(05-29-2016 10:34 AM)zero1 Wrote: Sorry to bump an old thread but this topic has caught my interest lately.
I had a question. If women are looking predominantly for sex that no one knows about, with pretty much anyone or anything, why is desperate behaviour considered so unattractive to them? Surely a desperate guy just looking for sex would provide a perfect opportunity for a no strings attached quickie. But why the quick rejection/flaking once this behaviour is noticed?
On another note, seems some research shows the prevalance of beastiality around 2-4% amongst women according to at least this article: http://www.health24.com/Sex/Sexual-diver...k-20150218
That means anyone that's slept with 100 or so women surely has at some point pounded a girl that fucked a dog. To be perfectly honest this realization has left me a bit shocked the last few days as red pill realizations often do, and would like someone else's opinion on the research.
First thing: nobody's replicated that study as far as I know. Also see: the main reason social science is anti-science as well as being generally anti-social.
Second: the same study, being a study of 982 males and 1044 females, also concluded with presumably the same methodology that 5% of men had fucked an animal. I can't seem to find the study online without hitting paywalls, but I'd guess it's basically a load of shit. If that result had any real statistical significance, it would mean that if this post gets 20 likes, one of those likes will have put his dick in a dog at some stage. I very much doubt that. As it was, the survey was a rerun of Kinsey's (flawed, because he surveyed too many prisoners) study that put the bestiality figure at
twice that level.
No matter what experimental controls you put in place, what sort of deranged asshole is going to
(a) complete one of these surveys
(b) respond honestly about their past sexual experiences (men tend to overstate the number, women tend to understate)
© respond honestly
about fucking an animal?
A high bestiality count doesn't evidence a statistically high number of dogfuckers in the general community. It just evidences that you got a high number of degenerates responding to your particular survey.
Getting back to your first question, though, i.e. why do women reject desperate behaviour -- this is the heart of game. Women will not fuck someone who appears openly desperate because his behaviour sets off very deep ingrained behaviours in their brains, at the level of the amdygala or slightly above. These behaviours relate to the unconscious or animal choices about the sort of person they want penetrating them.
In brief -- and there's loads of manosphere material here and elsewhere if you go looking for it, Roosh's early career is essentially founded on it -- women at their core are seeking a confident partner who is essentially impervious to their emotional swings and moods. Particularly in a one night stand they are looking for a fantasy: the alpha male, the caring-but-still-dangerous paradox that sociopaths imitate sufficiently well to get laid more than the normal guy does. There is nothing terribly rational about this behaviour. You are on completely the wrong page to be thinking logic or consequential thinking forms more than a minor part of a woman's decision process in who she chooses to sleep with on a casual basis.
Come to think of it, maybe this explains why a certain tranche of women
do want to be fucked by a dog. A dog is loyal given even a modicum of decent treatment, but it is always and forever the descendant of a dangerous predator. Piss it off enough, four thousand years of domestication notwithstanding, and it will tear your throat out. There is always that certain element of danger in Fido being around, even if he's a happy boy who would never hurt a fly.
As another example, consider the way hopelessly single women gravitate to cats. When it comes to "emotional availability", i.e. willing to put up with tantrums, your average cat makes the most hardened player look like fucking Romeo Montague. A cat never indicates it's happy to see you, it tends to be entirely unimpressed by any of your moods, it doesn't do anything you ask it to, it'll happily wander between houses picking up its lunch from different "owners", and it fundamentally does not give much of a shit about you unless
you serve it or you have something that it wants. And you don't have to put in any serious time training it, cleaning it, or looking after it beyond basic toileting. Hence why it serves as an excellent boyfriend surrogate for self-obsessed women.
A desperate guy puts out strong vibes of not being in control of
himself; why should a woman think he can control
her in the bedroom, which to a greater or lesser extent is what she wants? A desperate guy will be openly hanging on every word or look from the girl. He'll be driven by
her emotions. In the same way that a parent crying at a child's behaviour is at a visceral level disquieting or frightening to that child, nothing dries out a pussy faster than a man who it is apparent would take the appearance of a whipped dog if she decided not to fuck him.
There is also, Neo, the problem of choice. Because women can, from an economic basis, afford to be choosy before they hit 30, they have less incentive and therefore less practice at overriding their feelings in exchange for later gratification. They don't pick desperate guys because they know they have other, less "ew" options.
God save us from people who mean well. -storm
Home
RooshV.com
Search (Via Forum)
Member List
![[-]](images/collapse.gif)
The following 1 user Likes Sourcecode's post:
![[Image: 192a523c1a.jpg]](http://puu.sh/swbh5/192a523c1a.jpg)
