Exploiting The Male Gullibilty Quotient

[thirteenbyseven]

We men are proud, egotistical creatures carrying on in the tradition of our cave dwelling predecessors, slaying twenty-first century Mastodon equivalents to further perpetuate our seed in good alpha male tradition. But sometimes, occasionally, the self-precieved alpha male can come up a bit short, rather like a beta minus. In times like that, the cunningly shrewd wired-for-deception-like brain of the female is at its best, exploiting the myopic, simplistic mind of the modern male to reach her true goal.

Women, do you ever exploit the male ego to achieve an ulterior motive? When was the last time you told a little white lie to a man such as "you don't see ones like that too often" while mentally uttering "yeah, except on a kindergarten playground." Call it a "charity fuck" to score some really great concert seats. On a grander scale, what about the hot twenty-something blonde on the arm of the paunchy, balding guy pushing sixty on the French Riviera. What gullibilty quoient has he to think she is with him for any reason other than the four thousand dollar Armani he just purchased her? And what did she whisper in his ear that could lead him to think their relationship was anything other than an elegant form of the world's oldest profession?

Ladies and gentlemen, this is the how dumb was I/he thread. wned2: at:

 

[ClaireTalon]

<.> Women, do you ever exploit the male ego to achieve an ulterior motive? When was the last time you told a little white lie to a man such as "you don't see ones like that too often" while mentally uttering "yeah, except on a kindergarten playground." Call it a "charity fuck" to score some really great concert seats. On a grander scale, what about the hot twenty-something blonde on the arm of the paunchy, balding guy pushing sixty on the French Riviera. What gullibilty quoient has he to think she is with him for any reason other than the four thousand dollar Armani he just purchased her? And what did she whisper in his ear that could lead him to think their relationship was anything other than an elegant form of the world's oldest profession?

Ladies and gentlemen, this is the how dumb was I/he thread. wned2: at:

I'm really bad at lying, so I avoid charity fucks. Really. Every man could see that I'm faking it from the outer marker. However, eventually I do use certain keys to achieve a goal. When I was buying my new car, I dressed in a way that would inevitably draw the salesman's attention on me, and stimulate his nether instincts. I behaved a little flirty too, decently so, and that together with a big cash cheque for the down payment. He was like wax in my hands. But a charity fuck isn't on my list, I'm not good at that. A charity flirt, however, is not out of the question.

On the issue of the French riviera guy, can I also rate his gullibility on a decalogarithmic scale? I'd give him a 9 then.

 

[Ethyl]

We men are proud, egotistical creatures carrying on in the tradition of our cave dwelling predecessors, slaying twenty-first century Mastodon equivalents to further perpetuate our seed in good alpha male tradition. But sometimes, occasionally, the self-precieved alpha male can come up a bit short, rather like a beta minus. In times like that, the cunningly shrewd wired-for-deception-like brain of the female is at its best, exploiting the myopic, simplistic mind of the modern male to reach her true goal.

Um...if you say so.

Women, do you ever exploit the male ego to achieve an ulterior motive?

No, sex should be all about pleasure, not payoffs.

When was the last time you told a little white lie to a man such as "you don't see ones like that too often" while mentally uttering "yeah, except on a kindergarten playground."

Never. I'd rather compliment him honestly than tell him something he wants to hear because he's fishing for compliments.

Call it a "charity fuck" to score some really great concert seats.

Never had sex in exchange for great concert seats A former lover did buy me lingerie after we had sex earlier that day but we didn't plan on it so I guess that doesn't count.

On a grander scale, what about the hot twenty-something blonde on the arm of the paunchy, balding guy pushing sixty on the French Riviera. What gullibilty quoient has he to think she is with him for any reason other than the four thousand dollar Armani he just purchased her? And what did she whisper in his ear that could lead him to think their relationship was anything other than an elegant form of the world's oldest profession?

His gullibility quotient is sky high but that's because he's obviously either deluding himself into thinking she wants him and not his stuff or he doesn't care what she thinks or wants as long as she's there to drape herself on his arm and look fabulous, all the while making him look fabulous by association.

 

[thirteenbyseven]

ClaireTalon and mecurialbliss, two of my favorite women here at lpsg.org!

