Women have less variety of taste in men.

[Caius Ballad]

Men have tons of different women compared to women's taste in men. Most girls boringly go for the same predictable tall alpha status guy or the beta male slave.

 

-Short, fat, tall, you ladies will find a man.

-Short, skinny or a omega male NOT ONE female will notice you exist.

 

-Go to fetish sites you'll find over 100 different crazy thing men like.

-Go to a fetish site for women and you'll find the generic tall dark and handsome guy. Women are slaves to their instinct to go after the same old alpha primitive guy or the stereotypical beta.

 

Sadly guys, the only why to get women is to be alpha or beta. You can NOT be yourself.

[udolipixie]

Going by research gals have more variety than guys as guys agree on what's hot while gals don't (Dustin Wood Journal of Personality and Social Psychology).

 

Going by my experiences gals have varying tastes with some similarities while guys are grouped with set preferences.

 

Different experiences on short and skinny guys not finding one gal interested. Mine have been that many gals notice skinny guys exist preferring lean or lanky over built or fat and some gals notice short guys I know one who states she finds short guys tend to have more attractive faces.

 

Bit ironic to me that you state gals are slaves to their instinct when some studies suggest that a guy's instinct is to spread his seed with multiple gals.

 

I disagree that the only way to get a gal is to be an alpha or beta as a guy has the option of escorts, prostitutes in legal areas, mail order brides, and areas where gals vastly outnumber guys. I doubt getting a gal will be a concern for guys in future generations in my country, America. Likely there will soon be robots and human clones with robotic brains as it seems many American guys are upset that gals aren't a sexual resource to be divided equally amongst guys obligated to dole out sex and relationships.

[d'Arthez]

Going by my experiences gals have varying tastes with some similarities while guys are grouped with set preferences.

If you were a man, you'd argue exactly the opposite, simply because your interaction patterns would be different. It is very misleading to generalize from one's own experiences and pretend they are applicable to all men / women.

[zengirl]

If you were a man' date=' you'd argue exactly the opposite, simply because your interaction patterns would be different. It is very misleading to generalize from one's own experiences and pretend they are applicable to all men / women.[/quote']

 

That's true, but as she said, studies show that what women find the most 'attractive' varies more than what men find the most 'attractive' physically. Studies show that individual women have narrower bands of attraction, but that women as a whole have a wider variance, whereas what is attractive to men is less likely to be as unique to the individual but individual men have wider bands of attraction.

 

At any rate, I've seen plenty of fat men and skinny men with women, so the OP's post is a fail. Obviously there are less fetish sites for women in general, as sexual fetishes on the internet is far more a male way of expressing sexuality. That's socialization at work. Women aren't socialized to be as overtly sexual. Women aren't really as into porn as men, in general. Not nearly.

[Oxy Moronovich]

That's true, but as she said, studies show that what women find the most 'attractive' varies more than what men find the most 'attractive' physically. Studies show that individual women have narrower bands of attraction, but that women as a whole have a wider variance, whereas what is attractive to men is less likely to be as unique to the individual but individual men have wider bands of attraction.

 

At any rate, I've seen plenty of fat men and skinny men with women, so the OP's post is a fail. Obviously there are less fetish sites for women in general, as sexual fetishes on the internet is far more a male way of expressing sexuality. That's socialization at work. Women aren't socialized to be as overtly sexual. Women aren't really as into porn as men, in general. Not nearly.

Show me these studies or what you're saying is hogwash.

[udolipixie]

If you were a man' date=' you'd argue exactly the opposite, simply because your interaction patterns would be different. It is very misleading to generalize from one's own experiences and pretend they are applicable to all men / women.[/quote']

Toss up on whether I'd argue the opposite as many guys I know have my experiences stating they can have no idea what gals what because they all what different things while guys tend to want the same thing or things.

 

Nowhere did I state, imply, or suggest my experiences were applicable to all guys/gals. Seems the only misleading done here is by you if you're suggesting I've done so.

[d'Arthez]

udolipixie, I did not state your views were misleading. I merely stated that taking one's own experiences as a vantage point often leads to misleading conclusions.

 

I have my doubts about studies on such matters, since they often implicitly assume outdated gender roles - and to a certain extent they are measuring gender ideals more than what people find attractive. There are a lot of social desirability mechanisms in place, both in answering questions, as well as "normalizing" attraction to certain types of men and women.

