Men are less shallow, deep down we all know this, and yet we don't get any credit for

October 14, 2011

Sorry. Coffee break.

Alright. No, I'm not saying it needs to be changed. It's your business what kind of women you want to date, Nexus. I'm just saying that you cannot always fall back on "It's biological, it's natural, I can't help it", or use it as a reason for otherwise unexplainable behavior. Seeing as it could just as likely be psychological. I was trying to make you see how and why it could be psychological just as much as biological. I was trying to make you see that you are not completely helpess or powerless to your biological desires/attractions because the mind can play a part in it as well.

Absolutely not, and absolutely missed the point.

Christ, are you kidding? My last intention was to think you'd justify cheating just because you want a beautiful girlfriend. I wasn't trying to attack your character, as I have no right to at this point - or at any point, really. Why would I even be angry about you wanting a beautiful girlfriend, as I just said I wouldn't mind having an attractive man as my boyfriend, too? In that case, I would also be guilty.

My point was, that reasoning could be used just as seamlessly in an argument about physical cheating, thus it is not always a good reason to use as an explanation that something is okay or alright.

But you're right, it is ridiculous. I agree 100%. Because it's not at all what I meant. I'm simply saying, I don't think it's wise to use "It's biological/It's natural/I can't help it" when talking about the physical standards you have, because then it comes off as mindless and helpess about your choices as a human, nevermind oblivious to the psychology that's also involved behind it all. And it's clear from your posts, that those things above are not what you are.

I never thought you'd use that same logic to justify cheating, but someone else could flip it around on you and call you out on it. Which is why I pointed it out. Just like "That's just the way it is" is not always a reasonable answer for anything or any behavior. "It's just biology" isn't either. Just because something may be 'biological wiring' does not always make the way we think or act valid or right, just as using it as an excuse to validate cheating would also not be right. Which we both agree on.

But please, for the love of God, I was not saying you should be ashamed that you want a beautiful girlfriend or that you justify cheating.

Ok I now better understand what you mean.

What I was saying wasn't that my preferences were necessarily biologically determined. What I was saying was that a girl's looks tend to initially draw men to them as a first phase in the attraction process. The initial psychological and behavioral response in men is what I think has its roots in biology.

My preferences for women have been shaped over the course of my life, influenced by many factors, that's not something I necessarily attribute to biology. However, I never used to believe at love at first sight or crushing at first sight. Until I met my last crush. I felt such a strong response in my body and mind that I started crushing pretty much instantly, it's like something hit me in my DNA. I was swept off my feet and that never happened to me before. I generally needed to get a feel for a girl's personality and intelligence before I started crushing. This time, I didn't.

So like I said, I've been wrong about some things about myself. Where I thought that crushing at first sight was impossible (for me), it happened anyway to me.

The vibe I get from Onyx is that she's saying I should transcend the need for beauty, because it is fleeting/transient. But like I said, that would be equal to making myself suffer, because it is counter intuitive to me. I understand the rationality and philosophy behind it of what she's saying and I even agree with her, but like I said I cannot live along those lines in the practical sense. I cave in that regard.

Part of our misunderstanding here is that I'm replying to both you and Onyx and that can be somewhat confusing.

That being said, I haven't been taking things personally in this discussion, so neither of you have offended me ( don't worry Thieves ), but I do reflect upon myself during this discussion, because I do take what you both are saying seriously.

Edited October 14, 2011 by Nexus One

October 14, 2011

Part of our misunderstanding here is that I'm replying to both you and Onyx and that can be somewhat confusing.

That being said, I haven't been taking things personally in this discussion, so neither of you have offended me ( don't worry Thieves ), but I do reflect upon myself during this discussion, because I do take what you both are saying seriously.

Ah, and now I better understand what you mean.

And yes, perhaps I should have just waited until you and Onyx finished your discussion at first. As I'm sure I didn't make things any easier. Pardon for that.

