doushenka Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 But she only dates 9's or 10's? Are we using a new scale now? One that goes up to 20 perhaps? Of course not. This one goes to eleven.
D-Jam Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 Men need to be more honest and if they dont want a deep realtionship then admit it instead of playing games Men need to be hotter, these average Joes walking around:short out of shape no style seem to be 95% of Men,its frustrating I see maybe a few percntage of Men who are acutally Hot, Tall In amazing shape sucessfule etc Theyres such slim picking for women i can see why most of us say there are no good men I dont want to settle for an average joe You're welcome to your opinions...but bear in mind if the men you think are "hot" and you would really want do not want you, then don't blame the male gender as a whole. Realize you're not as "awesome" as you think you are in the eyes of the men you really want. As I say to death here...standards are only good if you can ATTAIN THEM. If you're scoring dates with the men you want and they are wanting to be your BF, then good for you...but if the only men who want you are the average joes and the above average alphas reject you or "pump and dump" you, then it's not the male gender that's the problem...it's your standards. Neither gender is "required" to give people their picture perfect ideal mate. We're all required to either pick from the available pool or choose to be alone. Ive dated 9's and 10's all my life i must be somehere near that level then I deserve them and they deserve me,people date peopel who are on theyre level of attratcivenes why would i come down and date a ugly or average guy just to maeke you feel better about yourselves? Yeah...but the real question is that if you can get the 9s and 10s on DATES...how come you're single then? Why don't you have one of those 9s or 10s as a BOYFRIEND or HUSBAND? That's valid, it at times can be just conversation. However, in this day and age, women make up 57% of undergraduate students, they are equalling and exceeding men in remuneration (in big US cities, young women earn more than young men), women still want to date/marry up. True...and I can understand when the female lawyer rejects the minimum wage Wal-Mart employee, but as I just told MeganDoll, standards are only good if you can attain them. So if the wealthy guy requires a VS model who has a graduate degree, then he's probably being unrealistic if his only choices are hot gold diggers with no career/degree or average janes with graduate degrees and careers. Same deal if the average looking high-paid career woman requires an attractive male who makes more money than her...but all those men reject her to chase flings with young hot airhead trophies. lol, is the rest of the world suppose to have it better for relationships? don't think so. I got the bitchy attitude for approaching girls in czech rep, ukraine, as well as here in the Chicago area. I know it's hard in Chicago. I live here too. You get your choices of women with too much attitude, too much blubber, or they're spoiled/entitled princesses from the burbs. It's funny how many MEN AND WOMEN in Chicago carry MeganDoll's attitude and yet complain continuously about how they can't find someone.
meerkat stew Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 Am I off the mark here, or does this seem shallow to anyone else? Shallow? dunno. But there's lots of truth to what she says. People do tend to date at their attractiveness level, and that is encouraged "imagine what good looking babies they would have" as opposed to "he/she can do better" comments based on a picture alone when there is a significant mismatch. And people also, men and women, want to date the most attractive person they can get. If someone met a perfect match in every other way, and nixed them not because they didn't find them very attractive, but because they didn't think them attractive enough to date (see the diff?) that would be shallow.
AD1980 Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 Megan is the reason i dont approach any women theyre expectations are unrealsitic and through the roof.. My guess is Megans nowhere near a 9 or 10 but a cute girl who got banged by some "9 or 10" when he was drunk and because even guys with allot of options will sometimes bang an average girl just to release so this girl thinks because a hot guy had sex with her shes a huge commodity who deserves a 10.. Weve created monsters..
AD1980 Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 And people also, men and women, want to date the most attractive person they can get.. Thatd a little extreme i think most people want to date people theyre attracted to.. I dont know many people at least Men who look at a cute girl and think shes pretty hot but i think i can get a girl slightly better so i wont approach her..
donnamaybe Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 Shallow? dunno. But there's lots of truth to what she says. People do tend to date at their attractiveness level, and that is encouraged "imagine what good looking babies they would have" as opposed to "he/she can do better" comments based on a picture alone when there is a significant mismatch. And people also, men and women, want to date the most attractive person they can get. If someone met a perfect match in every other way, and nixed them not because they didn't find them very attractive, but because they didn't think them attractive enough to date (see the diff?) that would be shallow. But isn't "attraction" based on more than the exterior? I mean when we're grown ups, of course.
