New boyfriend hopes my body doesn't change?

April 21, 2012

For your analogy to work, it would have to be something more along the lines of the woman saying to her man "I pray to God you keep making as much money as you have been the past few years." Just for the sake of accuracy. With that said, I disagree with your conclusion. I wouldn't tell the guy to drop the woman even if she was asking the guy to make more money. Why? Because women who are truly materialistic and/or gold-diggers have a way of leaving when they realize the man isn't making enough money to spoil her anyway.

Perhaps OP's boyfriend needs a lesson in social graces, but what he said isn't any different than what most people, regardless of their gender, actually think but are smart enough to keep to themselves. If someone is dating someone who they think has a particularly attractive physique, most of the time they're going to hope that they keep looking that way for as long as possible. Women in this very thread have agreed. It's not unrealistic at all to expect someone to stay in reasonably good shape throughout their 30s and 40s. If my girlfriend said she hoped I stay in good physical shape for a long time (and in fact, she has said that), my reaction wouldn't be to grow seriously concerned about my relationship or to consider dumping her. Having the expectation that your long-term partner stay attractive for you over a long period of time is a perfectly reasonable one.

BigQuestion, I thought you were smart enough to know that 1 + 1 does not always equal 2 between the genders? My mistake.

Not a perfect analogy but I think you are picking it apart to miss the point of it. Putting standards on people you claim to care about and hoping nothing ever changes about them, even their bodies, or money, is unrealistic. Women don't want to be wanted just for when their bodies are good. Now we can talk all day about how men like women with nice bodies but it does not change the fact that women do not want to be wanted for only when their bodies are the perfect little package of whatever a man thinks is attractive. Similiarly, men do not want to be wanted for their money. Women may like men with a lot of money but it does not change the fact that men do not want to be with women that hold strict expectations about his income over him as a person.

Is it easy to maintain your weight? For some more then others. But life happens. Kids come. Parents work all day then have to come home and do household chores. People have to sleep sometime and sometimes, as we see regularly, things go to the wayside. Men and women both get out of shape. Men stop doing all that nice "wooing" they did in the early stages and just want a quick romp, finances take their ups and downs depending on your job, the job market and the stock trade or emergency expenditures. In fairy tale land it's nice when everyone is pretty and rich and can maintain these thigns to a tee. But it's not reality.

By the way, it really doesn't matter if you would dump a woman or not if she was materialistic, that she would leave of her own accord. You are a big supporter of avoiding women that place your value in your money. If a woman displayed more interest in your money then you, and said anything along the lines of, " I hope this doesn't happen to your money", just as this guy is saying, "I hope this doesn't happen to your body," (much more equal equation actually) you would show her the door. Most guys would call her a gold digger. A phrase by the way that average guys over use already which highlights how sensitive men are to be used for their money. It gets applied to women that just want to be taken out for a meal, on a date, by a guy that only makes 50k a year.

I knew that you'd somehow bring porn into this conversation. I'm actually impressed you didn't elaborate on it and turn it into a complete threadjack like you usually do.

You mean how just because I mentioned porn you felt the need to comment on me commenting on porn. You think I am predictable? Look at yourself.

April 21, 2012

OP I think you let his comment get to you a little bit too much. Just chill out a bit and do what you do.

It's not that big of a deal, I hope my body doesn't change in 5 years. Unless it's for the better (still trying for that John Cena look).

April 21, 2012

Please, if any lady said to her man, "I pray to GOD you make more and more money..." Every guy here would tell him to hit the door.

