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.
Well then acording to JaG, you are in the bottom, undesired 80%. Sorry. You scored a "no" on two out of five and one you basically can't answer so you are only "yes" on two out of five. "Almost" or "maybe after I lose weight" aren't yeses.
Hmmm.
This is perplexing.
It's perplexing because if you've seen his picture you know he's no '2 outa 5'.
Location: Huntersville/Charlotte, NC and Washington, DC
26,701 posts, read 41,786,605 times
Reputation: 41386
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerZ
No, "the top 20% of men" were the topic of discussion for attraction.
I'm not sure who decided "the top 20%" was determined by the physical only, but that's (part of) why the argument was flawed...heck, damaged beyond all repair from the get-go.
Oh! I see. I mistook your NFL lineman comment. I thought you were saying that was an athletic body (and technically, it is...it's the body of an NFL lineman).
But anyway...so this is why your dating is extremely limited? Because women only look at the physical, ergo there are NO overweight or otherwise non physically perfect men out there who have SOs? Go walking down the street in any busy city and tell me that's true, then get back to us with your assertions about how your dating is limited because you don't have a V-shaped body, with the intimation, naturally, that women ONLY look at the physical.
ALL of this reasoning is flawed, LOL. From the "top 20%" assertion to the "if you don't have a V-shaped body plus four other markers, no woman will date you" ridiculousness. (I mean guys. Really??? LOOK. AROUND. YOU. Sweet cheeses!) Oh geez-whilikers. Just...flawed and so so wrong as far as practical, everyday real-life relationships are concerned.
I was NOT saying that and you know it. I said having all five of those aspects gives you the BEST chance of getting a decent woman. The less of those you have the more odds are against you. THAT is what I said.
Well, fab! And a certain waist-to-hip ratio, youth or the appearance of youth, large eyes, lips of a specific fullness and certain haircolors as well as hair length and even texture (I believe wavy wins out over entirely straight or curly, again, by the numbers) are preferred by a "majority" of men...there are loads of studies to prove it. In practical use, does that mean these are the only women who get partners? LOL. No. If I were to say "the top 20% of women have X traits and are preferred by men...here are studies to prove it!" would that prove...
1. That men ONLY look to the physical in a partner?
2. That women with those exact traits are the ONLY women who will get asked out?
3. That nearly all men will fall into the categories of the top-polled biological markers as far as requirements in a partner?
4. That if a woman can't get a date, it MUST be because she doesn't fall into the top percentage of physical preferences by males?
Both men and women adjust their choices in partners based on their own perceived mate value.
Guys who who are the most successful with women are the ones who have the most characteristics that will appeal to most women.
Physicality is just one set of those characteristics, but the more of those a guy has, the less he will struggle with dating.
Very few women are going to be physically attracted to a short, fat, bald guy with a big nose, hair coming out of his ears, and a beard down to his stomach.
It makes perfect sense that there are physical characteristic in men that the majority of women find attractive. To think otherwise is ignoring reality.
How many men do you know who fit the above description?
Both men and women adjust their choices in partners based on their own perceived mate value.
I'll only ask this one more time as by now, I have to assume it's not that you didn't see the question, it's that you don't want to.
What practical application does narrowing down just the physical have if women don't go for just the physical, as evidenced by the many, many, many, many hooked-up "lower 80%" men wandering around hand in hand with a woman every single day?
Quote:
Both men and women adjust their choices in partners based on their own perceived mate value.
If this is true, then again. What the heck good is that "top 20%" commentary doing anyone...since even women aren't only dating that top 20%? What does that top 20% have to do with...well, anything, really? Besides serving as a fallback for men who can't get dates because of other factors - say, they're angry, they don't like women very much, they don't like to go out and actually meet people, or a host of other factors. But heck, I get that "it's all women's fault - they refuse to go out with anyone but the top 20% of males" is a lot more ego-sparing than reality.
Just A Guy's list may not be true for all women but it gives you the best chance of attracting decent women though nothing is guaranteed.
This is not true and was not my point. Physical attractiveness is only one of the characteristics that women find in terms of being attracted to guys.
There are many non-physical attributes that contribute to attractiveness for most women. These include kindness, assertiveness, sense of humor, intelligence, social awareness, empathy, etc.
These non physical attributes, when combined with physical assets will determine a guy's overall mate value.
Well then acording to JaG, you are in the bottom, undesired 80%. Sorry. You scored a "no" on two out of five and one you basically can't answer so you are only "yes" on two out of five. "Almost" or "maybe after I lose weight" aren't yeses.
Yet haven't you said you do fine in the dating world? Weird, eh? I thought women were hive mind drones who mindlessly respond to a specific set of "top" markers and otherwise shun and turn away poor Mr. Lower 80 in slack-jawed response to biology and their pulsating ovaries, as well as stupidly following what society deems the correct rules. I thought the "code had been cracked" by men who are so much smarter than we women are and who know what we want MUCH more accurately than we ourselves know. What happened there? How very odd. You should be entirely dateless and digging into Wordpress creating your own lonely manosphere blog as we speak.
Hmmm.
This is perplexing.
Quite perplexing
It just doesn't add up.
We'll just have to go with a couple of theories.
Theory A: There is more to attraction than looks (Thanks LondonCowboy)
I was NOT saying that and you know it. I said having all five of those aspects gives you the BEST chance of getting a decent woman. The less of those you have the more odds are against you. THAT is what I said.
Ergo, the list is all but useless. (Or maybe we can skip the "all but" part?) Since you're NOT saying it all falls to the physical. This, you admit. Right?
And what is a "decent" woman? One who judges men on five physical traits? That's a decent woman? LOL.
This thread has taken a sharp turn into Crazytown, first stop: Denialville.
I'll only ask this one more time as by now, I have to assume it's not that you didn't see the question, it's that you don't want to.
What practical application does narrowing down just the physical have if women don't go for just the physical, as evidenced by the many, many, many, many hooked-up "lower 80%" men wandering around hand in hand with a woman every single day?
Nobody (men even more so than women, because men are even harsher on this than women are) should be focusing only on this area. However, developing the most attributes that are attractive to the opposite sex will make a person more successful in finding a partner.
It just makes sense to focus on developing physical attributes (as well as the non-physical ones) because they are one of the characteristics that determine attractiveness to the opposite sex. That is one of the reasons a person would show up for a date dressed appropriately with good hygiene and cleanliness.
Knowing what women are attracted to will help any guy.
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.
Oh geez-whilikers. Just...flawed and so so wrong as far as practical, everyday real-life relationships are concerned.
