Shollypopz: Hi Guys!!
I see y'all are having a good discourse here. I'll like to announce that Miss Nairaland Dec. 2012 is taking place soon.

Vote for [size=14pt]abiL and ItsModella.[/size] We have care packages, campaign shirts, caps, and so on.
Do you want to hear their platform?? contact me @ campaignmanager.com.

VOTE!!!

LMFAOOOO

I want a man who is confident and strong,tall ,dark and handsum,a man that clicks with me as for his wallet i don't care about that .....we can always make that money together as long as we love each other.. .....

Shollypopz:
Shut up!! Ewure like you dey form fyne boy!! See ur mouth like, "I wouldn't want to be attached to your kind". Trust me "her kind" no dey ur level! U better vote her in the next Miss NL contest

With that your small ikebe you dey yab mi. Make i no talk truth again. If you were contesting i would have voted,having seen your ****

captalex:

With that your small ikebe you dey yab mi. Make i no talk truth again. If you were contesting i would have voted,having seen your ****

Capatalex, thank you.

Pls do divert that vote to either abiL or ItsModella.
Links to their profile picture is below. More pictures would be uploaded as the competition goes on.
https://www.nairaland.com/abil
https://www.nairaland.com/itsmodella

Looking for follow-up?? Visit this thread: https://www.nairaland.com/1119306/miss-nairaland-dec-2012-auditions

Campaign Manager,
Shollypopz

claremont:
I would believe this is just your opinion and is not substantiated by any facts whatsoever. If indeed this is true, then those Oshodi and Mushin truck-pushers will be the most attractive men in Nigeria.

Please respond with a better rebuttal. The discipline of Evolutionary Psychology isn't an opinion, its a science. So find a source that contradicts what I have written; provide proof that muscle definition is NOT a factor evolutionary mate selection for the female human species. I can understand why the idea of women holding a man to a standard of physical attractiveness might make men uncomfortable, especially if they don't have to the income, personality, or status to compensate for not meeting the physical standard.

Sagamite:

This bit is not that clear. You were mixing men and women up?

I haven't. Physical Attractiveness has always been important to women but the necessity for their personal and offspring's survival was a priority over their physical satisfaction. In developed societies women have the means to ensure their personal survival and children (for men and women) are becoming less of a priority. This means that men are subject to the same physical scrutiny as women. You've heard the charge of women being attracted to "bad boys" right? These women aren't falling for them because their "bad", these men on average are more physically attractive then their "good" male peers who have to compensate by being "good men" to compete for females.

Denise216: Please respond with a better rebuttal. The discipline of Evolutionary Psychology isn't an opinion, its a science. So find a source that contradicts what I have written; provide proof that muscle definition is NOT a factor evolutionary mate selection for the female human species. I can understand why the idea of women holding a man to a standard of physical attractiveness might make men uncomfortable, especially if they don't have to the income, personality, or status to compensate for not meeting the physical standard.

That doctrine of Evolutionary Psychology does not apply to Nigerian girls, neither can we say it applies to all girls in general. I agree it may apply to animals and lower species because female animals tend to mate with the males they believe can provide for their offspring; but extrapolating such a concept to the human species is a different argument altogether. I would have agreed with you if you replace the muscle definition with financial definition, the question really is does muscle definition pay the bills?!

BTW, using physical fitness as a standard of attractiveness does not make me uncomfortable whatsoever.

Denise216:
I haven't. Physical Attractiveness has always been important to women but the necessity for their personal and offspring's survival was a priority over their physical satisfaction. In developed societies women have the means to ensure their personal survival and children (for men and women) are becoming less of a priority. This means that men are subject to the same physical scrutiny as women. You've heard the charge of women being attracted to "bad boys" right? These women aren't falling for them because their "bad", these men on average are more physically attractive then their "good" male peers who have to compensate by being "good men" to compete for females.

I disagree.

Physical attractiveness of men used to be more important back in the day because back in the day, men needed that physical attractiveness to compete and defend themselves, assets and loved ones. Now that physique is of far less use in the modern world.

Women are attracted to bad boys not because of physique, but because of the emotional play. That is what, on average, bad boys can do better than good boys. They fall for these guys because they can create "a want" in them, not just offer themselves for her without a challenge. If you have a great physique but you are quick to say yes to everything a woman says and is not that bright, she would still dump you for a man with an average physique that is ready to tell her what to do and has a sense of humour. There is a reason Simon Cowell is more attractive than most men in their 30s (even without his money). As women become financially independent, they are becoming a bit disoriented about what attributes of men attracts them but their emotions is still the weakest point of entry.

Physique matters, but not as much as being able to satisfy and intrigue her emotional needs because women tend to think more long term than men. Emotions is of longer term relevance, than physique.

claremont:
That doctrine of Evolutionary Psychology does not apply to Nigerian girls, neither can we say it applies to all girls in general. I agree it may apply to animals and lower species because female animals tend to mate with the males they believe can provide for their offspring; but extrapolating such a concept to the human species is a different argument altogether. I would have agreed with you if you replace the muscle definition with financial definition, the question really is does muscle definition pay the bills?!

BTW, using physical fitness as a standard of attractiveness does not make me uncomfortable whatsoever.

It does not apply to Nigerian girls because we have not reached a level of gender income equality and a welfare safety net.

It definitely applies to Scandinavian girls and most white girls. They are in societies where they can provide for offsprings themselves or the state can, so they tend not to look to men for that as much.

claremont:
That doctrine of Evolutionary Psychology does not apply to Nigerian girls, neither can we say it applies to all girls in general. I agree it may apply to animals and lower species because female animals tend to mate with the males they believe can provide for their offspring; but extrapolating such a concept to the human species is a different argument altogether. I would have agreed with you if you replace the muscle definition with financial definition, the question really is does muscle definition pay the bills?!

BTW, using physical fitness as a standard of attractiveness does not make me uncomfortable whatsoever.

Not only does physical attractiveness apply to most women, our ancestors selected for it until wealth/income was able to compensate for a man's lack of visible masculinity (which was necessary for successful conception and hunting to feed offspring), about 10,000 years ago when humans mastered agriculture. That still isn't enough time to phase out traits that modern humans found attractive for 200,000 prior to that. Only then were men of perceived lesser genetic quality able to compete for women who were considered physically attractive.

Unless Nigerian Women have evolved separately from humanity, and they haven't, then science trumps opinion until proven otherwise. Generalizations are needed to establish a premise. Rather you personally agree or not, are uncomfortable or not doesn't matter since I don't see you as a representative of all men.

::Andrew:::
Tall, handsome, six packs, Rich, bmw with alloy wheel is attractive to me.

oooh I forgot pink lips.

gay nigga!!!!

Sagamite:

I disagree.

Physical attractiveness of men used to be more important back in the day because back in the day, men needed that physical attractiveness to compete and defend themselves, assets and loved ones. Now that physique is of far less use in the modern world.