Perhaps if men spent less time with their head in their internet porn folder and more learning about real women, men wouldn't say these stupid things or even think them.

very good analogy, as usual.

that's not to say one should have a free pass for letting themselves go, but at the same time comments like the one her bf made are unnecessary and a turn-off. it would be the equivalent to a woman telling her man, "i pray to god that you don't make less money" or "..that you don't ever lose your job" - every single guy in here would tell the man in question that that woman is a shallow whore that's only after his money and that he should kick her to the curb. but of course, when men make comments, it's different and completely justified...as we all know here

April 21, 2012

Money is not a basic human need the way sex is. Money can come and go, a sexual attraction is much different...and if someone becomes unattractive to you, and if they stay a blob, then you wont just become attracted to them without work being done.

kaylan doesnt get it, as usual. no surprise here.

if the argument is that to men the physical attraction is the most important component represented by a fit shell, one can argue that to women the emotional security and the provider qualities are most important - represented by a fat wallet and a steady job.

so money and physical attraction do stand for the same things - the things that are most important to the average men and women.

superficiality breeds superficiality. if you judge a woman by her t&a, don't be surprised if she judges you by your d&w.

If a woman displayed more interest in your money then you, and said anything along the lines of, " I hope this doesn't happen to your money", just as this guy is saying, "I hope this doesn't happen to your body," (much more equal equation actually) you would show her the door. Most guys would call her a gold digger. A phrase by the way that average guys over use already which highlights how sensitive men are to be used for their money.

this hits the nail on the head.

Edited April 21, 2012 by Negative Nancy

April 21, 2012

Talking about $ + career just after sex with a fairly new bf...yes it would be a little strange thing to say.
For a guy whose ex/s could well have been overweight, and to now have a gf who he's very attracted to who happens to also have a nice flat stomach which he is stroking while lying next to her in bed naked, then no, making the comment he did was not weird in such a context. I'm not saying it was appropriate especially with the 'hope to god' emphasis, but it was not strange given the setting, He's rapt in her, and just wants enjoy her the way she is for as long as possible. She's 35 and he is likely well aware so many women start getting a mid spread around this age, he just hopes she doesnt change too much/too soon...like majority of men would (despite what chubbi says).

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree with that. To me, I think it's an extremely strange/inappropriate thing for a new guy to say during an intimate moment, and inappropriate to even say anytime during the day, period. Equally so, I would not say the same thing to him, myself. But then I tend to value other things than the superficial in a partner, and I prize partners who can do the same. Yes, such men exist. They may not be in the majority - I frankly am not sure how one can prove what the 'majority really want' unless studies are actually done, and it would be a huge waste of scientific effort - but they do exist. And that's enough for me.

Oi vey. My point from the jump is that one cant equate money to physical appeal. Two different things. So when the earlier poster tried to take what OPs boyfriend said and substitute wealth for something physical, it just doesnt work that way. The same way I couldnt compare one chicks hotness to another girls nurturing skills...feel me?

Yes, wealth and nurturing qualities are things women and men look for when it comes to finding a partner, but they dont compare to the physical aspect...which is what this thread is about. They are simply separate factors and its silly to try to compare them for one another.

But the 'physical aspect' isn't necessarily what this thread is about. It's about the appropriateness of a man saying a certain thing to a woman at a certain time. We could argue until the cows come home about what the 'equivalent' is, but IMO they are similar (not necessarily completely equivalent) in that both wealth and physical beauty are aspects that are potentially valued in a relationship. So 'is it appropriate for someone to tell their new partner "I hope to god (insert any non-personality-based characteristic here) doesn't change?"'? That, to me, is the question. It doesn't matter what the characteristic is.

Ive been really hitting on simply physical attraction though, and a woman who bails on a guy completely when the wealth and power run out was never physically attracted to the man in the first place. If she was she would at least still have sex with him. Wealth will never be synonymous with pure physical attraction...its merely a cheap wannabe substitute that wont compare or keep a woman around who truly wants sex with you.

Other things do factor into physical attraction...but wealth isnt really one of them and I think enough of us have seen how the world works to know that. If a guy doesnt at least have something going on looks and personality wise, money wont make him sexy. Itll just make women want him for security. Is Hugh Hefner sexy or is his security and the opportunities he provide attractive? Thats my point. Women find Cristiano Ronaldo sexy, but even without the money and status, many women would be attracted to him. Jay Leno has money and status, but hes no sex symbol like Ronaldo or Beckham are. What would young attractive women find attractive about Leno? His lifestyle and the security he provides...not him physically in all honesty.

