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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Source: Just google "Women aren't attracted to men"
Anyways I feel this persona hit the nail right on the head. Every part of it could have come straight from my mind. Except you'd have to replace biochemistry with bioinformatics.
It put a lot of things into perspective. Chivalry IS dead, and rightfully so. Not much else to say, just read.
Edit: Okay, I didn't think most of you would take this thread 100% literally. While it's all up to our perception, I don't think the author is 100% serious. I posted this because whether you agree or disagree, whether the message, in your opinion, is sexist or not, I found it to provide limitless food for thought. A good article is one that has you thinking about it after you're done reading, whether out of distaste or agreement, if it leaves an impression on you I believe it was generally worth reading.
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.
I think youre reading too much into it, I don't think he means to exclude that factor, but perhaps introduce this one which may be less obvious.
And while this is a crude comparison, Wallace Steven's "Emporer of Ice Cream" + Show Spoiler +
The Emperor of Ice-Cream Call the roller of big cigars, The muscular one, and bid him whip In kitchen cups concupiscent curds. Let the wenches dawdle in such dress As they are used to wear, and let the boys Bring flowers in last month's newspapers. Let be be finale of seem. The only emperor is the emperor of ice-cream.
Take from the dresser of deal, Lacking the three glass knobs, that sheet On which she embroidered fantails once And spread it so as to cover her face. If her horny feet protrude, they come To show how cold she is, and dumb. Let the lamp affix its beam. The only emperor is the emperor of ice-cream
has nothign to do with ice cream, but life in death (amongst other things).
What im trying to say is don't take it too literally.
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.
I think youre reading too much into it, I don't think he means to exclude that factor, but perhaps introduce this one which may be less obvious.
Of course it's radical; that's what makes it genius.
People thought einstein's early work was radical, pick up a northrop frye book and he'll make just as radical statements, read chompsky and youre headed for a world of controversy. It makes for good reading, see a pattern?
The writer only judges women in terms of their looks, and can't comprehend that women instead often use an entire series of criteria, including physical attractiveness.
In his confusion, the writer mistakes his own issues for problems with women in general, being highly insulting while he does so.
Of course it's radical; that's what makes it genius.
Radical? I'm pretty sure misogyny has been around for over 1000 years. What's been radical is the changes from might = right in technologically developed cultures that has allowed women to fight for their right to vote, to work whatever job they want (if they're qualified of course, and at least in theory), and just generally not being thought of as immediately inferior for no good reason (by at least the male population that isn't sexually frustrated).
Though the point about obsessive nest-building and productivity is interesting, and alot of it may be true, i still think it's very wrong rationally to presume all of these things we observe about women are biologically based when there are such obvious social explanations just as easily as biological. Yes we had seperate roles in life when we were evolving, and it makes sense that we could've picked up distinctive traits as genders during that time that persist today. But if you look at the way we encourage each other as friends, the way traditions get passed down by family structures, the impact of the media on our behaviour and our sense of identity, how can one begin to say without hard evidence whether any one trait or the vast majority of traits that seperate the genders are due to biology, or just a matter of the fact that for centuries men and women have been living in seperate social spheres, criticizing each other and creating an identiy in comparing to each other, and perpetuating all the "values" that we should have seperate roles because that's the way god intended it or it's only proper or what have you.
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.
You'll have your looks, your pretty face. And don't underestimate the importance of body language, ha!
The men up there don't like a lot of blabber They think a girl who gossips is a bore! Yet on land it's much preferred for ladies not to say a word And after all dear, what is idle babble for? Come on, they're not all that impressed with conversation True gentlemen avoid it when they can But they dote and swoon and fawn On a lady who's withdrawn It's she who holds her tongue who get's a man
Guess which Disney film that's from!
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.
This sounds like it'd help out society so, so much. Especially in certain nations with a massive gender ratio imbalance.
I think there's a pretty big difference between exchanging gifts and experiences for a relationship, and paying 300 dollars for a one night stand.
I think in a lot of ways society is unhealthy, but I don't think humans suck in general, or that just one gender is to blame for society's negative aspects.
On January 27 2010 02:56 PiLLs( SLiP) wrote: I think its hilarious he says" Women are materialistic prostitutes"
Then goes on for five minutes on how he only likes a women for the way she looks. "Men are ignorant shallow bastards"
Humans in general suck.
All this really means to me is that women are smarter than men.
Men are still stuck using physical features to try and determine effective mates, whereas women are using far more useful heuristics like social status and monetary wealth.
The author of the essay is clearly having some kind of problems and thus feels the need to slander the entire female gender.
Lolol it's so tireing hearing this bs over and over. Whenever I hear someone go on about "all women are essentially whores blah blah" I just think okay, here's another guy who probably spent a third of his life in front of a computer, and as a result is wondering why women don't find him interesting. Instead of trying to make changes in himself for the better he just decides to put the blame on every woman on the planet because that's soooo much easier.
On January 27 2010 02:42 Garnet wrote: It's true. They may be attracted to your physical appearance at first, but when she found out there's nothing special about you she will back off.
That goes equally for men. 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?
Of course it's radical; that's what makes it genius.
Radical? I'm pretty sure misogyny has been around for over 1000 years. What's been radical is the changes from might = right in technologically developed cultures that has allowed women to fight for their right to vote, to work whatever job they want (if they're qualified of course, and at least in theory), and just generally not being thought of as immediately inferior for no good reason (by at least the male population that isn't sexually frustrated).
haha maybe you mistook this as a work of misogyny. I want to say this work is almost... satirical. I don't think he hates women, but merely strives to provide some thoughts on the men-women bond. Of course you can't generalize, but i'm sure there exists some inherent part of womenkind which mimics exactly what he proposes.
On January 27 2010 03:20 Gigaudas wrote: I feel that the content of the OP could be used to "prove" the exact same thing about men.
I'm pretty sure that women are attracted to me in a way similar to the way that I'm attracted to them.
I think "prove" is an overstatement. This isn't some scientifical study, just some guys (satirical?) thoughts which lets people relate or draw their own conclusions.
Did Patrick batemen really commit a series of murders? Does Keyser Soze actually exist? Is this guy serious?
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.
I think youre reading too much into it, I don't think he means to exclude that factor, but perhaps introduce this one which may be less obvious.
Of course it's radical; that's what makes it genius.
People thought einstein's early work was radical, pick up a northrop frye book and he'll make just as radical statements, read chompsky and youre headed for a world of controversy. It makes for good reading, see a pattern?