To be honest, can I make a confession? I do love beauty as well. I absolutely adore it, and need it in my life. But it's different for me - because I don't necessarily need it physically or depend on it from people. It's beauty that comes in ways that aren't so easily ephemeral or short-lived, as (unfortunately) a person's physical beauty is. And that's why I adore it, that kind of beauty. But that's also why I've sometimes felt sort of left out in this world, where people tend to focus a lot more on the transient physical beauty in a human being.

As far as Onyx's perspective -- or what you believe her perspective to be -- I am torn. In a way, I can understand her perspective of transcending the need for beauty. I also do love the idea of that myself, so, I can understand and relate to her very much in that way. She is extremely psychologically and philosophically-inclined, as am I. Though I tried to tone down the philosophical ramblings as much as possible, kind of like you, I 'cave' in that respect. Some people aren't able to always be that, but it would be unpractical for me to not be that way. Also, I remember having a slight issue of the way you viewed philosophy earlier in this thread, but I overlooked it to get onto bigger points.

Anyway. I'm torn on Onyx's view, obviously, because as I said, I do adore beauty and don't think it's even easily escaped. The need for it, I mean. Is there not some type of beauty in transcending the need for it? See what I mean? But I'm being practical in how - for now - I do serve my desire for it in other ways. But anyway, I was just surprised earlier that my intentions had gotten so stretched beyond what I meant. It was admirable how you reassured us of your character, though, so brava on that.

Edited October 14, 2011 by Thieves

October 14, 2011

OP just makes me feel embarrassed about being a male. :/ Why would you post this?

Oh. And please don't be embarrassed. It's just one point of view, after all, and we all know that not all men think in that particular way.

October 14, 2011

Ok I now better understand what you mean.

What I was saying wasn't that my preferences were necessarily biologically determined. What I was saying was that a girl's looks tend to initially draw men to them as a first phase in the attraction process. The initial psychological and behavioral response in men is what I think has its roots in biology.

My preferences for women have been shaped over the course of my life, influenced by many factors, that's not something I necessarily attribute to biology. However, I never used to believe at love at first sight or crushing at first sight. Until I met my last crush. I felt such a strong response in my body and mind that I started crushing pretty much instantly, it's like something hit me in my DNA. I was swept off my feet and that never happened to me before. I generally need to get a feel for a girl's personality and intelligence before I started crushing. This time, I didn't.

So like I said, I've been wrong about some things about myself. Where I thought that crushing at first sight was impossible (for me), it happened anyway to me.

The vibe I get from Onyx is that she's saying I should transcend the need for beauty, because it is fleeting/transient. But like I said, that would be equal to making myself suffer, because it is counter intuitive to me. I understand the rationality and philosophy behind it of what she's saying and I even agree with her, but like I said I cannot live along those lines in the practical sense. I cave in that regard.

Part of the confusion here is that I'm replying to both you and Onyx and that can be somewhat confusing.

First and foremost --- I didn't think Thieves was suggesting you're capable of cheating with her example... I also don't think your fondness of physical beauty insinuates you will. It seems most men are initially drawn to physique --- while it seems most cheat too --- based on how many men there currently are in this world, plenty of them don't (unless one considers mentally lusting cheating )

Eh, I'm not stating that you need to transcend being primarily drawn to physical beauty --- I'm simply stating that I don't think biology is what is defining your idea([l]s) of physical beauty... and, in the event that biology is even just mostly (not even fully) responsible for such, that it serves to be rather baseless and without much merit... certainly not enough to base a long-term companion on.

A short-term one? Well, they will likely be disposed of before their "beauty/external allure" fades anyway... (or just as it begins to).

Now, that is certainly embracing the moment

I'm not stating that physical beauty has no value because it's fleeting --- life itself is fleeting. I'm stating physical beauty has some value, but to prioritize it (whether in others and or in ones self) is unhealthy and that one will be left in want.

In regards to the fleeting comment however, I more or less mean............ Millions of people put a lot of energy and time and effort into "looking" good (even to their own detriment). Yet, they will inevitably lose their struggle against age/time. Then what will they be left with?

