Green Posted August 2, 2010 Posted August 2, 2010 hahaha. We all serve somebody or something, there is no exception. No matter how powerful and mighty a man is; he is still and always will be a follower. Babies refuse to follow. They have you at their beck and call. I know what "call" refers to but "beck" has alway had me a little confused.
zengirl Posted August 2, 2010 Posted August 2, 2010 Babies refuse to follow. They have you at their beck and call. I know what "call" refers to but "beck" has alway had me a little confused. A "beck" is a silent gesture. Basically, called by word or gesture, immediately. Like a servant. They're not always even called directly, but rather with a flick of the wrist or so. I think this conversation is nonsensical, but there's the root of the phrase you're looking at, at least.
jessyboo Posted August 2, 2010 Posted August 2, 2010 In all honesty I think that the nice guy vs. bad guy thing is sort of like... women want a mix of both sides. Traditionally, a woman would want a man that is nice to her, respects her and treats her right, but also wants a man who can protect her and provide for her, and to also support her. I know there are women out there that have mentalities such as "I can protect myself, I don't need a man!", but really, their mentalities change after they meet a man that has a bit of both sides in him. I mean, that's how I used to feel before I met my bf. Always thought I could support myself, men are useless, etc. But after I met him it was just like, boom, out of no where. He treats me like a princess but will protect me and support me like any other traditional "macho-man" male would. Also, straight women don't like male 'femininity', or majority of straight women don't, because it's basically like... she'd be dating a woman with male features. That's the whole awkward thing which women get turned off by: awkwardness. I'm assuming men want women of femininity, not butch beastly women that are stronger than them.
Untouchable_Fire Posted August 2, 2010 Posted August 2, 2010 That is so not even a little bit true. I live in Korea. Their own brand of machismo is way more lively here than in the U.S. Dutch? Unheard of here. And Korean marriages? Way higher domestic violence rates than America boasts (and it's rarely prosecuted here). The majority of households are set up with a homemaker in the house. The work culture expects men in large-company (Samsung, etc) jobs to go out drinking for hours on end after a 10 hour day, sometimes at "room salons" (the sex trade is very active here and while swept over by most folks, it is consciously done and consciously not prosecuted by the very male-biased authorities) which are basically stripclub+hooker services. Working, married men spend far less time at home, on average than in the U.S. It is a much more male-dominated culture than the U.S. to the point where it is ingrained in the Confucian culture that women are lower than men (just as elders are higher than youths) and that is only just beginning to change. Are you trying to say American guys are whipped?
Enchanted Girl Posted August 2, 2010 Posted August 2, 2010 This is the same article/study that someone posted awhile back from a British magazine. It made its way across the pond apparently. The study seems to have more to do with employment than relationships the way it is set up. It says more about how men get a job than how they get laid. Definitely. The article "assures" us that these women were talking about men they were attracted to, but then why didn't they word the questions that way? Why, instead, did they say,"who would be the best actor"? Why not say,"which of these men do you find the most attractive"? =/ The results don't prove anything. Also, they keep claiming these men are "macho" when the only difference between these men and the other men is that these men are more secure about themselves and more confident. So being weak and insecure is a female thing? That was rather sexist for the article to assume. And a man can behave very femininely and still be confident in themselves, so I don't get where this article is coming from. Besides, I've noticed that most women don't like an extremely macho man. There's a reason that pro-wrestlers aren't sex symbols to women. They are too violent, have too many muscles, and are just too intimidating in general. Most women don't like hairy chests and men who are going to order them around. They actually like a man who's less extreme than that and softer, more feminine, so I don't know why this article is talking about extremes as if women are attracted strongly to either one.
