No it isn't.  They provide us with examples that be analyzed.

You clearly were not paying attention to what was going on.  Greek Goddess, as well as others, noticed that my understanding of high maintenance had little to do with personality and more to do with what was actually being performed.  The only comment i made on personality was stating how high maintenance bothers me if it is clear these high maintenance activities are valued above everything else which Greek Goddess is NOT like.

Not every attempt at humor succeeds.

At least I didn't ask her about her weight huh?  The Mannerly Matrix might have imploded unto itself wrecking havok with everyone's sense of decency!

Ive have asked many girls the very same questions that I asked Greek Goddess and none reacted the way you are right now.  Even if they feel it is inappropiate to ask, they are a hell of alot more mature about than you are and simply state "I don't feel comfortable about this topic".  Which, if Greek Goddess would have made that reply, I would not have pryed any further. 

I think you are the one who is pissed off.  I am perfectly content and enjoyed the discussion with Greek Goddess and Hammbydammit as well as everyone else.

How many times do I have to say this?  For me, high maintenance is GENDER NUETRAL.  I never once made the claim that high maintenance is strictly a female trait.  I know straight guys who go on and on about how awesome their hair is and how they made it so awesome as well as go on and on about what clothes look good on them and which clothes don't.  All I'm saying is, FOR ME, high maintenance is doing more than is necessary.  "Necessary", being what is needed to keep from getting diseases and to at least attempt to keep one's self healthy.   As Hammbydammit pointed out, it is NOT necessary to do all these "social" graces since their are individuals who do not value such things as much as others do.  They are a lower percentage of the population but they do exist.  Which puts me in a strange spot since it means "not playing the game" is impossible since be rejecting these "social graces" I am simply playing by a different rule set than the one's who accept them. 

I was a pretty shy child. Part of it may have been that I was a bit precocious, so I think I actually had an easier time being understood by adults than my own peers. Another factor may have been that not only was I on the small side for my age, but I skipped a grade, so I was a year younger than the others, with regard to physical development. I was one of the brightest in the class, but I was also the runt of the class, so kids got even with me by picking on me on the playground or in gym class. Although I made friends, I never took initiative to approach people because I was too shy, and too scared of being laughed at or punished somehow.

That all changed in middle school. The sixth grade was divided into three "teams" - you pretty much only interacted with people from your own team, because they were split into different wings of the school. But on the first day of school, one of my teachers told everyone that it should be our goal to get to know every single person on our team. They said they would quiz us at the end of the year to see how well we knew our team.

Whether it was an exercise she got out of some sociological teaching methods book, or whether she thought of it off the top of her head, I don't know. The quiz never happened, but it didn't even matter - my life, and the way I interacted with people was changed forever. It put me outside my comfort zone at first, but I forced myself to talk to people and strike up conversations. By the end of the year, I did know all several hundred people on my team, and even people on other teams. The lesson I learned that year has gotten me through every single social situation since. I still am sometimes not as assertive as I feel I should be, and it took another 10 years to get over my self-confidence issues, but I am able to at least carry on conversations and approach people without feeling awkward. I probably wouldn't even be dating my boyfriend if I hadn't approached him and started talking to him, and the same goes for many of the friends I've made in college.

I think social interaction is a worthwhile skill to teach. Even though I was primarily "self-taught" the last 10 years of my life have benefitted from it.

Matt: Consider for a moment that you have an actual impairment in this area. No offense, but applying her methodology to your own anomolous circumstances isn't very reasonable - no conventional course on social interaction would be of benefit to you (or anyone else with Aspergers). It's not a problem with the teaching method, it's an impairment on your end of the relationship.

This would be like me criticizing someone teaching a successful way to get into healthy sleeping patterns because of my occassional sleep paralysis / nocturnal hallucinations. Of course it won't work for me; that doesn't mean it's not an effective methodology in general.

While I certainly won't debate the financial arguments, I'll argue that humbleness and 'smallness' (for lack of a better word) earn me my fair share of unfairly favorable ends of various bargains, and certainly has netted me an unusually large social network. I don't know what it is (part of me want to say it's likely our natural instinct to look out for the small ones in our herds, from way back when), but there's almost definately (in my experience) a real effort to look-out for 'the little guy' among humans - and not for any reason related to sexual attractiveness. I know I get heaping portions at restaurants, I always get offered free rides when walking in the winter, bus drivers waive fare fees all the time and other little freebies in life are usually passed my way.