I see too many old women frantically trying to cling to their dying youth and it's all so futile... I know a couple of women in their late 50's and early 60's who are likely perceived by most strangers as physically standard for their age. But yet they keep having cosmetic surgeries --- (dealing with spider veins and wrinkles mostly, and there's dozens/hundreds more they're probably going to try to conquer for years to come, although one had a face lift and it took her a quite awhile to recover heh) --- they still devote a lot of time to doing their make-up (granted it probably takes them extra long because they use it on their bodies lol, trying to cover up age spots etc)... and resources to lotions, creams, "miracle" products, age-defying serums, this and that and this and that... and anytime I'm around them I have to hear them lament and "relive" their glory days of being beautiful LoL.

Markets often feed off of people's weaknesses and vulnerabilities... very raw and natural human desires and or needs. It's really all quite lovely.

The older woman I know who seems to be the most preoccupied out of all of them with how she looks (and how others look, never mind how bitter she can get lol) was apparently known as extremely attractive when she was younger --- I'd venture to guess that factored into why she's so fixated now too.

Alas, I personally think their investments could have been better spent --- towards something that gets STRONGER as time goes by, not weaker. It doesn't matter though, it's their lives --- if anything, it just reminds me that aging gracefully is important and that knowing what is truly valuable is paramount. Right now, how beautiful someone is does not scream importance to me --- there's bigger world issues going on anyway. If anything, it can also cater to distractions. Beauty isn't going to save anyone, unless some crazy warlord takes over and decides a woman is beautiful enough to rape and give birth to his seed --- at least she'll be spared (for the time being) (of course, in the past, beautiful men have been taken to become an emperor's lover etc too).

I am not even stating that physical beauty shouldn't be enjoyed or any such thing --- I don't see why it can't be appreciated --- but when it's what is primarily sought, it's not only generic it's just....

....

Regardless, of course you should not try to be with someone you are not attracted to. If physique is indeed what attracts you the most, well it is what it is then. I think it can lead to a lot of trouble and or lead to someone overlooking many wonderful things (that have a much better chance at developing and standing the test of time) but that's just what I think. I suppose if you do indeed develop #2 and #3 after #1, then even when #1 begins to visually decline, it'll be irrelevant to you at that point.

I think I fall under #2 and #3, but ultimately I lean towards our life experiences having been too different for me to fully fathom #1 and for you to relate to my skepticism/apprehension/even distaste (depending) regarding it.

And The Tiger --- writing "womens" takes a hit at your credibility

Unless it was just silly cute "stuffs".

But I'm doubtful

Edited October 14, 2011 by OnyxSnowfall

October 14, 2011

Do you people do this all night?

Anyway...

People don't understand. It's not all about money either. See I made a mistake when I was younger, I only became 'paly' with a select few of the popular guys. This was my mistake because if you're ugly your popularity can fix this. If I had been really 'popular' that would have then made alot of the girl like me.

If there is one thing in life I have learned it is that alot of women are obsessed with popularity and this carries on into adulthood

October 14, 2011

Do you people do this all night?

Anyway...

People don't understand. It's not all about money either. See I made a mistake when I was younger, I only became 'paly' with a select few of the popular guys. This was my mistake because if you're ugly your popularity can fix this. If I had been really 'popular' that would have then made alot of the girl like me.

If there is one thing in life I have learned it is that alot of women are obsessed with popularity and this carries on into adulthood

Do you?

Certainly some women AND some men are. Plenty from both genders care about status and reputation... and yes, also image, wealth, etc.

You're not heeding the whole spectrum, nonetheless.

There are women and men who have different values...

Often times people are attracted to what they are or what they desire to be / have.

have you thought about who you are?

Of course, there are people who know their flaws and seek out people who will balance them but...

...

October 14, 2011

Do you?

Certainly some women AND some men are. Plenty from both genders care about status and reputation... and yes, also image, wealth, etc.

You're not heeding the whole spectrum, nonetheless.

There are women and men who have different values...

