U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Relationships
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 07-16-2019, 06:28 AM
 
Location: USA
18,080 posts, read 8,962,215 times
Reputation: 13540

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThisTown123 View Post
That's because men are willing to overlook flaws more so than women. Basically, men aren't as picky as women. But hey, if you're into someone that's one-step closer to being diabetic, knock yourself out.
That's not true at all. Men can be very superficial, and picky especially about looks. Even more than women in many regards.

 
Old 07-16-2019, 06:33 AM
 
Location: Brentwood, Tennessee
43,507 posts, read 42,030,819 times
Reputation: 83616
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThisTown123 View Post
Then they would complain how they can't meet any women. Since they were my buds, I suggested to take it down a notch, seriously, and date their equals in looks.

Usually these are chronically single people whose friends and family have suggested to them at least once that their friends need to be reasonable when it comes to dating. It's not settling either, it's being realistic.

They usually wind up complaining, "Why can't I meet anyone", and I'm thinking, "You've done it to yourself".
Well, this is certainly the pot calling the kettle black.

You're not even "being realistic." What you're doing is taking a personal preference ("No fat chicks!") and turning it into a character flaw. Your belief in leagues, with the most "privileged" at the top, conveniently assumes that while YOU may not be at the top you certainly aren't at the bottom with all the fat chicks. (And "dudes," yes, of course, let's keep our prejudices "equal.")

The stupid idea of leagues is based on the idea that beauty is objective and that people who aren't conventionally attractive should just take what they can get.

In reality, there's no such thing as aiming too high because, in fact, no one is higher than anyone, something of which the "chubby girl" reminded you recently. She may not be the physical type you like, but she's a person with feelings and preferences just like you.

Turns out that, to her, YOU are the "chubby girl." So just be thankful for what you can get. Right?
 
Old 07-16-2019, 07:30 AM
 
2,060 posts, read 562,628 times
Reputation: 1328
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilot1 View Post
That's not true at all. Men can be very superficial, and picky especially about looks. Even more than women in many regards.
True, men can be just as superficial, but statistically, women are much more so. This is proven by how certain dating apps have been geared in favor of women, ie - Bumble and the changes made over at OK Cupid.

In response, dating apps like Bumble, in which women are the prime-movers of any interaction, have sprung up, furthering the stereotype that women are pickier than men.

There are tons of articles out there touting that women are much more pickier than men. They have stemmed it down to biological means that since they are the ones that get pregnant, they think they have to be. So there's that.
 
Old 07-16-2019, 08:09 AM
 
7,508 posts, read 2,960,627 times
Reputation: 12445
Oh! The Men’s Playbook. A very reputable source for confirmation bias TT.
If you read the article, they aren’t even talking about appearances.
I noticed: age, education, just general markers for a good mate. Per individual. Not abs. If women are pickier in that aspect, then thanks for the compliment.
 
Old 07-16-2019, 08:24 AM
 
Location: Brentwood, Tennessee
43,507 posts, read 42,030,819 times
Reputation: 83616
Quote:
Originally Posted by RbccL View Post

Oh! The Menís Playbook. A very reputable source for confirmation bias TT.
I love how those sites always say they are for "the modern man." Maybe they mean it ironically.
 
Old 07-16-2019, 08:29 AM
 
Location: Colorado
11,950 posts, read 7,352,729 times
Reputation: 21472
Well, women also have some business being "pickier" than men because if a man's got 100 lovers in his past who did not wind up becoming a wife, any of 'em, then he's a stud. If a woman has the same, then she's got 100 "failed relationships" or "baggage" or she's "easy" or whatever, there are endless pejoratives. Men are rarely shamed for being experienced. Women are often shamed for being experienced. At least in theory.

I'm actually surprised sometimes at how little judgment I have received. It's truly only been a few people, and it's usually been because of their own BS toxic, angry feels. I mean my ex sure calls me names, but hey, I dumped him and now he can't get laid. So I guess he's got a right to be salty about it.

But the idea that women should not have too many partners in her history, well, it's out there...it's a thing...we've got it lurking in the background of our brains at least. And I'm always disappointed at how many women think it's a bad thing when a man is a virgin (I disagree, but whatever.)

So given that fact, how on earth is a woman supposed to be this proper thing ya'll think she ought to be, other than to be "picky?" If we gave more guys chances, we'd have more partners in our life histories, that's all. You seem to make the very silly assumption that if we just gave you a chance it would certainly work out and be a happily ever after situation, and that is really rare. No, odds are you'd just be another notch on a bedpost and we're not supposed to have too many of those. So. Picky. If you have ever judged a woman for having too many partners, then you are part of the cultural mechanism that keeps us that way. Deal with it.

As for attraction and looks and stuff, I wish people would accept just how incredibly subjective it is. Are there people who are just...unfortunately ugly? Yeah. But the ugliest woman I've ever encountered, and it wasn't just a matter of her weight, she looked like something that would attack you in a D&D campaign armed with a spiked club, and her teeth looked like Stonehenge or something, she was freaking rough...yet she had a kid. Somebody went there. *shrug* And the tremendous, ridiculous, huge huge majority of people are somewhere in the broad spectrum of normal-ish. Not ugly, not supermodels. Just people. Yet among that number, each of us will find some attractive and some not s'much. So what?

