AD1980 Posted November 12, 2009 Posted November 12, 2009 http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/r/rudov/2004/rudov010704.htm Do women agree? disagree??
Author AD1980 Posted November 12, 2009 Author Posted November 12, 2009 Ive always agreed with the visual thing..Some women vote on presidents by how they look,or root for a cute guy they see in sports or in any section of life.. Men are nowhere even that visual
CarrieT Posted November 12, 2009 Posted November 12, 2009 I'm more surprised that this author doesn't have a better editor. Phrases like "give me a break" and glib one-word comments like "right?" "wrong!" just reeks of poor authorship...
melodymatters Posted November 13, 2009 Posted November 13, 2009 I agree ! I felt like I was reading a Junior High newspaper article. I was so appalled by the writing style, and tortured logic I forgot what the salient points were. Yes, women and men have a lot in common. Yes, we have differences. Beyond that, everyone is their own story....
CarrieT Posted November 13, 2009 Posted November 13, 2009 I agree ! I felt like I was reading a Junior High newspaper article. I was so appalled by the writing style, and tortured logic I forgot what the salient points were. Virtual high-five, Sistah!
sedgwick Posted November 13, 2009 Posted November 13, 2009 All I had to read of that article was the phrase, "Normally I agree with Bill O'Reilly" to know I wouldn't agree with anything the author had to say.
cognac Posted November 13, 2009 Posted November 13, 2009 Complaining about the grammar? Bill O'reilly? All of these are Red Herrings. All of it is undeniably true. Don't get why women pretend its any different.
Pizzaman81 Posted November 13, 2009 Posted November 13, 2009 My ex wanted it everywhere and anytime. She jump on me until mr Happy almost fell off. Too bad she was a bit crazy.... Well it's good to know that women are JUST as shallow as us! HIGH FIVE! GREAT SUCCESS! HOW MUCH?! -Pizzaman
dreamergrl Posted November 13, 2009 Posted November 13, 2009 My ex wanted it everywhere and anytime. She jump on me until mr Happy almost fell off. Too bad she was a bit crazy.... Well it's good to know that women are JUST as shallow as us! HIGH FIVE! GREAT SUCCESS! HOW MUCH?! -Pizzaman You mean some women are as shallow as some men?
TheLoneSock Posted November 13, 2009 Posted November 13, 2009 http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/r/rudov/2004/rudov010704.htm Do women agree? disagree?? I think the article had some good points. I would liked to have seen some sources or studies to back it up though. There were a lot of generalizations in there that blanket all women, which doesn't work. The female reactions to it on here are funny though.
Pink Cupcakes Posted November 13, 2009 Posted November 13, 2009 The author uses a TV "reality" dating show to validate his point. I think that says it all.
Johnny M Posted November 13, 2009 Posted November 13, 2009 The article is exactly spot on. This part is especially true:Putting a woman on a pedestal is bad for your health and hers. It has the unintended, reverse effect of reducing her to second-class citizen and elevating you to potentate. True mutual respect derives only from a peer relationship. Yet, many men still engage in such deferential behavior, and just as many women demand it. This is why I'm so against chivalry as discussed in another thread.
PinkToes Posted November 13, 2009 Posted November 13, 2009 Men are nowhere even that visual You're joking, right?
Malenfant Posted November 13, 2009 Posted November 13, 2009 a man is as similar to a woman as a woman is to another woman or a man to another man. I've never understood how people think that by learning something about an individual woman or individual man somehow gleans insite into the sex as a whole. so basically i agree with the article, but only because its saying that these things are not true about the female sex generally, but i'm sure the points do still apply to some women, and men for that matter.