Of course, I imagine that really attractive small people have it even better, but I just wanted to mention the above.

And you are part of the Prick Majority.  Congrats.

...But you take ownership of your own social problems and don't blame women, right?

I'd take intelligence over 'hot' any day and witty over intelligence, although the two generally go hand-in-hand.

I'd also add that a lot of 'attractiveness' is driven by media, advertising and peer pressure.

It all comes down to how you click anyway.

That's not pointed at me, is it?  I never said anything remotely like this.

I'm the first person to stand up for your right to make whatever goals you want in life.  Still, if you're comfortable with the notion that we are nothing more than very smart animals, I can't imagine how you can call mating and bonding "nonsensical."  We definitely spend a lot of time at it, and maybe compared to... I don't know... building skyscrapers... it doesn't leave as big an impact on the world, but hell... it literally is the only thing our genes care about.  To call it nonsensical or pointless seems... um... bitter.

Nope.  don't know why you would think it would be.

I think I said this already but, to me, there is a distinction between the idea of a natural and easily revealed phenomena, relationships (mating, bonding etc.) and robust and mystical concepts we use to try and explain why this occurs, namely, love (or soul mates, significant others, etc.).  There has yet to be any real robust, or seriously held, conception of love that reduces it to our biological desire, need, or want to mate (unless you subscribe to Frankfurtian terminology which has an even weirder conception).  Love usually entails magical nonsense.  To people who seriosuly beleive in this notion, like my parents for instance, do not explain their relationship in brute biological facts, rather, they are utterly convinced that, along with being perfect for one another, they are the ONLY onces who are perfect for one another.  Furthermore, that it was meant to be.  And it is only within analytical discussions like this that love means something different or, at least, loses its magical and mystic conotation.  To put it simply, reducing it to biological functions within the context of analytical discussions or scientific disucissions (again I find that to be a dubious move in science) is not enough to convince me that there is really something there to discuss in regards to love since all we are doing are applying a different word to something we both agree occurs (you, and others apply "love" to the biological need to mate and I just stick with "a biological need to mate".  Of course, "love" has also been applied to the release of endorphines, thus, a mere momentary feeling of pleasure has also been called "love".  Is it any wonder why I dislike the term "love"?  Even in discussions like this it is being applied to two radically different things and, in both cases, this is how "love" is argued for by saying "phenomena X happens and that isn't nonsense" and "Phenomena Y happens and that isn't nonsense".  So is love both X and Y or either one or the other?  Let me tell you: it is neither becuase love is absolute total nonsense which is why it can be applied to pretty much anything similar to how a Christian can appeal to God for just about anything) . . . My face didn't get too red with rage did it?

Now that the fight... err... debate is over, every can go back to hitting on Greek and displaying your e-peen

Since I never claimed to be a gentleman, this must not apply to me

For the record I pushed the matter becuase individuals who make it a point that they are not high maintenance, usually are.  Thats the assumption I was working with.  And lo and behold, under my rather obscure and bizaare formulation of high maintenance that no one else accepts, you are

Good point. I think this also relates to your earlier comment about how we settle in some areas for traits that are of more ciritical importance in a mate. The guy I'm dating (Jesse) is Asian, and has crazy metabolism that makes it hard for him to gain a lot of muscle (on the bright side, he only has like 6% body fat.. I'm so jealous). There's a guy that works at the gym I go to who keeps hitting on me (and doesn't seem to comprehend the words "I'm not leaving my boyfriend for you" ) and has a larger frame and more muscle than Jesse. But when I told him I was studying to be an evolutionary biologist, he said, "I dunno... they say we came from monkeys.." Yeah. I don't know this guy's religious leanings or anything, but it's important to me that a potential partner is atheist and has an interest in science and learning - Jesse meets both. Physical looks are not nearly as important to me as these two criteria. (I still think Jesse's cuter anyways.)

I'm sure I'd be impressed Hamby.

Haha, but in all seriousness, this is sort of what I'm getting at. The way you dress and present yourself, is basically personal advertising. That's why there are shows like "What Not to Wear" - the people they make over are already cool, accomplished people. The thing is, who would know, if they're hiding under frumpy sweaters, or wearing unflattering clothing, or whatever each subject's issue may be. They always say "don't judge a book by its cover," but like it or not, we do anyways. Might as well let it play to your advantage.

