EPT
Women aren't attracted to men - Page 4
| Blogs > Koltz |
|
DorF
Sweden961 Posts
| ||
|
Oracle
Canada411 Posts
On January 27 2010 03:49 Chef wrote: It's saying women are bringing men down and that men are somehow superior to women. Some of the things it says could be true about women, but they are no less true about men. We equally need to be told what is attractive. We equally want to survive, and so we choose a partner who will fit in with society (or, if we think society is unhealthy, a partner who will not).. I don't think he ever claimed men are superior. I highly doubt this article is an "attack on women" -- it's hard to do that when you admit that men, for the most part, are shallow. I don't really understand your argument, what are you trying to say? His work is completely void because it can be applied both ways? Sure, maybe it can. But, arguably to a much lesser degree. You can take this article bit by bit, piece by piece, and explain your argument and provide enough supporting detail. And then I can say the opposite thing and do the very same. That's the beauty of literature. I'm not going to say your interpretation is wrong, but I'm going to say it is much different than mine. I find it to be more stoic -- he's made some "conclusions" and presented them in an absolute way for emphasis. Obviously, it's working. Nonetheless, at least you didn't only read the title and refute the entire article based on that. It's misguided at best. For all that people make fun of history, sociology, psychology, etc majors... Some of the thickest people on earth are people who never dabbled in any of those topics, including the author of this article You should read Northrop Frye's "Motive for Metaphor" And i think most people ridicule arts because there's no absolute involved. Thus making it "easier." | ||
|
Tex
United States126 Posts
This is true iff my dad wore the pants in the family. | ||
Chill
Calgary25989 Posts
On January 27 2010 04:06 SirKibbleX wrote: Truth: sex is dumb. Guys are only sexually attracted to girls with attractive bodies. Period. Women are attracted by other more subtle factors. Article is 100% accurate with regards to sexual attraction. In response to Chill's comment on the other page: "Have you ever met or dated a girl that's gorgeous but you can't stand being with her because there's nothing special about her?" The answer is no. When you're fucking a 9 or a 10 you really don't give a shit about anything else other than the fact that she's a 9 or a 10. Doesn't mean I would go into a long-term relationship with a girl whose beliefs are diametrically opposed to mine, its just that you can't tell me you wouldn't fuck a 10 if that was all there was to it. ? That's exactly my point. The guy said girls can be physically attracted at the start but get turned off when they find out who you are, which cuts both ways. | ||
|
Pyrrhuloxia
United States6700 Posts
Exactly. Then there are the the people that self-select their way into nerd colonies like this site and flip out when they see something that doesn't fit them. And autistic people. Some overlap there. Also, one of the keys to life that many never find is that you can develop significant control over your attractions. | ||
|
L_Master
United States8017 Posts
Women are not actually attracted to men. There is a vague idea of what a man is physically, and some are better than others aesthetically speaking, but the purely physical appearance of a man is almost inconsequential unless he is horribly ugly or outrageously attractive. Disagree with the first sentence, its complete bullshit. but the rest is pretty true, looks just aren't super important to women in terms of attraction, they might not say so but if you see who they react to and how its pretty obvious. Women are attracted to status, money, how much a man smiles and laughs, how many friends and resources a man has, how full a man's life is--how many "cool," "exciting" and prestigious things he is doing or connected to. I don't think they are "attracted" to status or money or power. These things can give a man "value", which can certainly be an attractive characteristic but direct attraction....i don't think so. And as far as being attracted to a man that smiles, laughs, is social, is exciting, fun to be around etc...well I'd have to say that qualifies as being attracted to the person, attracted to the man. They are interested in how other people view him--how many people want to be around him, how other people interact with him and whether their interactions convey that he is special and amazing. They want him to be extremely outgoing and aggressive, they want him to demonstrate his status over other people by dominating them in various non-violent ways. Yes, that makes some sense because if a bunch of people think he is a great guy, i dunno, maybe it could just mean there is some truth to that. who coulda guessed. Don't agree as much with the last two sentences, especially the dominating part, I would say someone who is outgoing and is a leader is attractive....but dominating, I'm not convinced. Once again, note that these are all characteristics of the man himself, aspects of his personality if you will. A woman's attraction to a man is a function of her jealousy at the thought of another woman having that man. She doesn't care who he actually is or EXACTLY what he looks like physically, she only cares about the VALUE of the life he has constructed around himself. Bullshit. Especially since this contradicts everything the author just said above about what sorts of personality traits a women likes in a man (i.e. smiles, outgoing, confidence, social, engaging/full of life). I won't say the value of his life is irrelevant when it comes to attraction, because it is an attractive thing, and is reasonable to assume biologically that people who are succesful would likely be people that have "good" genes; if were looking at this in an evolutionary sense. A woman basically is a greedy materialistic prostitute. Although that sounds vulgar, it's true. She trades her physical self to buy into the