Big D*ck Inferiority Complex

Off Topic
222

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
Aha, it resembles much more of a normal distribution than I thought, I’m surprised there isn’t more of a positive skewness with the average around 6". The total area of that probability frequency graph equals 100% so if we take that graph as being representative of the total population, the probability of a 7"+ dick is likely around or even slightly less than the 10% I used in my previous calculation on page 6.

So all you average dick and small dick guys don’t needa worry – fucking is a game of odds! [/quote]

But for every point above 6 (when you rate a chick on a scale of 1-10), there in an exponential curve of probability that she will be banging guys with big dicks. It’s a sliding equation. Ba dum pshhh![/quote]

Are you saying hot chicks like big dicks?

223

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
Aha, it resembles much more of a normal distribution than I thought, I’m surprised there isn’t more of a positive skewness with the average around 6". The total area of that probability frequency graph equals 100% so if we take that graph as being representative of the total population, the probability of a 7"+ dick is likely around or even slightly less than the 10% I used in my previous calculation on page 6.

So all you average dick and small dick guys don’t needa worry – fucking is a game of odds! [/quote]

But for every point above 6 (when you rate a chick on a scale of 1-10), there in an exponential curve of probability that she will be banging guys with big dicks. It’s a sliding equation. Ba dum pshhh![/quote]

Are you saying hot chicks like big dicks?
[/quote]

No, they are just more likely to have experienced one.

224

[quote]nephorm wrote:

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
People tend to forget a lot of women get into serious relationships quite early in their adult lives. They may play around a bit in college but many of them will find “the one” (for atleast 10 years --50% of marriages in the US end up in divorce) in their mid to late 20s. It’s always surprising when really attractive women get married so early, anthropology 101 logic would dictate these women have greater access to the gene pool and would on average wait longer before finding the best mate. I think some of these women are tired on men chasing them and just settle so they don’t have to play the game anymore because let’s be honest, the game can get tiring. [/quote]

You could make the argument that, physically, their value is highest at their earliest marriageable age. You sell a stock at its peak price, if you know it is going to devalue. Some women who don’t cash in early are essentially investing their youth in a different asset - their careers. Perhaps, as a woman ages and advances in her career, she gains access to a better genetic market; but that is speculative. There’s no firm reason to believe that a woman’s dating market is any better at 35 than it is at 25, and considerable reason to believe it gets substantially worse.[/quote]

I would say unless they are athletic or train. Most women start going downhill about 22 some much earlier.

225

[quote]orion wrote:
Weeeeelll…

Is it all statistics?

Yes?
[/quote]

No. The statistics are a very incomplete model of a messier reality.

I’m not convinced that what you espouse works any better than competing theories, except that your “experiments” have a lot of selection bias.

No. Fossil records, for example, aren’t just so stories. And the problem isn’t that someone constructs a narrative, it is the circular reasoning: you think you’ve observed a psychological phenomenon, so you come up with an evolutionary explanation for the phenomenon, and then use the evolutionary explanation to buttress the observation. That’s not good science.

226

[quote]nephorm wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Ah, you followed my links, did you not?[/quote]

No, not a one. I just have a semi-functioning brain. I was responding to the assertion that “anthropology 101 logic would dictate these women have greater access to the gene pool and would on average wait longer before finding the best mate.” Economics 101 says otherwise. That is like saying someone with lots of money has greater access to high quality investments and would on average wait longer to invest. The premise does not imply the conclusion. Given that specific set of facts in isolation, an investor would take marginally longer to decide what to invest in (or hire that function out), mostly likely due to correlation between having funds and being a more educated investor. You might make a “paradox of choice” argument, but that has less to do with anthropology 101, and more to do with the structure of modern Western societies.

Of course, that doesn’t mean I believe any of the argument. Just that I am capable of arguing within the paradigm.[/quote]

Let me make sure I understand what you’re saying… you’re using the argument that hot chicks don’t want to assume an opportunity cost so decide to “invest” in marriage early? That would assume:

A) hot chicks become unattractive quite quickly (for the practical time frame we’re using)
B) the rate in A) is marginally faster for hot chicks than the average woman, who is her competition
and C) marriage is an investment generating returns.

We’re arguing from the stand-point of choosing a mate so C) probably isn’t relevant but a hot chick definitely has a greater “production possibility frontier” between the enjoyment of single life and quality of partner. This is more true if we stipulate that marriage has a cost (loss of sexual freedom, etc) and benefit in the form of offspring. Assuming there is no internal battle for mates between hot chicks (there are numerous quality mates) then my argument makes more “sense” than yours.