AD1980 Posted August 2, 2010 Posted August 2, 2010 Ive seen plenty of metrosexuals/feminine Men get women i dont see these Men getting weeded out at all.. I think looks are far more important then these bs labels
BS76 Posted August 2, 2010 Posted August 2, 2010 (edited) Its already dead. What was the demographic of the respondents. I will bet no one under thirty. Younger women want to be the new 'males' with all the old baggage that this requires. Violence, arrogance, ignorance and dominance. The wheel turns. Feminists, bite me. It's called projection. Old feminists wanted to crack the "glass ceiling" and get good jobs because women are hypergamous by nature and men who have good jobs are what they aspire to "marry up" to. Now that women have good jobs, are educated, and so on they are finding there's less men in their sexual field of view, aka "no good men". There's pelenty of good men, but many who they would have been interested in the past are now socioeconomically below them so they don't consider them relationship material. This "thug culture" is another example of that projectionism. Women naturally desire aggressivness and dominance in their males so they have began acting in a similar way with hookup culture, bing drinking, fighting, and so on. The reason women are acting this way is because modern society enables them to act out without the consequences they would have suffered generations ago. This also includes rampant single motherhood. Bottom line: feminism has enabled women to act out what they find attractive in men, and it's A) making those women unattractive (masculine) and B) feminist indoctrination is making men act like women, which women respond by not finding those feminized males attractive. This is why "thug culture" and the guidos/douchebags are getting the girls. They're the "alpha" men who resisted being feminized so women flock to them now. If you want to see where this is going just watch the first 10 minutes of Idiocracy. Edited August 2, 2010 by BS76
phineas Posted August 2, 2010 Posted August 2, 2010 "I want to be a MACHO,MACHO MAN!" seriously this thread makes me think of the villiage people.
Feelin Frisky Posted August 2, 2010 Posted August 2, 2010 It rather disgusts me that people jump all over this as some kind of next chapter in a gender war. It seems to be an unbiased new social study whose outcome tends to confirm what has always been essentially true. It was thought relevant and possibly provocative by a publication's editor thus something to fill the pages of their rag. No big whoop. I didn't see the video so I don't know what exactly was portrayed. But it's always been pretty visible to me that younger woman dig the maverick (even if the guy is just an azzhole who is at war with authority in his own mind) or the take charge guy like men in uniform or what have you. Older women tend to reverse in that they value sensitivity and stability over Johnny tough guy. They can smell the insecurity behind the macho poser and find the guy who is genuinely honest more secure in who he is even if he isn't beating his chest constantly. It's all relative but the study doesn't seem to care to make any distinction other than gross generalizations about one gender's preferences versus another. Thus to me it's just predictable sensationalist muck raking to generate some controversy that will sell their papers (literally or figuratively).
flying Posted August 2, 2010 Posted August 2, 2010 If you want to see where this is going just watch the first 10 minutes of Idiocracy. Yes, I've heard that's an insightful, brave documentary.
jamesum Posted August 3, 2010 Posted August 3, 2010 (edited) That is so not even a little bit true. I live in Korea. Their own brand of machismo is way more lively here than in the U.S. Dutch? Unheard of here. And Korean marriages? Way higher domestic violence rates than America boasts (and it's rarely prosecuted here). The majority of households are set up with a homemaker in the house. The work culture expects men in large-company (Samsung, etc) jobs to go out drinking for hours on end after a 10 hour day, sometimes at "room salons" (the sex trade is very active here and while swept over by most folks, it is consciously done and consciously not prosecuted by the very male-biased authorities) which are basically stripclub+hooker services. Working, married men spend far less time at home, on average than in the U.S. It is a much more male-dominated culture than the U.S. to the point where it is ingrained in the Confucian culture that women are lower than men (just as elders are higher than youths) and that is only just beginning to change. I just explained myself earlier. Being a nice guy has nothing to do with financial capability. The richest people in the world are nerds. But traditional roles arent what we are talking about here. I grew up in Asia. So I myself know firsthand how traditional Asians are. What I was talking about is the difference between the kind of men American and Asian women tend to go for. In America women tend to want the 'hot tough' guys, while in Asia it is less so and women tend to want the 'cute nice' guys. Of course its not so black and white but if you really do live in Korea you know what Im talking about. Just watch the Korean dramas. Its full of soft and pretty men. Asian women flock to such men. One the other hand, in the US women prefer the 'alpha tough jocks' kind of men. To illustrate my point, this guy gets all the girls in Asia: http://www.asianpopcorn.com/default.asp?display=korean_actor_and_models_-12525 But in America, this guy gets all the girls: http://www.graphicshunt.com/images/sexy_guy-12787.htm Edited August 3, 2010 by jamesum
BS76 Posted August 3, 2010 Posted August 3, 2010 So this is what passes for an attractive man these days? No wonder society is going down the toilet. All he's missing is some orange tan and a "chinstrap" beard.