 

Even those men and women who do not buy into the narrowly defined ideals of physical attraction, get defined by them. Our own dating options get defined by them, because a lot of men and women make many assumptions about what the other sex ought to be attracted to.

 

Caius, I actually am successful in forming and maintaining friendships with people of both sexes and relationships. Can you say the same? Anime characters do not count BTW.

[ohmygoshistalk]

hmm

why do some men go for the really hot girls and then they get mad at all girls when the hot girl rejects them?

some men go for girls who arent equal with their looks..it goes the same for girls but girls usually dont approach a good looking man even if they are equal in looks.

i think this is what constitutes almost 90% of anger, hostility, pessimism against women/relationships..going for someone who is not equal to them in terms of social status or looks..

there is a hot or not rating website, if you really wanna know and if u dare accept criticism then put ur pic up there. i personally wouldn't but then again i really lost interest in dating handsome men when i reached past 25 years old. now i care more about personality, intelligence..i really needed someone who i could talk to,not someone who just looks pretty.

Edited June 9, 2012 by ohmygoshistalk

[udolipixie]

udolipixie, I did not state your views were misleading. I merely stated that taking one's own experiences as a vantage point often leads to misleading conclusions.

 

I have my doubts about studies on such matters, since they often implicitly assume outdated gender roles - and to a certain extent they are measuring gender ideals more than what people find attractive. There are a lot of social desirability mechanisms in place, both in answering questions, as well as "normalizing" attraction to certain types of men and women.

 

Even those men and women who do not buy into the narrowly defined ideals of physical attraction, get defined by them. Our own dating options get defined by them, because a lot of men and women make many assumptions about what the other sex ought to be attracted to.

 

I know you didn't state that my views are misleading hence why I put 'if you're suggesting'.

 

Quite unsure how the study I reference was implicitly assuming outdated gender roles when it asked the gals and guys what they found attractive and unattractive.

 

Bit curious as to what studies have you noted that implicitly assume outdated gender rather than measure what people find attractive. Most of the studies I know survey the participants on his/her thoughts.

[d'Arthez]

I know you didn't state that my views are misleading hence why I put 'if you're suggesting'.

You are implying that I am suggesting your views are misleading. Perhaps a bit of semantic mix up.

Nowhere did I state, imply, or suggest my experiences were applicable to all guys/gals. Seems the only misleading done here is by you if you're suggesting I've done so.

 

Bit curious as to what studies have you noted that implicitly assume outdated gender rather than measure what people find attractive. Most of the studies I know survey the participants on his/her thoughts.

Thoughts is the keyword here. Those thoughts are formed within a certain society. And thoughts on attraction does not equal actual attraction. It is reflection on attraction - if we have to enunciate what we see or experience, we are already falsifying the experience. It is a philosophical problem of epistemology that psychology refuses to address.

 

People's ideals are to a certain extent shaped by things like media, gender representation, role models such as parents, members of your family, community, etc.., and undoubtedly there is a genetic component to it as well. Many of these factors are beyond our conscious awareness.

 

There are tonnes of biases that are often poorly accounted for in psychological research. Hence, what is measured in part is not so much what people really feel is attractive, but rather an ideal or subset of ideals that people grow up with. These two may coincide, but that is certainly not necessary. I would argue that to an extent you are measuring what people think they ought to consider attractive.

[ThaWholigan]

udolipixie, I did not state your views were misleading. I merely stated that taking one's own experiences as a vantage point often leads to misleading conclusions.

 

I have my doubts about studies on such matters, since they often implicitly assume outdated gender roles - and to a certain extent they are measuring gender ideals more than what people find attractive. There are a lot of social desirability mechanisms in place, both in answering questions, as well as "normalizing" attraction to certain types of men and women.

 

Even those men and women who do not buy into the narrowly defined ideals of physical attraction, get defined by them. Our own dating options get defined by them, because a lot of men and women make many assumptions about what the other sex ought to be attracted to.

 

^^^This.

 

OP's rants remind me of my time on loveshy.org

[zengirl]

Show me these studies or what you're saying is hogwash.

 

There are more, but I was referring to the study already cited in-thread, which I also know. I'm not going to look links up at the moment but one study is already cited here. Even the OKC stats, which aren't 'studies,' show the same thing: Men are much more likely to narrowly go after the same set of women and have common tastes than women are.

