didn't.

C: I never said men want women that other men arnt attracted to. I said that men don't care if their friends are attracted at all. What our friends will think isn't at all a consideration. Women commonly parade a new boyfriend in front their friends to see what they think about him. Guys don't do that. Guarenteed this ritual prob leads back to preselection as well.


D: everything in your extremely intresting well done post was about the logical thinking process. Not the first impression and attraction. It was on the long term logical decision that women make. Not the initial, when I thought they were cute and worth a closer look. Which is where preselection would come in anyway.

originally posted by: Entreri06

A: This study might not have confirmed preselection but it sure as hell didn't debunk it either.

There are lots of different studies and theories out there, I was kinda hoping to stimulate you to go looking for them!
There is a team of two researchers, in particular, who did some interesting work and assertions about the existence of pre-selection behaviors in females......if you fin them, they may provide some good backing for your hypothesis!

Women commonly parade a new boyfriend in front their friends to see what they think about him. Guys don't do that. Guarenteed this ritual prob leads back to preselection as well.

Ever hear the term "trophy wife"?

What is it that "guarantees" the root of this behavior is pre-selection for you?

everything in your extremely intresting well done post was about the logical thinking process. Not the first impression and attraction. It was on the long term logical decision that women make. Not the initial, when I thought they were cute and worth a closer look. Which is where preselection would come in anyway.

Okay, agreed, in part. I would consider the physical appearence the "initial" attraction though, then this pre-selection the "secondary" and then analyzing all the rest of the criteria as "tertiary".

For someone who is dating, and wanting to use these observations to help them out, it would be useful, in my mind to take it further beyond the secondary, and what happens to that determination under the further scutinizing that will happen...

For example, a guy stopping at that information could think, well, if I just wear a wedding band and claim to be married (or otherwise partnered with a woman) then that will attract women!

But that could backfire if they mix that with expressions of being wildly disloyal from the imaginary wife- it could repulse women!

Mind you, I am only challenging you here in a friendly way, as a stimulation to develop further your view.

In some ways, what another poster said kind of applies- we will do what is right for us anyway, if we just follow instincts and natural drives. Trying to use consciously what behaviorism shows us can often end up creating problems! Like maybe you'll attract women who have different goals than you. Our behaviors may often work as "screening" techniques- they will turn away some, but maybe those ones are really wrong for you anyway!


Another thing to consider in modern mating ritual behavior is the recent changes in our environment- the internet!

This will have an effect on our behaviors! I seem to remember a line from some movie, something like, in the past, you'd go to the hairdresser and buy some clothes, now all you do is change your profile pic...?

With so many people meeting online, and dishonesty about physical appearance being a concern, people might be gaining added behaviors of putting out "evidence" or witness to their physical attractiveness- "to back up that photo, I can tell you 9 out of ten men in my vicinity validate my physical attractiveness...."

Some of the behaviors we are developing through this medium get carried on into RL- like saying "LOL!" (instead of just doing it).

originally posted by: Bluesma

originally posted by: Entreri06

A: This study might not have confirmed preselection but it sure as hell didn't debunk it either.

There are lots of different studies and theories out there, I was kinda hoping to stimulate you to go looking for them!
There is a team of two researchers, in particular, who did some interesting work and assertions about the existence of pre-selection behaviors in females......if you fin them, they may provide some good backing for your hypothesis!

Women commonly parade a new boyfriend in front their friends to see what they think about him. Guys don't do that. Guarenteed this ritual prob leads back to preselection as well.

Ever hear the term "trophy wife"?

What is it that "guarantees" the root of this behavior is pre-selection for you?

everything in your extremely intresting well done post was about the logical thinking process. Not the first impression and attraction. It was on the long term logical decision that women make. Not the initial, when I thought they were cute and worth a closer look. Which is where preselection would come in anyway.

Okay, agreed, in part. I would consider the physical appearence the "initial" attraction though, then this pre-selection the "secondary" and then analyzing all the rest of the criteria as "tertiary".

For someone who is dating, and wanting to use these observations to help them out, it would be useful, in my mind to take it further beyond the secondary, and what happens to that determination under the further scutinizing that will happen...

For example, a guy stopping at that information could think, well, if I just wear a wedding band and claim to be married (or otherwise partnered with a woman) then that will attract women!

But that could backfire if they mix that with expressions of being wildly disloyal from the imaginary wife- it could repulse women!

Mind you, I am only challenging you here in a friendly way, as a stimulation to develop further your view.

In some ways, what another poster said kind of applies- we will do what is right for us anyway, if we just follow instincts and natural drives. Trying to use consciously what behaviorism shows us can often end up creating problems! Like maybe you'll attract women who have different goals than you. Our behaviors may often work as "screening" techniques- they will turn away some, but maybe those ones are really wrong for you anyway!


Another thing to consider in modern mating ritual behavior is the recent changes in our environment- the internet!

This will have an effect on our behaviors! I seem to remember a line from some movie, something like, in the past, you'd go to the hairdresser and buy some clothes, now all you do is change your profile pic...?