sally4sara Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 It is definitely different now because of how many people are trying to fit in. There is also way too much information on dating available, you can't just create a dating book and hope it will sell. It is over saturated. Its not different or new. YOU are more new and different than the urge people feel for fitting in. That urge is as old as walking on hind legs.
meerkat stew Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 But isn't "attraction" based on more than the exterior? I mean when we're grown ups, of course. That's a tough question, and my opinion is no, initial attraction, the oomph that gets the wheels turning, juices flowin, whatever, is 95% external. The 5% being, for example, the racial slur or arrogant attitude that comes out of a hotty's mouth at first meeting and turns us completely off. So maybe it's possible that internal factors can't immediately increase attraction, only reduce it. The funniest joke in the world isn't going to move someone all the way from unattracted to attracted, but it may move them that last 5% of the way. People get hotter or more hideous as we get to know them, but the initial approach and response is mostly external. After all, it would be foolish to rely on internal factors early because for example, sociopaths can be some of the smartest wittiest people you will meet. It's really easy to be fooled into seeing internal traits that aren't there until we have spent the time to really know someone. Can't tell you how many times I've made favorable conclusions about someone's personality or inner qualities and looking back realized it was just the hotness lusty factor that made me see those imaginary internal qualities.
donnamaybe Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 That's a tough question, and my opinion is no, initial attraction, the oomph that gets the wheels turning, juices flowin, whatever, is 95% external. The 5% being, for example, the racial slur or arrogant attitude that comes out of a hotty's mouth at first meeting and turns us completely off. So maybe it's possible that internal factors can't immediately increase attraction, only reduce it. The funniest joke in the world isn't going to move someone all the way from unattracted to attracted, but it may move them that last 5% of the way. People get hotter or more hideous as we get to know them, but the initial approach and response is mostly external. After all, it would be foolish to rely on internal factors early because for example, sociopaths can be some of the smartest wittiest people you will meet. It's really easy to be fooled into seeing internal traits that aren't there until we have spent the time to really know someone. Can't tell you how many times I've made favorable conclusions about someone's personality or inner qualities and looking back realized it was just the hotness lusty factor that made me see those imaginary internal qualities. Maybe this is true for some. For me, yes - the visual is part of it, but a small part, assuming the guy isn't Quasimoto. What REALLY gets to me the most is personality, and someone who lets their personality shine through immediately can get me hooked upon first meeting! After that, though, they either diminish the attraction or increase it, once I really get to know them.
betamanlet Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 Maybe this is true for some. For me, yes - the visual is part of it, but a small part, assuming the guy isn't Quasimoto. What REALLY gets to me the most is personality, and someone who lets their personality shine through immediately can get me hooked upon first meeting! After that, though, they either diminish the attraction or increase it, once I really get to know them. Check out this week's datelab. I posted the link somewhere. The girl dismissed the guy instantly after seeing him for one second, as she walks in 30 minutes to the date.
calizaggy Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 I would say FOR MEN, attraction is most visual.. But for women it is slightly different. As an example, a group of psychologists conducted a study on what women find attractive.. The women could pick from 3 men. A.. A model, but wearing a mcDonalds uniform. B. Regular Joe, wearing a business suit. 3, Pudgy older guy wearing a polo outfit..(Rich looking) None of the women picked A as the most attractive.. If a woman lands a guy with money, then the guy is "handsome",and "charming". His perceived wealth makes him much more physically attractive.
donnamaybe Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 Check out this week's datelab. I posted the link somewhere. The girl dismissed the guy instantly after seeing him for one second, as she walks in 30 minutes to the date. I won't deny there are people like that, but they are both female AND male. We all need to just learn to avoid that type and focus on REAL people.
donnamaybe Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 I would say FOR MEN, attraction is most visual.. But for women it is slightly different. As an example, a group of psychologists conducted a study on what women find attractive.. The women could pick from 3 men. A.. A model, but wearing a mcDonalds uniform. B. Regular Joe, wearing a business suit. 3, Pudgy older guy wearing a polo outfit..(Rich looking) None of the women picked A as the most attractive.. If a woman lands a guy with money, then the guy is "handsome",and "charming". His perceived wealth makes him much more physically attractive. For me it's personality; charm; kindness; humor, etc. A good work ethic is also necessary, but it doesn't matter what his paycheck looks like as long as he can take care of himself. A good work ethic also comes in handy where taking care of hearth and home is concerned.