Again, I don't think there are studies determining whether looks or wealth plays a more important part in the majority of women's sexual/romantic attraction for a man, but it is untrue that wealth plays NO part. You are quoting extremes in your examples. Certainly when one is at the extreme end of ANYthing, it will make them less attractive. Hugh Hefner is a very extreme example - he's what, 80 or something? OTOH, how many women do you think would be sexually attracted to a 25-year-old cute guy who lives on the street off food stamps? I'm pretty sure that guy would get way, way less takers than Hugh.

Being a 'sex symbol' is also not relevant to a relationship. Often people consider others 'sex symbols' but don't want to be in relationships with them.

Flat stomach is a flat stomach. Man or woman. If you wanna compare wealth to something, compare it to nurturing. Thatd be more suitable. Compare a womens traditional nurturing duties to a mans traditional security duties. Nowadays plenty of men and women want and expect a physically attractive partner.

But traditionally women chose men (or, well, their family chose men) for their ability to provide and men chose women for their beauty. You can't talk about tradition without following traditional priorities.

I do agree that nowadays both men and women are starting to value physical appearance more, but I don't think it's anywhere near equivalent yet. There are plenty of people still mired in the traditional ways.

April 21, 2012

But traditionally women chose men (or, well, their family chose men) for their ability to provide and men chose women for their beauty. You can't talk about tradition without following traditional priorities.

exactly what i meant. that's why DY's analogy makes perfect sense - but don't expect kaylan to get it.

April 21, 2012

I only read the first page and.... Wow.... Alot of insecure and sensitive people on this forum.

Perhaps a man's overt interest with what his partner's body has the possiblity to become or not become is an insecurity?

April 21, 2012

I only read the first page and.... Wow.... Alot of insecure and sensitive people on this forum.

You read the first page... well how about posting about the OP ?

April 21, 2012

I cannot believe someone is really complaining about a comment like this. As someone who works out 5 days a week, I wouldn't expect any man to just sit around and watch his partner get lazy and fall off. But it isn't even that deep. The guy was clearly throwing out a compliment, but this insecure, man-hating forum took it and ran with it. This was literally making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Who gets to say it was a compliment? You? The OP? The boyfriend? if the boyfriend thought it was a compliment but the OP didn't, then it needs to be talked about. They disagree on something and it will only fester if neither partner respects the other's different opinion/feelings at times.

I don't think it is making a mountain out of a mole hil. It's important ot pay attention to what men say to learn their values. As much as it is to see what they do. It's not so strange that men or women leave partners they claimed they love when thigns get too difficult. Most people want to know they are with someone that is prepared to handle real life. Not the fantasy of what the ywant real life to be. Sometims in real life, people's bodies change. No woman wants to be wanted just for her body when it's good. And no guy wants to be wanted just for his money when it's good. That's the reality. There are men that don't think like the OP's boyfriend....words matter.

April 21, 2012

Yes another guy that sounds exactly like my dad! He likes his women to be under 120lbs, depending on hight. If shorter, 115lb and under. However, he is still a bit overweight, greying and has a bit of a gut. Not fat, but far from perfect. I think if you are going to have unrealistic expectations for others, it's only fair that you model them yourself. Your body will never be the same after having kids, but that doesn't mean you still can't look great. I've never understood why people want to pop out kids at 18 or 19 and then talk about needing to get back in shape. Most women are very conscious about the way they look at those ages, which is why I never had the desire to rush into having kids so young. I probably won't be having kids until at least 27 or 28. He sounds very shallow, definitely not cool in a new relationship.

April 21, 2012

kaylan doesnt get it, as usual. no surprise here.

if the argument is that to men the physical attraction is the most important component represented by a fit shell, one can argue that to women the emotional security and the provider qualities are most important - represented by a fat wallet and a steady job.

so money and physical attraction do stand for the same things - the things that are most important to the average men and women.

superficiality breeds superficiality. if you judge a woman by her t&a, don't be surprised if she judges you by your d&w.

