News article on how people are noticing that looks don't mean sh*t to women.

[aliasguy]

-
-
-

Why is a women's "range" of suitors necessarily within a limited socioeconomic range?

I've not noted that. I think it's true that women are mostly interested in those lying "above" her, but really , I don't see a big problem in her attracting men of ALL income groups, as long as she's HOT.

-
-
-

 

[edger]

I think it's true that women are mostly interested in those lying "above" her

See this is the part I have a problem with. It's one thing for a woman who's looking to have kids to want a man who will be able to "provide" for her and the kids when they are "vulnerable", but it's an entirely different thing for a woman not to wanna be with a guy because he makes less than her. That is a case of women being so used to men having always made more money than them, that when they come across one that makes less, they feel weird. And this is something they need to break out of, because who cares if he makes less than her..as long as he is able to support the family when she and the kids are in their "vulnerable" state. And to clarify what I mean by "vulnerable state", in case it's not clear to some, I'm referring to when the woman is pregnant and can't work, and when the kids are too young to provide for themselves.

 

[aliasguy]

See this is the part I have a problem with. It's one thing for a woman who's looking to have kids to want a man who will be able to "provide" for her and the kids when they are "vulnerable", but it's an entirely different thing for a woman not to wanna be with a guy because he makes less than her. That is a case of women being so used to men having always made more money than them, that when they come across one that makes less, they feel weird. And this is something they need to break out of, because who cares if he makes less than her..as long as he is able to support the family when she and the kids are in their "vulnerable" state. And to clarify what I mean by "vulnerable state", in case it's not clear to some, I'm referring to when the woman is pregnant and can't work, and when the kids are too young to provide for themselves.

--
-
-
Yeah, I see what you're SAYING, but it doesn't MATTER.

To say that this is something that "they need to break out of" doesn't matter, either. This is what they DO, right or wrong.


They f*ck who they want to f*ck, and they settle down (whatever THAT means) with who they want to settle down with. Your logic won't CHANGE them.

I'll agree that most of what they do flies in the face of logic, and is, for most of us, usually CRAZY, but women are going to do what they are going to DO. No amount of reasoning will alter that.

We can refer to this situation or that situation, but women will do as they will. It doesn't HAVE to make sense, even to THEMSELVES.


Your thinking is clear, edger, and your points are valid, but, unfortunately, clear thinking isn't important to the typical woman.

-
-
-

 

[STR8UP]

I never got the chance to throw this in the other day, but I wanna ask you this:

What about the woman who has absolutely no desire to have kids in life(as I see many women that don't)? Is there still a biological motive at work then for her to look for a man who will provide for her?

Until women grow penises, the answer is YES.

And how many women don't want kids? .05%?

 

[STR8UP]

edger....you seem to point out all of the things that AREN'T important to attracting women, so what exactly IS important?

 

[edger]

Until women grow penises, the answer is YES.

Str8up, you're kidding yourself. There is absolutely zero scientific evidence on that. There has never in the history of the world been an experiment on it. This is something you are pulling out of your head without any solid ground to your claims(or shall I say "your truth", since you seem to be so convinced of it as so). Do you realize that?

And how many women don't want kids? .05%?

A lot more women today don't want kids than ever before.

 

[edger]

edger....you seem to point out all of the things that AREN'T important to attracting women

I thought this particular issue that we've been discussing was important Str8up, the way you make it seem? I sure think it's important.

 

[STR8UP]

Str8up, you're kidding yourself. There is absolutely zero scientific evidence on that. There has never in the history of the world been an experiment on it. This is something you are pulling out of your head without any solid ground to your claims(or shall I say "your truth", since you seem to be so convinced of it as so). Do you realize that?

Ever heard of David Buss? I have a couple of books written by him, but a quick internet search yielded this interesting article

http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/group/BussLAB/pdffiles/prefs_mate_selection_1986_jpsp.pdf

Hypothesis 1: Structural Powerlessness and
Sex Role Socialization
This hypothesis is that women are typically excluded from
power and are viewed as objects of exchange. Because of their
restricted paths for individual advancement, women seek in mates
those characteristics associated with power such as earning capacity
and higher education. Hypergamy, the tendency for women
to marry upward in socioeconomic status, thus composes the
primary traditional channel for upward mobility for women.
Men, in contrast, place a premium on the quality of the "exchange
object" itself, and so value physical beauty (e.g., enhanced
value as a sex object). Physical attractiveness becomes a central
means for designating relative value among exchange commodities.

"Proven" or not, you are seriously blind if you can't see the things that women gravitate toward in a mate, and how they directly tie to a man's ability to provide for a woman.

You have yet to explain to me what women DO seek.....

 

[edger]

Ever heard of David Buss? I have a couple of books written by him, but a quick internet search yielded this interesting article

http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/group/BussLAB/pdffiles/prefs_mate_selection_1986_jpsp.pdf



"Proven" or not, you are seriously blind if you can't see the things that women gravitate toward in a mate, and how they directly tie to a man's ability to provide for a woman.

You have yet to explain to me what women DO seek.....