Often times people are attracted to what they are or what they desire to be / have.

have you thought about who you are?

Of course, there are people who know their flaws and seek out people who will balance them but...

...

Yes but this behaviour is way more common among women though. Tests were done to prove it -- the majority (8/10) of the women chose fame over money and the majority of guys chose money over fame. I always say to ugly dudes on the Net whenever I come across one complaining about being hated by most women, I always tell them to make alot of male pals, to do everything to become popular. Don't make the same mistake I did.

Edited October 14, 2011 by danmorisson

October 14, 2011

It was meant to be cute and writing long-winded posts does not make you look smarter to a critical thinker like myself or Nexus.

October 14, 2011

It was meant to be cute and writing long-winded posts does not make you look smarter to a critical thinker like myself or Nexus.

Oh no, whatever shall I do?

October 14, 2011

It was meant to be cute and writing long-winded posts does not make you look smarter to a critical thinker like myself or Nexus.

Whomever said it did make a person look smarter? Perhaps some people are just more naturally long-winded than others when it comes to verbalizing or expressing their thoughts? The only problem I can see would lay with those who don't have the patience or time to read through it all, which to me says more about the reader than the writer. Short-winded or long-winded, both have their merits and downsides. Neither style automatically decreases or increases the value of the person's thoughts. We all write in our own way.

October 14, 2011

And yes, perhaps I should have just waited until you and Onyx finished your discussion at first. As I'm sure I didn't make things any easier. Pardon for that.

Not at all.

To be honest, can I make a confession? I do love beauty as well. I absolutely adore it, and need it in my life. But it's different for me - because I don't necessarily need it physically or depend on it from people. It's beauty that comes in ways that aren't so easily ephemeral or short-lived, as (unfortunately) a person's physical beauty is. And that's why I adore it, that kind of beauty. But that's also why I've sometimes felt sort of left out in this world, where people tend to focus a lot more on the transient physical beauty in a human being.

Oh I don't know about prevailing over experiencing the sense of beauty... I don't think I could adopt such an aspiration myself

I suppose, to me, truth is most beautiful. There may be some truth to external beauty, but the human eyes (among other senses) are awfully gullible... I can't really take them seriously... compound that with everything else and... I just don't have the "right" outlook to lust and long for another's physical beauty. I recognize human "symmetry/aesthetics", and beyond everything else I've mentioned --- I find it to be a dime a dozen --- it just doesn't move me.

I've mentioned before that nature moves me far more deeply... but alas, that is not just purely visual. If I'm hiking about towards a delicious waterfall, the first thing I notice is how much cooler and crisper the air gets as I approach it... and be there a breeze, I'll savor the aroma of the surrounding trees and plants --- whatever scents it carried with it ---

When a waterfall does finally come into my view, I do allow myself to pause and to gobble it up with my eyes ... but it's a culmination of senses. Nevertheless, I identify all of it as beautiful.

I think most people need to experience beauty to believe there's meaning to life...

But when it comes to me personally finding it within humans, I find someone's mind / behavior / traits / talents to be far more capable of being beautiful than their flesh... far more arousing sexually as well.

In ways, I think I can relate to what you mean you state "because I don't necessarily need it physically or depend on it from people."

October 14, 2011

Yes but this behaviour is way more common among women though. Tests were done to prove it -- the majority (8/10) of the women chose fame over money and the majority of guys chose money over fame. I always say to ugly dudes on the Net whenever I come across one complaining about being hated by most women, I always tell them to make alot of male pals, to do everything to become popular. Don't make the same mistake I did.

how come I didn't hear about these tests? >B

I'm assuming these were done fairly recently, being that there's constantly new people being brought into this world and being that people are becoming "adults" by the second.

did you participate in them?

I wonder why no one informed me...

Edited October 14, 2011 by OnyxSnowfall

October 14, 2011

I suppose, to me, truth is most beautiful. There may be some truth to external beauty, but the human eyes (among other senses) are awfully gullible... I can't really take them seriously...