It is a lot easier to understand the other gender if: Women assumes all men mainly wants them to for sex. Aka sexy is positive, after that it is just to have as few negative sides as possible. Men assumes that all women mainly wants them since it would make her friends jealous. Aka the more status you got the more attractive you are. Having good looks/social competence and such gives a bit of status, having a good job or a lot of power in other ways gives a lot of status etc.
This then shaped society, where women tries to be good looking and other than that not be seen, while men tries to act as impressive as possible and works their asses of to land the top jobs. And women wonders why males earns more... It is their fucking fault for forcing them to be successful to reproduce!
When a man loses his status (aka his job) he also usually loses his woman shortly after. When a woman loses her job you don't find any correlation to them breaking up. This is reversed when people gets deathly sick by the way, men leaves their sick women and women sticks with their sick men. I guess that having a sick husband grants you a ton of attention from your friends while having a sick wife grants you no sex.
After being married for 44 years, I took a careful look at my wife one day and said “Honey, 44 years ago we had a cheap apartment, a cheap car, slept on a sofa bed and watched a 10-inch black and white TV, but I got to sleep every night with a hot 21 year old gal.”
“Now I have a $ 500,000 home, a $ 45,000 car, nice big bed and plasma screen TV but I’m sleeping with a 65 year old woman. It seems to me that you’re not holding up your side of things.”
My wife is a very reasonable woman. She told me to go out and find a hot 21 year old gal and she would make sure that I would once again be living in a cheap apartment, driving a cheap car, sleeping on a sofa bed and watching a 10 inch black and white TV.
Of course it's radical; that's what makes it genius.
Radical? I'm pretty sure misogyny has been around for over 1000 years. What's been radical is the changes from might = right in technologically developed cultures that has allowed women to fight for their right to vote, to work whatever job they want (if they're qualified of course, and at least in theory), and just generally not being thought of as immediately inferior for no good reason (by at least the male population that isn't sexually frustrated).
haha maybe you mistook this as a work of misogyny. I want to say this work is almost... satirical. I don't think he hates women, but merely strives to provide some thoughts on the men-women bond. Of course you can't generalize, but i'm sure there exists some inherent part of womenkind which mimics exactly what he proposes.
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).
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.
its true. Most of the guys I know look like shit yet they still have pretty gfs. Real life examples are EVERYWHERE. Its always some old rich guy with some supermodel wife, and its rarely the opposite (old rich hag with supermodel husband? sorry, never heard).
After being married for 44 years, I took a careful look at my wife one day and said “Honey, 44 years ago we had a cheap apartment, a cheap car, slept on a sofa bed and watched a 10-inch black and white TV, but I got to sleep every night with a hot 21 year old gal.”
“Now I have a $ 500,000 home, a $ 45,000 car, nice big bed and plasma screen TV but I’m sleeping with a 65 year old woman. It seems to me that you’re not holding up your side of things.”
My wife is a very reasonable woman. She told me to go out and find a hot 21 year old gal and she would make sure that I would once again be living in a cheap apartment, driving a cheap car, sleeping on a sofa bed and watching a 10 inch black and white TV.
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.
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.
While i don't really agree with the whole article ( because i guess that it is often true for men too ), i think that the conclusion is spot on.
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.
Forward this to 10 friends or women will never like you.
On January 27 2010 04:06 SirKibbleX wrote: 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.
You do give a shit, because your name isn't Troy McNamara
On January 27 2010 03:58 stack wrote: this thread is full of people arguing that women arent shallow....but they are superficial. I dont either is very nice.
It doesn't really matter whether it's "nice" or not it's whether it's true. I think the part on women is mostly true for the vast majority of women... but not all.
Of course it's radical; that's what makes it genius.
Radical? I'm pretty sure misogyny has been around for over 1000 years. What's been radical is the changes from might = right in technologically developed cultures that has allowed women to fight for their right to vote, to work whatever job they want (if they're qualified of course, and at least in theory), and just generally not being thought of as immediately inferior for no good reason (by at least the male population that isn't sexually frustrated).
haha maybe you mistook this as a work of misogyny. I want to say this work is almost... satirical. I don't think he hates women, but merely strives to provide some thoughts on the men-women bond. Of course you can't generalize, but i'm sure there exists some inherent part of womenkind which mimics exactly what he proposes.
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."
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.
On January 27 2010 03:29 Kennigit wrote: This article is about 90% true.
Ah, Kennigit... imparter of wisdom.
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.
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.
On January 27 2010 03:29 Kennigit wrote: This article is about 90% true.
Ah, Kennigit... imparter of wisdom.
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.
There is a pattern to this. Girls are attracted to men in 3 cases: 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
Of course it's radical; that's what makes it genius.
Radical? I'm pretty sure misogyny has been around for over 1000 years. What's been radical is the changes from might = right in technologically developed cultures that has allowed women to fight for their right to vote, to work whatever job they want (if they're qualified of course, and at least in theory), and just generally not being thought of as immediately inferior for no good reason (by at least the male population that isn't sexually frustrated).
haha maybe you mistook this as a work of misogyny. I want to say this work is almost... satirical. I don't think he hates women, but merely strives to provide some thoughts on the men-women bond. Of course you can't generalize, but i'm sure there exists some inherent part of womenkind which mimics exactly what he proposes.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.'
"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."
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.
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.
The article in the OP is obviously wrong! He is right in that women are not attracted to men specifically, but since men are on average much more awesome than women they still feel that men are the best to partner with! It is the same thing as how there are many more gays than lesbians! Ask yourself this; if women did have hairy legs instead of boobs would you still love them?
i won't speak for how accurate the article is or isn't, but more just how sad it is if what the article poses is true.
men are so fucking hot. from the edge of a man's jaw line to the curve of his calf, the veins on his hands and the hair that stretches up from his crotch to his belly button.
i can look at pretty much any part on a man and have a raging hard-on within seconds.
fuck, i even have a criteria for a 'hot thumb nail'. Every part of a man is fucking hot, it would be such a shame if women did not have that carnal hunger.
and a picture to illustrate just how hot a man is: + Show Spoiler +
specifically chosen for it's non-magazine airbrushedness trash that doesn't actually demonstrate the hotness of man.
The OP is obviously wrong because he extends the banalities of causality into human relationships, which are always interactive. A woman is more likely to love a man if she believes that he loves her. A woman is more likely to seek a relationship with a man if she believes not only that he can be useful to her, but that she can be useful to him. It's never simply a one-way street of perceptions flowing from the one to the other.
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.
