O'farrell Posted October 19, 2012 Posted October 19, 2012 women are so bipolar lol. all the smarter guys I know do horrible with women and either spend all their time in school or just read all day...the body guys get most women in my experience
Hawaii50 Posted October 19, 2012 Posted October 19, 2012 women are so bipolar lol. all the smarter guys I know do horrible with women and either spend all their time in school or just read all day...the body guys get most women in my experience Yeah, but what THEY'RE ALL saying is that they prefer brains, and most preferably, a well mix of both. Your friends are probably lacking socially. That's why I'm touting about this proverbial bell-curve.. It's more than brain and brawn, but it's a good start. 2
Author GirlontheLam Posted October 19, 2012 Author Posted October 19, 2012 as per my recent epiphany, OP, it'll be easier to find a smart guy who is fit than a fit guy who is smart. Hang-out between the gym and the library, maybe?! I usually go or the brains side 80% of the time. I've got many hobbies/habits that attract the brains. This one through me for a loop since he got the chivalry bonus points! Which I am totally a sucker for. 1
HopelessRomantic76 Posted October 19, 2012 Posted October 19, 2012 Eye Candy!! "Connection" can be had with tons of people i have tons of male friends i can talk hours with but because they do nothing for me physically theyre is no romance Lust and physcial attraction is a huge part of a relationship so yes i look for a connection but i also need a guy to make me wet just by looking at him and melt in his arms when his over 6 foot broad shoulders and chest life me in the air like a rag doll and pound the ish out of me :love: Without that its just a friendship
pteromom Posted October 19, 2012 Posted October 19, 2012 So ladies, chime in. Brain candy or eye candy? Definitely brain candy! But - I don't think you should discount Mr. Hot Security Guard just because it is obvious he prioritizes his body. He may be very intellectually stimulating too... keep talking to him and find out!
pteromom Posted October 19, 2012 Posted October 19, 2012 I hear that. I do know some girls that don't like guys who are too brawny, but lean muscle never fails. I'm not very muscular right now, so I do get my words noticed a lot more. But then, it helps that I'm tall (kidding) If I were 20 years younger, I'd be all over you. Not only are you smart, but you are incredibly WISE for your age. 2
pteromom Posted October 19, 2012 Posted October 19, 2012 Oh and of course, there has to be attraction. But there are a very wide variety of men I can find attractive. You know what I've come to learn is more important than looks OR brains? Respect. If I could go back and tell my young self anything at all about dating, that's what it would be: Look for a man who respects you, would never call you names or degrade you, and who really wants to get to understand who you are. 1
ms_daisy21 Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 Brain Candy for sure. I'm a nerdy engineering gal. I have always found intelligence extremely attractive. The most important qualities for me are: 1)Integrity 2)Intelligent 3)Good sense of humor 4)Kind/compassionate Eye candy is an added bonus. Lucky for me I've got a guy that's the whole package. Another engineering nerd to boot =] 2
Disenchantedly Yours Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 I've also always been attracted to intelligent men. However, I suspect how each of us ladies defines intelligence is slightly different. And I am sure we look for other qualities than just intelligence since people are package deals. There are tons of smart guys out there. It's how much a lady appreciates a man's particular brand of smarts.
GoodOnPaper Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 If I could go back and tell my young self anything at all about dating, that's what it would be: Look for a man who respects you, would never call you names or degrade you, and who really wants to get to understand who you are. The problem is that most young men with these qualities are dismissed by women for being "too nice", "boring", "good-on-paper", etc. Personally, I think women adjust their definition of "intelligence" to go along with the level of chemistry that they are feeling with a guy. Eye candy trumps brain candy. I have a science PhD and am a university professor -- if intelligence was really that important to women, I don't think my single life would have been nearly as miserable as it was. If I could, I would gladly go back and trade my book smarts for C grades and social smarts . . .