Oh, another thing about "What Not to Wear" (illeatyourdog is gonna love this): The point that they make is that you can look good without being high maintenance. It takes the same amount of time to put on pants and a shirt. Person 1 opts for sweatpants and a t-shirt with bleach stains. Person 2 opts for trousers and a collared shirt. Which one says "up and coming professional" to you? What they do on the show is create the illusion of being high maintenance, without spending nearly as much time as you'd think it would.

Well put.

Again, really good; I didn't even take this factor into consideration before in this thread.

This is what I was trying to convey with the make-up thing. A lot of women look terrible without make-up. Someone like me, who has good skin and symmatrical features, is at an advantage in a make-up-less society. But someone decided to invent make-up so less attractive women could look more attractive and boost their chances of mating/reproduction. That's why I was saying, if less attractive women are going to use these products to try to look better than me (and steal my men), why would I stand for that? I wouldn't; I'll get my own damn make-up to swing the odds in my favor again. Like I said, there is this instinct to do whatever it takes to get some ass (and make babies).

Right. We have to know you're out there before we select you.

This is why I have a problem with illeatyourdog saying his idea of HM is gender-neutral. It's almost impossible, because for most people, their grooming is based on what the opposite sex prefers. And, as already established, males are more visually focused than women. The judging criteria varies, and so the grooming varies in accordance.

I still have yet to buy myself a drink at a bar.

So true. I haven't had experiences quite as blatant as this, but I do remember my first high school boyfriend telling me on our first date how he loved to grill, and wanted to be a pastor (we went to a xtian school), and was interested in doing more reading, and all this stuff. He sounded like a really interesting person. But over a year later, he hadn't grilled once, the closest he'd come to becoming a pastor was falling asleep every chapel, and he hadn't read a single book outside of school. The advertisement was good, but the product didn't live up to it.

Quite true.

I'd argue that her looks are actually a turn-off for a number of guys. She always complains that guys we meet are more interested in me than in her (which I wouldn't say is true ALL the time, but sometimes sure). But the reaon is that when we go out in public she either 1) wears her pajama pants and no make-up, so I look more put-together in comparison, or 2) puts on a lot of make-up and perfume and makes a fuss about her hair & clothes, so I look like I'm not neurotic in comparison.

She has a new hairstyle every couple months, and a new set of acrylic nails every couple weeks. The fact that she does all this "fake" stuff to her appearance screams "high maintenance" to guys, which is why many write her off as relationship material right away - they don't want to deal with the 3 am phone calls and pestering to come. Some of them have been interested in just a hook-up or fling with her, but she actually only became sexually active about 6 months ago, so before that, she drove them off because they couldn't even get any physical satisfaction from the situation. As soon as guys give her their number, they wish they hadn't, because she calls them incessantly. She's a bit of a ditz, yeah.

I've been trying to coach her on not scaring guys off, and she's making improvement, so there is hope for her yet!

DP

E-peen

internet slang for ego, pride, or attitude in the virtual world. long standing net definition for the age old "bigger penis" arguement.

Essentially... Electronics + Penis + Ego = E-peen

In theory, a female would just have to provide excess ego to suplant the penis (or some such)

In actuality... the female would need a male brain to even provide the penis'ed based ego

So... No they cannot... Male only (not a rule by any means)

Sounds like it.  I didn't quite get the right impression from what you said before.

Acrylic nails pretty much tell me all I need to know when I meet a girl.  That's just me.

So, god likes girls?

Obviously he likes girls, he likes to keep them for himself.  There is a big gender gap in Christianity. Apparently Gawd must like women better than men since apparently so many more are saved:

http://www.churchformen.com/allmen.php

He must hate men though. 

You understand that culture is a product of evolution, right?  And you understand that what makes humans particularly good reproducers is our adaptability, right?  It would be naive to think that beings with high intelligence and the ability to abstract and predict would follow their biological drives 100% of the time.  Of course some women are going to approach men.  This is so irrelevant to the discussion that it doesn't need to be mentioned at all.  The point is that whether or not you choose to play the game the way it's programmed, you are still driven by the same human nature that everyone else is.