success a man has created for himself. Once again, total bullshit. As a man, I fall in love with how a woman is physically. I fall in love with simple parts of a woman. Like the way her hair falls around her face, the line of her neck, her shoulders. They way her ears might peek from her hair. Her eyelashes. The size and shape of her hands, her fingernails. The way she walks, the way she looks when she is tired or annoyed, the sound she makes when she sneezes, coughs, or cries. The way she sits in a chair. The way she breathes while experiencing different emotions. The way her lips move. A million little things. I don't, sure these are parts of it but a women's personality is pretty damn important, while you could have a one night stand with a gorgeous girl you sure as hell aren't gonna fall in love with her if she is a shallow, materialistic attention whore. I do think, however, that physical attraction is more important for guys than it is for girls. Sure, a huge part of my attraction is mental, but the powerful seed of love that builds within me and crystallizes is based greatly on visual things that set off torrents of emotion and need. Eh, there some truth here but I don't agree completely. It seems to me that women almost cannot think for themselves. Their estimates of worth are based on other peoples' estimates of worth. They don't really find an object beautiful on their own. The object becomes beautiful when other people let her know that it is beautiful. Obviously I don't agree with this as per the above. I'm completely unable to reconcile the differences between men and women. It seems like success with women is equal to spending half of your life working to create a giant illusion, something vastly tiring and annoying, while sacrificing your own true self and your own interests. We construct our lives around nest-building. We're like male birds building nests and showing them off to attract mates. It's pathetic. Everything we do is to get women. It is a fucking shit deal. I disagree. You don't have to sacrifice anything or create some "giant illusion" to be an attractive guy and you especially don't have to "sacrifice your true self and intersts" and if you do so, I hate to say it but your a shallow douche. There are certain persoanlity traits that it undeniably helps to have if your trying to be attractive to women, and nobody ever said staus hurts, but as long as your confident, fun, unqiue individual you can do absolutely fine with wome. Someone needs to invent a drug which has no hormonal imbalance side-effects but is able to erase a man's sex drive and attraction to women. It would increase productivity rates to incredible heights. I'd be free and happy. I'd feel complete. I'd be able to concentrate on my biochemistry studying. Yes, it probably would. | ||
|
keepITup
251 Posts
On January 27 2010 04:49 Pyrrhuloxia wrote: Exactly. Then there are the the people that self-select their way into nerd colonies like this site and flip out when they see something that doesn't fit them. And autistic people. Some overlap there. Also, one of the keys to life that many never find is that you can develop significant control over your attractions. I decide what I'm attracted to? Or I control my attractiveness? I'm confused here. Article was a fun read, not sure what to take from it though. | ||
|
Ricjames
Czech Republic1047 Posts
nr. 1 - she likes how he acts and how he is overall (attracted in social and sexual way) nr. 2 - she likes his looks and just want to fuck with him, she can do it once or repetitively (attracted sexualy. It is in the same way as guys are attracted to hot girls). nr. 3 - she likes his wealth and social status (she will live with this guy, but will most likely cheat on him). Then you have fusion of numbers, if the guy is nr. 1, 2 and 3 in one - that is their perfect man This was just small summary, how i think it works. There might be something missing, so feel free to add. And this article was pretty much linking to nr. 3 | ||
|
Slithe
United States985 Posts
On January 27 2010 04:26 Koltz wrote: I don't think he ever claimed men are superior. I highly doubt this article is an "attack on women" -- it's hard to do that when you admit that men, for the most part, are shallow. I don't really understand your argument, what are you trying to say? His work is completely void because it can be applied both ways? Sure, maybe it can. But, arguably to a much lesser degree. You can take this article bit by bit, piece by piece, and explain your argument and provide enough supporting detail. And then I can say the opposite thing and do the very same. That's the beauty of literature. I'm not going to say your interpretation is wrong, but I'm going to say it is much different than mine. I find it to be more stoic -- he's made some "conclusions" and presented them in an absolute way for emphasis. Obviously, it's working. Nonetheless, at least you didn't only read the title and refute the entire article based on that. You should read Northrop Frye's "Motive for Metaphor" And i think most people ridicule arts because there's no absolute involved. Thus making it "easier." I don't understand why you find this article to be so ground-breaking. What is the point that he's trying to get across? That girls are superficial and attracted to power and money? People have been saying that axiom since the dawn of time. Or is he saying that the whole relationship dynamic is based on artificial values? I think the existence of terms like "Trophy wives" is a pretty good indication that we're aware of that fact as well. The only thing I see in this article is a thinly veiled rant on girls and relationships. It looks to me like he's trying to conjure up excuses for why he has no success with the opposite sex. | ||
|
ero
United States66 Posts
I find it to be more stoic -- he's made some "conclusions" and presented them in an absolute way for emphasis. Obviously, it's working. I think people are sorely missing this aspect of the article. Generalizations can still have statistical truth to them, no matter how many counter examples one can find. Stating a generalization -- or perhaps some other fuzzy concept -- as an absolute truth serves to add emphasis and impact at the cost of some people having a knee-jerk reaction to that generalization. | ||