With so many people meeting online, and dishonesty about physical appearance being a concern, people might be gaining added behaviors of putting out "evidence" or witness to their physical attractiveness- "to back up that photo, I can tell you 9 out of ten men in my vicinity validate my physical attractiveness...."

Some of the behaviors we are developing through this medium get carried on into RL- like saying "LOL!" (instead of just doing it).

Trophy wives are for him. Not for his friends. What our friends or strangers think is irrelevant when deciding who we are attracted to. An average chic is still average looking to a male weather she is with brad Pitt or not. No male would ever date her just because she was tom cruises ex, unless money were on the table. While you will have women date a man because he is the ex of a celebrate. Same with celebreties, an ugly now broke ex celeb won't have attractive guys chasing her. A broke washed up male celebrate will have attractive women approach them.

originally posted by: Entreri06

Trophy wives are for him. Not for his friends. What our friends or strangers think is irrelevant when deciding who we are attracted to.

Can a woman others around you find ugly be a trophy wife?

A trophy wife is referring to a mate as a status symbol that others recognize.
The term refers to men who are narcissistic and desire to impress others,
As well as implying that the woman in question has little merit besides her physical appearance,
and does very little of substance outside of remaining attractive.


There are superficial and narcissistic people out there- men that wish to impress others with a beautiful status symbol,
and women that dream of being such a trophy, with nothing expected of her than to work on maintaining her looks.
This is what I referred to as the psychological variations that emerge, and constantly produce different and new behaviors, which, through time, will prove to be effective in the environment, or not.

To say men don't do this is making a mistake. Perhaps more accurate to say would be "not all men do this", or "the majority of men don't do this".
That would still leave what I think the women you've been interacting with are fishing for- those rare narcissistic men, that would provide them the context for being a "trophy wife".

It will of course, turn off the men who aren't of that sort, and perhaps that will be the majority... but that is as it should be! Do you really want a woman like that?

originally posted by: Bluesma

originally posted by: Entreri06

Trophy wives are for him. Not for his friends. What our friends or strangers think is irrelevant when deciding who we are attracted to.

Can a woman others around you find ugly be a trophy wife?

A trophy wife is referring to a mate as a status symbol that others recognize.
The term refers to men who are narcissistic and desire to impress others,
As well as implying that the woman in question has little merit besides her physical appearance,
and does very little of substance outside of remaining attractive.


There are superficial and narcissistic people out there- men that wish to impress others with a beautiful status symbol,
and women that dream of being such a trophy, with nothing expected of her than to work on maintaining her looks.
This is what I referred to as the psychological variations that emerge, and constantly produce different and new behaviors, which, through time, will prove to be effective in the environment, or not.

To say men don't do this is making a mistake. Perhaps more accurate to say would be "not all men do this", or "the majority of men don't do this".
That would still leave what I think the women you've been interacting with are fishing for- those rare narcissistic men, that would provide them the context for being a "trophy wife".

It will of course, turn off the men who aren't of that sort, and perhaps that will be the majority... but that is as it should be! Do you really want a woman like that?

Of course. There are men and women sexually aroused by feces. There is some idiot who is attracted to EVERYthing!! So obviously we are always just talking about the vast majority.


That said even with the Ritch and famous I would guess that the trophy wife is still for him. Males are incredibly visual. So I think trophy wives are far more about HIS desire for a woman who's looks are far out of his league.



Weather you agree with the assumption that preselection is one of the evolutionary strategies wired into women. No one thinks preselection is a male strategy. I don't think any of the animal kingdoms males use preselection. Because a male can be cuckholded, it doesn't make sense to be attracted because they have priviouslt produced healthy offspring. There would be no guarentee that your DNA would be passed on.

originally posted by: Bluesma

originally posted by: Entreri06

A: This study might not have confirmed preselection but it sure as hell didn't debunk it either.

There are lots of different studies and theories out there, I was kinda hoping to stimulate you to go looking for them!
There is a team of two researchers, in particular, who did some interesting work and assertions about the existence of pre-selection behaviors in females......if you fin them, they may provide some good backing for your hypothesis!

Women commonly parade a new boyfriend in front their friends to see what they think about him. Guys don't do that. Guarenteed this ritual prob leads back to preselection as well.

Ever hear the term "trophy wife"?

What is it that "guarantees" the root of this behavior is pre-selection for you?

everything in your extremely intresting well done post was about the logical thinking process. Not the first impression and attraction. It was on the long term logical decision that women make. Not the initial, when I thought they were cute and worth a closer look. Which is where preselection would come in anyway.

Okay, agreed, in part. I would consider the physical appearence the "initial" attraction though, then this pre-selection the "secondary" and then analyzing all the rest of the criteria as "tertiary".

For someone who is dating, and wanting to use these observations to help them out, it would be useful, in my mind to take it further beyond the secondary, and what happens to that determination under the further scutinizing that will happen...

For example, a guy stopping at that information could think, well, if I just wear a wedding band and claim to be married (or otherwise partnered with a woman) then that will attract women!

But that could backfire if they mix that with expressions of being wildly disloyal from the imaginary wife- it could repulse women!

Mind you, I am only challenging you here in a friendly way, as a stimulation to develop further your view.