I said as much in my first reply to you;
"Physical Attractiveness has always been important to women but the necessity for their personal and offspring's survival was a priority over their physical satisfaction. In developed societies women have the means to ensure their personal survival and children (for men and women) are becoming less of a priority."
You pretty much just rewrote what I posted earlier.

Sagamite: Women are attracted to bad boys not because of physique, but because of the emotional play. That is what, on average, bad boys can do better than good boys. They fall for these guys because they can create "a want" in them, not just offer themselves for her without a challenge. If you have a great physique but you are quick to say yes to everything a woman says and is not that bright, she would still dump you for a man with an average physique that is ready to tell her what to do and has a sense of humour. There is a reason Simon Cowell is more attractive than most men in their 30s (even without his money). As women become financially independent, they are becoming a bit disoriented about what attributes of men attracts them but their emotions is still the weakest point of entry.

Physique matters, but not as much as being able to satisfy and intrigue her emotional needs because women tend to think more long term than men. Emotions is of longer term relevance, than physique.

Physically attractive men aren't subjected to the same scrutiny as unattractive men. This allows the former to choose among competing females while the latter must resort to manipulation (displaying indicators of wealth, intelligence, dominance, demonstrations of affection, etc) to sway female perception from the physical. That "want" isn't about a challenge, its a basic human need to procreate with men of perceived superior genetic quality. As I said before women actually have a physical response to attractive men making suggestion that emotions are at the base of what she finds attractive void (and a bit sexist).

Denise216:
Physically attractive men aren't subjected to the same scrutiny as unattractive men. This allows the former to choose among competing females while the latter must resort to manipulation (displaying indicators of wealth, intelligence, dominance, demonstrations of affection, etc) to sway female perception from the physical. That "want" isn't about a challenge, its a basic human need to procreate with men of perceived superior genetic quality. As I said before women actually have a physical response to attractive men making suggestion that emotions are at the base of what she finds attractive void (and a bit sexist).

Nothing sexist about it.

Although I am sexist. ..............(If your definition of sexist is the recognition of the difference between a man and a woman). I am fully sexist to the bone.

You are right that physical attractiveness attracts women to men but you are wrong if you think it is dominant at pulling women. Women are programmed to take longer when selecting a mating partner because biological they need to be more selective in the use of their reproductive wealth i.e. eggs. Women have about 400 which they release almost every 28 days or so till they reach menopause. Evolutionarily, they are programmed to be attracted to men who they are positively inclined to believe is of good health and can be a provider for an offspring, so that they are not wasting one of their precious few 400 eggs. Men on the other hand, at each glorious, beautiful, climatic, graceful, intense, body-shaking, energy-sapping burst of pleasure, have about 300m muthafcking Michael Phelps wannabe swimmers in their spermatozoa competing to reach the end and be the champion. That is why men can be more wasteful and are quicker to select female mating partners. I am sure I can count up to 40 NL girls if I meet right now, I would be happy to bend them over at the back of my car and be generous with my 300m yoruba mini-warriors in 15-minute wonder session with Saga. You will not be able to list up to 40, if any at all, of NL guys you want to waste any of your less than 350 remaining eggs (guessing you are at least over 16) until at least you get more time to assess them. I am sure it is not only because I am more naturally generous than you, it is also because of science, baby.

So as I was saying, women take longer to make a decision, that is why although women can be attracted to a man, that does not mean they are keen to sleep with him. If I am attracted to a woman, and she is sane, I will fokasibe if she agrees to split. I know I am a slight exception because I am a professional ashawo but it really applies to almost all men. Our decision is heavily based on the attraction only because we are rich enough to be generous and philantropic. Women cannot afford to be that generous and because women take longer to make a decision, guys with the ability to engage manipulation (displaying indicators of wealth, intelligence, dominance, demonstrations of affection, etc) still have and have a better chance than a guy with mere physique because they are more likely to pass the free-egg assessment test that follows attraction.

Yours sincerely,

Sagamu International.

Sagamite:

Nothing sexist about it.

Although I am sexist. ..............(If your definition of sexist is the recognition of the difference between a man and a woman). I am fully sexist to the bone.

You are right that physical attractiveness attracts women to men but you are wrong if you think it is dominant at pulling women. Women are programmed to take longer when selecting a mating partner because biological they need to be more selective in the use of their reproductive wealth i.e. eggs. Women have about 400 which they release almost every 28 days or so till they reach menopause. Evolutionarily, they are programmed to be attracted to men who they are positively inclined to believe is of good health and can be a provider for an offspring, so that they are not wasting one of their precious few 400 eggs. Men on the other hand, at each glorious, beautiful, climatic, graceful, intense, body-shaking, energy-sapping burst, have about 300m muthafcking Michael Phelps wannabe swimmers in their spermatozoa competing to reach the end and be the champion. That is why men can be more wasteful and are quicker to select female mating partners. I am sure I can count up to 40 NL girls if I meet right now, I would be happy to bend them over at the back of my car and be generous with my 300m yoruba mini-warriors in 15-minute wonder session with Saga. You will not be able to list up to 40, if any at all, of NL guys you want to waste any of your less than 350 remaining eggs (guessing you are at least over 16) until at least you get more time to assess them. I am sure it is not only because I am more naturally generous than you, it is also because of science, baby.

So as I was saying, women take longer to make a decision, that is why although women can be attracted to a man, that does not mean they are keen to sleep with him. If I am attracted to a woman, and she is sane, I will fokasibe if she agrees to split. I know I am a slight exception because I am a professional ashawo but it really applies to almost all men. Our decision is heavily based on the attraction only because we are rich enough to be generous and philantropic. Women cannot afford to be that generous and because women take longer to make a decision, guys with the ability to engage manipulation (displaying indicators of wealth, intelligence, dominance, demonstrations of affection, etc) still have and have a better chance than a guy with mere physique because they are more likely to pass the free-egg assessment test that follows attraction.

Yours sincerely,

Sagamu International.

Chai!!! This bros don kolo.

Seriously, Mr Saga is a one-man battalion, can any beat/silence him? I have been following his posts and I think he can always be on point, only that those fucktards and cretinous beings won't allow him to rest.

nitrogen: Seriously, Mr Saga is a one-man battalion, can any beat/silence him? I have been following his posts and I think he can always be on point, only that those fucktards and cretinous beings won't allow him to rest.

Sorry to be Nigerian but I will answer with a question:

Can anyone win Jesus Christ in a debate on Christianity?

Sagamite:

Nothing sexist about it.

Although I am sexist. ..............(If your definition of sexist is the recognition of the difference between a man and a woman). I am fully sexist to the bone.

