Jersey Shortie Posted March 22, 2010 Posted March 22, 2010 Absolutely. So you've never dated anyone because of their looks at all?
Els Posted March 22, 2010 Posted March 22, 2010 Of course! He posts so vehemently on fat-woman threads because he'd totally see through an obese girl's looks for the intelligent, caring, sensible and loving woman she is inside.
Jersey Shortie Posted March 22, 2010 Posted March 22, 2010 Exactly Elswyth. Love men who want to be wanted for who they are completely independent of their mountains of money yet want hot girls to date.
sally4sara Posted March 22, 2010 Posted March 22, 2010 You know people try to date who they find attractive, both men and women. So only a man's income and how he spends it is of concern if someone is looking for a potential life mate? If you equate physical appeal as a selling point that justifies monetary appeal as a selling point, you are on the slippery slope of buying and selling sex. Saying Mr. Who is only dating Miss What because she is hot, so Mr. Who should be upset to learn Miss What is only dating him because he will pay - it sounds like a transaction.
Author Kris30 Posted March 22, 2010 Author Posted March 22, 2010 Until what point..........always? Is that a very important thing to you? Yeah I think always if he asked me out. And yes, it is important to me. To me, when a guy pays it tells me he appreciates my company and wants to treat me. It tells me he wants to give me a little bit of special treatment. Doesn't a gal deserve to be treated like a princess sometimes? And not that I would never cook him dinner or buy him a gift, etc.
Johnny M Posted March 22, 2010 Posted March 22, 2010 So you've never dated anyone because of their looks at all? LOL, how did I know you would ask precisely that question A person's physical appearance is what triggers sexual attraction in members of the opposite sex and is therefore a major part of who that person is. So I repeat my answer to your question: I have only ever gone out with a woman for who she was.
Els Posted March 22, 2010 Posted March 22, 2010 S4S, we both know that men prioritize external appearances more than women (men themselves admit this by consistently referring to themselves as 'visual creatures'), and that standards for physical attractiveness in females is far higher. Females have to keep fit, style their hair, wear cosmetics, wear accesories, wear clothes that flatter their figure, wax their legs and pits, pluck their eyebrows, keep their skin smooth and flawless - and STILL have to be born with a pretty face and hourglass body to attain the male ideal. Men only have to... keep themselves fit, clean, and not wear clothes that are too dorky, for the most part. Of course, they also have to be born with a good-looking face and a decent height to attain the female ideal, but that part's equal with regards to females. Nothing justifies nothing - it's just that physical attractiveness and monetary success are BOTH equally superficial criteria for choosing a mate. So it gets my goat when someone says 'Why can't you accept men for who they are?!' and then goes around bashing ugly women.
Woggle Posted March 22, 2010 Posted March 22, 2010 Women notice looks as well. What men want to prevent is being looked at as being a walking wallet.
Johnny M Posted March 22, 2010 Posted March 22, 2010 You know people try to date who they find attractive, both men and women. So only a man's income and how he spends it is of concern if someone is looking for a potential life mate? If you equate physical appeal as a selling point that justifies monetary appeal as a selling point, you are on the slippery slope of buying and selling sex. Saying Mr. Who is only dating Miss What because she is hot, so Mr. Who should be upset to learn Miss What is only dating him because he will pay - it sounds like a transaction. Exactly. Equating desire for a physically attractive mate (which is a perfectly natural requirement) with desire for a sugar daddy (which is one step away from prostitution) is completely ridiculous and something that only a hugely unattractive woman would do to convince herself that men are "shallow".
Els Posted March 22, 2010 Posted March 22, 2010 Johnny M: Ambition and success in one's career is also a major part of who a man is, in some women's opinions. So, they're also going out with a man for who he is.
