>
> "Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot""
cybersheet.com> wrote in
> message news:D6adnbJs_4Lj9IHYnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@pghconnect.com...>>>>> Pretty is subjective. Everyone has a difference idea of whats
>>>>> pretty to them.
>>>>
>>>> That's why centerfolds and beauty queens have such different body
>>>> types from month to month, and why every study on looks in the past
>>>> thirty years has proven the opposite.
>>>
>>>
>>> I think that has more to do with DNA, since all women don't come
>>> from the same family.
>>
>> Yet MEN are the ones judging them, and universal standards are
>> generally accepted among the Ph.D. community, but perhaps this USENET
>> poster has better info.
>
>
> I think I do...:). There are no universal standards when it comes to
> what is beauty.
There sort of is. Waist to Hip ratio. Weight and body fat don't matter in
that regard. 0.7 is still the WHR that gets the most "attractive"
replies. Whether a person likes others to be rail thin or boxcar heavy...
the WHR of 0.7 still tends to be considered more attractive than lower or
higher numbers.
EX: Kate Moss... Shania Twain... Star Jones (before the diet)... all
different sizes... all WHR right about 0.7. All considered by people to
be attractive, in context to their body size.
>>>>>> Now these PUAs can learn what it's like to be an HB and to get
>>>>>> bombarded with interest from warpigs.
>>>>>
>>>>> If by warpigs you mean overweight women then I doublt that they
>>>>> are learning anything.
>>>>
>>>> Overweight and ugly women....and of course they're learning how to
>>>> GAME super-desirable men! Men they *otherwise wouldn't get* (for
>>>> the method has no power if it can't provide this).
>>>
>>> Cool....about time women picked up on this stuff.
>>
>> So which guys are gonna fuck the 4s who get game?
>
> Guys fuck 4's all the time, get over it. One mans 4 is anothers 8.
And vice versa. I've met guys that look at what I'd consider a 10 and
think she's not nearly up to their standards.
>>>>>Most have low self-confidence. Without confidence you can't be an
>>>>>effective seducer or pua.
>>>>
>>>> Gee, so it's not that she's fat or ugly, but unconfident about it?
>>>> Wow, sounds like that "short man syndrome" that is supposed to stop
>>>> guys who are 5'2".
>>>
>>> Mental states are very different from physical attributes.....apples
>>> and oranges.
>>
>> Which means that one shouldn't be stereotyping fat or ugly women as
>> lacking in confidence.
>
> Its not stereotyping, its more or less common knowledge.
Well sort of. It would be kind of like saying that sports cars are
lacking in fuel economy. It's comparative. All women lack confidence to
some degree. Fat. Skinny. Tall. Short. Ugly. Sexy. Doesn't matter... they
all have some area they have a lack of confidence in.
>>>> Maybe it's just easier for a guy to say he doesn't like unconfident
>>>> women than to say he doesn't like fat or ugly women?
>>>
>>> I think its just as easy to say one or the other.
>>
>> I think it's easier to say anything that doesn't attack a woman's
>> physical appearance or body.
>
> Laughing, well of course.....like how do you answer a woman when she
> asks ifs shes fat....man you should know all this basic
> stuff....jezzzz.
You answer with "Let's get naked and have sex!" Any other answer is
wrong.
>>>>>> Women who have looks don't need game.
>>>>>
>>>>> You most have not met many then.....most have relied on their
>>>>> looks and never bothered to nurture a personality.
>>>>
>>>> Smart move. Babe Ruth relied on his ability to play baseball to
>>>> make a living, and Steven Seagal relied on his strength to build a
>>>> movie career.
>>>
>>> I guess e=mc2 came from a runway model too.
>>
>> It came from a guy who relied on his brains the way women rely on
>> their looks.
>
> Not all women rely on their looks.....try talking to one in real
> life....you'll be surprised.
Most, in fact, don't. A woman's physical beauty is quickly exhausted. And
every woman knows this. They might use looks as a way to get a leg up...
but they don't hold on it for too long. There's not a woman alive that
remains successful for more than about ten years on looks alone.
Which is true for men also.
>>>> That's an interesting *insult* to sexually attractive women,
>>>> however, given the previous insult that ugly and fat women lacked
>>>> confidence.
>>>
>>> Sometimes the truth hurts, but women know that.
>>
>> Ah, hope the ladies are reading very carefully what these guys who
>> claim to "love women" are saying about them.
>
> Any time they want to call me on it, I'll be more than happy to talk
> with them concerning it....:) I'm not afriad of girls....:)
Well.. you're not Gordon, then. Maybe you used hypnosis? ;>
>>>And for a woman or man to gain 300 pounds after adulthood has some
>>>sort of problem.
>>
>> Who said 300 pounds? 30 is enough to repel any guy looking for an 8
>> or higher.
>
> Disagree....without seeing the girl you can't say, too many types of
> body types. 30 pounds on one girl looks bad, on another you never see
> it.
Bingo. Scarlett Johannson. Kate Winslet. Hell, some women need 30 pounds
(for me, anyways) to GET TO 8 or higher. Like Kate Moss or Paris Hilton.
Girls that are so skinny I can see their backbone... from in front...
need some meat on their frame. Any woman, for me, that weighs less than
100 pounds... needs some weight gain.
Of course, for Gordon, 90 pounds might be a bit heavy. I think his ratio
is about 5 pounds per year of age.
>>>>>Men are attracted to looks but it is what is inside that keeps
>>>>>them.
>>>>
>>>> Yet there is no chance to "keep" what one is not attracted to at
>>>> FIRST, and the "end" of one relationship is often caused by the
>>>> *beginning* of another.
>>>
>>> Why would one want to keep what they don't want?.......
>>
>> Then "want" becomes more important than "keep." The original
>> statement focused more on "keep" than "want," which is out of
>> sequence.
>
> Of course want is more important, its one of the main driving factors
> in people, in all things.
For real. After we have, we discard. We want more. We want new. We want,
mostly, what we don't have. If we can keep what we have, that's fine. But
nowhere near as important as getting more.