You are right that physical attractiveness attracts women to men but you are wrong if you think it is dominant at pulling women. Women are programmed to take longer when selecting a mating partner because biological they need to be more selective in the use of their reproductive wealth i.e. eggs. Women have about 400 which they release almost every 28 days or so till they reach menopause. Evolutionarily, they are programmed to be attracted to men who they are positively inclined to believe is of good health and can be a provider for an offspring, so that they are not wasting one of their precious few 400 eggs. Men on the other hand, at each glorious, beautiful, climatic, graceful, intense, body-shaking, energy-sapping burst, have about 300m muthafcking Michael Phelps wannabe swimmers in their spermatozoa competing to reach the end and be the champion. That is why men can be more wasteful and are quicker to select female mating partners. I am sure I can count up to 40 NL girls if I meet right now, I would be happy to bend them over at the back of my car and be generous with my 300m yoruba mini-warriors in 15-minute wonder session with Saga. You will not be able to list up to 40, if any at all, of NL guys you want to waste any of your less than 350 remaining eggs (guessing you are at least over 16) until at least you get more time to assess them. I am sure it is not only because I am more naturally generous than you, it is also because of science, baby.

So as I was saying, women take longer to make a decision, that is why although women can be attracted to a man, that does not mean they are keen to sleep with him. If I am attracted to a woman, and she is sane, I will fokasibe if she agrees to split. I know I am a slight exception because I am a professional ashawo but it really applies to almost all men. Our decision is heavily based on the attraction only because we are rich enough to be generous and philantropic. Women cannot afford to be that generous and because women take longer to make a decision, guys with the ability to engage manipulation (displaying indicators of wealth, intelligence, dominance, demonstrations of affection, etc) still have and have a better chance than a guy with mere physique because they are more likely to pass the free-egg assessment test that follows attraction.

Yours sincerely,

Sagamu International.

Sexist in that the female perspective is perceived as something that contradicts logic. Noticing differences in cultural accomplishment and social domination between Western Europeans and West Africans doesn't make me racist.

Your basing your premise on results which isn't the issue being debated. There is a difference between what women are attracted to and what they they will inevitably "settle for". It happens in this order as well. The former involves primal brain activity (the insula and striatum in the cerebral cortex) releasing a cocktail of hormones upon initial glance. The latter relies on evolved reasoning based on the social and economic advantages of taking a mate of perceived lesser genetic quality to ensure the protection of offspring. The honest truth is that most women, including our mothers and the women before her, more than likely settled for our fathers and the men before him. Physically attractive men are in short supply and at the top of the genetic hierarchy and men further from that standard (by choice or not) are closer to the bottom. Fertile cycles in women increase women's fundamental desire for indicators of high testosterone; muscle tone, demonstrated aggression and strength-basically what lesser attractive men would call a "bad boy". It has been proven that with all things equal women are more likely to climax and conceive with attractive men.

Your generosity isn't needed, I have science.

Denise216:

Sexist in that the female perspective is perceived as something that contradicts logic. Noticing differences in cultural accomplishment and social domination between Western Europeans and West Africans doesn't make me racist.

Stating the fact and science surely cannot be sexism, baby.

Women, on average, have a less logical brain and tend to argue without logic.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKKa_OlSXgQ

Denise216:
Your basing your premise on results which isn't the issue being debated. There is a difference between what women are attracted to and what they they will inevitably "settle for". It happens in this order as well. The former involves primal brain activity (the insula and striatum in the cerebral cortex) releasing a cocktail of hormones upon initial glance. The latter relies on evolved reasoning based on the social and economic advantages of taking a mate of perceived lesser genetic quality to ensure the protection of offspring. The honest truth is that most women, including our mothers and the women before her, more than likely settled for our fathers and the men before him. Physically attractive men are in short supply and at the top of the genetic hierarchy and men further from that standard (by choice or not) are closer to the bottom. Ovulation has no impact on the physical response women have to physically attractive men-that takes care of the Egg Basket. But it has been proven that with all things equal women are more likely to climax and conceive with attractive men.

Your generosity isn't needed, I have science.

If your scientific explanation is asking me that if a woman:

1) Sees me and admires my body and walks away

and

2) Sees me and wants to fck me and stay with me till she dies

Which one is attraction? I would go for (2). That is not settling for, she has prioritised her criteria and it is different from men's.

Yes, women reason as part of their attraction process. They have multiple assessment criteria.

MEN DON'T REASON! When I see bboobies the blood rushes to my dyck, there is nothing left to run my BRAIN. Ko si mor! No chance to reason. That is my attraction sorted out with that one criterium.

Fact: Physique is not key to a woman's attraction criteria. She has multiple, her evolutionary make up (i.e. eggs control) would not allow it. It is ingrained in the system.

Fame and wealth is more likely to get her wet than physique (as long as it is above a threshold).

Denise216:

Sexist in that the female perspective is perceived as something that contradicts logic. Noticing differences in cultural accomplishment and social domination between Western Europeans and West Africans doesn't make me racist.

Your basing your premise on results which isn't the issue being debated. There is a difference between what women are attracted to and what they they will inevitably "settle for". It happens in this order as well. The former involves primal brain activity (the insula and striatum in the cerebral cortex) releasing a cocktail of hormones upon initial glance. The latter relies on evolved reasoning based on the social and economic advantages of taking a mate of perceived lesser genetic quality to ensure the protection of offspring. The honest truth is that most women, including our mothers and the women before her, more than likely settled for our fathers and the men before him. Physically attractive men are in short supply and at the top of the genetic hierarchy and men further from that standard (by choice or not) are closer to the bottom. Fertile cycles in women increase women's fundamental desire for indicators of high testosterone; muscle tone, demonstrated aggression and strength-basically what lesser attractive men would call a "bad boy". It has been proven that with all things equal women are more likely to climax and conceive with attractive men.

Your generosity isn't needed, I have science.

Furthermore, I am sure no cocktail, not even a half pint, of hormones are released by the insulation and stratosphere for a second when Naija girls go to the market and see these agbero guys with all dem muscle tone.

They give one glance and then glide away.

And you do have a funny definition of bad boy.

You don't know what a bad boy is, park that side.

izuoff..:
what a kidious thread!..

Do you mean that OP and others are kids?

Sagamite:

Stating the fact and science surely cannot be sexism, baby.

Women, on average, have a less logical brain and tend to argue without logic.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKKa_OlSXgQ



If your scientific explanation is asking me that if a woman:

1) Sees me and admires my body and walks away

and

2) Sees me and wants to fck me and stay with me till she dies

Which one is attraction? I would go for (2). That is not settling for, she has prioritised her criteria and it is different from men's.

Yes, women reason as part of their attraction process. They have multiple assessment criteria.

MEN DON'T REASON! When I see bboobies the blood rushes to my dyck, there is nothing left to run my BRAIN. Ko si mor! No chance to reason. That is my attraction sorted out with that one criterium.

Fact: Physique is not key to a woman's attraction criteria. She has multiple, her evolutionary make up (i.e. eggs control) would not allow it. It is ingrained in the system.

Fame and wealth is more likely to get her wet than physique (as long as it is above a threshold).

I was putting sexism in its proper context, not calling you sexist. No need to be offended by something that isn't there.

