SevenZarkSeven wrote:

Fallible wrote:

Sarah's party wrote:actually no, because if you go to a poor country, looks aren't so important, but money is - so can't you see the connection here?

How do you account for the women whose parters has fuck-all when they got together?

Without wanting to suggest what individual women may or may not prefer it is my understanding that is quite common for women to settle with men who have the skills and potential to accumulate wealth and resources, not necessarily those who already have done so.

It is my understanding that women settle with men they find sexually and/or romantically, not financially, attractive.

Yep. That's not what 7Z7 wants to hear though.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

SevenZarkSeven wrote:

Fallible wrote:

Sarah's party wrote:actually no, because if you go to a poor country, looks aren't so important, but money is - so can't you see the connection here?

How do you account for the women whose parters has fuck-all when they got together?

Without wanting to suggest what individual women may or may not prefer it is my understanding that is quite common for women to settle with men who have the skills and potential to accumulate wealth and resources, not necessarily those who already have done so.

It is my understanding that women settle with men they find sexually and/or romantically, not financially, attractive.

Oh, please. Leaving aside the fact that women lie about this sort of thing routinely, you only have to do a Google search to figure this stuff out, assuming you can't just observe what women do. Don't listen to them, watch them. That tells you all you need to know. You're just being emotional now. Any sane thinker can see the reality of it.

SevenZarkSeven wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

SevenZarkSeven wrote:

Fallible wrote:

How do you account for the women whose parters has fuck-all when they got together?

Without wanting to suggest what individual women may or may not prefer it is my understanding that is quite common for women to settle with men who have the skills and potential to accumulate wealth and resources, not necessarily those who already have done so.

It is my understanding that women settle with men they find sexually and/or romantically, not financially, attractive.

Oh, please.

Your personal incredulity is not my problem..

SevenZarkSeven wrote: Leaving aside the fact that women lie about this sort of thing routinely,

I'll gladly leave aside the things you retrieve from your posterior.

SevenZarkSeven wrote: you only have to do a Google search to figure this stuff out,

And yet you fail to do so and prove me wrong.

SevenZarkSeven wrote: assuming you can't just observe what women do. Don't listen to them, watch them. That tells you all you need to know.

My personal experiences refutes your vague anecdotal claims.

SevenZarkSeven wrote: You're just being emotional now.

I have not experessed any emotion, so once again you're trolling.

SevenZarkSeven wrote: Any sane thinker can see the reality of it.

The emperor is buttnaked 7.

SevenZarkSeven wrote:

Fallible wrote:

Sarah's party wrote:actually no, because if you go to a poor country, looks aren't so important, but money is - so can't you see the connection here?

How do you account for the women whose parters has fuck-all when they got together?

Without wanting to suggest what individual women may or may not prefer it is my understanding that is quite common for women to settle with men who have the skills and potential to accumulate wealth and resources, not necessarily those who already have done so. That seems to make sense, particularly as anecdotally speaking the older, more seasoned ladies I know who have older partners actually did settle with an established gentleman, suggesting that they wanted the finished article.

No, it's actually not that common, because persons of any gender with exceptional cash or ability are not common. That's what exceptional means, genius. But I guess you believe resources can be produced out of thin air, as with investment bubbles. Now we know how you lost your shirt or lucked out. Don't talk to me about ability, because you don't show it.

Cito di Pense wrote:

SevenZarkSeven wrote:

Fallible wrote:

Sarah's party wrote:actually no, because if you go to a poor country, looks aren't so important, but money is - so can't you see the connection here?

How do you account for the women whose parters has fuck-all when they got together?

Without wanting to suggest what individual women may or may not prefer it is my understanding that is quite common for women to settle with men who have the skills and potential to accumulate wealth and resources, not necessarily those who already have done so. That seems to make sense, particularly as anecdotally speaking the older, more seasoned ladies I know who have older partners actually did settle with an established gentleman, suggesting that they wanted the finished article.

No, it's actually not that common, because persons of any gender with exceptional cash or ability are not common. That's what exceptional means, genius. But I guess you believe resources can be produced out of thin air, as with investment bubbles. Now we know how you lost your shirt or lucked out. Don't talk to me about ability, because you don't show it.

More conjecture. Leaving that bizarre rant about my own personal wealth aside, I didn't day that women settle with resources, I said the potential to accumulate resources. Not exceptional - a word you threw in to undermine something I didn't say - potential, just potential. So who's the genius now?

If I want to talk about ability then I will. You don't have to answer.

SevenZarkSeven wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

SevenZarkSeven wrote:

Fallible wrote:

How do you account for the women whose parters has fuck-all when they got together?

Without wanting to suggest what individual women may or may not prefer it is my understanding that is quite common for women to settle with men who have the skills and potential to accumulate wealth and resources, not necessarily those who already have done so. That seems to make sense, particularly as anecdotally speaking the older, more seasoned ladies I know who have older partners actually did settle with an established gentleman, suggesting that they wanted the finished article.

