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.
I already stated above, and Timber is echoing, that you can tell a lot about a person's qualities based on certain aspects of their looks. These aren't guarantees; this is still a stranger...but we need something to go on. I won't repeat what I already gave as examples as this, as I'm sure you're capable of scrolling back up and reading, rather than glazing past them so that you can hold onto what you want to believe is true. That much is up to you - I can't force you.
But you're completely downplaying looks in cold approaches when it's still at the top of the list.
Sorry, balderdash. This is some sort of visual bias you have. No, just no, LOL.
The "attractive" men who actually do "take care of themselves," and especially, who work out (you're aware there are more overweight men than women, by the numbers, correct?) who are single, that I know, are single because they want to be, and they want to get as many women as they possibly can, so they aren't getting tied down.
This of course means there may be weekends where there is no woman on tap...oh well. Living that lifestyle, you have to constantly be trying to find a new woman, as even those who are hanging on hoping you'll "commit" eventually will drop off when they finally grow a brain. At those times the man appears "single" and is roaming the bar or other venue seeking a woman. Well duh.
Or for a man who really is as attractive as you say (you must mean also socially attractive? It is NEVER just about looks) who isn't a player or what-have-you, he still may just be wary of making a commitment and therefore may not have a girlfriend on his arm. I've seen a whole lot of this too. It's fine and normal and part of the maturation process, IMO. Women overall do still seem more ready at an earlier age (slightly earlier) than men for something larger-scale in this way. But again, this will mean fewer single women because they're ready to commit sooner, not because the world is this cruel place that slants things against men (trying to hold back a guffaw at that thought, but NVM).
But, just sayin' - often what I see is men giving other men passes when they describe looks. "He's bald but he's still an 8 because he has a great job..." or...whatever. Or the guy has a pot belly, but he still has GREAT arms, he's always at the gym! So he's still good-looking. Yet these negatives would NEVER be things they'd give women "passes" for; significant physical flaws knock a woman down immediately from that "very good-looking" category...say, she's the one with the pot belly, or she has bad skin, or she has a large nose, or whatever. So the slanted viewpoint is that there are "more" handsome men than women and that even "less attractive" women "get" men and that "great-looking!!!" men have to settle for "average" women. Yeah no.
Both genders tend to overrate their own because their not sizing them up seeing if there's enough attraction their to possibly want to get intimate with like the other gender is
Sorry, balderdash. This is some sort of visual bias you have. No, just no, LOL.
The "attractive" men who actually do "take care of themselves," and especially, who work out (you're aware there are more overweight men than women, by the numbers, correct?) who are single, that I know, are single because they want to be, and they want to get as many women as they possibly can, so they aren't getting tied down.
This of course means there may be weekends where there is no woman on tap...oh well. Living that lifestyle, you have to constantly be trying to find a new woman, as even those who are hanging on hoping you'll "commit" eventually will drop off when they finally grow a brain. At those times the man appears "single" and is roaming the bar or other venue seeking a woman. Well duh.
Or for a man who really is as attractive as you say (you must mean also socially attractive? It is NEVER just about looks) who isn't a player or what-have-you, he still may just be wary of making a commitment and therefore may not have a girlfriend on his arm. I've seen a whole lot of this too. It's fine and normal and part of the maturation process, IMO. Women overall do still seem more ready at an earlier age (slightly earlier) than men for something larger-scale in this way. But again, this will mean fewer single women because they're ready to commit sooner, not because the world is this cruel place that slants things against men (trying to hold back a guffaw at that thought, but NVM).
But, just sayin' - often what I see is men giving other men passes when they describe looks. "He's bald but he's still an 8 because he has a great job..." or...whatever. Or the guy has a pot belly, but he still has GREAT arms, he's always at the gym! So he's still good-looking. Yet these negatives would NEVER be things they'd give women "passes" for; significant physical flaws knock a woman down immediately from that "very good-looking" category...say, she's the one with the pot belly, or she has bad skin, or she has a large nose, or whatever. So the slanted viewpoint is that there are "more" handsome men than women and that even "less attractive" women "get" men and that "great-looking!!!" men have to settle for "average" women. Yeah no.
Both genders tend to overrate their own because their not sizing them up seeing if there's enough attraction their to possibly want to get intimate with like the other gender is
Interesting thought.
If this is the case, then both are wrong in saying there are "more" attractive people of one gender than the other, so I'm sorry, you still need to cross that complaint off your list.
Interesting slant on the article title since the article goes on to say this is specific to middle-age and above? And that the majority of the increase is among the impoverished?
Is that your dating demographic, low-income at risk women in their 40s and 50s? Just curious. No wonder you're having such disappointment then, I am so very sorry. Maybe shift your target group? Is this the unbelievable and objectionable and just totally unfair discrepancy you see wandering around town on any given Saturday afternoon? Attractive young men with 50-year-old fat Welfare recipients? These attractive young men "with jobs" are going to the Projects to find dates? That's weird. I'd suggest the same for them: shift where you're looking.
Meanwhile, among the 75% (75%!!!!) of overweight men - so, no still not "attractive gym"-types, LOL, come now - a whopping 38% is obese. So okay. Only over a third of men are actually obese, while the majority is still overweight, so nope; there are still not loads and loads of attractive gym guys wandering around being forced to pick fat women, sorry.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 36,989,150 times
Reputation: 40635
Well, if you're a guy and you go to the gym a lot, you're going to be "overweight" most likely. I've been going 6x a week (sometimes more) for about 12 years (and consistently for 17 years), and I'd have to stop going to be not considered "overweight"... I'd need to lose a lot of muscle.
I'm 6' tall with a 34" waist, run ca 15+ miles a week, lift the other days, and I'm almost "obese" according to BMI.
Well, if you're a guy and you go to the gym a lot, you're going to be "overweight" most likely. I've been going 6x a week (sometimes more) for about 12 years (and consistently for 17 years), and I'd have to stop going to be not considered "overweight"... I'd need to lose a lot of muscle.
Eyeball test is better.
Oh come on, Timber.
If you're bulking pretty darned good and lifting very heavy, sure. I think you'll agree that MOST men are not doing this. LOL. Look around you...
We're not really going to go the "oh, men are just considered overweight 'by the numbers' because they're amazingly muscular" route, are we? LOL. AS I said...look around you.
With that in mind, indeed, the eyeball test is what makes the whole "but gorgeous guys have to 'settle' for 'very average' women" whimpery meme (not you, not saying that) obvious overwhelming balderdash. We don't even need the actual numbers to support this, I just find numbers interesting.
As for you, though, good on you for being healthy.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 36,989,150 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerZ
Oh come on, Timber.
If you're bulking pretty darned good and lifting very heavy, sure. I think you'll agree that MOST men are not doing this. LOL. Look around you...
We're not really going to go the "oh, men are just considered overweight 'by the numbers' because they're amazingly muscular" route, are we? LOL. AS I said...look around you.
With that in mind, indeed, the eyeball test is what makes the whole "but gorgeous guys have to 'settle' for 'very average' women" whimpery meme (not you, not saying that) obvious overwhelming balderdash. We don't even need the actual numbers to support this, I just find numbers interesting.
As for you, though, good on you for being healthy.
Oh, I think the BMI is BS for both genders!
One of the most athletic women I know does long distance racing, as in swimming non stop for 2, 3, 4+ hrs and does triathalons all summer, and she's "obese" according to the BMI.
So I don't give much creedance to those "75% of people are overweight" things. It's not what I see, except when I go back to visit Wisconsin. Then I believe it.
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.