I dont get it? Lmao...because what you get is so important Ms. "super pessimist all men are pigs" girl?

Again. Money does not equal physical looks and in this day and age women dont need a man to provide for them like they used to so plenty car as much about looks as men do.

Money will attract some women, but for the security aspect, not the sexual aspect. Thats my whole point. We are talking purely sex, not the entire relationship here. Sex is important to, and when it comes to sex looks me a helluva lot to many women.

I dont mind a woman whod judge me by my looks either.

April 21, 2012

Do you consider a woman being slim/fit having greater achievement status than a man being slim/fit?
Is a gf not getting overweight equivalent to bf doing weight lifting?

One is as presumptuous as the other. She could just as easily have stated "Well honey, I hope you don't start losing your hair".

It's not his place to define how she treats her body. While he has the right to no longer be attracted, trying to control someone else's body is creepy as hell.

April 21, 2012

exactly what i meant. that's why DY's analogy makes perfect sense - but don't expect kaylan to get it.

Tell me more

But the 'physical aspect' isn't necessarily what this thread is about. It's about the appropriateness of a man saying a certain thing to a woman at a certain time. We could argue until the cows come home about what the 'equivalent' is, but IMO they are similar (not necessarily completely equivalent) in that both wealth and physical beauty are aspects that are potentially valued in a relationship. So 'is it appropriate for someone to tell their new partner "I hope to god (insert any non-personality-based characteristic here) doesn't change?"'? That, to me, is the question. It doesn't matter what the characteristic is.

The physical aspect is what this thread is about. The OPs guy made a comment about something physical...and it shows just how important physical attraction is to men...and its very important to women as well nowadays. Yes wealth is valued in some relationships but not in the same way physical looks are. So I dont think they are really similar. The only thing you could say makes them similar is that they are factors for some people.

But personality is a factor as well. Would I say personality is similar to physical looks? I mean lets be real. The characteristics of the statement "I hope to god..." arent the same with any inserted factor, because different factors mean different things to a relationship

Again, I don't think there are studies determining whether looks or wealth plays a more important part in the majority of women's sexual/romantic attraction for a man, but it is untrue that wealth plays NO part. You are quoting extremes in your examples. Certainly when one is at the extreme end of ANYthing, it will make them less attractive. Hugh Hefner is a very extreme example - he's what, 80 or something? OTOH, how many women do you think would be sexually attracted to a 25-year-old cute guy who lives on the street off food stamps? I'm pretty sure that guy would get way, way less takers than Hugh.

I said wealth plays little role in RAW SEXUAL ATTRACTION. Absent of decent looks and a decent personality, an ugly rich guy is not going to make women wet. Hes going to make women want him for security. Understand what Ive been saying because you seem to miss that point a lot.

And actually, a 25 year old hot guy whos bumming it will still get sexy women wanting to at least have a fling with him. They wont settle down but will want a fling. Thats my point...the looks make the women want to screw. The money Hefner has does not make women want to screw. Time and time again I have heard about women sleeping around with the "sexy but going no where" young guy because hes not a relationship prospect.

Men do the same thing. Sleep with the hot bad girl, and then settle down with the good wife. Doesnt change that fact that personality and looks play the role in raw sexual attraction way more than security and nurturing skills ever will.

And Ive known some pretty good looking dudes, who did fine with the ladies despite not being loaded. If a guy is good looking and has a body to boot, he will get laid a lot no matter what. And he will get laid because the women crave him sexually. The other guy with money gets laid because the women is viewing sex as a transaction and they get security from sleeping with someone they dont find too attractive. We know who theyd pick if all things were equal...but a good bit of the time women or men will sleep with a person they find hot on the side while holding out for a "good guy/girl"

Being a 'sex symbol' is also not relevant to a relationship. Often people consider others 'sex symbols' but don't want to be in relationships with them.