Be glad that women care what others think and feel. If they didn't, men wouldn't. And if neither cared, society probably breaks down.
Even if the writer believes in what he says I don't understand how he can be unhappy about it.
An ugly girl will always be just that - an ugly girl. No matter how successful, how smart, how wealthy she is - she always will be an ugly girl. People around her will eventually come to find her a little less ugly but that's it.
But if you're a man and don't look so good it's still ok because it can be completely overshadowed by your other successes. People who spend time with you will eventually not even notice it anymore, unless you're really really horrible and look like a alien or a freak or something. Doesn't mean looks don't matter of course. They really really do. It's just that if you look bad it's much easier to get away with it than if you're a girl.
If life was some kind or RPG and I was at the character creation page right now, I wouldn't ever pick female unless I've found a way to hack the random number generator and roll a ten.
On January 27 2010 06:20 Matoo- wrote: Even if the writer believes in what he says I don't understand how he can be unhappy about it.
An ugly girl will always be just that - an ugly girl. No matter how successful, how smart, how wealthy she is - she always will be an ugly girl. People around her will eventually come to find her a little less ugly but that's it.
But if you're a man and don't look so good it nearly doesn't matter because it can be completely overshadowed by your other successes. People who spend time with you will eventually not even notice it anymore, unless you're really really horrible and look like a alien or a freak or something.
If life was some kind or RPG and I was at the character creation page right now, I wouldn't ever pick female unless I've found a way to hack the random number generator and roll a ten.
If you roll 3 on intelligence you wouldn't get anywhere as a male either. It is just that the attribute required for men are more invisible than breast size and waist to hip ratio. Not everyone is ambitious, social competent and smart. In any rpg it is impossible to roll a character that isn't ambitious or smart, since it is you who are making all the decisions for him.
On January 27 2010 06:20 Matoo- wrote: Even if the writer believes in what he says I don't understand how he can be unhappy about it.
An ugly girl will always be just that - an ugly girl. No matter how successful, how smart, how wealthy she is - she always will be an ugly girl. People around her will eventually come to find her a little less ugly but that's it.
But if you're a man and don't look so good it nearly doesn't matter because it can be completely overshadowed by your other successes. People who spend time with you will eventually not even notice it anymore, unless you're really really horrible and look like a alien or a freak or something.
If life was some kind or RPG and I was at the character creation page right now, I wouldn't ever pick female unless I've found a way to hack the random number generator and roll a ten.
If you roll 3 on intelligence you wouldn't get anywhere as a male either. It is just that the attribute required for men are more invisible than breast size and waist to hip ratio. Not everyone is ambitious, social competent and smart. In any rpg it is impossible to roll a character that isn't ambitious or smart, since it is you who are making all the decisions for him.
Actually there are some RPGs where if your intelligence score is terrible you get cut off most dialog options and get retarded answers instead. :D
But what you're saying is interesting. People usually consider being beautiful/ugly as random and unfair, while being smart/stupid or social/awkward isn't considered as random but as your own fault. Your reasoning makes things more even.
So, what can we do about it? - Stupid - I think you're fucked as you won't even be aware of it and even if you were there's no cure. Really hard-coded attribute here. - Ugly - It's certainly possible to get financially successful first then spend half your income on surgery and the other half on +1 charisma clothes and makeup. Easily improvable attribute imo. - Socially awkward, unambitious, etc - as opposed as stupidity you can easily be aware of these shortcomings and how they hinder you in life. Then just do something about it. I believe people can change if they try hard enough. Difficult but definitely improvable attribute.
Shit, it appears now that rolling a shitty number for intelligence is actually the worst thing that can ever happen?
This being said, if you're not smart you probably won't realize it. Being ugly and fully aware of it is much more cruel.
On January 27 2010 06:20 Matoo- wrote: Even if the writer believes in what he says I don't understand how he can be unhappy about it.
An ugly girl will always be just that - an ugly girl. No matter how successful, how smart, how wealthy she is - she always will be an ugly girl. People around her will eventually come to find her a little less ugly but that's it.
But if you're a man and don't look so good it nearly doesn't matter because it can be completely overshadowed by your other successes. People who spend time with you will eventually not even notice it anymore, unless you're really really horrible and look like a alien or a freak or something.
If life was some kind or RPG and I was at the character creation page right now, I wouldn't ever pick female unless I've found a way to hack the random number generator and roll a ten.
If you roll 3 on intelligence you wouldn't get anywhere as a male either. It is just that the attribute required for men are more invisible than breast size and waist to hip ratio. Not everyone is ambitious, social competent and smart. In any rpg it is impossible to roll a character that isn't ambitious or smart, since it is you who are making all the decisions for him.
Actually there are some RPGs where if your intelligence score is terrible you get cut off most dialog options and get retarded answers instead. :D
They should make ones where you never finish any puzzle, go into all traps, never realize that the monster is immune to your attacks, every time you go into a store you are forced to buy a lot of crap you don't want since you are tricked by the shopkeeper, people send you on quests you get nothing for and in combat you have to use the WOW AI (aka attacks the tank first, healer last).
If that was the lowest intelligence score then it would be a real rpg. As it is now you aren't roleplaying a stupid ogre, you are playing an extremely smart ogre who can't cast spells. In the real world being decently smart is one of the most important things there is, not books smart but street smart of course but they are quite related.
On January 27 2010 07:06 Klockan3 wrote:In the real world being decently smart is one of the most important things there is, not books smart but street smart of course but they are quite related.
I agree with the bolded part. I disagree with the part in italics. I know people who are very book smart, yet are not very street smart. I also know the opposite, people who are very street smart, yet are not very book smart. Most people are a mix of the two. Some people are both book smart and street smart. Some people have neither. They usually have an inverse relationship, but they are not directly related at all.
On January 27 2010 03:19 Alethios wrote: I'm starting to see this thread as a concentrated effort to drive away our female members.
Actually it's a handy guide to me regarding who I will never do any favors for or talk to on these forums Thankfully most of the posters here are actually nice enough blokes to realize what a pile of over-generalizing crap it is.
As a woman, do you fall in love with how a ForGG is physically ? Do you fall in love with simple parts of a him, like the way his hair falls around her face, the line of his neck, his shoulders and his gosu apm ?
On January 27 2010 09:16 Boblion wrote: As a woman, do you fall in love with how a ForGG is physically ? Do you fall in love with simple parts of a him, like the way his hair falls around his face, the line of his neck, his shoulders and his gosu apm ?
How could any woman resist?
