Choosing a mate

OhFortunae wrote:

It merely exposés your incapacity to recognize and value higher quality.

Higher quality discerned, discriminated, and judged by whom?

By whose authority, is a woman beautiful or ugly?

Or isn't it obvious that males decide for ourselves?

Æon wrote:

Apostolakos,

Neither you nor others know about my personal relations, but you are welcome to further conjecture.

Poor Adam....you display all anyone needs to know here, boy.

The presence exposes the past....appearance exposes nature.
Your technique in seduction does not only tell me all I need to know about your Neeeed, but also about your experiences.
I remember you with Natalie.

You blackmail, on ILP, as a ploy to get what you want from them...that is so noble of you.
You are so stupid that you do it openly, in public.

Æon wrote:

Arditezza wrote:

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. There are no "higher quality" women because they aren't choosing him as a mate.

You are what you eat.

You are simple-minded and stupid, of course.

I don't necessarily consider myself a high quality male or mate.  Maybe yes, maybe not.

A basic ability of philosophy is to suspend all premises and produce thought-experiments.  Even if I were a low-quality mate, then so what?  That doesn't make me wrong.


Try again, princess.

Interesting, of course that you vaulted me (Aussenseite) above others on ILP, saying that my values were of higher quality and respected, and yet here on KTS you call me stupid and refer to me as a princess. It would be fascinating if it weren't so predictable as well as boring.

I think you mistake the female disinterest in you and your ideas as a lack of intelligence, when the truth of the matter is that your premises and thought-experiments are that of a child, immature and lacking the wisdom and experience of the world.  All of your premises are based on misguided flash judgments on what you have seen. Not stupid, just basically ignorant and lacking maturity and the experience that comes with age and an open mind. It is sad for no one else but you because you are stumbling blind drunk with your rage at women for being... women. You treat them as stupid sluts because you have been hurt and therefore distrust and make incorrect value judgments that even you can't see are full of ignorance and child-like.

Blackmail??? Lol, Lyssa is a liar, there's nothing to blackmail her with. She's destroyed everybody's perception of her. Even if she did release her image then nobody would believe her. That's not my problem.

Arditezza wrote:

Interesting, of course that you vaulted me (Aussenseite) above others on ILP, saying that my values were of higher quality and respected, and yet here on KTS you call me stupid and refer to me as a princess. It would be fascinating if it weren't so predictable as well as boring.

I think you mistake the female disinterest in you and your ideas as a lack of intelligence, when the truth of the matter is that your premises and thought-experiments are that of a child, immature and lacking the wisdom and experience of the world.  All of your premises are based on misguided flash judgments on what you have seen. Not stupid, just basically ignorant and lacking maturity and the experience that comes with age and an open mind. It is sad for no one else but you because you are stumbling blind drunk with your rage at women for being... women. You treat them as stupid sluts because you have been hurt and therefore distrust and make incorrect value judgments that even you can't see are full of ignorance and child-like.

But you prove my points perfectly.

As a woman, you have such weak, weak attacks. If you cannot demonstrate any points, intellectually, mentally, then what are you even doing on a philosophy forum? Let's maintain pretenses. Let's pretend that you, as a female, are here to learn something. As if it would difficult to figure out what you are after and what you want.

Your offensive is so weak and feeble, princess. Try again, one more time.

Okay, my attackers here, you all seem exhausted or occupied for a moment.

Let me take this opportunity to remind everybody of the obvious. When it comes to "Mate Selection", both male and female factors must be taken into consideration. It is not only the matter of a female wanting to absorb superior genes into her, to reproduce. But it is also a matter of the male, being present, being near, being competitive, being superior, and then finally, the mentality of the male as well.

Do males "Choose" to compete for ugly, fat sluts who have fucked dozens of other guys?

Do males "Choose" to compete for a woman who already has 10 children, or 5, or even 1?


Consider both sides.

Æon wrote:

OhFortunae wrote:

It merely exposés your incapacity to recognize and value higher quality.

Higher quality discerned, discriminated, and judged by whom?

By whose authority, is a woman beautiful or ugly?

Or isn't it obvious that males decide for ourselves?