Str8up, this hypothesis applied to women and men back when women had no opportunity. That isn't the situation any longer as they have just as much opportunity as us now.

And like I've said, I'm not disputing that women are looking for a man to bring something to the table. Even the women(at least those with half a brain) who don't want kids, want a man to bring something to the table, afterall, they don't wanna be the only ones paying the car payments/rent/utilities/mortgage, etc. They want a man that's going to be able to help them.

 

[edger]

You have yet to explain to me what women DO seek.....

I already did. Go re-read the thread, as well as other posts of mine. Not that I'm trying to come off idolizing myself, I'm only speaking from what I've seen and heard(from those who've been there or knew someone who has been there) out there.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

...
A lot more women today don't want kids than ever before.

Even though it's possible that more women are choosing not to have kids it seems to be a really small percentage. So many women still define themselves by being a good mother (as opposed to being a good wife but that's another thread altogether). I can't count how many women I've nexted over the last few years because their main goal (when pressed) was to be a mother as opposed to having a good relationship which could bear children, there's a huge difference.

Perhaps it's more noticable in certain geographic locations. Perhaps in these locations women have other goals which they want to achieve. I think I should move...

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

What I always find funny about "looks" threads is that it's men who are generally more preoccupied with the idea of whether or not looks count for more than achievement when it comes to attraction. This is rarely a topic of discussion for women because it's more or less settled amongst their sex.

Attraction is physical, animal and primal. When two people of the opposite sex (heterosexually) first encounter each other they do a physcial assessment of each other in a fraction of a second. There's no contemplation. In fact it's autonomous - we do this without thinking or trying. We run through a psycho-biological subroutine of qualifiers and information so fast we're not aware of it. Based soley on appearance and presence our subconscious runs through a checklist of comparisons to assess the sexual viability of the other person. This is how we've evolved as a species because it's worked in our biological past and, like it or not it's how we work today.

In the terms of LTRs or pairing off with another individual, then yes, the more esoteric qualities a person possesses do become a factor, but as far as initial attraction, it's physical.

 

[joekerr31]

What I always find funny about "looks" threads is that it's men who are generally more preoccupied with the idea of whether or not looks count for more than achievement when it comes to attraction. This is rarely a topic of discussion for women because it's more or less settled amongst their sex.

Attraction is physical, animal and primal. When two people of the opposite sex (heterosexually) first encounter each other they do a physcial assessment of each other in a fraction of a second. There's no contemplation. In fact it's autonomous - we do this without thinking or trying. We run through a psycho-biological subroutine of qualifiers and information so fast we're not aware of it. Based soley on appearance and presence our subconscious runs through a checklist of comparisons to assess the sexual viability of the other person. This is how we've evolved as a species because it's worked in our biological past and, like it or not it's how we work today.

In the terms of LTRs or pairing off with another individual, then yes, the more esoteric qualities a person possesses do become a factor, but as far as initial attraction, it's physical.

perfect articulation of why looks matter.

its mind boggling that people reject this reality.

 

[STR8UP]

What I always find funny about "looks" threads is that it's men who are generally more preoccupied with the idea of whether or not looks count for more than achievement when it comes to attraction. This is rarely a topic of discussion for women because it's more or less settled amongst their sex.

Attraction is physical, animal and primal. When two people of the opposite sex (heterosexually) first encounter each other they do a physcial assessment of each other in a fraction of a second. There's no contemplation. In fact it's autonomous - we do this without thinking or trying. We run through a psycho-biological subroutine of qualifiers and information so fast we're not aware of it. Based soley on appearance and presence our subconscious runs through a checklist of comparisons to assess the sexual viability of the other person. This is how we've evolved as a species because it's worked in our biological past and, like it or not it's how we work today.

In the terms of LTRs or pairing off with another individual, then yes, the more esoteric qualities a person possesses do become a factor, but as far as initial attraction, it's physical.

That's why I say that you have to meet a woman's criteria for physical attraction, but once you DO meet those criteria, it's other qualities they qualify on that determine who she sleeps with, who she marries, and who she fukks behind her husbands back.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

So many women still define themselves by being a good mother (as opposed to being a good wife but that's another thread altogether). I can't count how many women I've nexted over the last few years because their main goal (when pressed) was to be a mother as opposed to having a good relationship which could bear children, there's a huge difference.

The ironic part of this is that the better a wife/lover a woman is for her husband, the better mother she becomes. I've read studies where the more dedicated a couple is to each other the better adjusted the children actually are due to being in an affectionate and appreciative environement. It's tragic that, as a default, women believe that their first priority should be this selfless dedication to their child at teh expense of their husband when in fact she'd do better and avoid problems by putting him in first place.

 

[ketostix]

What I always find funny about "looks" threads is that it's men who are generally more preoccupied with the idea of whether or not looks count for more than achievement when it comes to attraction. This is rarely a topic of discussion for women because it's more or less settled amongst their sex.