My point is that looks generate sexual attraction. Wealth wont necessarily do that on its own value. Wealth may factor into dating someone, but it doesnt have the affect of sexual attraction that looks do. Thats my entire point. My entire point has been that you cannot really compare looks and wealth, especially with how many women care about looks nowadays. A man looking for a nurturing wife would be the equivalent of a woman looking for a secure man nowadays in my opinion.

But traditionally women chose men (or, well, their family chose men) for their ability to provide and men chose women for their beauty. You can't talk about tradition without following traditional priorities.

Men didnt only choose for beauty. They chose who would make a good nurturer. But hey if you dont wanna talk about traditions, then lets scrap this whole debate. Because like I said, looks matter to men and women nowadays. Wallets dont equal physical looks like some people seem to still believe. Hot men and women will get laid and have prospective partners regardless of wallet size or nurturing skills.

I do agree that nowadays both men and women are starting to value physical appearance more, but I don't think it's anywhere near equivalent yet. There are plenty of people still mired in the traditional ways.

You'd be surprised. I think a lot of guys and some women will agree with me when I say women are just as visually oriented as men. Ive seen more guys be less scrutinizing about someones looks than Ive seen women. And hell, with how much women scrutinize other women when it comes to looks, how can we ever say women arent very visually oriented. Edited April 21, 2012 by kaylan

April 22, 2012

it's one thing to give backhanded compliments. But, this guy was clearly expressing his admiration for her. But, this forum is clearly more insecure than the average person. I've barely been here, and the vibe I get from here is that no man and no amount of reassurance is good enough. Now I'm beginning to see why certain users are on here. I'm not talking about you in particular.

No worries. I got my issues. I'm human. We all got our issues.

I just dislike conversatoins when people over simply them to "you're just insecure!"

Expressing your admiration for someone is, "You really have a beautiful body. I love your tummy."

Expressing admiration is not, "Wow, I hope for the next 5 years+ you keep this tight body..I mean..I REALLY PRAY TO GOD that you do because I am worried you won't. " ...the likes of that...

April 22, 2012

I am a very visual person if a women im with let herself go then chances are my sexual organs wont work as well with her

Luckily ive been with very fit women conscious about their looks and fitness

Ive only been with one women who got a little chubby,it really turned me off so instead of saying that i pretended i was worried about her health and told her she needs to get in better shape for her well being

she never listened so i bolted

April 22, 2012

The sad thing is you weren't really worried about her health. You were worried about your sexual organs. And when men justify themselves on the back of how "visual" they are, this is primarily what men are saying. That their sexual organs are the most important thing in any relationship over anything else about him or her. That's what is really sad here.

April 22, 2012

The sad thing is you weren't really worried about her health. You were worried about your sexual organs. And when men justify themselves on the back of how "visual" they are, this is primarily what men are saying. That their sexual organs are the most important thing in any relationship over anything else about him or her. That's what is really sad here.

Well put the shoe on the other foot. If we were men, and took care of our bodies how would you feel if you had a spouse or girlfriend who didn't?

The guy in the OP's situation though just sounds a bit awkward in how he expressed himself.

April 22, 2012

Well put the shoe on the other foot. If we were men, and took care of our bodies how would you feel if you had a spouse or girlfriend who didn't?

The guy in the OP's situation though just sounds a bit awkward in how he expressed himself.

The OP said that her man wasn't in the greatest of shape Queen Z.

My belief systems on looks and bodies in relation to sexuality, attraction and media are actually completely different then the stereotyped standard messages that are played up.

While I think men are very visual, I do not think that's all men are. And I think when men ply themselves with justifications of their visualness to excuse certain things, they are actually putting themselves into a narrow box and missing out on a lot of enjoyment they could have. But that's just me. I can't answer your question the way you want me to because I simply don't see it the way you do.