Aside: On average men's brains use logical to help them interpret visual and audible signals (good for you guys). Women on average have higher language capacity and communication skills. This why women are able to communicate and control their emotions better than men. The differences in male and female brain function are complimentary not inferior vs superior. Female mate selection is what drives human evolution while competition among men is what drives cultural evolution. If your banking on gender insecurity you might want to end it here. I like being a woman and find it to be much more conducive to my lifestyle.

Back on topic. As I said before the result isn't what we're debating, what women find attract in men is. Your rebuttal is based on what you consider the best option is for a few hundred ova. My consistent premise has been that Physical Attractiveness in men is highly desired and that men through evolutionary practice compensate for their lack of it to compete for women. Wealth and Status do not stimulate women, Physical Attractiveness does.

Denise216:

I was putting sexism in its proper context, not calling you sexist. No need to be offended by something that isn't there.

Aside: On average men's brains use logical to help them interpret visual and audible signals (good for you guys). Women on average have higher language capacity and communication skills. This why women are able to communicate and control their emotions better than men. The differences in male and female brain function are complimentary not inferior vs superior. Female mate selection is what drives human evolution while competition among men is what drives cultural evolution. If your banking on gender insecurity you might want to end it here. I like being a woman and find it to be much more conducive to my lifestyle.

I am not banking on gender insecurity, I am just highlighting when gender inhibits logical arguments.

What we need at the moment is logical arguments, not higher language capacity or communication skills.

Denise216:
Back on topic. As I said before the result isn't what we're debating, what women find attract in men is. Your rebuttal is based on what you consider the best option is for a few hundred ova. My consistent premise has been that Physical Attractiveness in men is highly desired and that men through evolutionary practice compensate for their lack of it to compete for women. Wealth and Status do not stimulate women, Physical Attractiveness does.

I am not talking about a result only, I am talking about a process that is complex and not decouple-able as you advocate.

It is one package, it comes as a bundle.

I have highlighted earlier:

Sagamite:

Furthermore, I am sure no cocktail, not even a half pint, of hormones are released by the insulation and stratosphere for a second when Naija girls go to the market and see these agbero guys with all dem muscle tone.

They give one glance and then glide away.

Let me add more to debunk this your theory that women settle for less.

Your hypothesis is that "based on the social and economic advantages of taking a mate of perceived lesser genetic quality to ensure the protection of offspring"?

I can only reasonably and logically conclude that this most likely strongly applies when women reach the age of settling down and having kids.

So let me take you back to when women first became women (adolescent), not yet ready to settle down so no need to "settle for". In my observation, the finest girls in school when I was young and from what I have seen in youths today do not go for the most physically attractive boy, they go for the guy with the most fame and swagger. Sometimes this might be guys with good physique but not necessarily the best physique. The adolescent girls go for the popular boys that are leaders amongst men. Some of these boys do not have great physique, just an aura, self-confidence, power and influence.

So I don't get this your decoupling argument that women are attracted to the guys with great physique when they rarely make a selection primarily based on that at anytime in their life.

Sagamite:

Furthermore, I am sure no cocktail, not even a half pint, of hormones are released by the insulation and stratosphere for a second when Naija girls go to the market and see these agbero guys with all dem muscle tone.

They give one glance and then glide away.

And you do have a funny definition of bad boy.

You don't know what a bad boy is, park that side.

Attraction is marked by high levels of the neurotransmitter dopamine, norepinehprine, oxytocin, vasopressin, and low levels of serotonin, another major neurotransmitter. Nigerian women are human so this applies to them as well.

Denise216:

Attraction is marked by high levels of the neurotransmitter dopamine, norepinehprine, oxytocin, vasopressin, and low levels of serotonin, another major neurotransmitter. Nigerian women are human so this applies to them as well.

Oyinbo!

Theory!

This tells us nothing related to the point I made, apart from you are capable of using big scientific grammar.

Sagamite:

I am not banking on gender insecurity, I am just highlighting when gender inhibits logical arguments.

What we need at the moment is logical arguments, not higher language capacity or communication skills.

Everything I've said can be found under the disciple of Evolutionary Psychology and Biology. I haven't posted an unrelated videos as distractions, swear words, called you something that I wouldn't call a member of my sex. There have also been several fallacies in your posts; Begging the Question, Ad Hominems, irrelevant conclusion, my favorite The Scotsman. Logic yields itself to reasoning which is why I don't use my personal experience or observation, however you used yourself and experience. That is why communication is needed as much as logic because I've displayed both while haven't displayed the latter.[/quote]

I am not talking about a result only, I am talking about a process that is complex and not decouple-able as you advocate.

It is one package, it comes as a bundle.

I have highlighted earlier:

There is no advocacy on my part. Science trumps your cultural/social assumption.

Let me add more to debunk this your theory that women settle for less.

Your hypothesis is that "based on the social and economic advantages of taking a mate of perceived lesser genetic quality to ensure the protection of offspring"?

I can only reasonably and logically conclude that this most likely strongly applies when women reach the age of settling down and having kids.

So let me take you back to when women first became women (adolescent), not yet ready to settle down so no need to "settle for". In my observation, the finest girls in school when I was young and from what I have seen in youths today do not go for the most physically attractive boy, they go for the guy with the most fame and swagger. Sometimes this might be guys with good physique but not necessarily the best physique. The adolescent girls go for the popular boys that are leaders amongst men. Some of these boys do not have great physique, just an aura, self-confidence, power and influence.

So I don't get this your decoupling argument that women are attracted to the guys with great physique when they rarely make a selection primarily based on that at anytime in their life.

This isn't my personal theory, its human evolution spanning more than 200,000 years. Your personal observation isn't relevant here, neither are mine which is why I won't use them when debating characteristics of humanity.

But consider the fact that athletic teen boys are the "leaders" in their schools, they've already demonstrated their physical superiority in front of adolescent girls and their peers. Pro-Ball Players have a better selection of women (in terms of virtue, status, reputation, and health) to choose from than Rappers and CEOs on average as well if we're going to follow personal observations.

Sagamite:

Oyinbo!

Theory!

This tells us nothing related to the point I made, apart from you are capable of using big scientific grammar.

Ad Hominem again. Still waiting on male logic.

PS. You're losing a debate to a girl in front of your peers on a Nigerian forum.

Denise216:

Everything I've said can be found under the disciple of Evolutionary Psychology and Biology. I haven't posted an unrelated videos as distractions, swear words, called you something that I wouldn't call a member of my sex. There have also been several fallacies in your posts; Begging the Question, Ad Hominems, irrelevant conclusion, my favorite The Scotsman. Logic yields itself to reasoning which is why I don't use my personal experience or observation, however you used yourself and experience. That is why communication is needed as much as logic because I've displayed both while haven't displayed the latter.

What fallacies? It would be interesting to hear.

I use my personal experience when I believe there is no or cannot think of any reliable academic research or data on a point.

That is perfectly rational as long as I am being objective, logical and factual. Try it sometime, even though I know it would be a struggle.

Denise216:
There is no advocacy on my part. Science trumps your cultural/social assumption.

What science?

