[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 128 KB, 333x493, 1289874848434.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4067208 No.4067208 [Reply] [Original]

/sci/ how do I know if I am attractive to a female?

>> No.4067214

The answer is always no. That's how.

>> No.4067225

>>4067214
But I need to find a suitable mate in order for me to reproduce. How do I know if I should court a female?

>> No.4067230

Are you rich? Do you have fame? Power? Congratulations, you are attractive. Else, too bad.

>> No.4067232

>>4067230
Those are not necessary.
People are attractive regardless of that.

>> No.4067234

>>4067230
How do I gain these things

>> No.4067235

Do females tell you that you are attractive?

>> No.4067246

>>4067235
no but they stare at me sometimes I dont know if they stare at me because Im creepy or because Im good looking

>> No.4067256

Just go up to any random girl and start whispering filthy things in her ear while touching her nipples. Works every time.

>> No.4067269

>>4067246

If they were creeped out by you then they would try to ignore you. They most likely find you attractive or interesting.

>> No.4067275

You post your image on >>>/soc/ and ask.

>> No.4067276

>>4067269
If someone finds you interesting but unattractive, is there a chance they would have sex with you?

>> No.4067281

>>4067275
should I post my image here

>> No.4067296

>>4067281

Depends, would you rather be mocked by people who are prettier than you or a bunch of nerds?

>> No.4067297
File: 35 KB, 300x400, 167598_161805353867745_100001148453655_319909_1236236_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4067297

>> No.4067307

>>4067232
>People are attractive regardless of that.

Not to women.

>> No.4067311

>>4067232
you aren't a women

you're a scottish basement dweller, you wouldn't know

>> No.4067315

So am I attractive to females?

>> No.4067317

>2011
>caring about hambeasts when you could be doing science
i seriously hope you guys don't do this.

stop feeding into your thalamus and dopamine channels, reproduction and love is for pansies. there's plenty of other ways to achieve the same satisfaction.

>> No.4067316

>>4067311
I am a woman, and I do not think a basement would be a fun place to spend time.

>> No.4067314
File: 421 KB, 888x1000, floor004.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4067314

Here goes

>> No.4067319

>>4067316
no you are not. if you are so psychologically convinced that you are, supply evidence.

>> No.4067322

I never understood how people can generalize SO much without realizing it
It doesn't work that way.
It's about taste. Taste is subjective.
"people" are not a single entity
"women" are not a single entity
"men" are not a single entity
"teachers" are not a single entity
"the government" is not a single entity
l2think
however, there are some perks that are objectively positive, money and power only matter to some people, usually the ones complaining about it.
-health
-emotivity
-sense of humor
-openness
-optimism
are all objective positive traits, which are all born guess what, in who doesn't really care for superficial charm.

>> No.4067324
File: 49 KB, 932x556, uncle touchys naked puzzle basement.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4067324

>>4067316

>> No.4067327

>>4067317

Yea! Have sex with a man, you pansy!

>> No.4067331

>>4067319
How would I prove it, and why would I care to?
If you wish to believe that me and her are the same person, and are fat and Scottish, then I do not really have a problem with that.

>> No.4067333

>>4067297
Dude where did you get that shirt?

>> No.4067343

>>4067327
no, you masturbate to animu

tell your thalamus and reproductive organs to fuck off

you are the cancer that is killing society, if we didn't have to worry about reproductive tendencies and being 'hurr durr attractive omg sex lololol XD", our society would be a shit load more advanced than we currently are, and a bit more focused on science.

>> No.4067354

>>4067331
you post a timestamped picture a female-restricted physical feature. it doesn't have to be a facial shot/a private part, just hair would suffice.

otherwise, there's overwhelming evidence (and a majority of /sci/ agrees) that you, EK, and teacunt are the same person.

>> No.4067361
File: 2.50 MB, 1549x1185, 02154512354168.jpg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4067361

They ignore you completely. Women are not sexual beings. They only use sex for manipulative purposes.

>> No.4067364

>>4067361
>Women are not sexual beings. They only use sex for manipulative purposes.
they aren't human

they do not have as developed frontal lobes as men, and therefore aren't as sapient

>> No.4067366

>>4067361
Than how do I become worthy of such manipulation?

>> No.4067376

>>4067354
No.

What they believe is not particularly important.
For example, it is a fact that the vast majority of people must be wrong about religion, because all religions are different, and there is a great many of them.
If any one of them is right, billions of people are completely wrong.
If atheism is correct, billions of people are also wrong.

Most of us are wrong, but clearly we still get by.