I personally think sexuality and attraction runs deeper, and has the ablilty to run deeper, and is actually more interesting then just the idea of having to uphold a standard "type" for your partners benefit. I just personally think that people hold a very very narrow view of sexuality and conform it to the images they see more then not. And they let their sexuality only be made of that one thing, such as purely using visualness as a stepping stone for all things exy, instead of letting it expand to include the visualness as well as other possible exciting elements that could also be used in a relationship with someone.

April 22, 2012

BigQuestion, I thought you were smart enough to know that 1 + 1 does not always equal 2 between the genders? My mistake.

Not a perfect analogy but I think you are picking it apart to miss the point of it. Putting standards on people you claim to care about and hoping nothing ever changes about them, even their bodies, or money, is unrealistic. Women don't want to be wanted just for when their bodies are good. Now we can talk all day about how men like women with nice bodies but it does not change the fact that women do not want to be wanted for only when their bodies are the perfect little package of whatever a man thinks is attractive. Similiarly, men do not want to be wanted for their money. Women may like men with a lot of money but it does not change the fact that men do not want to be with women that hold strict expectations about his income over him as a person.

Is it easy to maintain your weight? For some more then others. But life happens. Kids come. Parents work all day then have to come home and do household chores. People have to sleep sometime and sometimes, as we see regularly, things go to the wayside. Men and women both get out of shape. Men stop doing all that nice "wooing" they did in the early stages and just want a quick romp, finances take their ups and downs depending on your job, the job market and the stock trade or emergency expenditures. In fairy tale land it's nice when everyone is pretty and rich and can maintain these thigns to a tee. But it's not reality.

By the way, it really doesn't matter if you would dump a woman or not if she was materialistic, that she would leave of her own accord. You are a big supporter of avoiding women that place your value in your money. If a woman displayed more interest in your money then you, and said anything along the lines of, " I hope this doesn't happen to your money", just as this guy is saying, "I hope this doesn't happen to your body," (much more equal equation actually) you would show her the door. Most guys would call her a gold digger. A phrase by the way that average guys over use already which highlights how sensitive men are to be used for their money. It gets applied to women that just want to be taken out for a meal, on a date, by a guy that only makes 50k a year.

You mean how just because I mentioned porn you felt the need to comment on me commenting on porn. You think I am predictable? Look at yourself.

I'm not picking your analogy apart to avoid getting the point of it. I get the point, and I'm saying that I disagree no matter how you phrased it. I don't are

No, I'm not a big supporter of avoiding women that place value on my material wealth. I'm a big supporter of bucking the social convention of being expected to pay money on early dates up until the woman demonstrates a reasonable amount of commitment. I don't quite think it's right to call a woman a gold-digger for wanting to have her first date paid for (unless she literally makes no money; in that case, a guy making 50k is massively wealthy in comparison), but it IS an entitlement that men thankfully no longer have to indulge with every woman. After early dating is over with, I think whatever arrangement you want is fine. My girlfriend and I tend to take turns paying for things, but I've made that clear from the beginning. If a woman actually places value on my material wealth, then she's not very bright, because I'm a law student and thus am in a good amount of debt.

Yes, I understand that people's bodies go through fluctuations due to age and challenging life circumstances. I never denied that. I simply said that I fail to see what's wrong with pointing out that a woman is already in good shape and then hoping that she stays that way. It isn't an unrealistic expectation at all. You're making it sound like staying in good physical shape is some rare, unattainable quality when life gets in the way. I see plenty of people around me who would easily disagree with you. The people in my night-time law classes who work all day and also have families, who manage to not be amorphous blobs, who eat healthy and still manage to find an hour a day to go to the gym, disagree with you.

As usual, you're just looking for a reason to universalize your deep-seated insecurities.

April 22, 2012

Well put the shoe on the other foot. If we were men, and took care of our bodies how would you feel if you had a spouse or girlfriend who didn't?

What if the guy did not 'take care of himself', as is the case of the OP's bf? (I don't agree with the usage of that term, btw, taking care of oneself is so much more than just remaining thin, and having a perfectly flat stomach is not related to that in the slightest, but moving along...)