The science you concluded that is not evident?

How many girls do you see getting turned on with cocktails in their hands when they see the biceps of agbero?

Logic?

Denise216:
This isn't my personal theory, its human evolution spanning more than 200,000 years. Your personal observation isn't relevant here, neither are mine which is why I won't use them when debating characteristics of humanity.

Well either the theory you are reading is wrong or you understanding/interpretation of it is wrong because what you are saying has a lot of holes and lacks logic.

Denise216:
But consider the fact that athletic teen boys are the "leaders" in their schools, they've already demonstrated their physical superiority in front of adolescent girls and their peers. Pro-Ball Players have a better selection of women (in terms of virtue, status, reputation, and health) to choose from than Rappers and CEOs on average as well if we're going to follow personal observations.

Oh, now you want to use my experience to create your own personal experience/observation (that "You obviously don't use in a debate as you only use science" ).

Or which scientific research did you get this from?

Abeg, let me laugh for a minute.



Ye, Ye, Ye!!!

My belle o, my head o!

No 1, athletic boys are not the leaders in schools. The guys that could play football/sports the best in my high school were not the leaders.

No 2, the athletic boys that were leaders in school were definitely not the ones with the best physique.

The boys that were leaders were the boys with influence, power, confidence, swagger and sweet talk. Some athletic boys had it, but they were not the most physically beautiful and they were not the only ones that had it. They actually had it because they gained popularity and influence amongst guys from playing sports. The athletic boys that could exploit their popularity were the ones with the right personality, not the best physique, so we come back to that point that the manipulation ability is key. A lot of non-athletic boys were also very popular based on their personality (power, swagger and fame particularly).

Denise216:
Ad Hominem again. Still waiting on male logic.

PS. You're losing a debate to a girl in front of your peers on a Nigerian forum.

Losing a debate?

You sure lack logic as a girl.

What I stated that you gave some rubbish list of science words was:

"Furthermore, I am sure no cocktail, not even a half pint, of hormones are released by the insulation and stratosphere for a second when Naija girls go to the market and see these agbero guys with all dem muscle tone.

They give one glance and then glide away."

Why? Something is wrong with the research you read or you have misread it?

Debunk that obvious observation and then you can logically (oops, that word again ) claim winning the debate.

Now start the logic and stop being a woman otherwise I will send you to the kitchen.

Also while you are at it, use your "Evoputionary Sikeology and Byetology" to explain to me why alot of famous and most desirable women do not end up with the men with the best physique or why they even bother dating men with poor physique when they are rich and can have any man they choose. E.g.:

- Pamela Anderson (Tommy Lee/Kid Rock)
- Raquel Welch (Andre Weinfeld)
- Tyra Banks (John Singleton/John Utendahl)
- Kim Kadashian (Kanye West)
- Claudia Schiffer (Richie Sambora/David Copperfield/Matthew Vaughn)
- Elle Macpherson (Gilles Bensimon/Arpad Busson)
- Bianca Onoh (Emeka Ojukwu)
- Scarlett Johansson (Sean Pean)
- Meagan Good (DeVon Franklin)
- Wilnelia Merced (Bruce Forsyth)
- Christina Milian (The Dream)
- Katie Perry (Russell Brand)
- Nicole Scherzinger (Lewis Hamilton)
- Beyonce (Jay Z)

Many of those women did not have to settle. They could have pulled any men with their beauty and did not lack funds.

Basically, how come the most desirable women with money most times or, at least, a lot times date guys with not the greatest physique amongst men?

What happened to your theory? How come alot of those men lack wonderful physique but exude swagger/power/personality/talent?

Sagamite:

What fallacies? It would be interesting to hear.

Your Fallacies
"Begging the Question": "begging" the listener to accept the "question" (proposition) before the labor of logic is undertaken.

If your scientific explanation is asking me that if a woman:

1) Sees me and admires my body and walks away

and

2) Sees me and wants to fck me and stay with me till she dies

Which one is attraction? I would go for (2). That is not settling for, she has prioritised her criteria and it is different from men's.

Both 1 and 2 prove initial attraction proceeds assessment with 2 different results. As I said before we aren't debating the result, we are debating the fact that Physical Attraction is primary while all else is secondary. Your scenario supports my premise, not yours.

Ad Hominem: usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponents in order to attack their claims or invalidate their arguments, but can also involve pointing out character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This is logically fallacious because it relates to the opponent's personal character, which has nothing to do with the logical merit of the opponent's argument

Stating the fact and science surely cannot be sexism, baby.

Women, on average, have a less logical brain and tend to argue without logic.

Oyinbo!

Now start the logic and stop being a woman otherwise I will send you to the kitchen.

Using the term "baby" and "Now start the logic and stop being a woman otherwise I will send you to the kitchen." when the same language wouldn't be applied to a man with the same premise. Its to undermine based on gender and illicit an emotional response.
Relying on my gender to prove the absence of logic in my premise versus proving the absence of logic in my premise.
"Oyindo!" again used to undermine but this time based on non-African nationality/culture, not the information. My nationality/culture doesn't influence my premise.

Irrelevant conclusion: presenting an argument that may or may not be logically valid, but fails nonetheless to address the issue in question.

So I don't get this your decoupling argument that women are attracted to the guys with great physique when they rarely make a selection primarily based on that at anytime in their life.

Again you're debating the result. The OP asked "The Kind Of Guy That Women Find Attractive?"
My premise has stayed within the scope of the discussion, yours has veered into the men women settle for. Your list of celebrity women below, for example, doesn’t disprove anything I’ve said.

- Pamela Anderson (Tommy Lee/Kid Rock)
- Raquel Welch (Andre Weinfeld)
- Tyra Banks (John Singleton/John Utendahl)
- Kim Kadashian (Kanye West)
- Claudia Schiffer (Richie Sambora/David Copperfield/Matthew Vaughn)
- Elle Macpherson (Gilles Bensimon/Arpad Busson)
- Bianca Onoh (Emeka Ojukwu)
- Scarlett Johansson (Sean Pean)
- Meagan Good (DeVon Franklin)
- Wilnelia Merced (Bruce Forsyth)
- Christina Milian (The Dream)
- Katie Perry (Russell Brand)
- Nicole Scherzinger (Lewis Hamilton)
- Beyonce (Jay Z)

Fun Quote
Heidi Klum about her initial impression of Seal: "When I saw him, I was like, wow! He is different and so tall and dark and just handsome. I saw the package — and I mean the whole package, literally. I was like, "That is a man."

No True Scotsman: modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule.

It does not apply to Nigerian girls because we have not reached a level of gender income equality and a welfare safety net.

Nigerian women are human with the same biology as the rest of female humanity.

What science?

The science you concluded that is not evident?