Author Kris30 Posted March 22, 2010 Author Posted March 22, 2010 Yes. Yes. Yes. There is no question about it for me. People are overthinking the paying deal. If he is asking me out, he is asking to -take- me out. I am allowing him. If he wants to see me again, he can. If I were to ask him out- I'd pay. But I don't ask men out. That's not to say I won't treat him occasionally, or buy him little things. I may be wrong, but I grew up with my dad never allowing my mother or me to open a door. This isn't negotiable for me. Totally agree
Woggle Posted March 22, 2010 Posted March 22, 2010 Johnny M: Ambition and success in one's career is also a major part of who a man is, in some women's opinions. So, they're also going out with a man for who he is. A traditional woman believes that and if a men or woman believe in the traditional roles they should be willing to hold up their end of the deal but I am not like that. I prefer a more equal relationship with a woman that looks at men as more than just a wallet.
Johnny M Posted March 22, 2010 Posted March 22, 2010 S4S, we both know that men prioritize external appearances more than women (men themselves admit this by consistently referring to themselves as 'visual c reatures'),and that standards for physical attractiveness in females is far higher. This is an old, tired and long disproven lie. Generations ago, it may have been true that women were more likely to overlook a man's lack of physical attractiveness if he was a good provider. Nowadays, women care about physical appearance as much as men do.
Lovelybird Posted March 22, 2010 Posted March 22, 2010 Women notice looks as well. What men want to prevent is being looked at as being a walking wallet. It is man's instinct to protect and provide, these kind of men make good husband
Els Posted March 22, 2010 Posted March 22, 2010 Johnny, it is no lie. This forum alone speaks volumes. Despite there being FAR more women than men on it, there are more threads about women's physical appearances, and also more male posters (talking about number here, not even ratio) referring to appearances as their main criteria. Also, to you men trying to say that women's standards of beauty (or handsomeness, in this case) are equivalent to men's, I challenge you to follow an '8 and above' woman for her daily beauty regime. Go on. Make sure you follow her shopping, to her hair stylist and to her pedicure and manicure as well. And THEN tell me that that is equal. If men put in the same amount of time for their looks as women do, they would all have muscles equivalent to The Rock (if that is what the female ideal is).
Woggle Posted March 22, 2010 Posted March 22, 2010 Also, to you men trying to say that women's standards of beauty (or handsomeness, in this case) are equivalent to men's, I challenge you to follow an '8 and above' woman for her daily beauty regime. Go on. Make sure you follow her shopping, to her hair stylist and to her pedicure and manicure as well. And THEN tell me that that is equal. If men put in the same amount of time for their looks as women do, they would all have muscles equivalent to The Rock (if that is what the female ideal is). That us because pretty women are considered attractive while more rugged men are considered desirable. Metrosexuals are not considered to be in by most women. What is considered attractive in men takes less effort.
sally4sara Posted March 22, 2010 Posted March 22, 2010 S4S, we both know that men prioritize external appearances more than women (men themselves admit this by consistently referring to themselves as 'visual creatures'), and that standards for physical attractiveness in females is far higher. Females have to keep fit, style their hair, wear cosmetics, wear accesories, wear clothes that flatter their figure, wax their legs and pits, pluck their eyebrows, keep their skin smooth and flawless - and STILL have to be born with a pretty face and hourglass body to attain the male ideal. Men only have to... keep themselves fit, clean, and not wear clothes that are too dorky, for the most part. Of course, they also have to be born with a good-looking face and a decent height to attain the female ideal, but that part's equal with regards to females. Nothing justifies nothing - it's just that physical attractiveness and monetary success are BOTH equally superficial criteria for choosing a mate. So it gets my goat when someone says 'Why can't you accept men for who they are?!' and then goes around bashing ugly women. I'm sorry, but I don't fully agree with you. You cannot convince me that you don't enjoy getting the most out of your physical appearance and looking your best. And you would not date a man you did not find physically appealing. And I'm guessing from your posts, you like and crave the idea of being in a mutually enjoyable relationship that becomes a partnership at some point. If you want something, you have to be willing to be responsible for attaining it. That's how it works for adults. Only kids get treated on the regular - until they are adults. And if you want to be considered by a guy as a potential life mate, you need to be able to prove you can be one in some manner beyond the ability to sit pretty and clean your plate. I am not bashing anyone; pretty, ugly, rich, poor, whatever. I don't even wish to bash women who expect their meal paid or men who insist on paying. I'm just not one of those people and when I was single, I didn't date those kind of people (beyond one date that is). I'm just saying no one goes on a date with only a free meal on their mind, so you are there for more than just because he asked. You are there with a hope in your hand and just as much to prove as he does. That alone throws the whole "he is paying for my time and he asked me" right out the window.