[udolipixie]

You are implying that I am suggesting your views are misleading. Perhaps a bit of semantic mix up.

 

I stated you're the one doing the misleading if you're suggesting I posted that my experiences are applicable to all guys/gals. Perhaps a bit of looking at the latter half:

Seems the only misleading done here is by you if you're suggesting I've done so.

 

Thoughts is the keyword here. Those thoughts are formed within a certain society. And thoughts on attraction does not equal actual attraction. It is reflection on attraction - if we have to enunciate what we see or experience, we are already falsifying the experience. It is a philosophical problem of epistemology that psychology refuses to address.

 

People's ideals are to a certain extent shaped by things like media, gender representation, role models such as parents, members of your family, community, etc.., and undoubtedly there is a genetic component to it as well. Many of these factors are beyond our conscious awareness.

 

There are tonnes of biases that are often poorly accounted for in psychological research. Hence, what is measured in part is not so much what people really feel is attractive, but rather an ideal or subset of ideals that people grow up with. These two may coincide, but that is certainly not necessary. I would argue that to an extent you are measuring what people think they ought to consider attractive.

What one thinks is attraction may be formed by what that person thinks is attraction. I disagree that enunciating what is seen/experienced means falsifying the experience as sometimes what's stated is the truth. When a gal states she's most attracted to blonde guys it may not be from society or what she thinks she ought to consider attractive rather what gets her hot.

 

Seems your argument relies on the mindset that people generally can't say what they find attractive as that's society, the media, gender representation, or role models speaking or falsifying their experiences to what they think they should find attractive. Toss up on whether that's a general truth.

[d'Arthez]

udolipixie, you keep on insisting that I implied something that you did not imply, nor stated that you implied. Hope you enjoy that. By putting the if in, you are implying that I implied something of the sort. Not too complicated to understand, is it?

 

You are completely missing my points, and it is pointless for me to keep on arguing.

Edited June 9, 2012 by d'Arthez

[somedude81]

Men like tall girl, men like short girls, men like skinny girls, men like fat girls, men like girls with big boobs, men like girls with small boobs, men like girls with big ass, men like girls with small ass, men like really pretty girls, men like plain girls.

 

Girls like tall and fit. Only variance seems to be if they prefer pretty boy or rugged man. Of course both are good looking in their own way.

[udolipixie]

udolipixie' date=' you keep on insisting that I implied something that you did not imply, nor stated that you implied. Hope you enjoy that. By putting the [b']if[/b] in, you are implying that I implied something of the sort. Not too complicated to understand, is it?

 

You are completely missing my points, and it is pointless for me to keep on arguing.

For me I'm not insisting that you implied something as I already stated you didn't. By putting 'if' I was stating the possibility not putting if would be insisting you implied something. :p

 

I do argue it's pointless for you to keep on arguing as your stance to me seems wobbly. Quite unsure how I'm missing your points:

You: doubt studies since they often implicitly assume outdated gender roles - and to a certain extent they are measuring gender ideals more than what people find attractive.

 

Me: how are they assuming outdated gender roles when they ask the participants thoughts on what they're attracted to and not.

 

You: their thoughts are formed by society and shaped by media, gender representation, and role models. To enunciate their thoughts is to falsify and I would argue that to an extent you are measuring what people think they ought to consider attractive.

 

Me: Your argument relies on the mindset that people generally can't say what they find attractive and toss up on whether that's a general truth.

[bentnotbroken]

Zengirl you are a female so it's only natural you agree with all things female and beta males point of view. All women are of herd mind.

 

 

Thanks for my laugh of the day:laugh::laugh:

[d'Arthez]

I'll give it a final shot.

Quite unsure how I'm missing your points.

 

Let's try again. I'll skip the sociological bit.

 

Anyone who has studied Psychology 101 knows there is a difference between what we can express and the forces that guide our behaviors. People often think they behave wholly rational, when they are actually behaving like narcissistic pricks for instance. To them, and them alone, their behavior is wholly rational - but I think you'd be hard pressed to call that behavior healthy, or rational if you look at it from a distance: highly narcissistic behavior is often seen as dysfunctional. I doubt you anyone would argue that whatever an individual thinks is rational, and that one's thoughts can be a yardstick of rationality in the world.