~ Kind to (stuffed) animals. ~ Smirky git. ~ Wearing a necklace with my ID on it. ~ Likes taking his clothes off in inappropriate places. ~ Tries and fails to read my handwriting in English. ~ Nosy as hell. ~ Glasses. ~ Often monosyllabic. ~ Arena MSL champion.
On January 27 2010 09:24 DoctorHelvetica wrote: In NeverGG's case a man is attractive based on how many lings he can build and how many failed hydra all-ins he can execute
DNW.
What is it with me and Zerg players? It's not even my favorite race o.O;
On January 27 2010 09:24 DoctorHelvetica wrote: In NeverGG's case a man is attractive based on how many lings he can build and how many failed hydra all-ins he can execute
DoctorHelvetica, of course, finds people attractive based on how many command centers they can build in their opponents bases
On January 27 2010 09:24 DoctorHelvetica wrote: In NeverGG's case a man is attractive based on how many lings he can build and how many failed hydra all-ins he can execute
DoctorHelvetica, of course, finds people attractive based on how many command centers they can build in their opponents bases
We all know that this is the only person residing in the good Doctor's heart;
On January 27 2010 09:43 DoctorHelvetica wrote: That's not a very good pic of go.go
i don't like u anymore
Well shit, I'd better stop taking photos of him for you then. >.> *scowls* He's hard to photograph because he looks like a (cute) little fish/hamster boy. I've only taken one good photo of him EVER.
He looks so funny without his glasses on <3 Bless him.
On January 27 2010 03:19 Alethios wrote: I'm starting to see this thread as a concentrated effort to drive away our female members.
Actually it's a handy guide to me regarding who I will never do any favors for or talk to on these forums Thankfully most of the posters here are actually nice enough blokes to realize what a pile of over-generalizing crap it is.
Over-generalized - yes. Crap - yes. Just a bit of truth in it - yes.
I actually heard that women are more attracted to a man who has more women around him than other males. On the other hand, how many men are around a woman doesn't matter in a man's perception of how attractive a woman is.
No idea what that guy is complaining about. Of course a women would like a man with more money, education, social status than some guy working at Seven Eleven. I see absolutely nothing wrong with this. Men also like the more attractive women over the less attractive women. It is purely common sense. It is like picking a house; you would pick the better looking house over the uglier looking house given that money is not an issue.
You can call that superficial, but then in that case, all human values are superficial.
On January 27 2010 10:16 Kingfisher wrote: I actually heard that women are more attracted to a man who has more women around him than other males. On the other hand, how many men are around a woman doesn't matter in a man's perception of how attractive a woman is.
On January 27 2010 10:16 Kingfisher wrote: I actually heard that women are more attracted to a man who has more women around him than other males. On the other hand, how many men are around a woman doesn't matter in a man's perception of how attractive a woman is.
uh yeah it does.
Yeah but it's the other way around, it's a turn-off to realize a horde of men flocking around a woman.
On January 27 2010 09:43 DoctorHelvetica wrote: That's not a very good pic of go.go
i don't like u anymore
Well shit, I'd better stop taking photos of him for you then. >.> *scowls* He's hard to photograph because he looks like a (cute) little fish/hamster boy. I've only taken one good photo of him EVER.
He looks so funny without his glasses on <3 Bless him.
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.
Implying that what men find attractive about women is based on personal judgment and not 100% a result of social conditioning or biological impulses.
On January 27 2010 09:43 DoctorHelvetica wrote: That's not a very good pic of go.go
i don't like u anymore
Well shit, I'd better stop taking photos of him for you then. >.> *scowls* He's hard to photograph because he looks like a (cute) little fish/hamster boy. I've only taken one good photo of him EVER.
He looks so funny without his glasses on <3 Bless him.
ugh he's so cute GOD
im having a heart attack
LOL Want me to get him to hold up a sign for you? That'd be pretty hilarious.
As op's edit says, some people are taking this way too seriously. most guys would probably write something like this amidst the heat of an argument or after coming out of a bad relationship.
Likewise a girl could write the same about men (of course adjusted to make women the noble gender)
Yes in certain context it can be totally true. There are gold diggers and there is the evolutionary standpoint, but at the same time you can say this about any relationship.
Like a boss talking about choosing an executive to take over the business:
As a company president seeking someone to take over the business, I just want someone I can trust. I look for the simple things in a potential boss. Like the way he/she manages the employees, the ability to make speeches, his charisma. They way he/she can motivate others. His/her decisiveness. The extent and experience of his/her portfolio, his/her resume. The way he/she talks, the way he/she acts when he/she is under pressure or stressed, the actions he/she makes when he/she travels, disciplines, or takes care of competition. The way he/she sits in my chair. The way he/she reacts while experiencing different scenarios. The way his/her stocks move. A hundred million dollars worth of things.
where are the feminism comments coming from? judging someone based on success and popularity is far less superficial than appearance, hes knocking men more than women in some ways.
The OP makes a good point I gotta say. A lot of girls I know seem to base their attraction to guys based on how "complete" they are, how much of a "total package" they are, rather than on looks alone ( Not including the GQ looking guys with Brad Pitt's face and Jesus' abs. ), whereas most guys seem to throw themselves at girls based on the girl's looks alone.
I'm actually reading an intesresting book right now called, "The normal personality". The author's premise is that all life choices, right up to who we choose as our mates boils down to instrinically held values that drive personality and motivation.
It actually ties in quite nicely with the OP and with the topic of dating in general. A friend once told me a theory on dating that he came up with called "The niche theory." Basically, women will flock to men based on what they consider is valuable to them. In other words, they will pick a guy based on their values (personal values, and values based on whatever subculture they belong to-- popular-culture wise, sports-wise, age-wise, geographically-wise, music-wise, etc).
The values can be pretty much anything. They can highly value a "good listener", a person who "makes them laugh" but he told me that above all else, women (at least initially) will put value on social status first. This means different things to different women. It depends what subculture she belongs to and what values are in that subculture. If she's a power hungry whore, she will be immediately attracted to a guy if he walks in and is greeted by other people who she thinks is powerful. If she was say, Snookie, she would be attracted to an orange dude in a club who is laughing and having a good time with other girls (And perhaps a dude who reaks of pickles), if she was a Teamliquidian at an event, she might immiediately be attracted to a guy whose company the TL staff enjoys greatly. The screaming girl effect no?
If one girl screams, all otther girls within her vicinity will scream. N'Sync? Twighlight? The Pope? They all have the ability to make girls swoon (Maybe in different ways) based on the same thing.