Ok, beauty is fully subjective; the authority of media and ideals regardless of instinct, biological needs and symmetry, determine beauty and fashion. One day fat, another anorexia.

Getting personal?

A few years ago, a woman who looks similar to the Arditezza's avatar approached me, and we went on a date. I turned her down. She has 2 children.

So I want my antagonists to explain to me how, personally, I am lacking when it comes to selecting a sexual partner? Would a "higher quality" male accept a relationship with a beautiful woman, if she has 2 children? Or wouldn't that be a lower quality male?

You decide. You tell me, about choice.

OhFortunae wrote:

Ok, beauty is fully subjective; the authority of media and ideals regardless of instinct, biological needs and symmetry, determine beauty and fashion. One day fat, another anorexia.

You were supposed to admit that your own, personal authority trumps others.

But you missed the point completely. Males generally do not judge female beauty on behalf of other males, but instead agree upon what is collective observed and first appreciated.


This is why a man with a beautiful girlfriend, or "trophy wife", gains much social respect and placement, by the mere means of proximity of beautiful women.

I hope that you're more philosophically capable than this, OhFortunae. Don't disappoint me.

Æon wrote:

Arditezza wrote:

Interesting, of course that you vaulted me (Aussenseite) above others on ILP, saying that my values were of higher quality and respected, and yet here on KTS you call me stupid and refer to me as a princess. It would be fascinating if it weren't so predictable as well as boring.

I think you mistake the female disinterest in you and your ideas as a lack of intelligence, when the truth of the matter is that your premises and thought-experiments are that of a child, immature and lacking the wisdom and experience of the world.  All of your premises are based on misguided flash judgments on what you have seen. Not stupid, just basically ignorant and lacking maturity and the experience that comes with age and an open mind. It is sad for no one else but you because you are stumbling blind drunk with your rage at women for being... women. You treat them as stupid sluts because you have been hurt and therefore distrust and make incorrect value judgments that even you can't see are full of ignorance and child-like.

But you prove my points perfectly.

As a woman, you have such weak, weak attacks.  If you cannot demonstrate any points, intellectually, mentally, then what are you even doing on a philosophy forum?  Let's maintain pretenses.  Let's pretend that you, as a female, are here to learn something.  As if it would difficult to figure out what you are after and what you want.

Your offensive is so weak and feeble, princess.  Try again, one more time.

Oh dear, there is the problem.  You see every insight as an attack.  I was not attacking you, I was merely making an observation and leave it up to you to see.  But it is you who proved my point and misunderstand that I am here to learn something, but you have nothing to teach me and the realization of that fact hurts your ego so you see it as an offense. As an attack.

I am sorry for you that your lack of self-esteem does not allow you to see integrity and honesty for what it is. I won't continue to waste my time until you've grown into a man.  You will be a fine one once you learn to let go of the tyrannical rage that binds you to the toddler inside.

Your third contempt was the best, Arditezza. I enjoy seeing your feminine wit on display, attempting to shame me while simultaneously proclaiming "I'm not attacking you!"

But alas, I've grown up with sisters, and cousins, and women much more intelligence than you'll ever know. I've seen all the tricks, already experienced them.

Unfortunately, you cannot phase me. But you had three chances, and you did demonstrate your abilities.


Better luck next generation. Maybe your child will do better than you could.

My authority in judgement indeed has a higher subjective taste of quality, but still the fundament lays in objective standards. Enough women I can deem beautiful to a certain degree, but manners and qualities in creation / nurturing are for me too important.

OhFortunae wrote:

My authority in judgement indeed has a higher subjective taste of quality, but still the fundament lays in objective standards. Enough women I can deem beautiful to a certain degree, but manners and qualities in creation / nurturing are for me too important.

Choose wisely:

Lady A.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]


Or Lady B.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

A has better traits in regards to health, but still not good enough, especially how she exposes herself like that regardless of fertility and nutrition - character, I fall for women, rarely though, who have traits in certain talents.

Are you implying that you'll turn down the sexual advances of Lady A when she's horny and wanting?

Hey man, whatever floats your boat....good luck with that.