Pssst...Claire, they're shooting Cat III autolands over at Heathrow (minimum RVR) and DEN is still down with blowing snow. Christmas week is starting out badly fly girl. :wink:

 

[Gisella]

We men are proud, egotistical creatures carrying on in the tradition of our cave dwelling predecessors, slaying twenty-first century Mastodon equivalents to further perpetuate our seed in good alpha male tradition. But sometimes, occasionally, the self-precieved alpha male can come up a bit short, rather like a beta minus. In times like that, the cunningly shrewd wired-for-deception-like brain of the female is at its best, exploiting the myopic, simplistic mind of the modern male to reach her true goal.

Women, do you ever exploit the male ego to achieve an ulterior motive? When was the last time you told a little white lie to a man such as "you don't see ones like that too often" while mentally uttering "yeah, except on a kindergarten playground." Call it a "charity fuck" to score some really great concert seats. On a grander scale, what about the hot twenty-something blonde on the arm of the paunchy, balding guy pushing sixty on the French Riviera. What gullibilty quoient has he to think she is with him for any reason other than the four thousand dollar Armani he just purchased her? And what did she whisper in his ear that could lead him to think their relationship was anything other than an elegant form of the world's oldest profession?

Ladies and gentlemen, this is the how dumb was I/he thread. wned2: at:

Very difficult post for me to understand bcause of words...

Gullibility=innocence... (of a rich guy a business man...???)

I dont think this rich old guy is gullible, he just use his money and status to attract woman that would not give a look to them if they not had possessions, they are not naive...to me is a business transation where they just play dumb of each other intentions or just play plain open ...its a situation thats going on and may common as any men can be a big dad to some woman, than it can be a trap in my oppinion.

No I never 'chariy fuck 'any male including because of materialism, dinner, yatch travel and alike. Plus I even think that between people that broke up engagements women most return ring. And here in the US those rings are very very expensive.

I dont like the life style of showing off possessions and stuff of new richs or 'only living by appearences very in debt people', its very frivolous to me. I like discretion and down to earth people, any people poor or midle class or rich.

I can be a 'simple immigrant' but I did have a upbringing with 'oldfashion' values that I carry with me.

 

[B_josiah852]

Please leave my Mastodon alone. lol

 

[thirteenbyseven]

Please leave my Mastodon alone. lol

LOL I will Mastodon, I promise. As for Gisella all I have to say is "did I ignite something?" Sorry.

Sgt. Hulka to Francis "psycho" Soyer: "Lighten up, Francis."
movie- Stripes (1981)

I guess it was a neat topic when I overheard an airport conversation between two female flight attendants. Hmmm, I have to re-word it.

 

[Gisella]

LOL I will Mastodon, I promise. As for Gisella all I have to say is "did I ignite something?" Sorry.

Sgt. Hulka to Francis "psycho" Soyer: "Lighten up, Francis."
movie- Stripes (1981)

I guess it was a neat topic when I overheard an airport conversation between two female flight attendants. Hmmm, I have to re-word it.

:biggrin1: Oh man..you ignite the lack of vocabulary and structure in my mind to understand English sometimes..than I do feel foreigner full blow...

But is nice because my mind is being strech...:wink:

 

[B_josiah852]

Of course women exploit men. Often times we males are told what women think we want to hear. We have exploited women since the beginning of time. Only fair they return the favor. Honest relationships are hard to find. I for one have worked on my ego's for years. Have most under control.

 

[Chrysalis]

I don't think of myself as exploiting male gullibility -- I never offer something I'm not prepared to give. I do what I say I will do.

On this site, I look at some of the penis pics (I can't keep up with them all and still enjoy the threads).

But I'll tell you this: The rating is either ten, or I don't rate it. If I don't like the look of your cock, you will not get a rating from me. So if you do have a rating from me, you can be assured it is an honest rating. If I went around and stroked every guy's ego by giving every cock high marks, then my opinion wouldn't mean anything.

One man sent me a pic of his cock and said "Am I average?" He was, so I PM'd back, "Yes, you are average." He thanked me for my honesty.

Now, having said all that, there's no question my looks have given me an advantage in life. When I used to bleach my hair platinum blonde, I really turned heads. I was amazed at the way men would fall over themselves to help me -- at work, or out in public. Simply amazed. It was as if their brains fell out at the sight of a blonde head on a shapely body.