On January 27 2010 03:19 Alethios wrote: I'm starting to see this thread as a concentrated effort to drive away our female members.
Actually it's a handy guide to me regarding who I will never do any favors for or talk to on these forums Thankfully most of the posters here are actually nice enough blokes to realize what a pile of over-generalizing crap it is.
Evolution of a species is perpetuated by the things in the article in the OP, amongst many other things. If you don't think it applies to you as well I could tell you why it does. Then we'd be having some real fun in this thread.
If the article was true, wouldn't only about 10% of the world's population be married (or in a couple)?
I mean, surely by its tone, only that 10% are the ones that are truly envied, that may have good reasons to laugh, that are usually more handsome than the rest.
Or, at least they should be the ones with the longest lasting marriages. Surely a movie star fits perfectly in every category that the article mentions, and if it's everything that a woman wants, then why the hell does it last so little?
Then take infidelity for example. The article does not mention anything about self-respect, it goes so far to classifying every woman as a whore and, I would expect a "baller" to be even more envied by the rest of the males. Shouldn't that make his wife like him even more?
Although the value judgments are wrong and stupid and are shitting up this thread.
Anyway, the real deal is: in nature, ova are rare and sperm are cheap. That is the essential difference between male and female. Sexual dimorphism (difference between male and female) arises because of this. Ever wonder why the male peacock and the female are so drastically different, despite being members of the same species and subject to the same natural selection pressures?
Its because the sex difference matters, and creates sexual selection pressures that drive them apart. These days we have the bullshit assumption that male and female are simply social constructs, which is an assumption with absolutely no basis in reality.
Anyway, among mammals, sexual dimorphism usually drives males to be larger in size and compete over access to females, while females are driven to choose carefully among competing males. The reason is that female mammals have a high degree of parental investment that they cannot skip out on- a long gestation period, lots of nutrients for the infant, nursing the infant with milk, etc. Because of this, having an infant is a big commitment for a female, whereas for the male, it could be as easy as one night's mating. Males aren't bound by their biology to high parental investment, although in many species, including humans, males do invest a good deal because of the nature of human infants and the fact that females have selected for this trait in males.
Essentially, a male maximizes his reproductive success by having sex with as many females as possible; one man can easily have hundreds of children as a theoretical maximum, whereas one female can never have that many. On the other hand, it doesn't matter if a woman fucks one man or 100, she can still have at most about one infant each year. Thus its OK if its one guy, in fact preferable, to secure commitment. In fact having multiple male partners is sure to drive them away because of the huge risk of getting cuckolded ("and on the 18th birthday, he found out it wasn't his?" -Kanye West) Which is why polygyny is wayyyyy more common than polyandry, which is essentially non-existent.
Typically, in pre modern times, man would have 0-100+ children and a female would usually be constant between 4-15. The reason competition is less among females is because they have less to lose; most women, even unattractive ones, don't have trouble finding mates, and their reproductive success is more constant. However, among males, many men get shut out of reproductive success altogether which drives behavior like violence and competition, while some men enjoy enormous reproductive success. The variation is much higher.
Thus, men are attracted very strongly to physical signs of fertility in a woman; an overview of human history will show abundant signs of this. Men don't really care that much if the woman is poor or rich or what her status is if she's fertile and available. Thus the attraction to youth. Women don't care about male fertility as much since the main thing they care about is securing investment in offspring; thus the attraction to wealth, status, and a preference for older men or younger men with ambition.
Well that's a whole lot of text and a bunch of big words. And sure, it's probably like that in most species; all hormones and shit. But then you're completely disregarding the human mind. Surely the very same thing that makes us human, that turns us into murderers, that is supposed to override hormones with thought. Has something to do with it?
If I have ever gone out to go clubbing, dancing or to a party, I groom myself, I dress well and I make sure I look good, not for anyone else, but for myself, if I think I look good, I get a massive boost of self confidence, I become 10 times more social, a lot more open and a lot more fun.
A couple of years ago, I stopped trying to look for and attract girls. I just decided to work on making myself awesome, worked on getting a great job, tons of awesome and social hobbies, great physical fitness and other things in my life that specifically made ME happy. At which point I didn't really have to try and attract girls anymore, they were just there.
On January 27 2010 21:59 Cloud wrote: If the article was true, wouldn't only about 10% of the world's population be married (or in a couple)?
I mean, surely by its tone, only that 10% are the ones that are truly envied, that may have good reasons to laugh, that are usually more handsome than the rest.
Or, at least they should be the ones with the longest lasting marriages. Surely a movie star fits perfectly in every category that the article mentions, and if it's everything that a woman wants, then why the hell does it last so little?
Then take infidelity for example. The article does not mention anything about self-respect, it goes so far to classifying every woman as a whore and, I would expect a "baller" to be even more envied by the rest of the males. Shouldn't that make his wife like him even more?
the women who can get a movie star can get another movie star just as easily so theres not any extra drive to stay in that marriage than an average woman married to an average man. the lifestyle that class lives makes infidelity more common and the press cares about them, so when movie stars break up you hear about it. you dont hear about 2 nobodys breaking up.
and no, of course more than 10% get married. every woman wants the best man. not every woman can get the best man, so they have to settle with the best they can get.
a man is useless to a woman if she cant hold on to him, so even if cheating ups his social value (and it doesnt necessarily since honesty and integrity are traits valued by selection) it makes him unreliable, which lowers his overall value.
On January 27 2010 22:29 Cloud wrote: Well that's a whole lot of text and a bunch of big words. And sure, it's probably like that in most species; all hormones and shit. But then you're completely disregarding the human mind. Surely the very same thing that makes us human, that turns us into murderers, that is supposed to override hormones with thought. Has something to do with it?
the brain is the reason women want high value men. if you're a woman and you're not thinking you just want a big burly guy who has good physical genes to produce the strongest, healthiest child. but if you're thinking you realize that you're gonna need someone to take care of you and the kid afterwards too, which is where the social power and quality as a provider come into play.
On January 27 2010 22:29 Cloud wrote: Well that's a whole lot of text and a bunch of big words. And sure, it's probably like that in most species; all hormones and shit. But then you're completely disregarding the human mind. Surely the very same thing that makes us human, that turns us into murderers, that is supposed to override hormones with thought. Has something to do with it?
The simple answer is: attraction IS NOT love/relationship/commitment, and so while you can be attracted on a sexual/reproductive level you can find that they have a horrendous personality, or that the social circumstances prevent you from pursuing any sort of relationship. It's the same sort of thing that puts men into the friend-zone - the man's a nice enough person, but there isn't anything interesting or outstanding about him, at least to her.
