better explanation

Posted by Diarmuid on January 13, 2002 at 06:58:24:

In Reply to: Is that Occam's explanation? posted by RoTtEn ApPlE on January 11, 2002 at 15:29:35:

Two facts:

Sex is the most fun thing you can do.

Rejection hurts like hell when you've been rejected by a person you don't really like the appearance of, but just think they'll suffice as a "sexual release partner".

Women's sex drives being what they are, even the handsomest, most stunning man won't get laid *every* time they go out. Rejection is inevitable: it happens to every man sometimes.

When you shoot for a beautiful woman, you're taking a million to one shot. But when you shoot for an ugly woman, you're taking a 500,000 to one shot (assuming her standards are half as low). In theory, your chances are "better", but it's still lousy odds.

By shooting for the gorgeous female, you are tempering the pain of rejection with the elation of "shooting for the moon". Why do you think people waste their money on the lottery? Same reason.

Just because the odds suck, don't mean people don't wanna win!

: Are the desires and feelings of men more complex than the desires and feelings of women? I think the standard Diarmuid explanation is people who are not having sex when they could be having sex do not want to have sex. No excuses.

Follow Ups:

• Assumptions and circular logic RoTtEn ApPlE 18:23:20 01/13/02 (4)
  • Re: Assumptions and circular logic Diarmuid 05:27:22 01/14/02 (2)
    • unsatisfied desire is still desire isaac 11:01:12 01/14/02 (1)
      • Re: unsatisfied desire is still desire Diarmuid 11:24:40 01/14/02 (0)
  • Re: Assumptions and circular logic Diarmuid 04:24:57 01/14/02 (0)

Post a Followup