227

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]nephorm wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Ah, you followed my links, did you not?[/quote]

No, not a one. I just have a semi-functioning brain. I was responding to the assertion that “anthropology 101 logic would dictate these women have greater access to the gene pool and would on average wait longer before finding the best mate.” Economics 101 says otherwise. That is like saying someone with lots of money has greater access to high quality investments and would on average wait longer to invest. The premise does not imply the conclusion. Given that specific set of facts in isolation, an investor would take marginally longer to decide what to invest in (or hire that function out), mostly likely due to correlation between having funds and being a more educated investor. You might make a “paradox of choice” argument, but that has less to do with anthropology 101, and more to do with the structure of modern Western societies.

Of course, that doesn’t mean I believe any of the argument. Just that I am capable of arguing within the paradigm.[/quote]

Soooo… you see it all… but you are not sure how to weigh it?

Maybe some social experiments are in order?
[/quote]

You recognize, right, that you are altered by these “experiments”? When you become a participant, you also become a test subject. My observation in reading your reports is that your participation is having adverse effects on you and, by extension, your dating pool.[/quote]

Yep.

I made some of these points on page 2 or so.[/quote]

I don’t see anything from you in the first several pages of this thread! It’s a good thing I made the points all over again. :slight_smile:

228

[quote]nephorm wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Weeeeelll…

Is it all statistics?

Yes?
[/quote]

No. The statistics are a very incomplete model of a messier reality.

I’m not convinced that what you espouse works any better than competing theories, except that your “experiments” have a lot of selection bias.

No. Fossil records, for example, aren’t just so stories. And the problem isn’t that someone constructs a narrative, it is the circular reasoning: you think you’ve observed a psychological phenomenon, so you come up with an evolutionary explanation for the phenomenon, and then use the evolutionary explanation to buttress the observation. That’s not good science.
[/quote]

jajajajajaja…

try it and see what happens.

229

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
Aha, it resembles much more of a normal distribution than I thought, I’m surprised there isn’t more of a positive skewness with the average around 6". The total area of that probability frequency graph equals 100% so if we take that graph as being representative of the total population, the probability of a 7"+ dick is likely around or even slightly less than the 10% I used in my previous calculation on page 6.

So all you average dick and small dick guys don’t needa worry – fucking is a game of odds! [/quote]

But for every point above 6 (when you rate a chick on a scale of 1-10), there in an exponential curve of probability that she will be banging guys with big dicks. It’s a sliding equation. Ba dum pshhh![/quote]

Are you saying hot chicks like big dicks?
[/quote]

No, they are just more likely to have experienced one. [/quote]

Right, well that is what it is – they have more sexual partners and much higher probabilities.

230

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]nephorm wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Ah, you followed my links, did you not?[/quote]

No, not a one. I just have a semi-functioning brain. I was responding to the assertion that “anthropology 101 logic would dictate these women have greater access to the gene pool and would on average wait longer before finding the best mate.” Economics 101 says otherwise. That is like saying someone with lots of money has greater access to high quality investments and would on average wait longer to invest. The premise does not imply the conclusion. Given that specific set of facts in isolation, an investor would take marginally longer to decide what to invest in (or hire that function out), mostly likely due to correlation between having funds and being a more educated investor. You might make a “paradox of choice” argument, but that has less to do with anthropology 101, and more to do with the structure of modern Western societies.

Of course, that doesn’t mean I believe any of the argument. Just that I am capable of arguing within the paradigm.[/quote]

Soooo… you see it all… but you are not sure how to weigh it?

Maybe some social experiments are in order?
[/quote]

You recognize, right, that you are altered by these “experiments”? When you become a participant, you also become a test subject. My observation in reading your reports is that your participation is having adverse effects on you and, by extension, your dating pool.[/quote]

Thats very Heisenberg of you, how have my experiments regarding you affected you in bad manner?[/quote]

You sometimes leave me in such a state of despair, I have trouble working out effectively. Runs are shorter, lifts less strenuous.