gypsy_nicky Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 I would say FOR MEN, attraction is most visual.. But for women it is slightly different. As an example, a group of psychologists conducted a study on what women find attractive.. The women could pick from 3 men. A.. A model, but wearing a mcDonalds uniform. B. Regular Joe, wearing a business suit. 3, Pudgy older guy wearing a polo outfit..(Rich looking) None of the women picked A as the most attractive.. If a woman lands a guy with money, then the guy is "handsome",and "charming". His perceived wealth makes him much more physically attractive. No. Study was flawed as it was meant to offer no leeway. Putting physical attributes with social status in black and white settings.
calizaggy Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 No. Study was flawed as it was meant to offer no leeway. Putting physical attributes with social status in black and white settings. All they asked them women was whom they found the most attractive.. Obviously the goal was to see what "perceived wealth" might have on the outcome.
stapelfahrer drew Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 For me it's personality; charm; kindness; humor, etc. A good work ethic is also necessary, but it doesn't matter what his paycheck looks like as long as he can take care of himself. A good work ethic also comes in handy where taking care of hearth and home is concerned. Golly gee I wish that more women (not all) weren't so concerned with the size of the paycheck, especially with the job market as it is. I asked a Starbucks barista out one day after having some polite conversation with her when getting my coffee. Looking back I was pretty well dressed and looked pretty sharp so I may have looked wealthier than I am but then again, I usually do dress pretty well...not what you would imagine someone who drives a forklift for a living would dress like. Anyway she agreed to a date. During the date, everything was going very well, had good conversation...then when it came out what I did for a living, boy did her demeanor change, and I mean instantly! Looking back, of course I wouldn't want to be with someone who behaves that way, but it was demoralizing nonetheless.
mem11363 Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 Donna, I totally believe what you say - plenty of women like you. My older sister - first guy she married was a hotty. And he was a wife beater - she didn't tell us at the time - and a serial cheater he CONSTANTLY had girl friends while they were married. He was an amazing babe magnet. FINALLY she divorced him for the cheating, the beatings etc. He was an 8 and she was an 8. Perfect match eh? She starts dating - her ex is aggressive and threatening to a couple of the guys she dates - they give up. Then this guy at the bar she worked asked her out. He looked like a lumberjack - actually a very fat, and homely guy at a glance. And a very bright, energetic man. So even though she and her girlfriends had made fun of him behind his back on and off for being ugly - she liked that he worked hard and seemed genuinely nice. So she said ok to the date. They went out and she found out he was clever and funny. And he actually listened to her - unlike her exH. Next thing she knew her ex was demanding to meet the new guy. And they met - her ex tried his usual game of scare the new guy away and the new guy got in his face and scared HIM away. So 21 years ago she married this big, fat kind of homely guy who at the time was pulling down a whopping 15/hour as a bartender. He was however just finishing up his degree in computer science. He helped her raise her 2 kids from husband 1, and he treated them as his own - they call him dad now and neither of the two speak to their bio father as he is just a mean person and over the years he did too many nasty things. And she and H2 had 2 kids of their own. He is a great dad a wonderful husband and he pulls down over 300K/year at a software company. My sister would tell you marrying him was by far the best move she ever made in her life. For me it's personality; charm; kindness; humor, etc. A good work ethic is also necessary, but it doesn't matter what his paycheck looks like as long as he can take care of himself. A good work ethic also comes in handy where taking care of hearth and home is concerned.
donnamaybe Posted December 18, 2009 Posted December 18, 2009 mem, what a sweet SWEET story! I'll admit that I enjoy looking at a good looking guy and would like an aesthetically pleasing exterior to an extent. But the INSIDE is soooo much more important than the outside.
angie2443 Posted December 18, 2009 Posted December 18, 2009 No. Study was flawed as it was meant to offer no leeway. Putting physical attributes with social status in black and white settings. I agree. Take the old man and put him in the McDonalds uniform and he would be considered way less attractive than the model in the same uniform. Most older men aren't rich. Most physically attractive men don't work at McDonalds, unless they're teenagers or managers. Studies like this are more often than not a big waste of money.