Ah, I can relate, Onyx. I have a really hard time with the concept of truth, Onyx. Not that I don't believe in it, but I believe it's so much more complex than just, "This is truth, this is not." Obviously, but especially in relation to religion, or lack thereof...

I think about it a lot, and have yet to come to a solid conclusion about it all.

I've mentioned before that nature moves me far more deeply... but alas, that is not just purely visual. If I'm hiking about towards a delicious waterfall, the first thing I notice is how much cooler and crisper the air gets as I approach it... and be there a breeze, I'll savor the aroma of the surrounding trees and plants --- whatever scents it carried with it ---

Yes. Thank goodness I'm not the only 'nature freak' here. It makes me think, have you ever seen the movie Into the Wild before?

I think most people need to experience beauty to believe there's meaning to life...

M'hm. It ties into what I was saying earlier about beauty -- or the natural compulsion to find, or see it within something, anything around you -- being almost inescapable because of just what it provides us: some type of subliminal meaning. Though most of us are not so able to describe exactly what that subliminal meaning is, or why we feel it when we do see/find beauty.

Sure, we can explain the literal biology and physical criteria behind it, but the psychology behind it seems a lot more blurred and obscure... Kind of like music. Millions of people love it, but when faced with trying to describe why it's so amazing and so beautiful, a lot are speechless or don't know how to perfectly word it. It's something you feel, that has meaning in its beauty, but escapes coherent words when we try to verbally pin down the reason for that meaning alone. It's pretty crazy really, seeing how far human language has come.

But when it comes to me personally finding it within humans, I find someone's mind / behavior / traits / talents to be far more capable of being beautiful than their flesh... far more arousing sexually as well.

Exactly. Me, for instance: Jimi Hendrix - my one and only favorite musician of all time, absolutely no contest. Sure, by physical means, he was seen as handsome and very attractive. But what he did for music, his views on his freedom and life, his eccentricity, and his actual musical abilities are far more beautiful to me than simply his appearance. And yes, his musical ability on the guitar - solos and all - were sexually arousing, as well. As I'm sure any Hendrix-loving chick back at Woodstock in '69 would've confirmed.

In ways, I think I can relate to what you mean you state "because I don't necessarily need it physically or depend on it from people."

Yes... In certain concepts, in ideas, in certain ways of living, ways of talking, in languages, and words. The list goes on. To me, that type of beauty not only lasts longer and is more substantial, but is infinitely more meaningful. Though I guess it'd come down to preference. Not to downplay the presence of physical beauty in humans, but as said, it's just not as strong for me as the previous types. Especially seeing as all of the previous tend to transcend time with more ease.

Edited October 14, 2011 by Thieves

October 14, 2011

how come I didn't hear about these tests? >B

I'm assuming these were done fairly recently, being that there's constantly new people being brought into this world and being that people are becoming "adults" by the second.

did you participate in them?

I wonder why no one informed me...

Scientific study in a UK documentary. Both were given a choice, fame or millions, quite alot participated, the majority (8/10) of the women chose fame and the majority of males (7/10) chose money.

Edit: It's mostly women that buy celebrity mags

Edit: And these celebrities, it's less to do with their money and more to do with how popular they are. Money or not, most women find popular people attractive -- even the right ugly ones.

Edited October 14, 2011 by danmorisson

October 14, 2011

Eh, I'm not stating that you need to transcend being primarily drawn to physical beauty --- I'm simply stating that I don't think biology is what is defining your idea([l]s) of physical beauty... and, in the event that biology is even just mostly (not even fully) responsible for such, that it serves to be rather baseless and without much merit... certainly not enough to base a long-term companion on.

But that's not what what I'm saying. I'm saying the initial mechanism within a man that draws him to a woman based on her appearance has its roots in biology.

Note my use of the word initial. After that initial attraction it's key to feel attracted to someone's personality too, it's what seals the deal. Just looks can't do that.