River Rain Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 Well, preferably some of both! But in all honesty, I'm attracted to eye candy first, I think most men/women are, it's natural. But getting to know a person, they have to have intellect in all aspects of their life for me to have a true attraction. On the other hand, if I'm not physically attracted to a person, I can't imagine kissing them, but beauty is subjective too. It's a wishy-washy answer, it depends on the guy I guess. 1
Els Posted October 21, 2012 Posted October 21, 2012 I've also always been attracted to intelligent men. However, I suspect how each of us ladies defines intelligence is slightly different. And I am sure we look for other qualities than just intelligence since people are package deals. There are tons of smart guys out there. It's how much a lady appreciates a man's particular brand of smarts. Very true, I think. That is why I am bemused by all the men quoting their PhDs and their lack of success with women as 'proof' that women 'all go for eye candy' (quoted below). The problem is that most young men with these qualities are dismissed by women for being "too nice", "boring", "good-on-paper", etc. Personally, I think women adjust their definition of "intelligence" to go along with the level of chemistry that they are feeling with a guy. Eye candy trumps brain candy. I have a science PhD and am a university professor -- if intelligence was really that important to women, I don't think my single life would have been nearly as miserable as it was. If I could, I would gladly go back and trade my book smarts for C grades and social smarts . . . A PhD doesn't guarantee that the holder is especially intelligent, not even the sort of intelligence that is conventionally accepted as 'intelligence' (ie IQ scores). Yes, you'd be statistically more likely to find 'conventionally-intelligent' people if you walk into a room of PhD grads compared to a room full of janitors, but there are plenty of PhD grads who would have failed the entrance test to high-IQ societies. A PhD, in this time and age, mostly denotes tenacity and a leaning towards academic pursuits. And even then, you have the exceptions to the rule (Mike Slackernerny from phdcomics.com anyone? ). And also, nobody said that brain-candy was the only thing required. Sheldon from BBT is amazing brain candy, but if he were real and miraculously interested in me, I wouldn't want him. Imagine living with someone like that! 2
GoodOnPaper Posted October 21, 2012 Posted October 21, 2012 Very true, I think. That is why I am bemused by all the men quoting their PhDs and their lack of success with women as 'proof' that women 'all go for eye candy' (quoted below). A PhD doesn't guarantee that the holder is especially intelligent, not even the sort of intelligence that is conventionally accepted as 'intelligence' (ie IQ scores). Yes, you'd be statistically more likely to find 'conventionally-intelligent' people if you walk into a room of PhD grads compared to a room full of janitors, but there are plenty of PhD grads who would have failed the entrance test to high-IQ societies. A PhD, in this time and age, mostly denotes tenacity and a leaning towards academic pursuits. And even then, you have the exceptions to the rule (Mike Slackernerny from phdcomics.com anyone? ). So all of my education and career success makes me a loser? That's very very hard to accept -- but it is the message I always received from women. Again . . . if I could, I would gladly go back and trade my book smarts for C grades and social smarts . . .
Hawaii50 Posted October 21, 2012 Posted October 21, 2012 So all of my education and career success makes me a loser? That's very very hard to accept -- but it is the message I always received from women. Again . . . if I could, I would gladly go back and trade my book smarts for C grades and social smarts . . . A's work for C's and B's work for the Govt... And yeah, I've already made the conscious decision that more is to be gained through social development than a public school's curriculum.
Taramere Posted October 21, 2012 Posted October 21, 2012 So all of my education and career success makes me a loser? Of course it doesn't. Those things are great accomplishments, but they neither directly lead to with nor preclude attracting people in a romantic way. Women will almost certainly be impressed by your accomplishments, but if you want to attract them sexually and romantically, giving off sexual and romantic vibes will serve you far better than engaging them in a cerebral way will. That's very very hard to accept -- but it is the message I always received from women. Again . . . if I could, I would gladly go back and trade my book smarts for C grades and social smarts . . . Is there any particular reason you can't have both book smarts and social smarts?
GoodOnPaper Posted October 21, 2012 Posted October 21, 2012 Of course it doesn't. Those things are great accomplishments, but they neither directly lead to with nor preclude attracting people in a romantic way. Women will almost certainly be impressed by your accomplishments, but if you want to attract them sexually and romantically, giving off sexual and romantic vibes will serve you far better than engaging them in a cerebral way will. I would hope that it can be a little more wholistic than turning off the cerebral in order to turn on the sexual and romantic vibes -- if not, then I certainly don't have the looks or physique to pull that off. Is there any particular reason you can't have both book smarts and social smarts? Theoretically, no. But like a lot young people, I imagine, I tended to focus on things that came more naturally to me and minimized time on things that were very difficult.
