RecordProducer Posted February 1, 2007 Posted February 1, 2007 I absolutely size men up for a "purpose." Some men are just for a roll in the hay, others are marriage material. ...There goes YOUR theory, RP.I guess there goes my theory! I learned something new tonight. I am actually glad that women like you exist and not all of us are hopeless romantics. Anyhoo, the study is still incorrect because it assumes that ALL women have these two-purpose criteria for men. Most women are like me though. You are also in a different environment. In many areas a woman who has a free sex life is labeled as a slut. Unfortunately, men are not sluts if they act the same. Maybe your behavior is the natural one and ours is a consequence of repression, sexual traumas, social prejudices, fear of rejection, etc.
Pretty Fly Posted February 1, 2007 Posted February 1, 2007 I was on holiday recently with a group of friends and was talking to a girl who went to uni with one of my mates. She was around 30, tall and curvy, with wavy long blond hair and very blue eyes and really easy to get on with. In other words, she is what you may call "attractive". She said she didn't like Brad Pitt or George Clooney and would much rather meet Mike Myers or Jack Black as they make her laugh.
Green Posted February 2, 2007 Posted February 2, 2007 jack black and mike meyers arnt bad looking, I mean bad looking is Lyul Luvitz if I spelled that right or David Spade, Maybe Jims Dad from americain pie, how about some of ron howards brother
Author IWalkAlone Posted February 2, 2007 Author Posted February 2, 2007 Would she be be interested in guys who looked like Jack Black or Mike Myers if they were just average guys with average senses of humor, rather than talented professional comic actors?
Pretty Fly Posted February 2, 2007 Posted February 2, 2007 Would she be be interested in guys who looked like Jack Black or Mike Myers if they were just average guys with average senses of humor, rather than talented professional comic actors? Well, no, the point was not that she found them physically attractive but that she found them attractive because they were funny. However, she also didn't like chocolate, and that's always suspect in a lady
stillafool Posted February 2, 2007 Posted February 2, 2007 There was a time when I would have said women don't marry for looks but "women are a changin". Women are becoming more and more like guys in that respect. Look at all these female teachers screwing around with underage boys. A while back you could only expect that behavior from men. I thinka man's looks and sex appeal has become more important to women that ever before in history.
Pretty Fly Posted February 2, 2007 Posted February 2, 2007 There was a time when I would have said women don't marry for looks but "women are a changin". Women are becoming more and more like guys in that respect. Look at all these female teachers screwing around with underage boys. A while back you could only expect that behavior from men. I thinka man's looks and sex appeal has become more important to women that ever before in history. Any thoughts on the cause? The media?
TheDC Posted February 2, 2007 Posted February 2, 2007 There was a time when I would have said women don't marry for looks but "women are a changin". Women are becoming more and more like guys in that respect. Look at all these female teachers screwing around with underage boys. A while back you could only expect that behavior from men. I thinka man's looks and sex appeal has become more important to women that ever before in history. Yeah well I'm glad I found myself a woman before this trend really set in or I would be in serious trouble
SmoochieFace Posted February 5, 2007 Posted February 5, 2007 I guess there goes my theory! I learned something new tonight. I am actually glad that women like you exist and not all of us are hopeless romantics. Anyhoo, the study is still incorrect because it assumes that ALL women have these two-purpose criteria for men. Most women are like me though. You are also in a different environment. In many areas a woman who has a free sex life is labeled as a slut. Unfortunately, men are not sluts if they act the same. Maybe your behavior is the natural one and ours is a consequence of repression, sexual traumas, social prejudices, fear of rejection, etc. Yeah, the study is 'incorrect' because the results do not jive with YOUR experiences. And exactly how can you generalise women by saying most are like you?
Karma24 Posted February 6, 2007 Posted February 6, 2007 Sure, looks are important but not nearly everything. I hate the sportsy/jock types that are out there. Sure, they look all hot and stuff but their (lack of) personality and Must. Work. Out. mentality totally turn me off. And before you all jump in my sh*t for this statement, I acknowledge that there are exceptions here. Brad Pitt really doesn't do it for me. Actually, I think Nicholas Cage is way hotter. Just something about him. I mean, I don't like the nerdy types either but a guy who is well balanced will do it for me but only if the chemistry is right.
serial muse Posted February 6, 2007 Posted February 6, 2007 Anyhoo, the study is still incorrect because it assumes that ALL women have these two-purpose criteria for men. Argh, sorry to barge in again here, but must.interject.scientific.perspective. The study's results are not "incorrect," nor did it assume anything about any criteria that women might have for men. It wasn't designed that way. Also, nothing was said about judging sexuality, nor was that in any way the point. Here's what happened: data was collected for a range of scenarios based on how women and men felt about face shapes. And the results are as described before. The thing is, there's a big difference between disputing a study's results and disputing the interpretation of those results. And just because there's disagreement over the potential implications of the data doesn't invalidate the data itself. Sure, there can be a sampling bias - for example, I think it's worth noting that the subjects were all university freshmen, and therefore one might question whether men and women aged 18-19 are representative of all age groups. Or one might question whether there is a cultural bias, since the freshmen were all from one university in the midwest (although I don't know the cultural breakdown of the students). But that doesn't mean that the study is "incorrect." Because what they found was true for a representative sample of the university population (of both genders), which is still an interesting and relevant result. Sorry for the soapbox, but this question of correctly interpreting science is such a frustrating problem right now, because scientific issues are increasingly taking center stage in the news, and people are given more access to scientific information than ever before (yay internet) ... but they don't really know what to do with it. What that means is that any politician or lobbyist who wants to discount a study in the general public's mind - even a study that represents the majority opinion of scientists in a given field - simply has to create confusion about it (not hard to do), or recast it in such a way that it appears to say things it isn't saying at all. And in general, people won't just go back and ground-truth the thing for themselves. Sigh. What do they teach them in these schools? /end hijack, sorry.