Of course men will gravitate towards beautiful women and women will gravitate towards interesting men (wealth/power/fame but also just friendly/social/etc). If this weren't the case, one-night stands wouldn't happen. But relationships don't happen only because of this - and if they do they don't last.
The fact that we're human doesn't change the way we're hardwired; it only changes the way that we express certain aspects of our biological drives.
On January 27 2010 21:59 Cloud wrote: If the article was true, wouldn't only about 10% of the world's population be married (or in a couple)?
I mean, surely by its tone, only that 10% are the ones that are truly envied, that may have good reasons to laugh, that are usually more handsome than the rest.
Or, at least they should be the ones with the longest lasting marriages. Surely a movie star fits perfectly in every category that the article mentions, and if it's everything that a woman wants, then why the hell does it last so little?
Then take infidelity for example. The article does not mention anything about self-respect, it goes so far to classifying every woman as a whore and, I would expect a "baller" to be even more envied by the rest of the males. Shouldn't that make his wife like him even more?
the women who can get a movie star can get another movie star just as easily so theres not any extra drive to stay in that marriage than an average woman married to an average man. the lifestyle that class lives makes infidelity more common and the press cares about them, so when movie stars break up you hear about it. you dont hear about 2 nobodys breaking up.
and no, of course more than 10% get married. every woman wants the best man. not every woman can get the best man, so they have to settle with the best they can get.
a man is useless to a woman if she cant hold on to him, so even if cheating ups his social value (and it doesnt necessarily since honesty and integrity are traits valued by selection) it makes him unreliable, which lowers his overall value.
On January 27 2010 22:29 Cloud wrote: Well that's a whole lot of text and a bunch of big words. And sure, it's probably like that in most species; all hormones and shit. But then you're completely disregarding the human mind. Surely the very same thing that makes us human, that turns us into murderers, that is supposed to override hormones with thought. Has something to do with it?
the brain is the reason women want high value men. if you're a woman and you're not thinking you just want a big burly guy who has good physical genes to produce the strongest, healthiest child. but if you're thinking you realize that you're gonna need someone to take care of you and the kid afterwards too, which is where the social power and quality as a provider come into play.
All of what you are saying might be true if women thought about children before they married. But I think most women (and men) think about children after they are married. I don't think a guy's usefulness to a woman is measured on how he can provide their children, but on how he can provide her (I'm not just talking money here). The article states that basically women are whores and all they want is to be seen with the top dog. That is just incredibly shallow.
You say that women that marry movie stars can easily find a replacement. I do not think so, mostly because of what you mentioned about exposure; social criticism is more severe against women that failed at a marriage than men.
Now, would you really marry a movie star or something similar, based on your children? I think the exposure would be good for myself (for a little while). But not in the least for my kid, also because of what you said about the inherent lifestyle of people in that status. This kind of preferring long term "investments" over short term satisfactions is what I call thinking. And the immediately obvious, such as getting a very rich partner is not usually the best approach.
you're missing the point. this is about attraction, initial desire for someone. like someone said earlier in the thread, you'll fuck a 10 even if she has the personality of a rock. but you're not gonna marry her. the op's saying that the way guys are turned on by a girl who looks good, girls are turned on by a successful, powerful guy.
the evolution stuff is the rationale for how these instincts developed.
so ya, if you think it through you might not want to marry a movie star for the sake of your kid. but when you were cavemen the equivalent of the movie star was the tribe leader, or someone high up in the tribe, who had power and the ability to provide. so you instinctively go for someone with those characteristics. your brain isnt thinking "fuck ya a movie star" its thinking "fuck ya someone powerful and successful"
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.
Implying that what men find attractive about women is based on personal judgment and not 100% a result of social conditioning or biological impulses.
Implying that why anybody does anything is not 100% based on a result of social conditioning or biological impulses.
Maybe chicks don't find your skinny ass attractive but show em 1 pic of me and they will cream in their pants. I fucking pound that shit each day bro. New chick. New pound. Every fucking day is a new guidette on the shore.
Didn't read this article but fuck bro, if she isn't feelin you, get your ass in the gym. I'm there like 1 and a half hours each day bro. Get my protein and fucking tan. Each day bro.
On January 28 2010 08:56 TheSituation wrote: Bro fucking chicks LOVE Mike The Situation.
Maybe chicks don't find your skinny ass attractive but show em 1 pic of me and they will cream in their pants. I fucking pound that shit each day bro. New chick. New pound. Every fucking day is a new guidette on the shore.
Didn't read this article but fuck bro, if she isn't feelin you, get your ass in the gym. I'm there like 1 and a half hours each day bro. Get my protein and fucking tan. Each day bro.
On January 28 2010 08:56 TheSituation wrote: Bro fucking chicks LOVE Mike The Situation.
Maybe chicks don't find your skinny ass attractive but show em 1 pic of me and they will cream in their pants. I fucking pound that shit each day bro. New chick. New pound. Every fucking day is a new guidette on the shore.
Didn't read this article but fuck bro, if she isn't feelin you, get your ass in the gym. I'm there like 1 and a half hours each day bro. Get my protein and fucking tan. Each day bro.
On January 28 2010 08:56 TheSituation wrote: Bro fucking chicks LOVE Mike The Situation.
Maybe chicks don't find your skinny ass attractive but show em 1 pic of me and they will cream in their pants. I fucking pound that shit each day bro. New chick. New pound. Every fucking day is a new guidette on the shore.
Didn't read this article but fuck bro, if she isn't feelin you, get your ass in the gym. I'm there like 1 and a half hours each day bro. Get my protein and fucking tan. Each day bro.
HAYYYYY, MIKEY THE SITUACHE, LET'S GO TO THE FUCKIN' NARCISSUS BRAH, GOT SOME ROOFIES, LET'S PUT EM IN HER FUCKIN' ZIMA BRAH.
On January 28 2010 08:56 TheSituation wrote: Bro fucking chicks LOVE Mike The Situation.
Maybe chicks don't find your skinny ass attractive but show em 1 pic of me and they will cream in their pants. I fucking pound that shit each day bro. New chick. New pound. Every fucking day is a new guidette on the shore.
Didn't read this article but fuck bro, if she isn't feelin you, get your ass in the gym. I'm there like 1 and a half hours each day bro. Get my protein and fucking tan. Each day bro.
ahahaha classic. DONT FORGET YAH FRESH HAIRCUT BRO.