April 22, 2012

Tell me more
The physical aspect is what this thread is about. The OPs guy made a comment about something physical...and it shows just how important physical attraction is to men...and its very important to women as well nowadays. Yes wealth is valued in some relationships but not in the same way physical looks are. So I dont think they are really similar. The only thing you could say makes them similar is that they are factors for some people.

But personality is a factor as well. Would I say personality is similar to physical looks? I mean lets be real. The characteristics of the statement "I hope to god..." arent the same with any inserted factor, because different factors mean different things to a relationship

I said wealth plays little role in RAW SEXUAL ATTRACTION. Absent of decent looks and a decent personality, an ugly rich guy is not going to make women wet. Hes going to make women want him for security. Understand what Ive been saying because you seem to miss that point a lot.

And actually, a 25 year old hot guy whos bumming it will still get sexy women wanting to at least have a fling with him. They wont settle down but will want a fling. Thats my point...the looks make the women want to screw. The money Hefner has does not make women want to screw. Time and time again I have heard about women sleeping around with the "sexy but going no where" young guy because hes not a relationship prospect.

Men do the same thing. Sleep with the hot bad girl, and then settle down with the good wife. Doesnt change that fact that personality and looks play the role in raw sexual attraction way more than security and nurturing skills ever will.

And Ive known some pretty good looking dudes, who did fine with the ladies despite not being loaded. If a guy is good looking and has a body to boot, he will get laid a lot no matter what. And he will get laid because the women crave him sexually. The other guy with money gets laid because the women is viewing sex as a transaction and they get security from sleeping with someone they dont find too attractive. We know who theyd pick if all things were equal...but a good bit of the time women or men will sleep with a person they find hot on the side while holding out for a "good guy/girl"
My point is that looks generate sexual attraction. Wealth wont necessarily do that on its own value. Wealth may factor into dating someone, but it doesnt have the affect of sexual attraction that looks do. Thats my entire point. My entire point has been that you cannot really compare looks and wealth, especially with how many women care about looks nowadays. A man looking for a nurturing wife would be the equivalent of a woman looking for a secure man nowadays in my opinion.
Men didnt only choose for beauty. They chose who would make a good nurturer. But hey if you dont wanna talk about traditions, then lets scrap this whole debate. Because like I said, looks matter to men and women nowadays. Wallets dont equal physical looks like some people seem to still believe. Hot men and women will get laid and have prospective partners regardless of wallet size or nurturing skills.
You'd be surprised. I think a lot of guys and some women will agree with me when I say women are just as visually oriented as men. Ive seen more guys be less scrutinizing about someones looks than Ive seen women. And hell, with how much women scrutinize other women when it comes to looks, how can we ever say women arent very visually oriented.

I frankly don't see what all this has to do with the thread (I partially agree with some of the things you said, btw)? Do you feel what the OP's bf said is an appropriate thing to say to one's new gf/bf or not? Assuming that their relationship is not intended to be based solely on sexual attraction, but, like most relationships, are based on multiple factors?

April 22, 2012

I'm not picking your analogy apart to avoid getting the point of it. I get the point, and I'm saying that I disagree no matter how you phrased it. I don't are

No, I'm not a big supporter of avoiding women that place value on my material wealth. I'm a big supporter of bucking the social convention of being expected to pay money on early dates up until the woman demonstrates a reasonable amount of commitment. I don't quite think it's right to call a woman a gold-digger for wanting to have her first date paid for (unless she literally makes no money; in that case, a guy making 50k is massively wealthy in comparison), but it IS an entitlement that men thankfully no longer have to indulge with every woman. After early dating is over with, I think whatever arrangement you want is fine. My girlfriend and I tend to take turns paying for things, but I've made that clear from the beginning. If a woman actually places value on my material wealth, then she's not very bright, because I'm a law student and thus am in a good amount of debt.