purgatori Posted August 3, 2010 Posted August 3, 2010 (edited) I just explained myself earlier. Being a nice guy has nothing to do with financial capability. The richest people in the world are nerds. But traditional roles arent what we are talking about here. I grew up in Asia. So I myself know firsthand how traditional Asians are. What I was talking about is the difference between the kind of men American and Asian women tend to go for. In America women tend to want the 'hot tough' guys, while in Asia it is less so and women tend to want the 'cute nice' guys. Of course its not so black and white but if you really do live in Korea you know what Im talking about. Just watch the Korean dramas. Its full of soft and pretty men. Asian women flock to such men. One the other hand, in the US women prefer the 'alpha tough jocks' kind of men. To illustrate my point, this guy gets all the girls in Asia: http://www.asianpopcorn.com/default.asp?display=korean_actor_and_models_-12525 But in America, this guy gets all the girls: http://www.graphicshunt.com/images/sexy_guy-12787.htm Yep. I would readily concede that a more feminine looks appearance in men carries more currency in Asia than they it does in the US, or where I am from (Australia). In this regard, Asian women definitely have much better taste than their Western counterparts who find those beefcake abominations you and BS76 linked to appealing. Edited August 3, 2010 by purgatori
Sphere Posted August 3, 2010 Posted August 3, 2010 Those who are modest excude more confidence than those who are arrogant.
zengirl Posted August 3, 2010 Posted August 3, 2010 I just explained myself earlier. Being a nice guy has nothing to do with financial capability. The richest people in the world are nerds. But traditional roles arent what we are talking about here. I grew up in Asia. So I myself know firsthand how traditional Asians are. What I was talking about is the difference between the kind of men American and Asian women tend to go for. In America women tend to want the 'hot tough' guys, while in Asia it is less so and women tend to want the 'cute nice' guys. Of course its not so black and white but if you really do live in Korea you know what Im talking about. Just watch the Korean dramas. Its full of soft and pretty men. Asian women flock to such men. One the other hand, in the US women prefer the 'alpha tough jocks' kind of men. To illustrate my point, this guy gets all the girls in Asia: http://www.asianpopcorn.com/default.asp?display=korean_actor_and_models_-12525 But in America, this guy gets all the girls: http://www.graphicshunt.com/images/sexy_guy-12787.htm I talked about a lot more than money in my post as well. . . attitudes towards women are much less "modest" here. Korean men are more metrosexual. That is the culture (and they are also a bit nerdier, on average, sure). That doesn't make them more modest, less arrogant, or kinder to women on average. The "nice guy" stereotype has nothing to do with their pink shirts or man-purses! I agree that, stereotypically, if you just look at Korean men, they look more "wimpy" so to speak. But the society belies a lot more than that. I will say that Korean girls are more into "personality" (in a rather shallow way, though intelligence and career ability are key) and style than looks on average (even though they're mostly quite beautiful), but I think that's more because of the homogeneous nature of Korea than any thread of cultural health. The diversity of looks exists (in men and women) but not the way it does in America. Also, dating dynamics in Korea are just weird. My point is that the nice, Asian guy myth has nothing to do with being an actual nice guy, and it's silly to use a man's build, style of dress, etc, to decide if he's "modest" or kind. Asian men are more deferential to their elders, and, as such, would appear more "modest" in a job interview, so that might play better in a survey such as this. It wouldn't apply to women's attitudes towards a "modest" or "kind" mate. But, yeah, Korean men like to wear more pink and hair products----I'll give you that in a second-flat.
Untouchable_Fire Posted August 3, 2010 Posted August 3, 2010 I will say that Korean girls are more into "personality" (in a rather shallow way, though intelligence and career ability are key) and style than looks on average (even though they're mostly quite beautiful), but I think that's more because of the homogeneous nature of Korea than any thread of cultural health. The diversity of looks exists (in men and women) but not the way it does in America. Also, dating dynamics in Korea are just weird. So Korean women are into personality because Korean guys all look the same. Zen... Your awesome! Sometimes without even intending it you say stuff that just sounds borderline racist. I can't say anything in particular for Asia, but I can tell you from experience dating women from Asia that what they found attractive about me was very different and felt much less superficial.
zengirl Posted August 3, 2010 Posted August 3, 2010 So Korean women are into personality because Korean guys all look the same. Zen... Your awesome! Sometimes without even intending it you say stuff that just sounds borderline racist. I can't say anything in particular for Asia, but I can tell you from experience dating women from Asia that what they found attractive about me was very different and felt much less superficial. There is more genetic homogeneity. That's not the same as saying they all look the same. . . And it is a very real part of Korean life. Many Koreans express pride in their genetic homogeneity. They don't all "look the same" but their general builds and coloring are, of course, much less diverse. That's just. . . true. It's not racist to note homogeneity in the gene pool. And, frankly, it has nothing to do with race (which is a social construct) and everything to do with the culture and how families work here, how folks are socialized, and the fact that this nation is jam-packed with people but only the size of Georgia. "From Asia" is a big place, which is why I usually couch things in Korean or Japanese terms. . . the only 2 Asian societies I know well.
