Author Ilovecake Posted September 29, 2009 Author Posted September 29, 2009 I don't see why attraction would be any different for guys. Attraction is very different for guys; there is clear-cut, scientific proof of that. We are very different neurologically.
Island Girl Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 With so many men out there it is so nice they remove themselves from the pool by only being attracted to or getting involved with bimbos, being misogynists, bigots, etc. Honestly it narrows the choices down considerably thank goodness! Who wants to have to wade through all of them when the focus should be on the limited number which is compatible.
shadowplay Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 Attraction is very different for guys; there is clear-cut, scientific proof of that. We are very different neurologically. Yes, yes it is. Men can usually separate physical and emotional attraction. Even if they wouldn't date a woman because of her personality they can still find her physically attractive. Most women don't work that way.
Kamille Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 Well, you're talking to a sociologist who has a beef with all the clear cut neurological proof, because once you really truly start paying attention to that litterature, you actually find that nothing much has been proved. You know the theory that men are prone to want to sow their seed and women to seek stable partners? Just a theory. Actually never has been a shred of historical proof to support this. If anything, anthroplogy has uncovered many societies which would disproof this theory. And the neurological difference? Current advances in neurology suggest that our brains are the product of our socialization. Of course, all of that is the centre of much debate. I've always approached men as people I can understand and get along with, not some alien race with warped values. This means that the men who stay in my life usually approach women the same way. And you know what? Whether as friends, lovers or boyfriends, this has meant that I have had a series of deep meaningful relationships with men.
Author Ilovecake Posted September 29, 2009 Author Posted September 29, 2009 People carry themselves in ways they want to be perceived. You don't have to talk to a Pamela Anderson to know what at least 50% of her is about. She very obviously wants to be seen as a very sexual person. If you run into a Michelle Obama she doesn't have to convey much of her personality for you to know she's not a dumb bimbo. Men aren't as easy to read. I'm not sure but maybe it's because women have more ways of expressing themselves esthetically than men do.
Jersey Shortie Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 It's about time the other shoe finally dropped. Yeah, that's the attitude! You told us. Apparently us women get what we deserve because some really hot women turned down some average looking dude.
shadowplay Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 And the neurological difference? Current advances in neurology suggest that our brains are the product of our socialization. Of course, all of that is the centre of much debate. Well, I disagree with this. I truly believe that male and female brains are wired differently, but that socialization may exaggerate those differences.
Author Ilovecake Posted September 29, 2009 Author Posted September 29, 2009 Well, you're talking to a sociologist who has a beef with all the clear cut neurological proof, because once you really truly start paying attention to that litterature, you actually find that nothing much has been proved. You know the theory that men are prone to want to sow their seed and women to seek stable partners? Just a theory. Actually never has been a shred of historical proof to support this. If anything, anthroplogy has uncovered many societies which would disproof this theory. And the neurological difference? Current advances in neurology suggest that our brains are the product of our socialization. Of course, all of that is the centre of much debate. I've always approached men as people I can understand and get along with, not some alien race with warped values. This means that the men who stay in my life usually approach women the same way. And you know what? Whether as friends, lovers or boyfriends, this has meant that I have had a series of deep meaningful relationships with men. Wait aren't you the same person that was just talking about "auras' a few post back? I would like to know where you get those hard facts from.
donnamaybe Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 People carry themselves in ways they want to be perceived. You don't have to talk to a Pamela Anderson to know what at least 50% of her is about. She very obviously wants to be seen as a very sexual person. If you run into a Michelle Obama she doesn't have to convey much of her personality for you to know she's not a dumb bimbo. And that's it, in a nutshell. Some of these "bimbos" may not truly be ignorant, but they PLAY ignorant, helpless, naive. They bat their pretty little eyelashes and arch their back and stick out their boobs, playing it to the hilt, and SOME (note I said "some") guys positively eat it up.
gopher Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 Yes, yes it is. Men can usually separate physical and emotional attraction. Even if they wouldn't date a woman because of her personality they can still find her physically attractive. Most women don't work that way. Unfortunately, we're stuck being what we are....some men take it to the extreme, but most of us love the entire woman, and yes, visual attractiveness is part of that. Men= shallow pigs...Women= Angels of Light, I get that, truly I do...
donnamaybe Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 Men= shallow pigs...Women= Angels of Light It's very clear that you haven't met some of the types of women I have.