Leaving the biologic aspect out of this, much of the social conditioning and how women behave has been programmed by men essentially. Women got the right to vote only a hundred years ago in many parts of the western world, and the reason for this is obviously that men have defined the roles for men and women in society, where women weren't considered able or worthy of a vote. Says alot about the view of women, doesn't it?
Sociologically speaking, women look up to men because they have been taught to do that, by men.
Man has long been the norm (and still is to different extent, depending on where you live etc) and hooking up with a man with social status means that the woman gets social approval and biologically speaking the man she chose is a strong father candidate for her future children. Social status implies confidence and an outgoing personality - traits that are sought after in the western world.
Now, we are all affected by gender roles, and it can be quite enlightening to ponder about what is expected of you based on your gender (role). Biological gender doesn't equal how men and women behave, although I believe there are biological reasons for some behavior. Alot of our behavior from a gender-perspective, stems from how we are brought up as man and woman.
So, instead of going: "I don't understand women, why does she think like that? Are women dumb in general?", think about what has caused this (in some women). Women aren't taught to be smart (very generalizing) and are to a larger extent judged on their exterior. They have been taught to look pretty and act shy. They are also taught to be caring and nice. Of course this is very generalized and many girls have parents who are academics and who want them to get an higher education. I think the reason that at least the western world is moving into the right direction, is because religion in many places has been declining, and with it the old gender-roles of man and woman portrayed in the bible. But time and time again I meet girls who ask me things like if Bulgaria is in Europe, and they tend to be pretty. This is an obvious case of social conditioning where she's more interested in looking pretty than developing her mental skills. It's not her fault though, and I don't judge women as a whole.
Men are taught to be assertive and ambitious. They are also taught that they are "the man"; characteristics implying they have power over women (and that they are in a constant competition over power with other men) in different subtle, and not so subtle ways.
Bottomline is that both men and women are the result of a long history of social conditioning, where men without a doubt have been the dominant force in creating norms and social behavior for themselves, and for women. So before judging how women behave, think about how social conditioning historically speaking has led up to the gender roles we have in society today.
All above being said, I like women alot and I'm all for equality. I believe women to be as intelligent as men. There's a possibility that men and women are biologically better at different mental tasks but there are so many intelligent women out there, that I think it's more about social conditioning. Also, it's not ONLY about gender (although gender-roles is a big one). It's about genetics, placement among siblings, how your parents have defined you, your upbringing in general etc.
On January 28 2010 08:56 TheSituation wrote: Bro fucking chicks LOVE Mike The Situation.
Maybe chicks don't find your skinny ass attractive but show em 1 pic of me and they will cream in their pants. I fucking pound that shit each day bro. New chick. New pound. Every fucking day is a new guidette on the shore.
Didn't read this article but fuck bro, if she isn't feelin you, get your ass in the gym. I'm there like 1 and a half hours each day bro. Get my protein and fucking tan. Each day bro.
You got beef wise guy? I will 1 fucking hit you man, no fucking joke. 1 fucking hit and you ah sleeping. You feel me bro? I don't think so.. you ain't seen fucking shit like this shit.
I wake up each day. I do my fucking hair, for like, 25 minutes and it fucking looks perfect. I hit the gym each fucking day bro. What do you do? Jerkaff? Yeah I'm sure that's what you fucking do. Know what I do? I hit the gym. Get home, get fucking ready then go out and grab myself some sweet shit man. Shit you jerkaff to. Ok? Feel me bro?
Girls fucking love The Situation. Want to know what the situation is?
bam bro. Don't show your ma or your girlfriend that shit. She will leave you for me bro.
On January 28 2010 11:01 TheSituation wrote: You got beef wise guy? I will 1 fucking hit you man, no fucking joke. 1 fucking hit and you ah sleeping. You feel me bro? I don't think so.. you ain't seen fucking shit like this shit.
LOL. Bring it. If that pic is yours, then you should know that I outweigh you by at least 60 lbs. Coulda played uni ball bro. Worked as a bouncer for a while. Done more shit than you know bro.
I wake up each day. I do my fucking hair, for like, 25 minutes and it fucking looks perfect. I hit the gym each fucking day bro. What do you do? Jerkaff? Yeah I'm sure that's what you fucking do. Know what I do? I hit the gym. Get home, get fucking ready then go out and grab myself some sweet shit man. Shit you jerkaff to. Ok? Feel me bro?
25 minutes to do your hair? LOL. I guess I'll start callin you bra now, you ain't no bro if you spend more than 2 minutes on that shit. Hit the gym? Ok, fine. Been there, done that. I found I had more time for the good stuff when I wasn't spendin it in a gym.
Girls fucking love The Situation. Want to know what the situation is?
bam bro. Don't show your ma or your girlfriend that shit. She will leave you for me bro.
On January 28 2010 11:01 TheSituation wrote: You got beef wise guy? I will 1 fucking hit you man, no fucking joke. 1 fucking hit and you ah sleeping. You feel me bro? I don't think so.. you ain't seen fucking shit like this shit.
LOL. Bring it. If that pic is yours, then you should know that I outweigh you by at least 60 lbs. Coulda played uni ball bro. Worked as a bouncer for a while. Done more shit than you know bro.
I wake up each day. I do my fucking hair, for like, 25 minutes and it fucking looks perfect. I hit the gym each fucking day bro. What do you do? Jerkaff? Yeah I'm sure that's what you fucking do. Know what I do? I hit the gym. Get home, get fucking ready then go out and grab myself some sweet shit man. Shit you jerkaff to. Ok? Feel me bro?
25 minutes to do your hair? LOL. I guess I'll start callin you bra now, you ain't no bro if you spend more than 2 minutes on that shit. Hit the gym? Ok, fine. Been there, done that. I found I had more time for the good stuff when I wasn't spendin it in a gym.
Lean is in? I'm 240 with a 32 inch waist buddy. Lean enough for ya?
And, unfortunately for you, I'm not as much of a dumbass. I'm not going to be posting pics of myself all over the internet, trying to showoff to random people. But I've met a dozen or so people from this forum. Can you say the same? Anyone to back your side of the story?
Bro.. my boys know who I am and what I am.. that's all I need.
You won't post a pic cause your flabby ass got goggles on to see the poster of a chick that is half as hot as the regular puss I pull, feel me?
I'm saying you ain't shit son. I got it all. The body. The hair. People love me bro. Mom's love me. Dog's fucking love me. If you don't fucking love me.. watch out.. cause you will.