DanielMadr Posted November 13, 2009 Posted November 13, 2009 I don't agree. Women and men are different for various reasons. Just because prosperity and security of civilisation and invention of rubber made some behavioral aspects more alike does not mean men and women are the same. I do agree about the pedestal propaganda though. Men have very high expectations these days and therefore get more likely disappointed. When I look at my father or grandfather generation....they were more in touch with reality then we are now. They were forced to be. We are not forced so we paint the world in brughter colours out of fear. I certainly don't agree with this Myth #2: Women aren’t as visually stimulated or obsessed with looks as men are. When a guy looks like semi-god. Women will like him but when he behaves like pussy they won't love him. When he acts like semi-god they will even vote for him - his politics aside. When a girl looks like semi-goddess. Men love her eventhough she acts like bitch. But won't vote for her if her politics are ****.
cognac Posted November 13, 2009 Posted November 13, 2009 I certainly don't agree with this Myth #2: Women aren’t as visually stimulated or obsessed with looks as men are. When a guy looks like semi-god. Women will like him but when he behaves like pussy they won't love him. When he acts like semi-god they will even vote for him - his politics aside. When a girl looks like semi-goddess. Men love her eventhough she acts like bitch. But won't vote for her if her politics are ****. People are always using this argument when trying to disprove that women are shallow or even more shallow then men about looks. They will say, "oh but if a very good looking guy is a wimpy loser who cries all the time women won't like him", how does this disprove the fact that women still always date the tall, smug, good looking guy 9 out of 10 times unless he has some very serious personality flaws? Sure women won't date the typical "hot" guy if his personality is horrible, but they won't date the short, poor, etc guy if his personality is great either. So it is irrelevant. If a woman is very good looking but acts masculine, most guys would be turned off as well. Even after all of this, I still see reasonably good, intelligent women, dating the same old mentally retarded frat boys with horrible personalities and peanut for a brain.
DanielMadr Posted November 13, 2009 Posted November 13, 2009 (edited) People are always using this argument when trying to disprove that women are shallow or even more shallow then men about looks. They will say, "oh but if a very good looking guy is a wimpy loser who cries all the time women won't like him", how does this disprove the fact that women still always date the tall, smug, good looking guy 9 out of 10 times unless he has some very serious personality flaws? Sure women won't date the typical "hot" guy if his personality is horrible, but they won't date the short, poor, etc guy if his personality is great either. So it is irrelevant. If a woman is very good looking but acts masculine, most guys would be turned off as well. Even after all of this, I still see reasonably good, intelligent women, dating the same old mentally retarded frat boys with horrible personalities and peanut for a brain. So you are saying girls dig looks more than guys do? I say they don't. I say guys dig looks more 7:3 to be exact. And girls 3:7. (looks : other traits) Does it make them less shallow? No, they make up the shallow points in other areas. tall, smug, good looking guy is better than small, insecure, ugly wimp but small, confident, ordinary looking guy is better than tall, insecure, good looking wimp The wimp part is deal breaker fro them. For guys the deal breaker is hot coeficient. Edited November 13, 2009 by DanielMadr
cognac Posted November 13, 2009 Posted November 13, 2009 So you are saying girls dig looks more than guys do? I say they don't. I say guys dig looks more 7:3 to be exact. And girls 3:7. (looks : other traits)[/Quote] I think that the reason it seems like "men are shallow" is ironically because we are less shallow. If a woman is OK looking and has a good heart, most men will overlook her being homeless, uneducated, being tall, being short, ETC ETC ETC. Women on the other hand not only expect you to be good looking, but to have a lot of status, wealth, constantly be entertaining her, ETC Sure, looks play a smaller role in the package for women, but that doesn't mean they aren't a pre-requisite. Sure being good looking won't guarantee you a date, but you still need to be good looking to get one. There are just so many little quirks women have for their dates, that it is close to impossible to meet them. tall, smug, good looking guy is better than small, insecure, ugly wimp but small, confident, ordinary looking guy is better than tall, insecure, good looking wimp[/Quote] I don't know this one is up in the air. I think most women would rather date the tall wimp. The small ordinary confident guy they will say has "napoleon complex". \
C-i-C-u Posted November 13, 2009 Posted November 13, 2009 So you are saying girls dig looks more than guys do? I say they don't. I say guys dig looks more 7:3 to be exact. And girls 3:7. (looks : other traits) Does it make them less shallow? No, they make up the shallow points in other areas. tall, smug, good looking guy is better than small, insecure, ugly wimp but small, confident, ordinary looking guy is better than tall, insecure, good looking wimp The wimp part is deal breaker fro them. For guys the deal breaker is hot coeficient. I agree somewhat but you have to remember who cognac is. A wimpy small guy with no confidence. I'm 5'7 and I have no problem with women, I date who wants to be with me and not someone I have to be constantly fighting over. Cognac is different he wants women with no brain because he believes they are the good catch because they are with the males who made fun of cognac while he was in school. Its silly really.