purgatori Posted August 3, 2010 Posted August 3, 2010 I dunno. I think zengirl makes some very astute points. Sometimes when I deride machismo, and the tendency of (straight) women to be drawn to it, people will answer that since the "metrosexual man" is currently in cultural ascendancy, I must be quite mistaken in my assessment of female dating/mating preferences. In response, what I try (often in vain) to point out is that just because a guy devotes an inordinate amount of time to grooming and selecting fashionable/stylish apparel, it does not speak to their embrasure of some inner-core of feminity; nor does it mean that they're any more meek, modest, or nice than other less fashion-savvy guys. I have known metrosexual guys who were complete brutes: loud, obnoxious, disrespectful to women, willing to enter into a "punch on" at the drop of a hat, arrogant, eager to employ stand-over tactics, and so on. For my own part, I mostly ignore fashion, I spend a minimum amount of time grooming outside of making sure that I'm clean and not emitting any unpleasant odors, and I don't subject myself to the pain of waxing (not that I'd really need to, even if I did think that such pain was worth the price of achieving a hairless body). Psychologically, physically, and behaviorally, though, I am far more feminine than the vast majority of these metrosexual guys. I was also a lot nicer, once, but now I'm much too bitter and angry to make any such claim.
dispatch3d Posted August 3, 2010 Posted August 3, 2010 Studies on attraction are hilarious to me. They aren't qualified to do them AT ALL and it REALLY SHOWS. The fact is these guys/girls get doctorates by having high grades in pyschology, applying to grad school and having a good looking application, getting a doctorate in whatever (relationships lets say), then study attraction. At what point in this sequence of events are they required to REALLY understand what attracts boys to girls and vice versa? If I asked whoever ran this study to teach me how to attract any women could they? VERY UNLIKELY. And if they actually know/have very little skill at attracting other people, getting two people attracted to each other, or whatever how the **** can they claim to be experts enough to publish things on what attracts boy to girls? They can't! Reading studies by these guys is the most wasted time you could ever spend, honestly. It should be a prerequisite that these people are true players. The only way the could claim to be expert enough in attraction is to actually be able to attract anyone. At least then they are coming from a place of expert opinion. Watching what series of events makes two people attracted to each other is just so blah. Anyways /endrant
D-Lish Posted August 3, 2010 Posted August 3, 2010 Well, 'traditional men' are masculine/macho men You are right though, that one can be both a "nice guy", and financially well-off, business savvy, etc. But that doesn't change the fact that women still interpret not-so-nice qualities as being cues/indicators of a guy's capacity to be a good provider. In cultures where the male is expected to be the sole provider, such cues become all the more salient. ? What life experience are you basing your facts on? What a clueless statement. These gender war threads are so ridiculous. It's the same old whiney crap.
zengirl Posted August 3, 2010 Posted August 3, 2010 Studies on attraction are hilarious to me. They aren't qualified to do them AT ALL and it REALLY SHOWS. The fact is these guys/girls get doctorates by having high grades in pyschology, applying to grad school and having a good looking application, getting a doctorate in whatever (relationships lets say), then study attraction. At what point in this sequence of events are they required to REALLY understand what attracts boys to girls and vice versa? If I asked whoever ran this study to teach me how to attract any women could they? VERY UNLIKELY. And if they actually know/have very little skill at attracting other people, getting two people attracted to each other, or whatever how the **** can they claim to be experts enough to publish things on what attracts boy to girls? They can't! Reading studies by these guys is the most wasted time you could ever spend, honestly. It should be a prerequisite that these people are true players. The only way the could claim to be expert enough in attraction is to actually be able to attract anyone. At least then they are coming from a place of expert opinion. Watching what series of events makes two people attracted to each other is just so blah. Anyways /endrant I don't even think they'd want to teach you any of that. The study wasn't actually about dating. . . at all. So far as I can tell by reading anything actually directly about the study.