231

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]nephorm wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Ah, you followed my links, did you not?[/quote]

No, not a one. I just have a semi-functioning brain. I was responding to the assertion that “anthropology 101 logic would dictate these women have greater access to the gene pool and would on average wait longer before finding the best mate.” Economics 101 says otherwise. That is like saying someone with lots of money has greater access to high quality investments and would on average wait longer to invest. The premise does not imply the conclusion. Given that specific set of facts in isolation, an investor would take marginally longer to decide what to invest in (or hire that function out), mostly likely due to correlation between having funds and being a more educated investor. You might make a “paradox of choice” argument, but that has less to do with anthropology 101, and more to do with the structure of modern Western societies.

Of course, that doesn’t mean I believe any of the argument. Just that I am capable of arguing within the paradigm.[/quote]

Soooo… you see it all… but you are not sure how to weigh it?

Maybe some social experiments are in order?
[/quote]

You recognize, right, that you are altered by these “experiments”? When you become a participant, you also become a test subject. My observation in reading your reports is that your participation is having adverse effects on you and, by extension, your dating pool.[/quote]

Thats very Heisenberg of you, how have my experiments regarding you affected you in bad manner?[/quote]

You sometimes leave me in such a state of despair, I have trouble working out effectively. Runs are shorter, lifts less strenuous.
[/quote]

Damn…

232

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
Aha, it resembles much more of a normal distribution than I thought, I’m surprised there isn’t more of a positive skewness with the average around 6". The total area of that probability frequency graph equals 100% so if we take that graph as being representative of the total population, the probability of a 7"+ dick is likely around or even slightly less than the 10% I used in my previous calculation on page 6.

So all you average dick and small dick guys don’t needa worry – fucking is a game of odds! [/quote]

But for every point above 6 (when you rate a chick on a scale of 1-10), there in an exponential curve of probability that she will be banging guys with big dicks. It’s a sliding equation. Ba dum pshhh![/quote]

Are you saying hot chicks like big dicks?
[/quote]

No, they are just more likely to have experienced one. [/quote]

Right, well that is what it is – they have more sexual partners and much higher probabilities.
[/quote]

Why would hot chicks have more partners? Wouldn’t they be able to pull the kind of prize they’d be satisfied to leave the market for? You’d think they’d have less probability.

233

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
Aha, it resembles much more of a normal distribution than I thought, I’m surprised there isn’t more of a positive skewness with the average around 6". The total area of that probability frequency graph equals 100% so if we take that graph as being representative of the total population, the probability of a 7"+ dick is likely around or even slightly less than the 10% I used in my previous calculation on page 6.

So all you average dick and small dick guys don’t needa worry – fucking is a game of odds! [/quote]

But for every point above 6 (when you rate a chick on a scale of 1-10), there in an exponential curve of probability that she will be banging guys with big dicks. It’s a sliding equation. Ba dum pshhh![/quote]

Are you saying hot chicks like big dicks?
[/quote]

No, they are just more likely to have experienced one. [/quote]

Right, well that is what it is – they have more sexual partners and much higher probabilities.
[/quote]

Why would hot chicks have more partners? Wouldn’t they be able to pull the kind of prize they’d be satisfied to leave the market for? You’d think they’d have less probability.[/quote]

Yeah it’s kind of what me and nephorm are talking about. I don’t know lol. From a practical stand-point, some of my attractive female friends are promiscuous and some go through year-long or longer relationships.

234

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
Aha, it resembles much more of a normal distribution than I thought, I’m surprised there isn’t more of a positive skewness with the average around 6". The total area of that probability frequency graph equals 100% so if we take that graph as being representative of the total population, the probability of a 7"+ dick is likely around or even slightly less than the 10% I used in my previous calculation on page 6.

So all you average dick and small dick guys don’t needa worry – fucking is a game of odds! [/quote]

But for every point above 6 (when you rate a chick on a scale of 1-10), there in an exponential curve of probability that she will be banging guys with big dicks. It’s a sliding equation. Ba dum pshhh![/quote]

Are you saying hot chicks like big dicks?
[/quote]

No, they are just more likely to have experienced one. [/quote]

Right, well that is what it is – they have more sexual partners and much higher probabilities.
[/quote]

Why would hot chicks have more partners? Wouldn’t they be able to pull the kind of prize they’d be satisfied to leave the market for? You’d think they’d have less probability.[/quote]

Yeah it’s kind of what me and nephorm are talking about. I don’t know lol. From a practical stand-point, some of my attractive female friends are promiscuous and some go through year-long or longer relationships.
[/quote]

Rotating polyandry.

Relationships based on the female narrative…

How about rotating polygamy instead?