"An enormous body of empirical evidence has tested, and supported, these predicted sex differences. Men generally show a greater interest than women in casual sexual relationships (Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Clark & Hatfield, 1989; Li & Kenrick, 2006). Compared to men, women hold higher standards for potential romantic partners, especially for sexual relationships (Kenrick, Sadalla, Groth, & Trost, 1990; Kenrick, Groth, Trost, & Sadalla, 1993). Women
generally place a higher priority on variables that connote a mate's ability to commit resources to offspring (e.g., wealth, status), whereas men generally place a higher priority on variables that connote a mate's fertility (e.g., youth, facial attractiveness) (Badahdah & Tiemann, 2005; Buss &
Schmitt, 1993; Hanko, Master, & Sabini, 2004; Li & Kenrick, 2006); Wiederman, 1993). These effects emerge across many different cultures (Buss, 1989; Kenrick & Keefe, 1992; Schmitt, 2005; Schmidt et al., 2003). It is worth noting that these sex differences emerge most strongly under conditions in which individuals must prioritize. Without constraints on their choices, both men and women prefer mates who are both attractive and resource-rich; when forced to
compromise, however, women prioritize a mate's status over his physical appearance, whereas men prioritize a mate's attractiveness over her wealth (Li, Bailey, Kenrick, & Linsenmeier, 2002)"
http://evolution.binghamton.edu/evos/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/neuberg05.pdf

Keep in mind the operative word is forced.

"...a preference for an attractive mate makes biological sense (Fink & Penton- Voak, 2002; Gangestad, 1993; Gangestad & Buss, 1993).
Not only are handsome husbands more likely to sire children who are attractive and thus sought out as mating and marriage partners in adulthood, but these men and their children also appear to be physically healthier than other men and their children (Gangestad, Thornhill, & Yeo,
1994; Grammer & Thornhill, 1994; Singh, 1995a;Thornhill & Gangestad, 1993, 1994). In other words, the physical attributes that women find attractive in men are indicators of the man’s physical and genetic health..."
http://web.missouri.edu/~gearyd/MatechoicePDF.pdf

The idea that women don't factor the Physical Attractiveness of potential mates, either as a premium or to be negotiated for wealth/status, is void of logic when clearly there is a perceived genetic benefit to Physical Attractiveness in men (without or without wealth/status) while wealth/status must compensate for a man's lack of genetic benefit.

"We found that objective measures of the quality of women's mates—men's attractiveness and masculinity—significantly predicted the women's orgasms.....
Thus, possible conception-promoting correlates of female orgasm may be especially effective and/or likely when copulation occurs with masculine males. Interestingly, this component of female orgasm was negatively predicted by male self-rated dominance and masculinity. Because more objective measures of male dominance, masculinity and attractiveness either weakly or negatively loaded onto the self-rated dominance/masculinity component, we suspect that selfrated dominance/masculinity measured something other than genetic quality."
http://www.wellingresearchlab.com/uploads/1/3/5/7/13572010/puts_et_al_2012ehb.pdf

2 points are being made here. 1)Women associate Physical Attractiveness with higher intimate capacity and are more likely to conceive with Physically Attractive men. 2)Men rating themselves as Physically Attractive did not affect how women saw these men. In other words men can't dictate what is attractive to women.

How many girls do you see getting turned on with cocktails in their hands when they see the biceps of agbero?

A "cocktail" is used to describe a mix of something. Which is why I put it in context; hormonal. How many women will release experience a hormonal reaction? Every heterosexual woman on the planet.

Well either the theory you are reading is wrong or you understanding/interpretation of it is wrong because what you are saying has a lot of holes and lacks logic.

You've been provided with sources. The logic is there, pretending its not is disingenuous and dishonest.

I use my personal experience when I believe there is no or cannot think of any reliable academic research or data on a point.

That is perfectly rational as long as I am being objective, logical and factual. Try it sometime, even though I know it would be a struggle.

Oh, now you want to use my experience to create your own personal experience/observation (that "You obviously don't use in a debate as you only use science" ).

Actually I used your personal observation and presented my own to illustrate why using them in itself is illogical and irrational

Personal experience can't be proven because there is no reliable (non-bias) witness to prove an event took place or that your behavior was consistent during the said event. Personal observation is inconclusive because it’s influenced by personal beliefs and values. That is why I didn't give mine with the exception of the high school setting and that was the illustrate the problem with doing so as seen here:

No 1, athletic boys are not the leaders in schools. The guys that could play football/sports the best in my high school were not the leaders.

No 2, the athletic boys that were leaders in school were definitely not the ones with the best physique.

The boys that were leaders were the boys with influence, power, confidence, swagger and sweet talk. Some athletic boys had it, but they were not the most physically beautiful and they were not the only ones that had it. They actually had it because they gained popularity and influence amongst guys from playing sports. The athletic boys that could exploit their popularity were the ones with the right personality, not the best physique, so we come back to that point that the manipulation ability is key. A lot of non-athletic boys were also very popular based on their personality (power, swagger and fame particularly).

Our difference in age, location, culture, and yes gender shape our observation. So while you try to push a non-objective observation and I do the same both void of logic. Only you'll consider your observation valid because it is yours, not because it supports your premise.

What I stated that you gave some rubbish list of science words was:

"Furthermore, I am sure no cocktail, not even a half pint, of hormones are released by the insulation and stratosphere for a second when Naija girls go to the market and see these agbero guys with all dem muscle tone.

They give one glance and then glide away."

Those were a list of hormones at are released when a women perceives a man to be Physically Attractive. Before these Nigerian "glide away" they've noticed and admired these men. You're still debating result while the debate is about what women find attractive. If you stayed within the scope of the debate (something you seem to struggle with-or you might be purposely seeking to derail the topic) then you'd see your premise can't be supported.

Why? Something is wrong with the research you read or you have misread it?

Read for yourself

Debunk that obvious observation and then you can logically (oops, that word again ) claim winning the debate.

Done

Denise216:

Your Fallacies
"Begging the Question": "begging" the listener to accept the "question" (proposition) before the labor of logic is undertaken.

Eleyi ni nkan ti awon Oyinbo npe ni Efasive grama!

(This is what the Oyinbos call Evasive grammar!)

This tells us nothing apart from your accusation of fallacy was just a defensive conjecture. Cut the crap!

Denise216:
Both 1 and 2 prove initial attraction proceeds assessment with 2 different results. As I said before we aren't debating the result, we are debating the fact that Physical Attraction is primary while all else is secondary. Your scenario supports my premise, not yours.

Ad Hominem: usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponents in order to attack their claims or invalidate their arguments, but can also involve pointing out character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This is logically fallacious because it relates to the opponent's personal character, which has nothing to do with the logical merit of the opponent's argument

I never said physical attraction does not preceed attraction, I said it is not the sole, critical or dominant assessment tool, there are more attributes that are more critical and dominant.

Furthermore, I would add that attraction most times just have to meet a certain personal threshold. A high score in physical attraction does not even guarantee a man anything if he does not have a personality to match it.

Minimum level of physical attraction (not high physical attraction) is primary but not dominant.

Ad Attitude gives you a reward of Ad Hominem.

