Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And in addition to that I'd assume it's because that people in general like sex/companionship, something new.
Tiger Woods' wife was beautiful, yet, although I don't know the attractiveness of the women he slept with, I'm sure he slept with women who were "less attractive" than his wife.
One could argue "sex addict," but I think biologically people become attracted to a lot of different things other than "looks." That and an opportunity to "cheat." Which is usually someone around their age; and not necessarily better looking.
I would argue that most men would want a less attractive woman that knew what she was doing, than a supermodel who didn't. If you showed men a picture of who would you rather of course they would say the "most attractive" one, but that doesn't necessarily mean what they would actually do.
Again all of this is just infantile stereotyping anyway based off of some skewed logic proported to be based in biology, while the OP continues to live in their own bubble; ignoring blatant facts to the contrary.
why not? why would they say they want the hotter one then?
we do have to look at it from her point of view......
im a 50 yr old man,,,, i dont think i can do that...
but i can give you a good perspective...
a 24 yr old young lady of today....
has more opportunities than the millions and millions of women before her- this 24 yr old woman
has rights and opportunities her grandmother and her mother and her mother and her mother never had
before the '70's most women were housewives and breeders.......they were dependent on a man..on the husband,
woman of years ago werent independent...had very few options in life- particularly if her man/husband abused her...most women suffered in silence ..its no coincidence divorce rates soared
once women could support themselves in the 80's
women have it better now than at any point in human history...
my neices...... just graduated from college they are nurses....they make good money and have security the rest of their life,,,they can plan and live their own lives....not let lifes events define them,,,they are steering their own ship
they are bright, young, full of dreams...
they will never ever have to be dependent on a man...... or put up with any crap,,,thats why they are going to be particularly choosy about a mate....and not thinking about one for a few years
our history has been filled with disease, wars, abuse, discimination, most women today dont have to deal with any of this
but here's whats happening..... the kids today got coddled .....and are very thin skinned..
everything is about feelings and they wear there heart on their sleeve......allowing others to influence them too much..
there should be one hell of a gratitude of the opportunities they have ..
my son just graduated from college also 24 he is a pharmacist..... he loves it and he is trying to enjoy some years before he gets serious in his late 20's hes been in school most of his life and wants to enjoy life and freedoms
hes always been goal oriented,,,,short and long term..... and feeling good abut the accomplishments
remember appreciate dont expect...be humble and thankful ...not selfish and self-centered
to be a 24 yr old young lady ....she can be and do whatever she wants......this is a luxury and priviledge ...most woman in the world did not have in years past
does "trying to enjoy some years before he gets serious" mean hooking up (casual sex)?
given that your username is "lovehound", you are probably more empathetic than most men. Are your pointer fingers longer or shorter than your ring fingers? I think they would be the same length or longer, indicating a more empathetic mindset. Look up "digit ratio" if interested.
why not? why would they say they want the hotter one then?
Because real life is different than a vacuum and that in my hypothetical I think men tend to have an assumption (biologically or not) that the "more attractive" (in the mainstream Western social consciousness; skinny, big boobs, nice figure) is what they are supposed to find attractive.
When in fact there are a lot of things that contribute to attraction not just "physical beauty."
But also what even is physical beauty?
So you have a woman with a "great body" but an "OK" face (sorry folks I'm trying to make a point that appears clearly obvious to me and this is the only way I know how to make it) how beautiful is she?
Or you have a woman with a "not so great body," but a very pretty face. Again, how beautiful is she?
None of this of course takes into consideration of the personality of the woman and how her demeanor regardless of her physical attributes. And in an ironic twist relegating women to just beauty is more misogynistic than saying all men are dogs.
---------------------
Even after all of that, yes, I would agree that men more so than women value looks (no matter how demonstrably subjective that may be). However it doesn't follow that all men will eventually cheat, or choose a "more attractive" woman over time.
1. Women cheat too. Again, I would argue for companionship.
2. If a man cheats then it may not have anything to do with attractiveness; it could be an alternative companionship, it could be a one time thing, maybe not. The reasons for leaving a relationship can be complex.
3. A lot of men don't cheat.
4. Some men recognize the beauty in others and don't act on their impulses; and/or have a comfortable enough relationship with their current partner to be open about that.
5. Following point 4, some people are in open relationships.
-----------------------
For someone who proports to be rational, yet denies the ability of rationality for others (men) to deny their biological impulses, I guess is misandry after all?
i take back that i said you are witty. that is clearly an invalid analogy. You should have looked up "digit ratio" and all the research done for it in recent years
given that your username is "lovehound", you are probably more empathetic than most men.
I am more empathic because I recognize that male vs. female is a mere roll of the genetic dice. Also the women I have loved I considered my full equals and partners.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldwoman
Yes...and what is your shoe size?
Enough to fit my feet. People who focus on physical attributes are always stuck on physical attributes. People who focus on soul relationships exalt in transcending sexual stereotypes.
What did Blll Clinton's big shoes get him? Sleeping with Hillary every night? I think not.
As a man, I'm not real complicated. I like physical beauty a lot but for a relationship to last the personality must be at least 50% as beautiful. My friend used to say 40% body, 40% personality, 10% face LOL. Point is, men like what they like and no amount of complaining is going to change instinct and human nature. Women do the same thing to me except they typically use success/power/status/money as a criteria factor. Very few men would use money/power/status as criteria for selecting women. It's instinctual and natural, and it's fun to analyze, but no need to get worked up about it.
As a man, I'm not real complicated. I like physical beauty a lot but for a relationship to last the personality must be at least 50% as beautiful. My friend used to say 40% body, 40% personality, 10% face LOL. Point is, men like what they like and no amount of complaining is going to change instinct and human nature. Women do the same thing to me except they typically use success/power/status/money as a criteria factor. Very few men would use money/power/status as criteria for selecting women. It's instinctual and natural, and it's fun to analyze, but no need to get worked up about it.
Good post in comparing male vs. female criteria. Close but not identical.
i take back that i said you are witty. that is clearly an invalid analogy. You should have looked up "digit ratio" and all the research done for it in recent years
For what it's worth, digit ratio is only reflective of pre-natal testosterone, not necessarily post-natal. It has its value as a metric, especially if you look at a broad scope (e.g. population). But it has its limitations.
Also, it is far from just a "testosterone vs estrogen" story. We have big, complex brains that modulate everything. Not to mention the countless other sex steroids. Psychosexual endrocrinology is, in my opinion, a young science.
Back to the topic, humans are potentially transcendent of all "scientific predictions". Because of that big, modulating brain I mentioned. The confounding variables are large and incalculable. Because we're humans.
Last edited by Haksel257; 02-09-2017 at 11:02 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