betamanlet Posted December 18, 2009 Posted December 18, 2009 Donna, I totally believe what you say - plenty of women like you. My older sister - first guy she married was a hotty. And he was a wife beater - she didn't tell us at the time - and a serial cheater he CONSTANTLY had girl friends while they were married. He was an amazing babe magnet. FINALLY she divorced him for the cheating, the beatings etc. He was an 8 and she was an 8. Perfect match eh? She starts dating - her ex is aggressive and threatening to a couple of the guys she dates - they give up. Then this guy at the bar she worked asked her out. He looked like a lumberjack - actually a very fat, and homely guy at a glance. And a very bright, energetic man. So even though she and her girlfriends had made fun of him behind his back on and off for being ugly - she liked that he worked hard and seemed genuinely nice. So she said ok to the date. They went out and she found out he was clever and funny. And he actually listened to her - unlike her exH. Next thing she knew her ex was demanding to meet the new guy. And they met - her ex tried his usual game of scare the new guy away and the new guy got in his face and scared HIM away. So 21 years ago she married this big, fat kind of homely guy who at the time was pulling down a whopping 15/hour as a bartender. He was however just finishing up his degree in computer science. He helped her raise her 2 kids from husband 1, and he treated them as his own - they call him dad now and neither of the two speak to their bio father as he is just a mean person and over the years he did too many nasty things. And she and H2 had 2 kids of their own. He is a great dad a wonderful husband and he pulls down over 300K/year at a software company. My sister would tell you marrying him was by far the best move she ever made in her life. But she never would have given him a chance for her first marriage. He also had to raise someone elses kids, and struggle to do things to compensate for her past poor decisions. Is that fair? I understand he willingly married her, but given she would probably had never given him the time of day when she was unmarried....
donnamaybe Posted December 18, 2009 Posted December 18, 2009 I agree. Take the old man and put him in the McDonalds uniform and he would be considered way less attractive than the model in the same uniform. Most older men aren't rich. Most physically attractive men don't work at McDonalds, unless they're teenagers or managers. Studies like this are more often than not a big waste of money. ...and some pathetic attempt for some man, whoever he was that created this so-called study, to validate why he can't get a decent woman to give him the time of day.
donnamaybe Posted December 18, 2009 Posted December 18, 2009 But she never would have given him a chance for her first marriage. Don't most of us eventually grow and learn as we gain life experience? Some learn it earlier than others. I KNOW there are good women who have yet to be married who would choose a man based on the proper qualities.
sumdude Posted December 18, 2009 Posted December 18, 2009 All they asked them women was whom they found the most attractive.. Obviously the goal was to see what "perceived wealth" might have on the outcome. It's really all about the shoes.
InspiredbyYou Posted December 18, 2009 Posted December 18, 2009 It's really all about the shoes. Hahahah that's about it. I don't know about this study...Let's shift this over to the male version. Let's think about this comparison, would a guy honestly do a double take at hottie in a frumpy Walmart uniform, over a good looking woman dressed in a Chanel little suit and french stockings and heels? Have any of you even seen how goofy a McDonalds uniform looks? Have you seen how any chain store uniform looks? Is it really about perceived wealth or is just about the fact that someone who is well put together and in style is simply more appealing to look at?
viz Posted December 18, 2009 Posted December 18, 2009 1. Male/Female ratio from 18-35 is heavily skewed, at least 5:1 or more. 2. Hollywood culture giving unrealistic impressions on how males are suppose to look, therefor the the floor for being "good looking" is unrealistically high. Girls buy into Hollywood a lot more than guys do. 3. De-facto polygamy becoming socially acceptable. I think (3) is the main factor for the huge difference between the dating market now and 20 years ago. I believe (2) is fairly influential too. 1. Online and in clubs, yes. These are the worst places to meet women you'd want to meet. Most people don't go here to meet people. They go to have a good time with someone they met already, get laid, or it's girls night out and they're out to have fun, not necessarily meet guys. 2. Yup. Not only that, they expect romance to go the way it does in the movies, so set unrealistic expectations. The correlation between divorce rates and the rise of hollywood is hard to ignore. Everyone wants a fairy tale relationship with a rich good looking guy, just like in the movies. Half the guys I know with a lot of money who are good looking, are players and end up cheating on their wives/girlfriends. They're rich and good looking, they'll just find another girl 3. Polygamy is illegal LOL. You mean open relationships, being sluts (men are sluts too). This goes back to meeting girls in clubs. Bad idea... Try church, volunteer organizations, sports, friends of friends. "Good girls" love a guy that goes to the same church as them, or help people, are athletic, and have people to say good things about them etc. It says something about your character. As well if you do meet a "nice girl" in a club, chances are (in their mind) you are a player and they want nothing to do with you.
Recommended Posts