In regards to the fleeting comment however, I more or less mean............ Millions of people put a lot of energy and time and effort into "looking" good (even to their own detriment). Yet, they will inevitably lose their struggle against age/time. Then what will they be left with?

That's why I also focus on personality and intelligence.

Right now, how beautiful someone is does not scream importance to me --- there's bigger world issues going on anyway. If anything, it can also cater to distractions. Beauty isn't going to save anyone, unless some crazy warlord takes over and decides a woman is beautiful enough to rape and give birth to his seed --- at least she'll be spared (for the time being) (of course, in the past, beautiful men have been taken to become an emperor's lover etc too).

Both you and I are in different phases of our lives. You have kids, you have a boyfriend you want to marry. I'm single, no children. So that's one reason why our perspectives may differ. I'm still in a phase of my life where it is relevant to me.

Regarding the importance of beauty. I have done my fair share of worrying about the warlords and financiers of war in this world. I'm done with that, I have to start living my own life. Beauty isn't going to save lives in that respect, but it is going to save my life. What I mean with that is that I want to enjoy life too, that I want to drink the nectar of it. I want to experience the good side of it too. Because what other f*cking point is there to the human condition? I can't live off of philosophy, I can't live off of political correctness. I agree with those perspectives, but living along the lines of those perspectives starves me. I need to be able to be human. I need it like water.

I think it can lead to a lot of trouble and or lead to someone overlooking many wonderful things (that have a much better chance at developing and standing the test of time) but that's just what I think.

I'm kind of getting the feeling you girls might perhaps be misinterpreting the kind of beauty I'm talking about. I'm not a guy that falls for women with no personality just because she has big tits, I'm not THAT kind of guy.

I'll tell you what my definition is of beautiful women. My last crush looked exactly like Emma Stone in this picture: http://bit.ly/orZEH0

The three most beautiful (famous) women in the world in my opinion are Natalie Portman, Emma Stone and Mila Kunis. Those are the types of girls I feel attracted to both physically and personality wise, they all have personalities that make them attractive BEYOND their physicality. And especially Natalie Portman has it down in the intelligence department as a Harvard graduate and having done research in neuroscience.

Emma Stone: http://bit.ly/oh67AM

Natalie Portman: http://bit.ly/rlJRa2

Mila Kunis: http://bit.ly/ov6Lnu

Don't get me wrong, these celebrities illustrate what type of girls/women I feel attracted to and that it's not just superficial hotness and pure sexual attraction that I'm talking about, they have other factors that attract me. I'm talking about beautiful women with substance, with personality, with intelligence, but also with a fun factor. Things that will carry attraction beyond old age.

I like their personalities, I like that they are chatterboxes and pretty much "don't shut up", I'm the kind of guy that can listen to their ramblings for hours and be entertained by it. I like their raw voices, such voices develop when a girl/woman talks A LOT. I like their level of intelligence. I like that they have a positive attitude, I like that they have a happy attitude, I like their optimism. Etc etc.

And there are girls/women like that out there. Are those the only kinds of girls I feel attracted to, well mostly, but it's not necessarily limited to those kind of women. Like I said. Girls/women can initially draw me to them in multiple ways. It can be with looks, personality or by creating an emotional bond/connection.

I know what it does with me when such a girl/woman stands in front of me. They bring me to a higher level, they lift my spirits, they make my day, they draw something out of me that comes from very deep within me.

They're able to make me feel something that I want out of life and I want to give them the same feeling in return.

And that's what it's about. Men and women NEED that, we need something meaningful and for some people beauty is part of that, even if it's only in the initial phase, even if it's transient. Regardless of the philosophy of it all, I also want to live God damn it.

October 14, 2011

I suppose, to me, truth is most beautiful. There may be some truth to external beauty, but the human eyes (among other senses) are awfully gullible... I can't really take them seriously

And I agree, but I'm not an enlightened Buddhist monk that has realized absolute truth. I can't live along those lines. As a normal human being I get starved and feel deprived, so I'm drawn to the straight forward things in life that quench certain basic desires.