Taramere Posted October 21, 2012 Posted October 21, 2012 I would hope that it can be a little more wholistic than turning off the cerebral in order to turn on the sexual and romantic vibes -- if not, then I certainly don't have the looks or physique to pull that off. I'm not saying you have to turn off the cerebral. I just don't think it makes sense to rely on academic intelligence as a means to attracting others romantically. I think demonstrating intelligence can attract interest, but you would have to follow it up pretty quickly with something a bit more fun and flirtatious. I've no idea what your face or body look like, but I've seen men of all shapes and sizes carry off a flirtatious demeanour. It's really just about being somewhat playful, interested in people and enjoying their company. You don't need to be Brad Pitt to do any of that. 5
freestyle Posted October 21, 2012 Posted October 21, 2012 Looking at the long term,my feeling is that: once you're old & gray, the gray matter, ........is what matters. Being able to talk comfortably, and enjoy each others' intelligence & humor, is what sustains a relationship, IMO. I might appreciate the aesthetics of physical appearance, but it's not enough to attract my attention for more than a moment. I place a much higher value on I.Q., and even more on E.Q. 1
Author GirlontheLam Posted October 22, 2012 Author Posted October 22, 2012 Well, preferably some of both! But in all honesty, I'm attracted to eye candy first, I think most men/women are, it's natural. But getting to know a person, they have to have intellect in all aspects of their life for me to have a true attraction. On the other hand, if I'm not physically attracted to a person, I can't imagine kissing them, but beauty is subjective too. It's a wishy-washy answer, it depends on the guy I guess. I think we all have a different definition of eye candy. Like everyone, I look for some level of attraction. But it really can be as simple as a great smile, being really stylish or being hilarious and witty. I tend to go for "cute" over "handsome." There are of course people who are "super eye candy." And they are "attractive" on all levels. That's usually the last on my list.
threebyfate Posted October 22, 2012 Posted October 22, 2012 (edited) People, primarily men, appear to believe in dichotomies where attraction is a lot more complex than looks or brains. Maybe this is how men think but it's far from how women think. We're a hella' lot more complex. Edited October 22, 2012 by a LoveShack.org Moderator 1
Eve Posted October 22, 2012 Posted October 22, 2012 A bit off both.. He has to know stuff that is useful in real life and be hot. Take care, Eve x
Emilia Posted October 22, 2012 Posted October 22, 2012 So ladies, chime in. Brain candy or eye candy? Both unfortunately. 'Unfortunately' because it's a combination hard to find. My current interest is good looking and he is the curious type too. He is fun and smart and sporty but for enjoyment (board sports) not physique. A great combination, I'm prepared to compromise a lot to have this work out as I realised recently 1
Els Posted October 22, 2012 Posted October 22, 2012 So all of my education and career success makes me a loser? That's very very hard to accept -- but it is the message I always received from women. Again . . . if I could, I would gladly go back and trade my book smarts for C grades and social smarts . . . I don't understand how you could claim to be intelligent and yet derive this from my posts. This isn't a veiled insult, I'm genuinely puzzled.
Disenchantedly Yours Posted October 22, 2012 Posted October 22, 2012 So all of my education and career success makes me a loser? That's very very hard to accept -- but it is the message I always received from women. Again . . . if I could, I would gladly go back and trade my book smarts for C grades and social smarts . . . Elswyth didn't say that at all. But having a good education and career succes doesn't mean you are a good romantic partner. I've dated guys with good educations and successful careers and sometiems they were crap at relationships because they spent all their time inundated in their career. I am NOT saying that's you. Just that good on paper things aren't always good for romantic relationship things. It's not all inclusive. 1
Hawaii50 Posted October 22, 2012 Posted October 22, 2012 So all of my education and career success makes me a loser? That's very very hard to accept -- but it is the message I always received from women. Again . . . if I could, I would gladly go back and trade my book smarts for C grades and social smarts . . . No, you're not a loser for earning Phd, but you're definitely not a winner, either. You're simply a Doctorate., not a doer, but a teacher- of sciences. Go with it You would have had to work very hard to be where you're at. BIG TRADE-OFF. Lots of time, money, and discipline went into your conventional education, but at a calculated cost, your unconventional education. You now lack social skills, sexual exploits, and humor, like a lot of scientists do. Nothing our of the ordinary. The only thing I've noticed that IS out of the ordinary is the spite you seem carry-on with. What I find crazy, Doc, is why/how you're acting like the 20 yr old posting about being "too nice, boring, 'GoodOnPaper.'" 1
Recommended Posts