|
Pyrrhuloxia
United States6700 Posts
On January 27 2010 04:06 SirKibbleX wrote: Truth: sex is dumb. Guys are only sexually attracted to girls with attractive bodies. Period. Women are attracted by other more subtle factors. Article is 100% accurate with regards to sexual attraction. In response to Chill's comment on the other page: "Have you ever met or dated a girl that's gorgeous but you can't stand being with her because there's nothing special about her?" The answer is no. When you're fucking a 9 or a 10 you really don't give a shit about anything else other than the fact that she's a 9 or a 10. Doesn't mean I would go into a long-term relationship with a girl whose beliefs are diametrically opposed to mine, its just that you can't tell me you wouldn't fuck a 10 if that was all there was to it. I couldn't fuck a retarded 10. Some of us need some sort of respect for the other person's mind to have sex. There's a big difference in being attracted to a picture of someone and actually wanting to have sex with someone that you've are in the same room with. Also, you couldn't possibly know it is 100% accurate from your perspective. I think it is mostly true, perhaps overwhelmingly true. But "Guys are only sexually attracted to girls with attractive bodies" is somewhat tautological. There have been incredible changes in what is considered attractive over time and there are large differences across cultures (and within cultures / between subcultures) as well. Also, it is a misconception of what is going on mentally, I think. There have been plenty of girls that I've found ugly until I began to like their personalities and other non-physical things about them, at which point I started to see them as prettier. | ||
|
Slithe
United States985 Posts
On January 27 2010 05:03 ero wrote: I think people are sorely missing this aspect of the article. Generalizations can still have statistical truth to them, no matter how many counter examples one can find. Stating a generalization -- or perhaps some other fuzzy concept -- as an absolute truth serves to add emphasis and impact at the cost of some people having a knee-jerk reaction to that generalization. But what's the point of stating the generalization? I think it's safe to say that if it's a generalization then most people know about it. Is there something new he's trying to say based on these generalizations? I think he's just ranting. The article has no value, and the only reason this discussion persists is some of you are insisting there is something deeper here. | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
That's the beauty of literature. People think that, but it's actually not true. Some interpretations can be very plainly wrong. I really don't think this can be read as anything but vilifying women. It seems like success with women is equal to spending half of your life working to create a giant illusion, something vastly tiring and annoying, while sacrificing your own true self and your own interests. Not only that, it's plainly untrue. Qualities such as confidence, individuality, personal success and 'hey look at that guy, he's really together and knows what he wants' are all things people find attractive in at lease Canadian culture. Saying men have to devote their whole lives to something trivial and meaningless just to please women is not only wrong, it's very obviously scapegoating women for why he hasn't achieved everything he wanted to. Blame everything but yourself  It is a fucking shit deal. All of this just sounds like some kid who's upset after repeated failures. It's not women's fault. It's not men genetically being forced into this. It's just some idiot's fault because he can't live for himself, and because he doesn't want to admit it's HIS problem, he says that no ordinary man can. He describes it as pathetic. You know what? It is pathetic if you can't have your own interests at the same time as being in a relationship, but most people can. Most people can get into a relationship where their partner tries to change them and make them do things they don't want to do, and say 'No, that's not who I am. If you need that, you need to find someone else.' | ||
|
Mastermind
Canada7096 Posts
| ||
|
vRoOk
United States1024 Posts
| ||
|
Pyrrhuloxia
United States6700 Posts
One thing I forgot to mention is that women are attracted to some because they do think some men look better than others even if they know nothing else about them. I showed one of my friends pictures of Jaedong, Stork, and Flash, and she thought Jaedong was hot, Stork was cute, and Flash was ugly. It may be that women usually value other things because they have been historically/culturally trained that men have to provide for them. But you can see some rich / business-type (one might say masculine) women seem to value physical attractiveness more, like those women called "cougars" who go after younger guys instead of old, ugly business men. | ||
|
Iplaythings
Denmark9110 Posts
On January 27 2010 04:12 DorF wrote: At least women are attracted to me ! | ||
|
GreEny K
Germany7312 Posts
On January 27 2010 02:26 mOnion wrote: this is trash articles like this that make farfetched statements are just there to be radical and grab attention and there's hardly any truth to them obviously women are attracted to men. don't be naive. Agreed | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
Women are attracted to status, money, how much a man smiles and laughs, how many friends and resources a man has, how full a man's life is--how many "cool," "exciting" and prestigious things he is doing or connected to. In other words, a woman is attracted to those qualities of a man which make him who he is. Those qualities include non-physical attributes. I think I had this epiphany before I knew what sex was. | ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
| ||
| ||