No, it's actually not that common, because persons of any gender with exceptional cash or ability are not common. That's what exceptional means, genius. But I guess you believe resources can be produced out of thin air, as with investment bubbles. Now we know how you lost your shirt or lucked out. Don't talk to me about ability, because you don't show it.

More conjecture. Leaving that bizarre rant about my own personal wealth aside, I didn't day that women settle with resources, I said the potential to accumulate resources. Not exceptional - a word you threw in to undermine something I didn't say - potential, just potential. So who's the genius now?

If I want to talk about ability then I will. You don't have to answer.

Your conception of potential is your thumb up your ass and the possibility of an erection. Learn something about mechanics.

Cito di Pense wrote:

SevenZarkSeven wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

SevenZarkSeven wrote:

Without wanting to suggest what individual women may or may not prefer it is my understanding that is quite common for women to settle with men who have the skills and potential to accumulate wealth and resources, not necessarily those who already have done so. That seems to make sense, particularly as anecdotally speaking the older, more seasoned ladies I know who have older partners actually did settle with an established gentleman, suggesting that they wanted the finished article.

No, it's actually not that common, because persons of any gender with exceptional cash or ability are not common. That's what exceptional means, genius. But I guess you believe resources can be produced out of thin air, as with investment bubbles. Now we know how you lost your shirt or lucked out. Don't talk to me about ability, because you don't show it.

More conjecture. Leaving that bizarre rant about my own personal wealth aside, I didn't day that women settle with resources, I said the potential to accumulate resources. Not exceptional - a word you threw in to undermine something I didn't say - potential, just potential. So who's the genius now?

If I want to talk about ability then I will. You don't have to answer.

Your conception of potential is your thumb up your ass and the possibility of an erection. Learn something about mechanics.

Save it for the bathhouses, Precious.

SevenZarkSeven wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

SevenZarkSeven wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

No, it's actually not that common, because persons of any gender with exceptional cash or ability are not common. That's what exceptional means, genius. But I guess you believe resources can be produced out of thin air, as with investment bubbles. Now we know how you lost your shirt or lucked out. Don't talk to me about ability, because you don't show it.

More conjecture. Leaving that bizarre rant about my own personal wealth aside, I didn't day that women settle with resources, I said the potential to accumulate resources. Not exceptional - a word you threw in to undermine something I didn't say - potential, just potential. So who's the genius now?

If I want to talk about ability then I will. You don't have to answer.

Your conception of potential is your thumb up your ass and the possibility of an erection. Learn something about mechanics.

Save it for the bathhouses, Precious.

That's your experience, and my imagination, Sweetheart.

SevenZarkSeven wrote:
More conjecture. Leaving that bizarre rant about my own personal wealth aside, I didn't day that women settle with resources, I said the potential to accumulate resources.

So women have some sort of ability to sense in men their potential to accumulate resources?
Amazing.
I'd love to see the research on this.

Sendraks wrote:

SevenZarkSeven wrote:
More conjecture. Leaving that bizarre rant about my own personal wealth aside, I didn't day that women settle with resources, I said the potential to accumulate resources.

So women have some sort of ability to sense in men their potential to accumulate resources?
Amazing.
I'd love to see the research on this.

You don't have to. Why do men dress the way they do, drive certain cars, wear expensive watches, etc etc etc. Are you really saying that you either don't believe or don't know that males signal their status to attract women? of course they do. Just as women signal reproductive fitness to attract men. This isn't rocket surgery.

SevenZarkSeven wrote:You don't have to.

I should just take your word for it? Lets see what you got...

SevenZarkSeven wrote:Why do men dress the way they do, drive certain cars, wear expensive watches, etc etc etc. Are you really saying that you either don't believe or don't know that males signal their status to attract women? of course they do. Just as women signal reproductive fitness to attract men. This isn't rocket surgery.

And those men which don't drive certain cars, don't wear expensive watches, etc etc, that women are attracted to because of their "potential" to accumulate resources, how do women spot those men?

Sendraks wrote:

SevenZarkSeven wrote:You don't have to.

I should just take your word for it? Lets see what you got...

SevenZarkSeven wrote:Why do men dress the way they do, drive certain cars, wear expensive watches, etc etc etc. Are you really saying that you either don't believe or don't know that males signal their status to attract women? of course they do. Just as women signal reproductive fitness to attract men. This isn't rocket surgery.

And those men which don't drive certain cars, don't wear expensive watches, etc etc, that women are attracted to because of their "potential" to accumulate resources, how do women spot those men?

The list isn't exhaustive, however in any hierarchy the lower status males will end up with the lower status females. There's a reason Premiership footballer's wives aren't munters.

SevenZarkSeven wrote:

Sendraks wrote:

SevenZarkSeven wrote:You don't have to.

I should just take your word for it? Lets see what you got...