To be frank, it annoys me when people project their own insecurities or personal foibles onto society and try to make it seem like they're the only ones who "get it."  As several people have said, it's perfectly fine with me that you don't care to attract or date women who are doing what normal humans do.  However, your own issues with dating, whatever they are, don't mean that you're "above" the system or that the system is flawed.  It is neither good nor bad.  It's just the way humans behave.

Well, yeah.  Forming a society is part of biological programming, and anything that a society does is also part of our biological programming.  I'm surprised you're making this an accusation when it's exactly what I've been trying to get you to understand.  When someone asks why people act the way they do, the answer is that it's their nature to do so.  Why do some societies force women to stay covered and only go out with male escorts?  Because human nature programs males to be jealously protective of women.  There is no question that this is true.

Value judgments are answers to an entirely different set of questions.  With the goal of egalitarianism, should women be forced to cover themselves completely in public?  Clearly not.

As I've described many times before, human morality is subjective, but it is not arbitrary because we have been programmed with something like a morality template upon which our society builds.  We can talk all day about whether or not a society should have this law or that law, but we'll have to do it within the context of normatives. 

I've explained why human nature is what it is, and then explained what behaviors it produces.  Exceptions occur, of course, but that's to be expected.  I've said nothing normative, only descriptive.  Want to know why human females put so much time into looking good?  Because they're the selectors, but they have to appear high value to get the maximum number of offers from which to select.  Society propagates this model because society is also built into our genes.  Don't like that?  Not my problem.  Think it ought to be another way?  Good luck making it happen.  Choose to do things another way?  Fine.  Don't let the door slap your ass on the way out.  I'm not here to judge you or anyone else, but I'm not going to let you paint a picture of this "high maintenance woman" as if it's something aberrant or counterproductive.  The reason women do it is because they come from an unbroken line of the most successful women.  It's the mating strategy that won.

You're male.  You have been programmed to compete with other males, mostly as a way to impress females.  Even when you're not consciously trying to attract females, you still engage in behaviors that stem from female selection.

Fair to say.

What?

Seriously, what the heck does this mean?  I'm sorry if you don't approve of my summary of sexual selection.  It's accurate.  Read any science book you like.  I choose not to write a book in this thread because I'm pretty busy most days.  I'm sure I've recommended several that you can read if you are unsatisfied with my summary and would like to have the full story.

Sexual selection has to play averages.  Because the genes don't 'know' whether a child is going to be male or female, it's inefficient to have elaborate mechanisms in place that only apply to one sex and not the other.  When females begin selecting for intelligent males, both their female and male babies are more intelligent.  Consequently, both sexes are inherently curious and interested to some degree or another in the acquisition of knowledge, even though the initial impetus behind the runaway selection was male intelligence.

You really don't get out much, do you?

First, I've already explained that we don't need uniformity of individual habits to say that women are the selectors.  All we need is a test tube.  In animals, the sex that has the larger, more scarce sex cells and puts more resources into childbearing is the selector.  Beyond that, we can back up this fact with the observation that far and away, the most prevalent practice is females choosing between men hitting on them.  Beyond that, we have psychological data demonstrating very clearly that across cultures, females are empirically choosier than males.  This can only be true if they are the selectors.

Again, if you don't like my summaries, read some of the science yourself.  In the time you've been griping at me, you could be half done with a book and well on your way to recognizing your mistakes.

Think about this for just a second.  What would humans have to be in order to have 100% adherence to biological drives?

Not even our primate cousins have uniform mating practices.  Haven't you ever read anything about deviance as a function of societal cohesion?  Far from being a copout, the observation that females sometimes hit on males demonstrates our adaptability, which is a direct result of sexual selection by females.  Seriously, this is not even a question in any science circles.  It's just not.  Females are the selectors in humans.  Period.  End of story. 

Well, I'm completely baffled, then.  Did you just want us to know what a rebel you are?  You went through all that trouble just to say that you think people have differing opinions on what high maintenance is?

ouch....

Incidentally, I read something about how humor fits into the model of runaway selection and the big brain.  I wish I could remember what it was... it's been years.

Anyway, I'm going to do the only responsible thing and spend a day or two writing a real explanation of sexual selection.  I've been meaning to for weeks, and it'll be a good way to convince myself of the pointlessness of this whole thread.

Fuck you very much as well DamndirtyApeshit.