Now, with a more natural hair color, I "blend in" a bit more, which I like. But I do know that I get more prompt responses from the maintenance man and the I.T. guy than other supervisors in my workplace. I have not offered them anything whatsoever. I haven't even flirted. But I am nice to everyone, and treat everyone like a human being. If you are the guy who takes out the trash, I still know your name, and will usually say hi to you and smile.

So I don't know if it's so much flirting as just being who I am. I do know that when I ask for something, I usually get it.

 

[B_big dirigible]

We men are proud, egotistical creatures carrying on in the tradition of our cave dwelling predecessors

Man is traditionally, if somewhat informally, defined as the tool-using animal. But I couldn't think of the equivalent definition for woman. Certainly not the tool-using animal (which is not to assert that they can't use tools). What does a man do when walking in the woods? He picks up a stick, and, without thinking about it, starts breaking off the twigs, and snaps off one end so the remainder is just the right length for - well, we don't know, but we do it anyway. In other words, a man starts to make a tool, even when he has no particular use for it in mind. Have you ever seen a woman do any such thing? Ever see a woman throw rocks in the water while taking a casual stroll along the shore? Same idea, though the tool involved is even more improvised. For men the urge is almost irresistible. Ugh. Grunt. Water. Rock. Get in some practice. Throw. Ugh. We don't even think about it; we automatically exercise our imperative to manipulate the environment. Women don't.

So, what do women manipulate? Framed in those basic terms, the answer is obvious. Woman is the man-using animal. Women naturally use tools, but through an intermediary. No need to hunt those smelly old mastodon when there's a man around they can get to do the job. Is this manipulative, or merely sensible? Or is it more basic than that?

As far as men being "proud, egotistical creatures", they'd have to be. Who are the men going to try to convince to go out and bring home a mastodon? There's nobody else. So the men do it, even though a man is no match for a mastodon - ego makes up for the difference. That, and that stick we prepared back in Episode One.

Umm .... what was the question, again?

 

[rob_just_rob]

Everyone "exploits" who they're with, in different ways and for different reasons.

For some reason we find it acceptable when someone wants to be with someone else who has (for example) a fit body, a good sense of humour, or a sympathetic personality. By contrast, we turn up our noses at the idea of someone being with someone else because that someone else has money, the right connections, or stability.

And I'm not quite sure why.

 

[rob_just_rob]

To illustrate my point:

On a grander scale, what about the hot twenty-something blonde on the arm of the paunchy, balding guy pushing sixty on the French Riviera. What gullibilty quoient has he to think she is with him for any reason other than the four thousand dollar Armani he just purchased her? And what did she whisper in his ear that could lead him to think their relationship was anything other than an elegant form of the world's oldest profession?

I think it's equally fair to ask how gullible she is, to think that he's with her for anything other than her looks? How much do they have in common? What shared life experiences?

This sounds like a trade of surplus resources - money on his part, and if I may be crude, pussy on her part.

 

[B_josiah852]

As far as men being "proud, egotistical creatures", they'd have to be. Who are the men going to try to convince to go out and bring home a mastodon? There's nobody else. So the men do it, even though a man is no match for a mastodon - ego makes up for the difference. That, and that stick we prepared back in Episode One.


And let's not confuse ego with being secure with one's self. There is a difference and that difference is sometimes confused with each other.

 

[Lordpendragon]

Life is a two way street.

 

[2322]

Woman is the man-using animal. Women naturally use tools, but through an intermediary. No need to hunt those smelly old mastodon when there's a man around they can get to do the job. Is this manipulative, or merely sensible? Or is it more basic than that?

It's more basic. It's nature. Females (seahorses excepted) are designed to be baby carriers and nurterers. Men, and males in the general animal kingdom, are the winners. Men have to win a woman, win food, win status in a tribe, win in battle. We're designed for it.