Æon wrote:

Are you implying that you'll turn down the sexual advances of Lady A when she's horny and wanting?

Hey man, whatever floats your boat....good luck with that.

Not necessarily that, depends on the situation, I won't like it for example to abuse the degenracy of a woman like when she is drunk, but regardless, I can go for it if it not blind hornyness - but in regards to reproductive means, no; in regards to investments, no; no value.

Æon wrote:

Are you implying that you'll turn down the sexual advances of Lady A when she's horny and wanting?

<-- I really don't find anything attractive about Lady A, looks like a skeleton ...She's all yours.

Some women look better chubbier than other women, for example they don't get fat in their faces for some reason, but they usually have naturally curvy bodies. I find too much thinness to be infertile and not attractive at all, especially fitness women usually look like they compensate for their infertility, I can't stand any muscle definition on women, not even abdominal, it's homoerotic imo.

For example, I find this picture to be disgusting (I'm not exaggerating):
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Deal, I take Lady A. You take Lady B. Win-win.

Both subjects are superficial/narcissistic, but at least subject A has some discipline. That said, and although the latter's somatotype is petite ectomorphic, her fertility looks about as dry as her vag.
Neither choice.

I don't understand the relationship you're juxtaposing.

Jarno wrote:

Æon wrote:

Are you implying that you'll turn down the sexual advances of Lady A when she's horny and wanting?

<-- I really don't find anything attractive about Lady A, looks like a skeleton ...She's all yours.

Some women look better chubbier than other women, for example they don't get fat in their faces for some reason, but they usually have naturally curvy bodies. I find too much thinness to be infertile and not attractive at all, especially fitness women usually look like they compensate for their infertility, I can't stand any muscle definition on women, not even abdominal, it's homoerotic imo.

For example, I find this picture to be disgusting (I'm not exaggerating):
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I'm with you here.

Nature actually doesn't favor alpha, powerful male stuff.
That is the result of an evolutionist's opinions trying to make reality make sense without any kind of natural but higher intervention. Simply believing in evolution wont make you better than everyone else. Just like getting rid of christian sentiments does not suddenly make you any more reasonable.

"You" in this case means the general public.

Lady B is in demand around these parts.....impressive.

Guess I'm the exception.

Jarno wrote:

For example, I find this picture to be disgusting (I'm not exaggerating):
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Yeah, turn offish.

Lady A's gap between her thighs is very boyish, just like her figure overall.
I find that her looks are the beauty standard which is being promoted in popular culture - adolescence.
That an being obese (gives pity points to the social signaller who finds her beautiful anyway - 'social signalling'). Anything but healthy.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


"By 2040 we estimate that 70 per cent of couples will get together online, with technology revolutionising the way we find love and build our relationships," said eHarmony UK country manager, Romain Bertrand. ''

Their progressive continuation does not know an ending, by 2040 we are shitting on the streets made by mystical creatures of not that long ago..
Fucking Anglo-Saxon degenerate miscegenating scum


''Biologically, humans are programmed to find people attractive who would be a good genetic match in order to produce the strongest possible offspring, meaning that by studying DNA we may be able to unlock the rules of attraction.''

Unlock the rules of attraction; Solution: Polygamy and exclusion of majority of males from the genepool. tadam.

G+ wrote:

Now girls will be able to select even more selectively, right down to the thickness and number of arm hairs. This means that no matter how you dress, behave, how otherwise fit you might be as a mate, a provider, a lover, a companion, you are probably already deemed a LOSER. See? There are no limits to the application of science to a perverse CARICATURE of eugenics in an age of hypergamy. Oh well, onward and upward, its a Brave New World.

And still we'll hear the refrain of "why are there so many shy-guys and marginal types.

''Rather than having to articulate what you are looking for in a partner, matching could become even more accurate through tracking people’s behaviour and how they react to different situations.

Physically, devices could track your actions and find other singles that have a similar lifestyle pattern, tracking data such as the places you go and the activities you do.''

Similar life style patterns? Going to clubs, getting screwed, screw someone, watch tv, or be a ass-fingering impotent porn addict.

What do they know about passion of attraction, instinctual; stupid cucks and sluts.