Yes the flesh is weak, but the flesh is part of us. It might be unenlightened, it might be weak, but it is part of being human. To deny that nature is to deny you were born into the human condition.

October 14, 2011

What I mean with that is that I want to enjoy life too, that I want to drink the nectar of it. I want to experience the good side of it too. Because what other f*cking point is there to the human condition?

Aw, Nexus... (And no, there's no sarcasm in that.) Though I may disagree a bit, understood.

October 14, 2011

And I agree, but I'm not an enlightened Buddhist monk that has realized absolute truth. I can't live along those lines. As a normal human being I get starved and feel deprived, so I'm drawn to the straight forward things in life that quench certain basic desires.

Also. Okay, so basically, you believe in living simply and straight forward, quenching your basic human desires and trying to live happily as you can that way? And yes, you believe that it is alright to succumb to the 'natural' desires of the human flesh and to not feel guilty about it? To not suppress them or fight these desires? Hm. Do you know how many certain philosophers encouraged this way of living? That was how they, in their opinions, viewed life to be worth living.

My point is, philosophy isn't necessarily a strict 'way to live' that only certain people can or can't do, Nexus. It's not like being 'vegan', or going vegan - unless you want it to be. You don't have to believe in transcending beauty, or overcoming biological desires, etc., in order to think or live philosophically. Not if you don't agree with it. And it doesn't make you weak not to agree with a certain viewpoint. That's what makes it interesting, it's about exploring opinions and different beliefs.

By the way, you have good taste in women. Especially Natalie Portman.

October 14, 2011

All we get is fantasy Internet lies like "I see slim models dating fat guys all the time"

Guys care less about looks! Heck a guy will bang you just because you are a woman!

That's not being less shallow.

That's looking less for sex.

If you stated "Guys care less about looks! Heck a guy will marry/date you just because you are a woman!" Then you'd have a statement that goes with your claim. It'd still be absurdity but it would go with your claim.

What your doing is like stating

"Girls care less about money! Heck a girl will bleed you dry just because you are a man!" So women aren't shallow about money because they'll bleed even the poor and middle class guys dry not just millionaires.

October 14, 2011

Also. Okay, so basically, you believe in living simply and straight forward, quenching your basic human desires and trying to live happily as you can that way? And yes, you believe that it is alright to succumb to the 'natural' desires of the human flesh and to not feel guilty about it?

Yes, within ethical limits.

To not suppress them or fight these desires? Hm. Do you know how many certain philosophers encouraged this way of living? That was how they, in their opinions, viewed life to be worth living.

I know, but those philosophies are not what Onyx is pointing at. She's pointing to a restrictive perspective in my opinion. According to her I need to be able to extract some sort of truth from beauty. It's clear when she said: "When you look upon that hot little ballerina body, what do you think you're unraveling?"

Apparently she knows I like ballerinas, but I don't feel the need to extract some deeper truth from their physique. I just appreciate that kind of elegant physique and that's it.

People have been talking like that to me all my life. You see it all over society, people who advertise restrictive ways of thinking or living. To say it like Al Pacino said it when he played Satan in Devil's Advocate: "You can look... but you can’t touch. You can touch... but you can’t taste. You can taste... but you can’t swallow..."

I've been hearing that my entire life from all sorts of sources. Don't get me wrong, I didn't have a religious upbringing, neither am I religious, but that stuff is amazingly pervasive throughout society in more ways than just religion. And people will profess that, all the while drinking the nectar of life themselves. It is hypocrisy and it can damage people's lives. (Note: I'm not saying Onyx is being hypocrite or damaging)

My point is, philosophy isn't necessarily a strict 'way to live' that only certain people can or can't do, Nexus. It's not like being 'vegan', or going vegan - unless you want it to be. You don't have to believe in transcending beauty, or overcoming biological desires, etc., in order to think or live philosophically. Not if you don't agree with it. And it doesn't make you weak not to agree with a certain viewpoint. That's what makes it interesting, it's about exploring opinions and different beliefs.