The reason this is so is because women are, in nature, more precious. In the hierarchy of the sexes, males come in second. We're expendable because it takes far less effort, in time and resources, for males to reproduce than females. Females are needed to bear, nurse, and raise young. Human young are nearly unique in that they are born helpless (marsupials excepted to a slight degree). It takes over a decade for a human child to become reasonably self-sufficient . That's a phenomenal amount of time particularly if you consider what life was like when humans were hunter gatherers and we were still regularly on the menu for quite a few other animals. The succesful woman was one who had a male fight and get food for her. He protected her against other humans and animals. The bigger, stronger, smarter, more imposing man she could find, the better. He attracted her by being big, muscled, a respectable member of the tribe, preferably of high status, a tight buttom and a large penis (to improve chances of insemination). She is also interested in how solicitous he was of her. Doing so meant he wouldn't just impregnate her and leave. She wanted some indication that he would stick around her and provide for her.

She attracted he by appearing healthy, with large breasts for feeding his potential offspring, wide hips for childbearing, unique features that give her status in the tribe (like being blonde or red-headed), and being of good nature so that she would get cooperation of the other women in the tribe, thus improving the social and survival chances of his offspring.

He displayed his prowess by bringing her items that required skill and strength to get; perhaps a lion tooth or a hunk of mastodon, or a bear pelt. After mating she would become progressively less nimble and, at the time of birth, become heavily occupied with child nursing and bearing for the next few years. She would have had other women to help her, but the traditional skills of the women didn't take her far from home. Spinning, herb gathering, fire tending, weaving, teaching language and customs to children, medicine, were all feminine arts. These were things essential to the tribe and to successful procreation.

Ten men could attempt to impregnate one woman but only one will succeed and then it would take nearly a year before she could procreate again.

One man could impregnate 10 women in just a few days and they would have ten children.

It's a matter of evolutionary imperative.

So when you say that woman is the man-using animal, you're right. However it seems to be a masculine definition of what a tool is. Women also use tools by being generally better at language, creating (these days buying) furniture and other things to make a home comfortable and pleasant as women are more sensitive to texture and color. Men, being more spatial generally excel at building and architecture, women better at making the structure a home. Women are also more sensitive to scent and taste; essential in knowing what foods are still fresh enough to eat. Women are more sensitive to temperature, essential for keeping babies warm, but also important in cooking and the detection of fevers. Women also read faces better, are more sensitive to the feelings of others, and express their emotions more readily. These tools are essential in keeping the tribe cohesive, cooperative, and sharing knowledge. Men bond readily in trial (hunting, battle, sport), women bond easily by talking frankly, sharing, and showing mutual concern.

We really do complement each other very well because it is the differences between the sexes that create the whole of humanity into the evolutionary success that it is.

NOTES: There are exceptions to every one of these general gender rules from culture to culture but, on the whole, this is accurate.

This in no way is meant to minimize the roles of women or men in any way. If I've explained properly, it will show that men are, by default, designed to serve the needs of women.

 

[2322]

P.S. - The real question going on right now in sociology is what traditional roles did homosexuals serve? How did they fit in to the heirarchy of the tribe and what, if any, special roles did they occupy? Some cultures have recognized homosexuals to be shamen, others to be warriors, others to fill an essential role of being a communicator between women and men in heavily segregated societies. In others there was no distinction so long as they were heterosexually married as the culture did not distinguish between homosexual and heterosexual. It's rather fascinating.

 

[Lordpendragon]

Men have to win a woman, win food, win status in a tribe, win in battle. We're designed for it.

Lots of interesting stuff that will ignite lots of debate Jason.

But I pick on this one part as I can say that I totally rejected this ten years ago and haven't looked back. I don't think it is design rather nature being the mother of necessity and these things aren't necessarily necessary in many cultures now.

 

[2322]

I don't think it is design rather nature being the mother of necessity and these things aren't necessarily necessary in many cultures now.

By, 'design,' I mean by whatever design nature has dictated. I do not mean to imply anything divine or supernatural about the process. I leave those to the personal beliefs of the reader.

You're right. In most societies it isn't necessary any longer, hence the sexes are crossing gender role barriers to an unprecedented degree. They are, however, still with us in our instinctual assessment of attractiveness and the innate tendency of the sexes to differ in perception and talents.

 

[Lordpendragon]

Personally I don't accept the instinct dogma. I accept that hormonal differences will affect behaviour but I would not call this instinct. It's a very interesting area though.