Attraction is physical, animal and primal. When two people of the opposite sex (heterosexually) first encounter each other they do a physcial assessment of each other in a fraction of a second. There's no contemplation. In fact it's autonomous - we do this without thinking or trying. We run through a psycho-biological subroutine of qualifiers and information so fast we're not aware of it. Based soley on appearance and presence our subconscious runs through a checklist of comparisons to assess the sexual viability of the other person. This is how we've evolved as a species because it's worked in our biological past and, like it or not it's how we work today.

In the terms of LTRs or pairing off with another individual, then yes, the more esoteric qualities a person possesses do become a factor, but as far as initial attraction, it's physical.

That's is awesome. This is what I believe female attraction for a male is and how it happens. It's not C+F, negs, SP or other such stuff. It's appearance. What you do after you have met her physical attraction standard and depending by how much you met it, goes to amplifying (not creating) attraction and her interest level.

That's why I say that you have to meet a woman's criteria for physical attraction, but once you DO meet those criteria, it's other qualities they qualify on that determine who she sleeps with, who she marries, and who she fukks behind her husbands back.

The problem is meeting a woman's criteria for physical attraction is not necessarily an easy feat. Also because there's likely to be other guys gunning for her that are just as attractive or more so, the more attractive guy will trump your other qualities. See, I also believe most women, especially since they have financial independence, have a minimum threshold for a man's means too. See Potato's post about most men being close in economic range anyway. This is why I think women tend to sleep with the best looking guy she has to choose from.

The rest of the qualities is just a guy effecting her emotions. Things like SP and her being jealous that you have other women, how expressive and outgoing you are etc, are all things pointing to your value but are essentially her emotional response to aspects like female ego and pride, jealousy.

However I do think women especially as they get older and one's looking to settle down can and will pick a guy she has little to no real attraction for. This is based on interest in a man's provisioning ability, or various other qualities that don't relate to real attraction. These make for lousy, unfaithful gfs.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

The ironic part of this is that the better a wife/lover a woman is for her husband, the better mother she becomes. I've read studies where the more dedicated a couple is to each other the better adjusted the children actually are due to being in an affectionate and appreciative environement. It's tragic that, as a default, women believe that their first priority should be this selfless dedication to their child at teh expense of their husband when in fact she'd do better and avoid problems by putting him in first place.

Exactly. Trying to find a woman who understand why her children should be tertiary on the list of importance behind 1.) herself and 2.) her relationship with her guy is like finding the obligatory needle in a haystack.

It's the exact same reason why it's explained during an airline's safety speech before takeoff says "In the even that there is an emergency where there is a loss of cabin pressure and oxygen masks drop from the overhead, place the mask on yourself first and then your child if you are traveling with one." How else can you take care of a child if you don't take care of yourself first? I cringe whenever I hear a woman profess "My child is my main priority!" I feel sorry for her guy or the guy who ends up dating her.

[rant=on]
Ever wonder why so many go to pot after having children? Sure, they blame it on the major change that their bodies go through during pregnancy, BS! Yes, it explains things during the pregnancy but there is little keeping their bodies in that shape after the pregnancy other than her not having a reason to get back into shape.

You'd think she'd want to get back in shape because it's more healthy for her and would keep her guy feeling attracted to her. Nuh-uh... Her priority is on the newborn and the kid could care less.

And so the downward spiral begins.... Mom focuses her efforts on the little one and dad focuses on providing for them. There's no care given to the relationship between mom and dad, so they begin to grow apart. After a while they get tired of one another but they stay together. Why? "for the children..." Hell, are these two even in a relationship other than the fact that they bore children together?
[/rant]

There's a pattern which people follow tried and true time after time with the same results that other people have had. The funny thing is that time after time, people are surprised when things go down the crapper. Selfless martyrdom tends to leave people by themselves.

 

[azanon]

The ironic part of this is that the better a wife/lover a woman is for her husband, the better mother she becomes. I've read studies where the more dedicated a couple is to each other the better adjusted the children actually are due to being in an affectionate and appreciative environement. It's tragic that, as a default, women believe that their first priority should be this selfless dedication to their child at teh expense of their husband when in fact she'd do better and avoid problems by putting him in first place.

Dead on. As much as my wife loves my son, I'm still #1 to her and she makes that plainly obvious. This is how a healthy family works.

Like finding a needle in a haystack Francisco? Gosh that's cynical, Franciso, to say nothing of being inaccurate as well.

Guys its important to realize that what every you believe (true or not) will be truth for you. The placebo effect is well documented in science, and is very real. What you believe is far more important than reality, where it concerns you.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

...Like finding a needle in a haystack Francisco? Gosh that's cynical, Franciso, to say nothing of being inaccurate as well...
.

Most women define themselves by being a mother, it's their purpose in life. Hell, it's even expected to them by society. Given the "lemming factor" of most people, it's unfortunately the norm. I'm open to seeing proof showing otherwise but looking around at what's happening in most marriages and what happens if the relationship comes to an end, I'm guessing you would have a hard time finding inaccuracies other than the few exceptions.

 

[ketostix]

Well I would say that most women unlike men are incapable of forming bonds of integrity to a man as they are to their child. I've said this before and Str8up agreed that women unlike men are almost incapable of forming familial level bonds of integrity with their partners.