BS76 Posted August 3, 2010 Posted August 3, 2010 Studies on attraction are hilarious to me. They aren't qualified to do them AT ALL and it REALLY SHOWS. The fact is these guys/girls get doctorates by having high grades in pyschology, applying to grad school and having a good looking application, getting a doctorate in whatever (relationships lets say), then study attraction. At what point in this sequence of events are they required to REALLY understand what attracts boys to girls and vice versa? If I asked whoever ran this study to teach me how to attract any women could they? VERY UNLIKELY. And if they actually know/have very little skill at attracting other people, getting two people attracted to each other, or whatever how the **** can they claim to be experts enough to publish things on what attracts boy to girls? They can't! Reading studies by these guys is the most wasted time you could ever spend, honestly. It should be a prerequisite that these people are true players. The only way the could claim to be expert enough in attraction is to actually be able to attract anyone. At least then they are coming from a place of expert opinion. Watching what series of events makes two people attracted to each other is just so blah. Anyways /endrant That's pretty silly. Next thing you know you'll be telling us driving instructors should be former NASCAR or INDY drivers and personal trainers should be former Mr Olympia contenders. The researchers studying attraction in lab settings can guage, with quantifiable metrics, physiological reactions in test subjects based on a vareity on stimuli. It's the application of this research knowledge that lets you get better with attracting the opposite sex, which is exactly what pickup artists and dating coaches do for their clients. The research and application are two wholly separate disciplines, although the application side of things tends to have it's own discovery process for what's applicable on an individual basis.
jamesum Posted August 3, 2010 Posted August 3, 2010 (edited) I talked about a lot more than money in my post as well. . . attitudes towards women are much less "modest" here. Korean men are more metrosexual. That is the culture (and they are also a bit nerdier, on average, sure). That doesn't make them more modest, less arrogant, or kinder to women on average. The "nice guy" stereotype has nothing to do with their pink shirts or man-purses! I agree that, stereotypically, if you just look at Korean men, they look more "wimpy" so to speak. But the society belies a lot more than that. I will say that Korean girls are more into "personality" (in a rather shallow way, though intelligence and career ability are key) and style than looks on average (even though they're mostly quite beautiful), but I think that's more because of the homogeneous nature of Korea than any thread of cultural health. The diversity of looks exists (in men and women) but not the way it does in America. Also, dating dynamics in Korea are just weird. My point is that the nice, Asian guy myth has nothing to do with being an actual nice guy, and it's silly to use a man's build, style of dress, etc, to decide if he's "modest" or kind. Asian men are more deferential to their elders, and, as such, would appear more "modest" in a job interview, so that might play better in a survey such as this. It wouldn't apply to women's attitudes towards a "modest" or "kind" mate. But, yeah, Korean men like to wear more pink and hair products----I'll give you that in a second-flat. Ow, obviously there has been a misunderstanding. I NEVER said Asian men are 'nice guys' in the first place. In fact I believe Asian men are more judgmental toward women. What I was trying to convey with my posts was that Asian women are generally more accepting toward the 'nice guy' type of men which was why I jokingly told that one guy to go to Asia if he is a 'nice guy' and he has problems getting a partner because there he probably will have better chances of finding someone. Edited August 3, 2010 by jamesum
GordonDarkfoot Posted August 3, 2010 Posted August 3, 2010 Gotta put this "astounding scientific finding" in the "dog bites man" category. Yawn.
zengirl Posted August 3, 2010 Posted August 3, 2010 Ow, obviously there has been a misunderstanding. I NEVER said Asian men are 'nice guys' in the first place. In fact I believe Asian men are more judgmental toward women. What I was trying to convey with my posts was that Asian women are generally more accepting toward the 'nice guy' type of men which was why I jokingly told that one guy to go to Asia if he is a 'nice guy' and he has problems getting a partner because there he probably will have better chances of finding someone. Well, sure, any college-educated white guy who's having trouble finding women could definitely improve his luck by coming to Korea, but he doesn't particularly need to be nice. It's not because Korean girls like nice guys. It's because of a couple factors including the fact that they'd be "exotic" over here. (Women don't generally get the same feeling, mostly because they don't tend to date Korean men, and Korean girls are attractive, on average. So, unattractive women who come over aren't going to fair any better with Western men -- who they usually would prefer -- than back home. And Korean men in their twenties are usually worked to death anyway. My ex was. And families are often harder on Korean men who pick Western partners than Korean women, especially first-born sons. Really, it's complex.) *I say white because there is a fair amount of racism towards any other race, except Kyopo/Korean here. (That includes other Asians.)
Recommended Posts