justagirlforever Posted February 6, 2007 Posted February 6, 2007 Credit goes to Kamille for writing this in another thread, which I am using to start this one: For me, it's attitude that makes a man attractive: that he looks comfortable in his skin, happy, that he smiles a lot, that he has a good sense of humour and can maintain a decent conversation. All that trumps physical attraction... or rather informs who I will find attractive. I completely agree. 100%. I don't have a purely physical "type". Never have had. It's *all* in the body language, brains and chemistry - and the eyes. That's what makes someone attractive for me. But I don't seek out physical types and that's not what attracts me to someone. It's that "je ne sais quoi". The assured confidence (not arrogance). Proud of who they are. The glint in the eyes. That's what does it for me. Always have and always will. THAT said: I do also agree with this: For instance, I just realized that I never dated anyone who was overweight... Perhaps because I'm a bit of a health nut and I instinctively assume that the extra pounds mean this person does not share some of my own health habits (talking 30 pounds + over average weight here, I have dated guys with bellies and lloooove handles). "In general" (note: not always - there are exceptions) someone who's proud of who they are, takes care of themselves, is truly confident, comfortable and content with themselves, will not be grossly overweight. Pardon me if I'm wrong. Beauty and attraction lies in the eyes of the beholder.
Author IWalkAlone Posted February 6, 2007 Author Posted February 6, 2007 Sure, looks are important but not nearly everything. I hate the sportsy/jock types that are out there. Sure, they look all hot and stuff but their (lack of) personality and Must. Work. Out. mentality totally turn me off. And before you all jump in my sh*t for this statement, I acknowledge that there are exceptions here. Brad Pitt really doesn't do it for me. Actually, I think Nicholas Cage is way hotter. Just something about him. I mean, I don't like the nerdy types either but a guy who is well balanced will do it for me but only if the chemistry is right. I never suggested that women would intentionally pick a good looking guy with an obnoxious personality over someone less good looking with a better personality match. But here's waht happens in the real world: You're at a party and there are two guys who seem interested in you. One looks like Nick Cage and the other looks like Jack Black (but without the talent of a professional comedic actor). Jack Black may be a better personality match for you, but you don't pay much attention to him because there's just something about the Nick Cage guy. So you date the Nick Cage guy for a month, and then break up with him because he wouldn't go to your friend's wedding with you because it conflicted with his friends' party to watch the Mr. Olympia bodybuilding competition on ESPN. So where's the Jack Black guy you're really more compatable with? You don't know because you didn't exchange phone number with him, or he won't date you because he doesn't date ex-girlfreinds of guys in his social circle.
Salicious Crumb Posted February 6, 2007 Posted February 6, 2007 I absolutely size men up for a "purpose." Some men are just for a roll in the hay, others are marriage material. And when a decent man sizes you up, if they realize this is what you are like, they will come to just one conclusion....YOU are not marriage material.
Karma24 Posted February 6, 2007 Posted February 6, 2007 And when a decent man sizes you up, if they realize this is what you are like, they will come to just one conclusion....YOU are not marriage material. Oh puh-lease. As if men don't do this too??
Karma24 Posted February 6, 2007 Posted February 6, 2007 I never suggested that women would intentionally pick a good looking guy with an obnoxious personality over someone less good looking with a better personality match. But here's waht happens in the real world... Funny that you chose Jack Black. I can't stand him, even with his "comedic talents" (and I use that term LOOSELY). So no, he wouldn't be a good match. But I understand your point.
Salicious Crumb Posted February 6, 2007 Posted February 6, 2007 Oh puh-lease. As if men don't do this too?? I didn't say they didn't....I don't though. Notice I said "decent man" in the post to which you are referring. I didn't say a "player". But I am responding to the fact that she says she does this.
crosswordfiend Posted February 6, 2007 Posted February 6, 2007 Returning to the spirit of the original question, let's think about this question in a slightly different manner. I think we can all agree that there are many different types of physical looks out there that can be categorized by such attributes as build, stature, eye colour, ethnicity etc... Also, within each category, you'll find the entire spectrum from objectively attractive people to objectively unattractive. I would suggest that looks are more important to men, but that women are much more particular about looks. That is, if you have a room full of attractive women with a variety of looks, men will be interested in most of them. Whereas, women will focus more narrowly on specific attributes and consequently not find many of them attractive. If you have the certain look that a woman is looking for, you don't have to be nearly as attractive to captivate her interest. Anyone else have thoughts on this?
Recommended Posts