 

You can look at people in relationships, and you will see something similar: people think they are doing one thing, but are in fact doing another in a lot of cases. Dysfunctional communication is but one of many examples of the fact that there may be a difference between what people think they do and what they actually do.

 

Granted those examples are a bit more complicated than deciding between two pictures which one is more attractive than the other - and even that has been shown to be dependent on many factors, such as a woman's cycle. I doubt women consciously think "God I am ovulating! Give me alpha male pictures!" Nope. But that does not stop them from having a preference for pictures of more masculine men at such a time. Priming men with pictures of large chested women will have effects on findings as well.

 

There are many factors that contribute to our almost constantly changing perceptions of what is attractive, and which cannot be reasonably accounted for in research - you cannot isolate culture from human experience. That is why psychology is rife with all kinds of biases, that seek to explain participants' behaviors when they are answering questions for instance. Not everyone will be affected in the same way.

 

There will some disparity between what people think they find attractive and what they actually find attractive (I did not argue anything else).

 

This is not purely a language game. It is an epistemological issue. It is no coincidence that Kant thought that Psychology as a science was impossible. The difficulties can even be traced in the history of Psychology. The behaviorism school of thought sought to deal with the problem of human subjectivity by focusing on the behaviors of people, and not dealing with the human mind (unlike its predecessors which relied heavily on introspection). Psychoanalysis and psychology have had a very uneasy understanding to say the least. Cognitive psychology comes with yet another set of problems to understand human behavior.

 

If you dig deep enough there will be plenty of flaws in the research models of whatever branch of psychology you look at. One of the reasons psychology has not achieved that much in comparison to other human sciences is precisely the professional blindness to methodological shortcomings - time and again.

Part of the problem can also be contributed to the complexity of human behavior; different motivations can lead to the same outcome, and the same motivation can lead to different outcomes.

 

One thing that is often forgotten that most research participants are psychology students. Hardly representative of the whole population. This, for instance, has been shown to be a big problem in studies on male aggression.

[MissBee]

When I consider taste in men...I don't consider only superficial things like how a man looks.

 

My taste in men is predictable, in that many of the men I've dated have certain similar non-physical qualities about them....but they don't all look alike.

 

I can be attracted to different kinds of looks. All of my exes were handsome, but they don't look anything like each other. They are handsome in their own way. I am more invested in what a man brings to the table outside of looks and I don't blindly chase after a certain look.

 

I have lots of female friends and we don't all have the same taste in men. If all women liked the same thing, then we'd all be attracted to the same types of men. We aren't. And again, it is not only about looks, but other traits as well. Variety is the spice of life, there is someone for everyone, no matter how you look, someone will like you. Fat, skinny, short, tall, gorgeous, plain, rich, poor....all kinds of men and women that fall in these categories date, have sex and marry and live happy lives.

 

American society in particular has an image of the ideal man or woman, that many normal people don't fit. Most people are astute enough to differentiate between those people and everyday people. You can't stop people from being superficial or from being hung up on a certain look...I know guys who only like girls who look a certain way and women who like men who look a certain way....that's their problem...it doesn't stop the world from spinning and again, doesn't change the actual reality that normal, everyday people who come in all shapes, colors and sizes, marry, date and have sex.

 

I don't care to be the ideal woman or a woman every single man wants...I can't be. I don't care to be. No one will be EVERYONE's cup of tea. The woman I am, physically and otherwise, is a match for some men and they date me and I date them and it works out....sooo that's what matters!

Edited June 9, 2012 by MissBee

[udolipixie]

I'll give it a final shot.

No need I got your point and my opinion is that your argument relies on something I find wobbly the mindset that people generally can't say what they genuinely think and act in accordance with which is a toss up for me on whether that's a general truth.

 

I do agree that studies are hardly representative of the whole population hence why to me studies are tidbits of information not the rule. Bit curious if you're the type to use population size makes it moot for studies on matters you dislike.

[d'Arthez]

No need I got your point and my opinion is that your argument relies on something I find wobbly the mindset that people generally can't say what they genuinely think and act in accordance with which is a toss up for me on whether that's a general truth.

We'll see what you think in 10 years time .

[Toots]

I like really clever guys. They're often skinny. I don't like Hollywood looking guys. If they can't hold a decent conversation about European philosophers I'm not interested in taking my clothes off.