Yes, I understand that people's bodies go through fluctuations due to age and challenging life circumstances. I never denied that. I simply said that I fail to see what's wrong with pointing out that a woman is already in good shape and then hoping that she stays that way. It isn't an unrealistic expectation at all. You're making it sound like staying in good physical shape is some rare, unattainable quality when life gets in the way. I see plenty of people around me who would easily disagree with you. The people in my night-time law classes who work all day and also have families, who manage to not be amorphous blobs, who eat healthy and still manage to find an hour a day to go to the gym, disagree with you.

As usual, you're just looking for a reason to universalize your deep-seated insecurities.

Sentence in the second paragraph should read "My girlfriend and I tend to take turns paying for things, but I made it clear on LS that my beliefs about spending money on dates applies only to the very early dating process."

April 22, 2012

What if the guy did not 'take care of himself', as is the case of the OP's bf? (I don't agree with the usage of that term, btw, taking care of oneself is so much more than just remaining thin, and having a perfectly flat stomach is not related to that in the slightest, but moving along...)

Agreed, it's the casual hypocrisy that gets to me. If a guy makes his physical appearance the number one priority in his life, then all right, makes sense he would want a woman he knows is committed to a similar path. (Though I hope he's okay with the idea of adoption/surrogate if he wants kids. Easiest way to avoid the body issues women go through is to avoid pregnancy.)

However, if the guy isn't necessarily in shape, what sort of entitlement attitude does he need to have in order to force that attitude onto his girlfriend/wife? It becomes less a "this is what I consider compatible and equal" and more "this is what I feel I deserve." It becomes a power issue over controlling the woman's body, and I find it creepy and suspect.

April 22, 2012

What if the guy did not 'take care of himself', as is the case of the OP's bf? (I don't agree with the usage of that term, btw, taking care of oneself is so much more than just remaining thin, and having a perfectly flat stomach is not related to that in the slightest, but moving along...)

In regards to "taking care of yourself" I was speaking directly about the poster above DY's post at the top of the page. With the OP, her bf sounds more awkward than malicious. But, then again, I wasn't exactly there and I don't know either of them personally. So it's all best guess.

April 22, 2012

The OP said that her man wasn't in the greatest of shape Queen Z.

My belief systems on looks and bodies in relation to sexuality, attraction and media are actually completely different then the stereotyped standard messages that are played up.

While I think men are very visual, I do not think that's all men are. And I think when men ply themselves with justifications of their visualness to excuse certain things, they are actually putting themselves into a narrow box and missing out on a lot of enjoyment they could have. But that's just me. I can't answer your question the way you want me to because I simply don't see it the way you do.

I personally think sexuality and attraction runs deeper, and has the ablilty to run deeper, and is actually more interesting then just the idea of having to uphold a standard "type" for your partners benefit. I just personally think that people hold a very very narrow view of sexuality and conform it to the images they see more then not. And they let their sexuality only be made of that one thing, such as purely using visualness as a stepping stone for all things exy, instead of letting it expand to include the visualness as well as other possible exciting elements that could also be used in a relationship with someone.

Look, there was no particular answer I wanted you to give, I was just posing a question to think about. People who are in shape are usually attracted to others who are in shape. Clearly the OP's situation doesn't fall into this category because she said her bf was somewhat out of shape. Fair enough.

Physically fit people (of both sexes) have more dating options than not so physically fit people. Same goes for better looking people, rich people, etc. Maybe that makes people "shallow" but I think it makes people realistic. Shaming people for their choices is ridiculous though.

Sign In

New boyfriend hopes my body doesn't change?

Recommended Posts

Disenchantedly Yours

fortyninethousand322

Negative Nancy

Negative Nancy

Els

Negative Nancy

Disenchantedly Yours

Art_Critic

Disenchantedly Yours

setsenia

kaylan

threebyfate

kaylan

Disenchantedly Yours

SteveC80

Disenchantedly Yours

Queen Zenobia

Disenchantedly Yours

TheBigQuestion

Els

Els

TheBigQuestion

verhrzn

Queen Zenobia

Queen Zenobia

What's New

My Activity Streams

More...