PinkToes Posted November 13, 2009 Posted November 13, 2009 I'm old enough to remember personals ads, when you had about 25 words to describe what you were looking for in a partner. And nearly always, the men would list more physical characteristics than anything else. And if they included other things, the physical stuff always came first -- sometimes to the point of specifying height and weight requirements. And this is supported by any number of surveys that ask both men and women what is important to them in a mate. The majority of men who respond list physical traits above all else.
cognac Posted November 13, 2009 Posted November 13, 2009 I agree somewhat but you have to remember who cognac is. A wimpy small guy with no confidence. I'm 5'7 and I have no problem with women, I date who wants to be with me and not someone I have to be constantly fighting over. Cognac is different he wants women with no brain because he believes they are the good catch because they are with the males who made fun of cognac while he was in school. Its silly really. I was never really picked on, except maybe briefly in junior high. If anything i've always been relatively popular and people think I am funny and intelligent. Not to mention I don't take crap from anyone. I still fail to see how being confident means anything to women unless she is physically attracted to you to begin with. Sure CICU, like you, I could date very unattractive women with no personality. But why should I have to be condemned to that when I am not very unattractive and I have a personality? Then agian I am not a woman. Maybe if I saw the world through a woman's point of view guys under 5'10 would be as unattractive to me as women 40 pounds overweight are.
Vertex Posted November 13, 2009 Posted November 13, 2009 Thing is, I've always been a bit backwards. Whenever a friend tells me about "some really hot girl" that I should ask out, I don't feel an intense burst of interest or anything. A girl's personality/mind is infinitely more interesting to me. However, someone being in shape is more important than "being really hot," since being overweight is usually indicative of unhealthy lifestyle choices. I've dated the "really hot" girls before, but I've always had so much more fun with girls who may have not been as hot but were just amazing people.
C-i-C-u Posted November 13, 2009 Posted November 13, 2009 I was never really picked on, except maybe briefly in junior high. If anything i've always been relatively popular and people think I am funny and intelligent. Not to mention I don't take crap from anyone. I still fail to see how being confident means anything to women unless she is physically attracted to you to begin with. Sure CICU, like you, I could date very unattractive women with no personality. But why should I have to be condemned to that when I am not very unattractive and I have a personality? Then agian I am not a woman. Maybe if I saw the world through a woman's point of view guys under 5'10 would be as unattractive to me as women 40 pounds overweight are. Yeah, sure I date unattractive women, but at least Iam getting some unlike you. I'm not very unattractive and I don't have the chip on my shoulder that you do. And I score with women you could only dream of ever having for sex or as a gf. Like I told you get rid of that chip on your shoulder and try being less funny. Women will be yours.
DanielMadr Posted November 13, 2009 Posted November 13, 2009 Thing is, I've always been a bit backwards. Whenever a friend tells me about "some really hot girl" that I should ask out, I don't feel an intense burst of interest or anything. A girl's personality/mind is infinitely more interesting to me. However, someone being in shape is more important than "being really hot," since being overweight is usually indicative of unhealthy lifestyle choices. I've dated the "really hot" girls before, but I've always had so much more fun with girls who may have not been as hot but were just amazing people. Awww. You are so sweet.
Recommended Posts