235

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
Let me make sure I understand what you’re saying… you’re using the argument that hot chicks don’t want to assume an opportunity cost so decide to “invest” in marriage early? That would assume:

A) hot chicks become unattractive quite quickly (for the practical time frame we’re using)
B) the rate in A) is marginally faster for hot chicks than the average woman, who is her competition
and C) marriage is an investment generating returns.

We’re arguing from the stand-point of choosing a mate so C) probably isn’t relevant but a hot chick definitely has a greater “production possibility frontier” between the enjoyment of single life and quality of partner. This is more true if we stipulate that marriage has a cost (loss of sexual freedom, etc) and benefit in the form of offspring. Assuming there is no internal battle for mates between hot chicks (there are numerous quality mates) then my argument makes more “sense” than yours. [/quote]

First, let me clarify that my comment about having a semi-functioning brain was not a shot at you. I realized it could be interpreted that way after I posted it.

So your argument is that her rational strategy is to enjoy sexual freedom until her age makes her about equivalently attractive to her more average competitors, at which point she enters the market?

The rate of declining “value” in looks does not have to be faster for hot chicks than the average woman, because her competition isn’t just other women within her cohort, her competition for the best men will be women that are younger than she is. A 35 year old woman is competing with 22-25 year old women for a desirable 35 year old man. If all the man selects for is attractiveness and potential for offspring, he’s much better off taking the younger woman, who is more likely to remain attractive for longer than the older woman. Economic actors compromise, of course, but isn’t it a better long-term strategy to maximize your partner selection? But of course, if you’re assuming that there’s no internal battle, i.e., no competition, then there is no market because there is no scarcity. If we have a surplus of quality men, in this hetero-normative hypothetical of ours, then you’re right, a woman is better off waiting until she has just enough child bearing years left to have the number of children she wants, at which point she can wander out into the street, grab a random man by the collar, and head to the justice of the peace. The difference is that I don’t stipulate the surplus.

236

[quote]nephorm wrote:

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
Let me make sure I understand what you’re saying… you’re using the argument that hot chicks don’t want to assume an opportunity cost so decide to “invest” in marriage early? That would assume:

A) hot chicks become unattractive quite quickly (for the practical time frame we’re using)
B) the rate in A) is marginally faster for hot chicks than the average woman, who is her competition
and C) marriage is an investment generating returns.

We’re arguing from the stand-point of choosing a mate so C) probably isn’t relevant but a hot chick definitely has a greater “production possibility frontier” between the enjoyment of single life and quality of partner. This is more true if we stipulate that marriage has a cost (loss of sexual freedom, etc) and benefit in the form of offspring. Assuming there is no internal battle for mates between hot chicks (there are numerous quality mates) then my argument makes more “sense” than yours. [/quote]

First, let me clarify that my comment about having a semi-functioning brain was not a shot at you. I realized it could be interpreted that way after I posted it.

So your argument is that her rational strategy is to enjoy sexual freedom until her age makes her about equivalently attractive to her more average competitors, at which point she enters the market?

The rate of declining “value” in looks does not have to be faster for hot chicks than the average woman, because her competition isn’t just other women within her cohort, her competition for the best men will be women that are younger than she is. A 35 year old woman is competing with 22-25 year old women for a desirable 35 year old man. If all the man selects for is attractiveness and potential for offspring, he’s much better off taking the younger woman, who is more likely to remain attractive for longer than the older woman. Economic actors compromise, of course, but isn’t it a better long-term strategy to maximize your partner selection? But of course, if you’re assuming that there’s no internal battle, i.e., no competition, then there is no market because there is no scarcity. If we have a surplus of quality men, in this hetero-normative hypothetical of ours, then you’re right, a woman is better off waiting until she has just enough child bearing years left to have the number of children she wants, at which point she can wander out into the street, grab a random man by the collar, and head to the justice of the peace. The difference is that I don’t stipulate the surplus. [/quote]

You so totally read my links and/or googled some key concepts, its not even funny.

Go ahead, say it is not so, because I do not care.

One more who sees the Matrix, God bless you.

PS: You might want to start a Blog, your insights would be welcome.

237

[quote]orion wrote:
You so totally read my links and/or googled some key concepts, its not even funny.

Go ahead, say it is not so, because I do not care.

One more who sees the Matrix, God bless you.