In some ways, what another poster said kind of applies- we will do what is right for us anyway, if we just follow instincts and natural drives. Trying to use consciously what behaviorism shows us can often end up creating problems! Like maybe you'll attract women who have different goals than you. Our behaviors may often work as "screening" techniques- they will turn away some, but maybe those ones are really wrong for you anyway!


Another thing to consider in modern mating ritual behavior is the recent changes in our environment- the internet!

This will have an effect on our behaviors! I seem to remember a line from some movie, something like, in the past, you'd go to the hairdresser and buy some clothes, now all you do is change your profile pic...?

With so many people meeting online, and dishonesty about physical appearance being a concern, people might be gaining added behaviors of putting out "evidence" or witness to their physical attractiveness- "to back up that photo, I can tell you 9 out of ten men in my vicinity validate my physical attractiveness...."

Some of the behaviors we are developing through this medium get carried on into RL- like saying "LOL!" (instead of just doing it).

The reason I think it's pre selection that leads women to "parade" other suiters in front of a potential suiter, is it's the only thing that makes sense. Lol


1: preselection is only a female trait in the animal kingdom.

2: the whole cuckhold thing where it's benificial for a female animal because she carries the young. So she can't be cuckholded.


3: it's well known that women tend to like the chase while most men only want the "pay-off". All of humanities mating rituals are about getting her to do you. Anytime a female just wants sex. That's all that happens. No dinner, no movie. When a guy just wants sex most women arnt intrested.

4: the fact that. Almost all women's first reaction when meeting a potential suiter is to see what her friends think. Men don't do this. Infact we will avoid taking a female around our friends until we consider her "locked in".... For a lack of a better way to say it lol.

5: When men are jealous they do something criminally stupid or emotionally shut themselves down. When women are jealous they go home and screw there mate senseless to assure he's not going anywhere. At least that's been my experience.


All of the "game theory" stuff is almost solely based on preselection and "game theory" has been proven to work!! Countless oprah and dr phil type shows have tested it as well as the people who sell the stupid "how to get laid" videos/classes. It's a known commodity. That said it's only a way to gain a woman's attention and intrest. Not a way to make her love you or live happily ever after.


With all of our primal instincts, our intelligence can overrule them. So no one is saying the only or primary strategy is preselection. I just think it's a remnant that now has negative effects. It worked when we were covered in fur on the African pailns. But doesn't work in a modern monogamous society.

Strange but true...

The only times I've had multiple women interested in me, was when I was already with a gal. (whether they know it or not, it's like they can "sense" it...somehow).

Of course, it could just be that we're more confident when with someone....

The OP is right on the money when he suggests NOT trying to make a guy jealous. Most of us don't respond well to it.

originally posted by: Gazrok
Strange but true...

The only times I've had multiple women interested in me, was when I was already with a gal. (whether they know it or not, it's like they can "sense" it...somehow).

Of course, it could just be that we're more confident when with someone....

The OP is right on the money when he suggests NOT trying to make a guy jealous. Most of us don't respond well to it.

Exactly. It happens to both men and women that suddenly they become more interesting to the other sex once they are in a relationship already. Even if you are alone when they see you, and you wear no ring or other sign of being "taken".

My earlier point was that some men get jealous and it spurs them into action. If they feel something negative about a situation, that stimulates them to change it actively. Not run, not sulk, not isolate themselves from the world.

Some women want to be with that kind of man, who is active in his life and responds to it. They try to test for that with provoking jealousy.

The big thing they don't understand is-

If it is her trying to provoke it, she is the instigator, it just shows how she is insecure and lacking in self confidence to be active herself.
It shows she has a NEED for that.
That's unattractive.

originally posted by: Bluesma

originally posted by: Gazrok
Strange but true...

The only times I've had multiple women interested in me, was when I was already with a gal. (whether they know it or not, it's like they can "sense" it...somehow).

Of course, it could just be that we're more confident when with someone....

The OP is right on the money when he suggests NOT trying to make a guy jealous. Most of us don't respond well to it.

Exactly. It happens to both men and women that suddenly they become more interesting to the other sex once they are in a relationship already. Even if you are alone when they see you, and you wear no ring or other sign of being "taken".

My earlier point was that some men get jealous and it spurs them into action. If they feel something negative about a situation, that stimulates them to change it actively. Not run, not sulk, not isolate themselves from the world.

Some women want to be with that kind of man, who is active in his life and responds to it. They try to test for that with provoking jealousy.

The big thing they don't understand is-

If it is her trying to provoke it, she is the instigator, it just shows how she is insecure and lacking in self confidence to be active herself.
It shows she has a NEED for that.
That's unattractive.

I disagree a little. Men don't inerently find a confident woman attractive like women do. Our sense of smell plays a far lesser roll in attraction as well.


An average guy can smell good and/or be confident and a woman will then think he is hot. It's really not the same for us.

We are soooo visual that smell (unless it was just horrible and unsanitary) doesn't matter at all to us. Confidence isn't really a factor either. If she is so un confident she is always pissy that would effect it. But you've never heard a guy say "you know I didn't think she was hot but she's just so confident".


It would prob be an advantage if we were less visual, but what do you do.