>> No.4067379

>>4067366
you aren't 'worthy' if you have the slightest ounce of intelligence

stop convincing yourself that you need to reproduce in order to be successful

>> No.4067392

>>4067376
Sure, keep bullshitting, then. Posting such a thing would in no way physically identify you, with the obvious exclusion of a timestamp. If you are incapable/too incompetent of doing that, you are clearly not a women.

>> No.4067394

>>4067379
But how will I pass on my genes? Also no one answered my question on if a female would find me attractive

>> No.4067398

>>4067394
you clone yourself, you fucking faggot.

>> No.4067403

>>4067392
I clearly am capable, it is just not any of your business, so I choose not to.

>> No.4067410

>>4067403
So be it, then. What you just stated is equivalent to denying a lie detector test in court. Good day.

>> No.4067411

>>4067376
Never before have I seen someone innocent be so stubborn. The amount of effort you would have to go through to forge this would be significantly greater than that needed to take a picture identifying you as someone other than EK, and we are forced to conclude you are her.

Mental conditions can rapidly deteriorate, if you're not seeing a psychiatrist consider it. This is nothing major, we both know you aren't going to be comitted.

>> No.4067414

>>4067410
lie detectors are correct 60% of the time, or slightly more often than a layman's estimate.

>> No.4067428

>>4067414
denying a polygraph test in court is a pretty nice way to get on a judge's nerves and sound suspicious. that's all i'm trying to implicate, as this situation is analogous.

>> No.4067436

>>4067428
No remotely reputable judge would touch a polygraph with a bargepole, you clearly don't know what you're talking about. They're not admissible evidence for a reason.

>> No.4067446

>>4067436
lol, you obvious have no experience with the american judicial system.

>> No.4067448

>>4067446
>obviously

>> No.4067460

>>4067446
Lol, neither do you. What are you, 12?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Scheffer
>US courts do not admit polygraphs

>> No.4067493 [DELETED] 
File: 729 KB, 1680x972, n.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4067493

>>4067460
sure, they don't admit it. i'm hinting that outright DENYING to take one at the request of the other party appears suspicious.

further evidence that the people on here have not a clue what they are talking about.

>> No.4067527

>>4067493
I'm not sure the DoJ would be too pleased with the fact an intern is violating privacy law to win an internet argument. I could post mine, but I'm not a dick.

>> No.4067543

>>4067527
>intern
lol.

this isn't violating any client confidentiality agreements, it's just names.

>> No.4067564

>>4067232

Ok, you might not need to ACTUALLY have those things, but you do need to SEEM like you have them. This deception can be (and often is) accomplished through appearance and demeanor.

>> No.4067568

>>4067543
I see letters showing intent to settle and preserve video, along with a list of hundreds of clients and dates the last time their cases were checked.

Bankruptcy law? I feel sorry for your mother.

>> No.4067588

>>4067568
dates are pretty irrelevant, although i did not catch the two docs that slipped through.

>Bankruptcy law
we do quite a bit more than that, but yes.

>> No.4067598

>>4067588
Thanks for confirming it. I'll stop snooping hurr.
Looks like CA accept polygraphs on the Judge's discretion, which is what I thought. Still disappointed they're not banned though.

>> No.4067602

>/sci/ - Science & Math
>1st thread is about unrelated bullshit
>Almost 50 responses

>> No.4067612

>>4067602
/sci/ is anything science or math related. OP wants to know how to tell is women are into him scientifically, ergo we have no problem.

>> No.4067622

>>4067612

He posted a picture about the friend zone, and asked an extremely vague question.

This belongs in advice, newfriend.

>> No.4067626

>>4067622
Don't call be newfriend, newpal. Do I see any rules about questions being concise? no?

>> No.4067629

>>4067612
Yes this is what I meant and no one has answered my question yet

>> No.4067634

>>4067629
pheromones, symmetrical facial features, and casual yet strong body language. If we had it figured out to any useful degree of accuracy I assure you someone would be profiting from it right now, and they aren't.

>> No.4067649

>>4067634
where would I obtain these pheromones also do I have a symmetrical face here is a picture of me?
>>4067297

>> No.4067655

>>4067602
Social interaction between male and females can be considered science if taken from a biological point of view.

@OP
If they touch you a lot (touch your shoulder while talking, get within your personal space a lot etc) then they find you attractive. If they strike up mundane conversations and smile a lot at you that's another hint.

>> No.4067661

>>4067460
>>4067446

>told []
>not told []
>a brief history of TOLD [x]

>> No.4067668

>>4067649
kill thousands of men, melt their bodies in a near vacuum.

But seriously you can't. Nobody would sell you them unless you could show you worked for a lab or university.