I'm talking about facts and you gotta get dirty with your sick lil mind. That is fine bro.. totally fine. I respect that you see an Alpha and you know to back off.
I would too if I was you. Looking at a man who looks like rambo with his shirt off, what do you say?
On January 28 2010 11:34 lilsusie wrote: I am so embarrassed to say that I am from jersey. Those guidos need to go back to Staten Island where they are from. sigh.
On January 28 2010 11:34 lilsusie wrote: I am so embarrassed to say that I am from jersey. Those guidos need to go back to Staten Island where they are from. sigh.
On January 28 2010 11:34 lilsusie wrote: I am so embarrassed to say that I am from jersey. Those guidos need to go back to Staten Island where they are from. sigh.
On January 28 2010 11:34 lilsusie wrote: I am so embarrassed to say that I am from jersey. Those guidos need to go back to Staten Island where they are from. sigh.
TheSituation you are sooo fucking awesome. I'm not gay but you look so good i'd hit you!
Can you please explain to me on how to be as awesome as you? I would really like to fuck hundred of women like you do instead of staying home and reading/writting on tl.net.
On January 28 2010 22:57 RaGe wrote: just when it's starting to get painfully obvious a romanian walks in to the thread to let everyone know he doesn't get it
Either that, or a Romanian decided to try to attempt sarcasm.....
@ Mike - I'm the one with a dirty mind? You're talkin about "girls" creamin in their pants.....
Bra, girls don't "cream". Guys do.
Also, pants? Not shorts. Not panties. Not skirts. Pants.....
I think you are seriously confused about your social status, bra.
Impervious, I think you need to relax a bit mate. The Situation is obviously just a cool bloke who has a lot of self confidence, rather than attack him, maybe you should embrace his persona. It may help you out. I'm not really into slang, but he seems quite "rad" and "with it". Maybe we can get his workout routine, or advice on hair product, I'm kind of interested.
On January 28 2010 23:58 Energies wrote: Impervious, I think you need to relax a bit mate. The Situation is obviously just a cool bloke who has a lot of self confidence, rather than attack him, maybe you should embrace his persona. It may help you out. I'm not really into slang, but he seems quite "rad" and "with it". Maybe we can get his workout routine, or advice on hair product, I'm kind of interested.
It's not a self-confidence thing. Everyone should be confident in themselves.
Assuming it really is him, he is cocky. If he doesn't get shot down my me, he'll get shot down by someone else. He'll end up in the hospital, for picking a fight with the wrong person. I've seen it happen - a self-deluded dick hanging around with other self-deluded dicks get into some trouble, then the friends ditch for their own safety, leaving the one dick remaining to get his ass kicked.
Frankly, if you want his workout routine, then ask for it. If it doesn't involve power squats, power cleans, or bus driver cleans, then I don't want it..... His routine will be for showing off, rather than actually being able to do something.....
Well that makes sense, I was pretty confused. Well actually still a bit confused, is he one of the guys who ditch the other guy, or is he the guy that gets left alone to get his ass kicked. Cause if he's the other guy, he looks pretty strong, I don't think he'd get his ass kicked, but if he's the other guy. Why would he run, I saw the photo on the last page, he doesn't look like the kind of guy who'd run. It's all so confusing, you didn't explain this properly.
Oh, he looks tough and all. But he's a pretty-boy. There's no way he actually enjoys getting his hands dirty. And his friends will be the same way.
He'll either ditch, or be ditched. Either way. I've seen it a quite a few times (experience as a bouncer helped there), and I really doubt that his friends and him are any different.
Well, thank god you're here. Have you considered changing majors from engineering to sociology? I believe you'd do well, I think life experience really helps in that field, and you seem to have a lot.
Looking at OP's text, there's a lot of shit on it, but a few truths too.
All in all, what really can be said is that looks are extremely more important for women than for men in modern society relationships, and obviously that positive qualities such as wealth, good humor and intelligence are assets to anyone.
Disagree with the idea that looks are completly unimportant for attracting women, specially at younger ages. It's really important when you're a teenager and becomes slowly less important as you age.
I just realised, all it would take for a Romanian to troll us all would be to change his country to anything else other than Romanian and just start posting as he normally would.
On January 28 2010 22:57 RaGe wrote: just when it's starting to get painfully obvious a romanian walks in to the thread to let everyone know he doesn't get it
On January 29 2010 09:15 lMPERVlOUS wrote: I don't doubt. It must have been very entertaining, and he made money off of it. How often do you get paid to go to a show?
i paid artosis 100$ in a bar to go get more alcohol in his underwear
not only did he enjoy it, but no one in the bar seemed to notice or care, and he got 100$
On January 29 2010 09:15 lMPERVlOUS wrote: I don't doubt. It must have been very entertaining, and he made money off of it. How often do you get paid to go to a show?
i paid artosis 100$ in a bar to go get more alcohol in his underwear
not only did he enjoy it, but no one in the bar seemed to notice or care, and he got 100$
he definitely won the battle that night,
yea that was terrible. definitely one of those moments thats better in your head.
On January 29 2010 09:15 lMPERVlOUS wrote: I don't doubt. It must have been very entertaining, and he made money off of it. How often do you get paid to go to a show?
i paid artosis 100$ in a bar to go get more alcohol in his underwear
not only did he enjoy it, but no one in the bar seemed to notice or care, and he got 100$
he definitely won the battle that night,
yea that was terrible. definitely one of those moments thats better in your head.
wish you guys captured it on film... would be pretty funny to see
On January 29 2010 09:15 lMPERVlOUS wrote: I don't doubt. It must have been very entertaining, and he made money off of it. How often do you get paid to go to a show?
i paid artosis 100$ in a bar to go get more alcohol in his underwear
not only did he enjoy it, but no one in the bar seemed to notice or care, and he got 100$
he definitely won the battle that night,
yea that was terrible. definitely one of those moments thats better in your head.
wish you guys captured it on film... would be pretty funny to see
EPT
whether of this article nor the one in your post
![[image loading]](http://www.mikexia.com/etc/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/evil-women.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_5mxw-sYc_F0/R1PELXJ2SPI/AAAAAAAAJcw/2n5shPeXZAU/s1600-R/ben_cohen_boxers.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i50.tinypic.com/10pygeb.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i48.tinypic.com/ddna8n.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i47.tinypic.com/2502paa.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i49.tinypic.com/23l1frr.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i50.tinypic.com/n56bn4.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://chichi212.com/files/2009/12/mike-the-situation-306x460.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://remotecontrol.mtv.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/mikepaulfist.jpg)