However I do agree with that, except I cave on certain things, but I think that's fine as long as it's within ethical limits.

October 14, 2011

The dating scene is much easier for women than what it is for men. That's what I mean. But men don't get any credit

No the getting f*cked scene is much easier for woman than what it is for men.

The dating scene is just as hard for both genders.

If you want to play the pity party whiny bs game then turnaround time:

It's easy for women when they have youth/beauty.

It's easy for men when they have wealth, status, height, confidence, and a certain personality.

So it's easy when women have non lasting attributes & men have usually lasting attributes.

Now compare the difficulty in getting those attributes. Men can learn & get & keep confidence, height, and personality. With difficulty they can do the same with wealthy & status. Women get to be young once no getting it back. Women are either born beautiful or not then add in rating system fortunately there's plastic surgery, fashion, cosmetics, diet, and exercise. Yet there's no getting it back and add in the age factor.

it's easy for men when they have

Also add in the ease of being young

October 14, 2011

Women have more options then the man whos on her level so they can be more picky/shallow

Women have those options when they are young & if they have some attractiveness.

Men have more options when they have confidence, status, wealth, height, personality.

As for more picky/shallow men also are prone to not wanting to date women on his level unless he's attractive. Most men want attractive partners and it's either: the most attractive, attractive, or more attractive than themselves. Or are the ugly guy/hot girl movies and old guy/young girl moves about men dating women on their level? Also the common male tendency to date women 10-20 years younger than themselves is that dating on their level?

Not dating your level is a people thing not a gender thing. Most people want someone who is better than themselves.

Plus men bangign anyhtign and giving compliments to mediocre looking women inflates womens egos to where they believe theeyre better looking then they actually are a lot of times

Studies have shown that men overrate themselves more than women do.

Plus seeing as how most women are insecure and men "banging anything" how seriously do you think most women take the compliments of men who just want to f*ck them? It might give them a boost though I doubt it's permanent.

October 14, 2011

Most women are just selfish. Again, not hating just telling the truth. The look at ugly men as if these ugly men were monsters but the truth is, most of these ugly men would instinctively protect these women if these women were in any sort of danger. I want to protect them. I might never get a date, I don't give a ****, but that instinctive urge to protect them never goes away. They should think about these things before hating

How are the women selfish?

They're not obligated to date ugly men.

If they don't want to date men they aren't attracted to it's their right.

Are men selfish for not dating women older/much older than them aka he's 30 she's 50? Are men selfish for not dating fat/obese women when he prefers slim woman?

Women are not obligated to date men they aren't attracted to especially just because he'll protect her. If you want a relationship based solely on the fact you'll protect her then learn shooting and all the fighting skills you can since that is your worth not her feelings/attraction towards you.

October 14, 2011

Are men selfish for not dating women older/much older than them aka he's 30 she's 50? Are men selfish for not dating fat/obese women when he prefers slim woman?

Beggars have no right to be choosers. So, you could probably make a good argument that they are selfish in this case.

October 14, 2011

Beggars have no right to be choosers. So, you could probably make a good argument that they are selfish in this case.

How could I make a good argument?

I said men not beggars. I've given nothing to imply that these men were beggars except that in one case they are younger than the old/much older woman and in the other case they have a preference for slim women.

Where did you get these men could be labeled beggars from this?

Are men selfish for not dating women older/much older than them aka he's 30 she's 50? Are men selfish for not dating fat/obese women when he prefers slim woman?

Sign In

Men are less shallow, deep down we all know this, and yet we don't get any credit for

Recommended Posts

Nexus One

Thieves

Thieves

OnyxSnowfall

danmorisson

OnyxSnowfall

danmorisson

The Tiger

OnyxSnowfall

Thieves

OnyxSnowfall

OnyxSnowfall

Thieves

danmorisson

Nexus One

Nexus One

Thieves

Thieves

udolipixie

Nexus One

udolipixie

udolipixie

udolipixie

fortyninethousand322

udolipixie

What's New

My Activity Streams

More...