Denise216:
Using the term "baby" and "Now start the logic and stop being a woman otherwise I will send you to the kitchen." when the same language wouldn't be applied to a man with the same premise. Its to undermine based on gender and illicit an emotional response.
Relying on my gender to prove the absence of logic in my premise versus proving the absence of logic in my premise.
"Oyindo!" again used to undermine but this time based on non-African nationality/culture, not the information. My nationality/culture doesn't influence my premise.

Irrelevant conclusion: presenting an argument that may or may not be logically valid, but fails nonetheless to address the issue in question.

If you stop expressing the qualities that is scientifically associated with you gender, I would not refer to your gender.

I don't rely on your gender, I highlight how you are exhibiting the weakness of your gender.

Denise216:
Again you're debating the result. The OP asked "The Kind Of Guy That Women Find Attractive?"
My premise has stayed within the scope of the discussion, yours has veered into the men women settle for. Your list of celebrity women below, for example, doesn’t disprove anything I’ve said.

The result is what matters when it is what is important.

Women look at men with nice physique, they admire and walk away. Women look at men with swagger and power and chase them.

Simples!

Denise216:
Fun Quote
Heidi Klum about her initial impression of Seal: "When I saw him, I was like, wow! He is different and so tall and dark and just handsome. I saw the package — and I mean the whole package, literally. I was like, "That is a man."

Now this does not answer the question I gave you. I don't know what English grammar to give but it looks like you are dodging answering an obvious fact with Ad Rubbishem.

THIS IS UTTER JUNK!

No 1, So what? What do you expect a woman to say about her partner? Even a woman would call he ugly baby the cutest baby on Earth! That is not Ad Hominicious, that is FACT! Are you telling me with the mash up face of Seal, he is what we call handsome? If he was a door man or stacking the shelf at Tesco (Walmart to you) would Heidi see him as handsome or would she date him? By what standard is Seal handsome? If we are listing the most handsome celebrity, what position would YOU put Seal?

No 2, why did wealthy and desirable Heidi shaggg and have a child with a man with a 53 year old man with a potbelly?

Please explain to us how women that have the finances, who do not need to worry about their survival and raising offspring, and are the most desirable of the group of women in the world are opting for men without a great physique since you argue great physique is important.

Denise216:
No True Scotsman: modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule.

No, it was True Sagamu: delivers examples and questions to debunk illogical (oops) theories and arguments, hence bamboozling the author that never intellectually tested their theory.

I do it all the time, baby.

Denise216:
Nigerian women are human with the same biology as the rest of female humanity.

But they behave differently?

Which fits into my theory. Women have multiple tools and the environment dictates which carries more weight.

https://www.nairaland.com/1092778/how-does-aging-affect-love/4#13071399

I am a genius! I have a PhD in Womantology.

Denise216:
"An enormous body of empirical evidence has tested, and supported, these predicted sex differences. Men generally show a greater interest than women in casual sexual relationships (Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Clark & Hatfield, 1989; Li & Kenrick, 2006). Compared to men, women hold higher standards for potential romantic partners, especially for sexual relationships (Kenrick, Sadalla, Groth, & Trost, 1990; Kenrick, Groth, Trost, & Sadalla, 1993). Women
generally place a higher priority on variables that connote a mate's ability to commit resources to offspring (e.g., wealth, status), whereas men generally place a higher priority on variables that connote a mate's fertility (e.g., youth, facial attractiveness) (Badahdah & Tiemann, 2005; Buss &
Schmitt, 1993; Hanko, Master, & Sabini, 2004; Li & Kenrick, 2006); Wiederman, 1993). These effects emerge across many different cultures (Buss, 1989; Kenrick & Keefe, 1992; Schmitt, 2005; Schmidt et al., 2003). It is worth noting that these sex differences emerge most strongly under conditions in which individuals must prioritize. Without constraints on their choices, both men and women prefer mates who are both attractive and resource-rich; when forced to
compromise, however, women prioritize a mate's status over his physical appearance, whereas men prioritize a mate's attractiveness over her wealth (Li, Bailey, Kenrick, & Linsenmeier, 2002)"
http://evolution.binghamton.edu/evos/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/neuberg05.pdf

Keep in mind the operative word is forced.

"...a preference for an attractive mate makes biological sense (Fink & Penton- Voak, 2002; Gangestad, 1993; Gangestad & Buss, 1993).
Not only are handsome husbands more likely to sire children who are attractive and thus sought out as mating and marriage partners in adulthood, but these men and their children also appear to be physically healthier than other men and their children (Gangestad, Thornhill, & Yeo,
1994; Grammer & Thornhill, 1994; Singh, 1995a;Thornhill & Gangestad, 1993, 1994). In other words, the physical attributes that women find attractive in men are indicators of the man’s physical and genetic health..."
http://web.missouri.edu/~gearyd/MatechoicePDF.pdf

The idea that women don't factor the Physical Attractiveness of potential mates, either as a premium or to be negotiated for wealth/status, is void of logic when clearly there is a perceived genetic benefit to Physical Attractiveness in men (without or without wealth/status) while wealth/status must compensate for a man's lack of genetic benefit.

"We found that objective measures of the quality of women's mates—men's attractiveness and masculinity—significantly predicted the women's orgasms.....
Thus, possible conception-promoting correlates of female orgasm may be especially effective and/or likely when copulation occurs with masculine males. Interestingly, this component of female orgasm was negatively predicted by male self-rated dominance and masculinity. Because more objective measures of male dominance, masculinity and attractiveness either weakly or negatively loaded onto the self-rated dominance/masculinity component, we suspect that selfrated dominance/masculinity measured something other than genetic quality."
http://www.wellingresearchlab.com/uploads/1/3/5/7/13572010/puts_et_al_2012ehb.pdf

2 points are being made here. 1)Women associate Physical Attractiveness with higher intimate capacity and are more likely to conceive with Physically Attractive men. 2)Men rating themselves as Physically Attractive did not affect how women saw these men. In other words men can't dictate what is attractive to women.

So because Kendrick, Buss, Schmidt, Alabukayo said it, I should accept and swallow it?

You think I am a product of a failed education system that is wowed by the 3 letters PhD next to someones name? Or awed by the tag Harvard-graduate?

You and Kendrick & co should explain to me why women who are wealthy, beautiful, desirable, single and live in modern societies where they have the liberty to make their choices (HENCE NO CONSTRAINTS) are electing to date men with average or poor phsique otherwise their research is BULLSHIT!

Or feel free to tell me what are the constraints on these women.

Feel free to email Kendrick and co for advice and their contribution.

Denise216:
A "cocktail" is used to describe a mix of something. Which is why I put it in context; hormonal.

Yeah, I know!

I was just using it to take a dig.

I am highly educated you know.

Denise216:
How many women will release experience a hormonal reaction? Every heterosexual woman on the planet.

Oooh! Really?

Well men do! As long as the woman is hot, we do. Why do women not?

Guess why? BECAUSE ATTRACTION ASSESSMENT COMES AS A BUNDLE WITH WOMEN!