There are guys I'm not attracted to, but that does not mean they're ugly. They just are not my type. There are certain phenotypes, face shapes, coloration of skin and hair (I'm not that into the ruddy/pale/5-minute-sunburn with blonde or gingery hair, northern European thing for instance.) Some people have a natural scent that turns me on, some have one that turns me off. But what displeases me won't bother some other woman. My perception does not rank someone as more or less objectively desirable. And if you think that yours does, I'd like to ask you to examine the ego in that. Who the hell do you think you are?? A judge on some grand panel of non-consensual beauty pageantry, in which all are forced to compete? Get over yourself!
 
Old 07-16-2019, 08:29 AM
 
2,060 posts, read 562,628 times
Reputation: 1328
Quote:
Originally Posted by RbccL View Post
Oh! The Menís Playbook. A very reputable source for confirmation bias TT.
If you read the article, they arenít even talking about appearances.
I noticed: age, education, just general markers for a good mate. Per individual. Not abs. If women are pickier in that aspect, then thanks for the compliment.
Hell, all I need to google is, "Are women more pickier than men" and you'll come up with a good chunk of articles. It is a given that eduaction and some of the necessities that most all single people would like in a partner, ie - loves to laugh, a nice guy, educated, hold a convo."

But then are the ones that go beyond that like, must be 6 feet tall, even though she's onl 5.1".

Dudes can be just as bad as well. I had 2 male friends that stopped dating latina women because they have tempers. lol I know a guy that would never date a woman named "Rosemary" because he had an ex named Rosemary. I was like "dude, seriously?"

This taken for "Settle for Mr Good Enough"

https://youtu.be/z0wxSmrs5fs

It's funny how the gal wants a guy with a "one syllable name" lol Of course she's a youngin', the older woman in the video was like..."Even no hair on his head isn't much of dealbreaker"

Of course, age difference probably changes the person's outlook in what they seek.
 
Old 07-16-2019, 08:32 AM
 
2,060 posts, read 562,628 times
Reputation: 1328
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonic_Spork View Post
Well, women also have some business being "pickier" than men because if a man's got 100 lovers in his past who did not wind up becoming a wife, any of 'em, then he's a stud. If a woman has the same, then she's got 100 "failed relationships" or "baggage" or she's "easy" or whatever, there are endless pejoratives. Men are rarely shamed for being experienced. Women are often shamed for being experienced. At least in theory.

I'm actually surprised sometimes at how little judgment I have received. It's truly only been a few people, and it's usually been because of their own BS toxic, angry feels. I mean my ex sure calls me names, but hey, I dumped him and now he can't get laid. So I guess he's got a right to be salty about it.

But the idea that women should not have too many partners in her history, well, it's out there...it's a thing...we've got it lurking in the background of our brains at least. And I'm always disappointed at how many women think it's a bad thing when a man is a virgin (I disagree, but whatever.)

So given that fact, how on earth is a woman supposed to be this proper thing ya'll think she ought to be, other than to be "picky?" If we gave more guys chances, we'd have more partners in our life histories, that's all. You seem to make the very silly assumption that if we just gave you a chance it would certainly work out and be a happily ever after situation, and that is really rare. No, odds are you'd just be another notch on a bedpost and we're not supposed to have too many of those. So. Picky. If you have ever judged a woman for having too many partners, then you are part of the cultural mechanism that keeps us that way. Deal with it.

As for attraction and looks and stuff, I wish people would accept just how incredibly subjective it is. Are there people who are just...unfortunately ugly? Yeah. But the ugliest woman I've ever encountered, and it wasn't just a matter of her weight, she looked like something that would attack you in a D&D campaign armed with a spiked club, and her teeth looked like Stonehenge or something, she was freaking rough...yet she had a kid. Somebody went there. *shrug* And the tremendous, ridiculous, huge huge majority of people are somewhere in the broad spectrum of normal-ish. Not ugly, not supermodels. Just people. Yet among that number, each of us will find some attractive and some not s'much. So what?

There are guys I'm not attracted to, but that does not mean they're ugly. They just are not my type. There are certain phenotypes, face shapes, coloration of skin and hair (I'm not that into the ruddy/pale/5-minute-sunburn with blonde or gingery hair, northern European thing for instance.) Some people have a natural scent that turns me on, some have one that turns me off. But what displeases me won't bother some other woman. My perception does not rank someone as more or less objectively desirable. And if you think that yours does, I'd like to ask you to examine the ego in that. Who the hell do you think you are?? A judge on some grand panel of non-consensual beauty pageantry, in which all are forced to compete? Get over yourself!
Personally, I never really thought it to be a big deal if a woman had several partners, if fact, I figured in 2019, women were not being judged as much as they used to. The attitude on this, the tables have turned, does it not?

Do a lot of men still judge women for having a lot of partners?

I heard on the radio it's even a bad idea to ever ask someone you're dating how many people they've been with .
 
Old 07-16-2019, 08:37 AM
 
5,310 posts, read 2,375,341 times
Reputation: 15104
"I smacked my thumb with a hammer. I thought it would hurt before I did it, and it did! So now I'm going on the internet to tell everyone that smacking your thumb with a hammer hurts! And the ensuing discussion has gone for 18 pages and still has momentum!"

And I have even responded, so I'm just as crazy as the rest of you.
 
Old 07-16-2019, 08:37 AM
 
8,102 posts, read 6,029,851 times
Reputation: 5752
I wonder why we are overly dependent on dating apps. I'm not even on a dating app and I do just fine. I can meet people by going to a common interest place.

On a dating app, my chances are in the negative. LOL!!!
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.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Relationships
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top