Woggle Posted March 22, 2010 Posted March 22, 2010 It is man's instinct to protect and provide, these kind of men make good husband If a woman wants a protector and a provider then she should be willing to hold up her end of the traditional deal. Either you want an equal partnership or you don't.
Johnny M Posted March 22, 2010 Posted March 22, 2010 Johnny M: Ambition and success in one's career is also a major part of who a man is, in some women's opinions. So, they're also going out with a man for who he is. There is nothing wrong with wanting a man who is ambitious and successful. However - and this is the most insulting part of your theory - you seem to believe that ambitious and successful men are automatically sugar daddies. Here's a newsflash: not all ambitious and successful men want to be treated as walking wallets.
sally4sara Posted March 22, 2010 Posted March 22, 2010 Exactly. Equating desire for a physically attractive mate (which is a perfectly natural requirement) with desire for a sugar daddy (which is one step away from prostitution) is completely ridiculous and something that only a hugely unattractive woman would do to convince herself that men are "shallow". I don't know about all that, sounds a bit like reaching for an analogy just to squeeze an insult out. Why not just call Jersey and Elswyth fat cows, threaten to put frogs down their dresses, and be done with it for the night?
Els Posted March 22, 2010 Posted March 22, 2010 Oh no, I definitely disagree with the 'he is paying for my time' notion. I'm merely amused that the same men who would totally judge a woman by her looks on the first date with extremely high ideals (which would entail a lot of time, effort and cost on the woman's part), would throw a hissy fit over not having the first date split 50/50. No, S4S, I don't enjoy beauty regimes at all, so I don't do them. I would never date a man for his money OR his appearance, and equally so I do not expect him to judge me for my money or my appearance.
sally4sara Posted March 22, 2010 Posted March 22, 2010 Johnny M: Ambition and success in one's career is also a major part of who a man is, in some women's opinions. So, they're also going out with a man for who he is. Would that you could see that ambition and success fit a woman attractively too, you might find a bit more of it come your way. People, not just men, can be proud of their achievements in life.
Els Posted March 22, 2010 Posted March 22, 2010 There is nothing wrong with wanting a man who is ambitious and successful. However - and this is the most insulting part of your theory - you seem to believe that ambitious and successful men are automatically sugar daddies. Here's a newsflash: not all ambitious and successful men want to be treated as walking wallets. No, Johnny, but ambitious and successful men don't throw hissy fits over paying 20 bucks extra for a first date. How about this: some women also want gentlemen, not stingy die-hard 'equalists'.
sally4sara Posted March 22, 2010 Posted March 22, 2010 Oh no, I definitely disagree with the 'he is paying for my time' notion. I'm merely amused that the same men who would totally judge a woman by her looks on the first date with extremely high ideals (which would entail a lot of time, effort and cost on the woman's part), would throw a hissy fit over not having the first date split 50/50. No, S4S, I don't enjoy beauty regimes at all, so I don't do them. I would never date a man for his money OR his appearance, and equally so I do not expect him to judge me for my money or my appearance. If you don't like them and don't do them, where is the justification in expecting to be treated all the time?
Els Posted March 22, 2010 Posted March 22, 2010 Would that you could see that ambition and success fit a woman attractively too, you might find a bit more of it come your way. People, not just men, can be proud of their achievements in life. They do, indeed. Again, I am merely pointing out the irony that ambition and success is not considered 'part of someone', but physical appearance is.
Recommended Posts