You are proving me right!

Denise216:
Actually I used your personal observation and presented my own to illustrate why using them in itself is illogical and irrational

Personal experience can't be proven because there is no reliable (non-bias) witness to prove an event took place or that your behavior was consistent during the said event. Personal observation is inconclusive because it’s influenced by personal beliefs and values. That is why I didn't give mine with the exception of the high school setting and that was the illustrate the problem with doing so as seen here:

So, to cut the long story short and to cut the crap from your verbosity, you admit you do use personal experience in a debate and you were just being hypocritical and disingenuous when you ridiculed me for it?

Denise216:
Our difference in age, location, culture, and yes gender shape our observation. So while you try to push a non-objective observation and I do the same both void of logic. Only you'll consider your observation valid because it is yours, not because it supports your premise.

Exactly what I said:

https://www.nairaland.com/1092778/how-does-aging-affect-love/4#13071399

Did I not tell you I was a genius?

So women don't just use attraction, they have multiple assessment criteria/tools and each carries different weightings depending on the environment but physical attribute is not the dominant one.

JOT IT DOWN! You are learning from the best.

Denise216:
Those were a list of hormones at are released when a women perceives a man to be Physically Attractive. Before these Nigerian "glide away" they've noticed and admired these men. You're still debating result while the debate is about what women find attractive. If you stayed within the scope of the debate (something you seem to struggle with-or you might be purposely seeking to derail the topic) then you'd see your premise can't be supported.

You are being disingenuous and dishonest!

Nigerian girls DON'T admire agbero boys. Stop lying!

You are tell me Naija girls look at this kind of guy with admiration?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vivRHsJ_m_Q

You are a bloody liar!

But give him a contract with Man U earning £30K a week and see how they will all of a sudden say he is kind of sexy.

Women look for other things more than physique!

Denise216:
Done

Like a woman?

Sagamite:

Eleyi ni nkan ti awon Oyinbo npe ni Efasive grama!

(This is what the Oyinbos call Evasive grammar!)

This tells us nothing apart from your accusation of fallacy was just a defensive conjecture. Cut the crap!



I never said physical attraction does not preceed attraction, I said it is not the sole, critical or dominant assessment tool, there are more attributes that are more critical and dominant.

Furthermore, I would add that attraction most times just have to meet a certain personal threshold. A high score in physical attraction does not even guarantee a man anything if he does not have a personality to match it.

Minimum level of physical attraction (not high physical attraction) is primary but not dominant.

Ad Attitude gives you a reward of Ad Hominem.



If you stop expressing the qualities that is scientifically associated with you gender, I would not refer to your gender.

I don't rely on your gender, I highlight how you are exhibiting the weakness of your gender.



The result is what matters when it is what is important.

Women look at men with nice physique, they admire and walk away. Women look at men with swagger and power and chase them.

Simples!



Now this does not answer the question I gave you. I don't know what English grammar to give but it looks like you are dodging answering an obvious fact with Ad Rubbishem.

THIS IS UTTER JUNK!

No 1, So what? What do you expect a woman to say about her partner? Even a woman would call he ugly baby the cutest baby on Earth! That is not Ad Hominicious, that is FACT! Are you telling me with the mash up face of Seal, he is what we call handsome? If he was a door man or stacking the shelf at Tesco (Walmart to you) would Heidi see him as handsome or would she date him? By what standard is Seal handsome? If we are listing the most handsome celebrity, what position would YOU put Seal?

No 2, why did wealthy and desirable Heidi shaggg and have a child with a man with a 53 year old man with a potbelly?

Please explain to us how women that have the finances, who do not need to worry about their survival and raising offspring, and are the most desirable of the group of women in the world are opting for men without a great physique since you argue great physique is important.



No, it was True Sagamu: delivers examples and questions to debunk illogical (oops) theories and arguments, hence bamboozling the author that never intellectually tested their theory.

I do it all the time, baby.



But they behave differently?

Which fits into my theory. Women have multiple tools and the environment dictates which carries more weight.

https://www.nairaland.com/1092778/how-does-aging-affect-love/4#13071399

I am a genius! I have a PhD in Womantology.



So because Kendrick, Buss, Schmidt, Alabukayo said it, I should accept and swallow it?

You think I am a product of a failed education system that is wowed by the 3 letters PhD next to someones name? Or awed by the tag Harvard-graduate?

You and Kendrick & co should explain to me why women who are wealthy, beautiful, desirable, single and live in modern societies where they have the liberty to make their choices (HENCE NO CONSTRAINTS) are electing to date men with average or poor phsique otherwise their research is BULLSHIT!

Or feel free to tell me what are the constraints on these women.

Feel free to email Kendrick and co for advice and their contribution.




Yeah, I know!

I was just using it to take a dig.

I am highly educated you know.



Oooh! Really?

Well men do! As long as the woman is hot, we do. Why do women not?

Guess why? BECAUSE ATTRACTION ASSESSMENT COMES AS A BUNDLE WITH WOMEN!

You are proving me right!



So, to cut the long story short and to cut the crap from your verbosity, you admit you do use personal experience in a debate and you were just being hypocritical and disingenuous when you ridiculed me for it?



Exactly what I said:

https://www.nairaland.com/1092778/how-does-aging-affect-love/4#13071399

Did I not tell you I was a genius?

So women don't just use attraction, they have multiple assessment criteria/tools and each carries different weightings depending on the environment but physical attribute is not the dominant one.

JOT IT DOWN! You are learning from the best.




You are being disingenuous and dishonest!

Nigerian girls DON'T admire agbero boys. Stop lying!

You are tell me Naija girls look at this kind of guy with admiration?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vivRHsJ_m_Q

You are a bloody liar!

But give him a contract with Man U earning £30K a week and see how they will all of a sudden say he is kind of sexy.

Women look for other things more than physique!



Like a woman?

You didn't disprove my premise, you didn't prove yours, and as expected you resorted to personal attacks instead of engaging the subject. Now its just a question of the last word at this point. There is no need for you to be sore about this either. I normally debate more informed individuals that furnish compelling evidence to support their position. Debating with you is good practice but I need a challenge. Hopefully the next person will be more........logical. I look forward to sharing this exchange with my students. I want them to be effective debaters and you've provided a wealth of examples of things not to do, nothing personal.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hn8Jrx6XKzU

S A G A M I T E!!!! heheh!

anti-chelsea:
FAKE PEOPLE! smh

lol nice username.

mtcheeeeeeeew, nonsense, meh i tell una, most of y'll are diverting from the topic of what we r discussing, not here to make long sentences and unhealthy arguments as most of YO are doin' in h...get it right. Evry gal got what attracts her in a guy, all gals aint d same, som lov pink lips, Money, big sex urge, strong protective guys. name 'em....buh lemme make use of this opportunity 2 tell YO modafuckas dis..... 80 Perc. of gals cnt stay around u if u aint got no money, take it or leave it...that's a word of advice. DEUCES !!:... Max is a male.