GorillaTheater Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 Unfortunately, we're stuck being what we are....some men take it to the extreme, but most of us love the entire woman, and yes, visual attractiveness is part of that. Men= shallow pigs...Women= Angels of Light, I get that, truly I do... The thread started out as a rather offensive portrayal of physically attractive but less intelligent women as "bimbos", but yes, it's turned into yet another thread about this.
Kamille Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 Wait aren't you the same person that was just talking about "auras' a few post back? I would like to know where you get those hard facts from. Never said me personal experience was sociologically grounded! I also read my horoscope every day. Does that make me a bimbo ? There's a really good book by Deborah Cameron on ideologies of gender, which goes into debunking the myths of mars of venus (I think the title is The myths of mars and Venus). that is where most of my facts come from, but also a continued interest in the question of gender and how gender differences come about.
Author Ilovecake Posted September 29, 2009 Author Posted September 29, 2009 The thread started out as a rather offensive portrayal of physically attractive but less intelligent women as "bimbos", but yes, it's turned into yet another thread about this. The definition I posted of bimbos came straight from dictionary.com so I guess you can take offence with them. I think we all know what a bimbo is without having it spelled out for us...unless you're a dumb bimbo that is.
Kamille Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 Unfortunately, we're stuck being what we are....some men take it to the extreme, but most of us love the entire woman, and yes, visual attractiveness is part of that. See, this is exactly how I would describe my attraction to men. I love the entire man, and yes, visual attractiveness is part of that.
donnamaybe Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 The thread started out as a rather offensive portrayal of physically attractive but less intelligent women as "bimbos", but yes, it's turned into yet another thread about this. Actually, this thread could have been titled "Why do some people like bimbos/boy toys?" Same thing. It's just people wondering why someone solely concerned with their looks while playing stupid could possibly be attractive to anyone.
Kamille Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 It's just people wondering why someone solely concerned with their looks while playing stupid could possibly be attractive to anyone. Why does it matter though?
GorillaTheater Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 I think we all know what a bimbo is without having it spelled out for us...unless you're a dumb bimbo that is. I suppose most of us might be in one accord as to the definition of "slut" or "skank". That doesn't make throwing around terms like that any more palatable. To me, anyways.
donnamaybe Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 Why does it matter though? It doesn't have to. People wonder about and discuss things all the time that don't matter. Subject matter doesn't always have to be earth shattering.
Author Ilovecake Posted September 29, 2009 Author Posted September 29, 2009 Why does it matter though? It's simple human curiosity. It really doesn't have to go any deeper than that. I'm not sure why you keep back paddling and trying to make this what it's not?
GorillaTheater Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 Actually, this thread could have been titled "Why do some people like bimbos/boy toys?" Same thing. It's just people wondering why someone solely concerned with their looks while playing stupid could possibly be attractive to anyone. This thread should be offensive to both men and women, and sorry to say that several posters don't see that. That's fine I suppose, we're all different, but I'm out.
Kamille Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 It's simple human curiosity. It really doesn't have to go any deeper than that. I'm not sure why you keep back paddling and trying to make this what it's not? Where am I back paddling? I think my position is fairly easy to graps and nowhere have I contradicted myself. Sure, simple human curiosity. I feel, like a few others, that the definition of "bimbo" is highly subective if not downright judgemental. Sorry I took issues with the question. It just seems to cast some men and some women in a very unfavorable eye (and therefore would mean that some are better then others). I will step out now, since sheer curiosity is more important then thought-provoking conversation.
shadowplay Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 Btw Kamille, your aura description basically sums up what I'm attracted to as well. Physical attractiveness plays a weird role for me in that it's often not about how "objectively" handsome a guy is but what his features suggest (at a glance) about his personality. Problem is often those physical traits are deceptive, which gets me into some trouble.
gopher Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 This thread should be offensive to both men and women, and sorry to say that several posters don't see that. That's fine I suppose, we're all different, but I'm out. I'm done too GT, too many threads slamming men for their preferences, while women are allowed, even encouraged to have theirs, shallow or not. As you and TBF said, this thread is offensive to both genders. I'm going back to the Off Topic area.
Recommended Posts