PS: You might want to start a Blog, your insights would be welcome. [/quote]

You do realize that I am just applying incredibly basic economic principles given well-known societal expectations of gender value, right? I don’t have to read a link or google anything to figure that one out. It’s really not very deep.

Also, I’d like to point out that if you consult my posting history, I am sure I wrote quite a few posts presupposing an economic mate selection strategy, and did so many years ago.

238

[quote]nephorm wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
You so totally read my links and/or googled some key concepts, its not even funny.

Go ahead, say it is not so, because I do not care.

One more who sees the Matrix, God bless you.

PS: You might want to start a Blog, your insights would be welcome. [/quote]

You do realize that I am just applying incredibly basic economic principles given well-known societal expectations of gender value, right? I don’t have to read a link or google anything to figure that one out. It’s really not very deep.[/quote]

YOU DO REALIZE that most guys do not apply any sort of logic to this area at all?

They would benefit enormously from your deconstructions.

The Book of Nephorm.

I can see it.

I shall be part of the Canon, like the Book of Pook or the Book of Solomon II.

239

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
According to the CDC, only %10 of women between the ages of 25 and 44 have had sex with more than 15 men.

Unfortunately, I went to school with none of them.[/quote]

Keep in mind those numbers a heavily skewed by inner city populations. I think what Emily said above is spot on for the typical middle class american female.[/quote]

For those of us living in inner city, those numbers are heavily skewed downward by those living in more rural areas. :)[/quote]

People tend to forget a lot of women get into serious relationships quite early in their adult lives. They may play around a bit in college but many of them will find “the one” (for atleast 10 years --50% of marriages in the US end up in divorce) in their mid to late 20s. It’s always surprising when really attractive women get married so early, anthropology 101 logic would dictate these women have greater access to the gene pool and would on average wait longer before finding the best mate. I think some of these women are tired on men chasing them and just settle so they don’t have to play the game anymore because let’s be honest, the game can get tiring. [/quote]

Coming back to this, from earlier. YES. I’m not in “the most attractive” category of women but I hate casual dating and always have. It feels like being hunted to me, with distressing undercurrents of anger should you fail to meet expectations, whether of reciprocated attraction or sex. I don’t get the appeal of some guy I hardly know trying to back me into a corner while he makes what he thinks are sexy faces, or of men with bad breath and boring stories trying to pin me down for a kiss or another date or to come over or to meet his dog/mother/sailboat/whatever.

No. Give me someone who smells just right and who isn’t a bore and I will happily kiss and other things without any thought as to who else might be out there with a bigger penis or wallet or what have you.

240

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
According to the CDC, only %10 of women between the ages of 25 and 44 have had sex with more than 15 men.

Unfortunately, I went to school with none of them.[/quote]

Keep in mind those numbers a heavily skewed by inner city populations. I think what Emily said above is spot on for the typical middle class american female.[/quote]

For those of us living in inner city, those numbers are heavily skewed downward by those living in more rural areas. :)[/quote]

People tend to forget a lot of women get into serious relationships quite early in their adult lives. They may play around a bit in college but many of them will find “the one” (for atleast 10 years --50% of marriages in the US end up in divorce) in their mid to late 20s. It’s always surprising when really attractive women get married so early, anthropology 101 logic would dictate these women have greater access to the gene pool and would on average wait longer before finding the best mate. I think some of these women are tired on men chasing them and just settle so they don’t have to play the game anymore because let’s be honest, the game can get tiring. [/quote]

Coming back to this, from earlier. YES. I’m not in “the most attractive” category of women but I hate casual dating and always have. It feels like being hunted to me, with distressing undercurrents of anger should you fail to meet expectations, whether of reciprocated attraction or sex. I don’t get the appeal of some guy I hardly know trying to back me into a corner while he makes what he thinks are sexy faces, or of men with bad breath and boring stories trying to pin me down for a kiss or another date or to come over or to meet his dog/mother/sailboat/whatever.

No. Give me someone who smells just right and who isn’t a bore and I will happily kiss and other things without any thought as to who else might be out there with a bigger penis or wallet or what have you.

[/quote]

Easy prey-

So I dont have to suck utterly?

Is that supposed to be a challenge?

241

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
I don’t get the appeal of some guy I hardly know trying to back me into a corner while he makes what he thinks are sexy faces, or of men with bad breath and boring stories trying to pin me down for a kiss or another date or to come over or to meet his dog/mother/sailboat/whatever.

[/quote]

That sounds utterly painful, while also sounding like 80% of the male population…