I have written a draft of an article titled “The theory and practice of attracting women”. Attraction theory has been an interest of mine since college, but I do not want to waste time with it if it of no use to anyone. So please read the article and tell me what you think. Are my points obvious or is it at all informative or interesting? Is the writing style obtuse or opaque? What are the weak points and what needs to be made clearer? I apologize for the formatting but at a free web site you get what you pay for.
http://www.geocities.com/sourcreamus/sourcreamus.html
Thank you for taking time to read and comment.
First off: increase your font size and insert more space between paragraphs. That’s all HTML code, so you can do that.
Second: Have you actually tried this?
The text size is too small, and my IE can’t increase it. Increase wordspacing, linespacing, and indent (or something) paragraphs. It should be (IIRC) about 15 words per line, yours is about seven.
“They are looked up to by those around them and people aspire to be like them. This status is more important to attracting women than looks, personality, or character.”
Unless I’ve misunderstood you i must say i disagree with this, status has never attracted me to anybody.
Ultrafilter- I have not tried this as I am happily married. Many have though and it does work. The technique is not something I came up with. I read about the technique and tried to figure out why it worked. I was hoping an understanding of why it works would help people do it.
Dawne- It is not the status that attracts you, it is the things that signal the status.
Uhh…Puddle - are you being serious with that article? You are purportedly out of college correct? In college I would assume you wrote many papers, research and otherwise, right?
So, what’s with all the broad generalizations? I found the article lacking substance, lacking anything remotely resembling a thoroughly researched thesis.
Excuse me?
Look Puddle, this article needs substance and some actual researched facts. While some of what you say is interesting, in that the assertions are completely individual specific. What you say about humor and confidence, I see as very skewed. Look at this sentence and this assertion ->
Are you serious? I am a happily married man, and I would never have thought this when I was in college or dating…Do you really want a woman to feel lucky to be with you, or do you want a woman to feel confident in herself for choosing the best man for her?
I am sorry if what I have said is a little harsh, I just think you may want to rethink some of what you are trying to convey. And in the last scenerio you say->
I guess I just do not understand this way of thinking…My wife and I fell in love as a direct result in finding the respect and satisfaction - in each other - that we were both looking for.
The “technique” you outline is far too specific to make any generalization about attraction between men and women, which seems to be your goal. It’s also something easily found elsewhere on the 'net.
Too general… but valid pointers.
It’s pretty good, but it needs more unsupported assertions and sweeping generalizations. And you won’t win many converts without a lot more anecdotal evidence and made-up facts. Try it again, only this time, get really drunk.
Thank you for your comments. I have fixed the awful formatting and thank those who wading through it despite the format. I did not intend the article to be scholarly, but more of a pop psychology piece. As for the unsupported assertions and lack of evidence, I was a psych major and as anyone who read Cecil’s column of Freud knows, the field has a rich history of this. I wrote the article for the person who was like I was, clueless about attracting women and down on himself because he was not handsome or rich enough. I thought such a person would be more likely to try the proven techniques if they had a knowledge as to why it works. After reading your critiques, I agree that it would be more persuasive if it was more scientific.
If anyone had ever come up to me in a bar (or elsewhere) and insulted my taste in clothing, insulted my taste in beer (or whatever I was drinking), then ASSUMED he could not only get my phone number, but that I would give him the opportunity to take me elsewhere, he’d be out of his mind.
Maybe there are some out in the world with self esteem so low that insults, put downs and assumptions are considered foreplay, but not in my book.
It’s a fun read but nowhere near anything I’ve ever experienced. I’ve never had a guy try to wait on me hand and foot to impress me nor would I be attracted to a guy who insulted me and thought he was God’s gift to women.
I agree with the basic premise: most women find self-confidence attractive. Unfortunately, most people already know this. And guys who don’t really don’t need all the talk about status and earning potential. Whether or not that is the motivation for women being attracted to confident guys, it has little to no practical value in actually meeting women, as guys who talk directly about their own status and/or earning potential come across as pricks.
Also, the fact that you yourself don’t have a lot of experience picking up women comes shining through and makes it sort of a painful read. “This is why people open speeches with humor.” Egad. If you’re going to write an article on how to pick up women, you need to establish your credentials before anyone will take you seriously.
I believe the premise is generally correct but the specific advice is flawed.
The premise that men are attracted to women who exhibit signs of being healthy and fertile is accurate. The unconscious attraction is to a woman who can bear many healthy children. This often is interpreted by women as shallowness, but it’s really just evolutionary biology speaking. I read a study recently that examined the attractiveness of various female body shapes, and consistent across cultures the most attractive women had hip to waist ratios that were amazingly consistent.
The premise that women are attracted to men who are successful is reasonably accurate. Women unconsciously look for traits in a man who can do two things:
- be a father to healthy offspring (akin to the peacock’s big tail)
- be a good provider to the family (akin to the elk’s big antlers)
In modern terms, looks are helpful but not sufficient. Will the potential mate be a good provider? We humans don’t have big antlers, so we have substitutes: a big or flashy car to demonstrate financial success; or holding a position of authority to demonstrate power. This is where self confidence comes in. Self confident people are usually successful people.
Philsphr, phall0106 and Giraffe point out some of the obvious flaws in the specific advice given in the OP’s article. For example, one of the problems with the advice about exhibiting self-confidence is that you either have it or you don’t. And self-confidence is usually an underlying invisible attribute. People who act self confident often actually have low self esteem. The biggest bullies have the smallest penises.
And forced humor is, well, obviously forced. And the OP’s examples are actually hurtful. Not something that is going to win the day. Or night.
I get the sense from the article that there is a belief that to get the girls you have to be a “bad boy”. Another example is the advice to avoid being helpful and polite so that one doesn’t be perceived as a “servant”.
To be fair, this approach might work occasionally to land a one-night-stand, but it is counter productive to landing a soul-mate.
Drat. That’s what I get for not copy-and-pasting usernames. It should be Phlosphr, not Philsphr. Sorry.
Like expensive things and large amounts of confidence? These things honestly don’t make me attracted to someone in the least, I’d much rather find someone with a good personality who is nice looking.