SevenZarkSeven wrote:Why do men dress the way they do, drive certain cars, wear expensive watches, etc etc etc. Are you really saying that you either don't believe or don't know that males signal their status to attract women? of course they do. Just as women signal reproductive fitness to attract men. This isn't rocket surgery.

And those men which don't drive certain cars, don't wear expensive watches, etc etc, that women are attracted to because of their "potential" to accumulate resources, how do women spot those men?

The list isn't exhaustive, however in any hierarchy the lower status males will end up with the lower status females. There's a reason Premiership footballer's wives aren't munters.

Yes, but you have to appreciate how the mass is distributed in the pyramid. If you're not a championship footballer, you just fucking are not, which is for you to work out. Your achievements are undocumented.

SevenZarkSeven wrote:
The list isn't exhaustive, however in any hierarchy the lower status males will end up with the lower status females. There's a reason Premiership footballer's wives aren't munters.

No, no, this is not what I asked about. You said...

SevenZarkSeven wrote:More conjecture. Leaving that bizarre rant about my own personal wealth aside, I didn't day that women settle with resources, I said the potential to accumulate resources.

And I asked how women are able to identify those men with the potential to accumulate resources.

Your response was about men already displaying they had resources, which clearly doesn't respond to my query.
Your latest response is about men who can't display they have resources, which also doesn't answer my query.

Were you, in fact, talking complete bollocks about women settling with men who have the potential to accumulate resources?

SevenZarkSeven wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
It is my understanding that women settle with men they find sexually and/or romantically, not financially, attractive.

Oh, please. Leaving aside the fact that women lie about this sort of thing routinely, you only have to do a Google search to figure this stuff out, assuming you can't just observe what women do. Don't listen to them, watch them. That tells you all you need to know. You're just being emotional now. Any sane thinker can see the reality of it.

I live in an area that was one of the centres of Australian 1960s counterculture, and we still have communes up and running in my valley. We get somewhat more than our fair share of those who reject chasing material success, and scrape by on subsistence incomes, or selectively work little, and offset low incomes with modest, self-sufficient lifestyles. Getting partners does not seem to be an issue for men (or women) in this situation. Quite the opposite, actually.

Likewise, if you look around at your average guy who would fit the description "deadbeat", on the whole, they seem to have no issue getting partners, and indeed children. Ever heard the phrase "deadbeat dad"? How does such a phrase even exist if women are all throwing themselves at the Masters of the Universe?

So, Zark, now that I've done my observations, and seen for myself that your claim looks less than convincing given the available evidence, I should reject it, right?

Sendraks wrote:

SevenZarkSeven wrote:
The list isn't exhaustive, however in any hierarchy the lower status males will end up with the lower status females. There's a reason Premiership footballer's wives aren't munters.

No, no, this is not what I asked about. You said...

SevenZarkSeven wrote:More conjecture. Leaving that bizarre rant about my own personal wealth aside, I didn't day that women settle with resources, I said the potential to accumulate resources.

And I asked how women are able to identify those men with the potential to accumulate resources.

Your response was about men already displaying they had resources, which clearly doesn't respond to my query.
Your latest response is about men who can't display they have resources, which also doesn't answer my query.

Were you, in fact, talking complete bollocks about women settling with men who have the potential to accumulate resources?

Er... No. Like this: displaying what has already been accumulated in youth is evidence of what may further be accumulated over time. This is why marrying to is a thing women often do, particularly in societies where women don't have equal opportunities.

See how that works?

OlivierK wrote:Ever heard the phrase "deadbeat dad"? How does such a phrase even exist if women are all throwing themselves at the Masters of the Universe?

A diamond in the rough, as they say. So much potential, so little realization. LIke 7Z7.

OlivierK wrote:

SevenZarkSeven wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
It is my understanding that women settle with men they find sexually and/or romantically, not financially, attractive.

Oh, please. Leaving aside the fact that women lie about this sort of thing routinely, you only have to do a Google search to figure this stuff out, assuming you can't just observe what women do. Don't listen to them, watch them. That tells you all you need to know. You're just being emotional now. Any sane thinker can see the reality of it.

I live in an area that was one of the centres of Australian 1960s counterculture, and we still have communes up and running in my valley. We get somewhat more than our fair share of those who reject chasing material success, and scrape by on subsistence incomes, or selectively work little, and offset low incomes with modest, self-sufficient lifestyles. Getting partners does not seem to be an issue for men (or women) in this situation. Quite the opposite, actually.

Likewise, if you look around at your average guy who would fit the description "deadbeat", on the whole, they seem to have no issue getting partners, and indeed children. Ever heard the phrase "deadbeat dad"? How does such a phrase even exist if women are all throwing themselves at the Masters of the Universe?

So, Zark, now that I've done my observations, and seen for myself that your claim looks less than convincing given the available evidence, I should reject it, right?

The average male is a deadbeat?

SevenZarkSeven wrote:
The average male is a deadbeat?

No, the average male is not a Master of the Universe.