(04-24-2011 03:48 AM)Mark Wrote:  I was just telling him that just because one girl says, "I saw you as relationship material at first," doesn't mean every girl sees him that way. And to not get too worried about it.

I get what you're saying about not extrapolating what one girl says but this 'relationship material' thing is something I've heard and experienced repeatedly in my life (though not as direct as from that one girl).

I agree that in this industry people often derive some bullshit rules from their (limited) experiences ("Octoberman sequence works, I have field tested it!!!!!!111"), but on the other hand you can of course make some generalized statements (otherwise there wouldn't be social sciences), like 'Most women like confident men'. Where do you draw the line between a single experience and a general rule?

Well, in that case, if this has been a repeated thing... then it's something to look at. Generally, relationship-material attraction comes from more "provider" traits: smart, witty, caring, good lifestyle, etc.

The short answer is you need to be more physically aggressive and flirt more.

Wouldn't you say though, Mark, that IDEALLY - women are looking for 1 man who can fulfill both the roles as lover/sex symbol and boyfriend/friend/provider or whatever.

I think to assume that one role is automatically "superior" to another role is both arbitrary AND stupid. Sure - maybe one role may get you laid more, but it may also lead to less meaningful and shallower relationships.

I think the community has a tendency to bash the stereotypical "beta" male - but my goal has always been to integrate the two "alpha" and "beta" aspects of my personality till I become a super-lover-boyfriend-father...or whatever.

Thoughts?

Yeah, I think they want both... If you lose the "Lover" type of attraction in a relationship, she'll go cold and want to leave. If you go too much "Lover" she won't stick around.

I gave the advice assuming that he wanted to just have one night stands or fuck buddies.