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)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old Today, 03:28 PM
 
Location: Continental Europe
775 posts, read 151,513 times
Reputation: 1229

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by archineer View Post
I'm not a fan of the "numbers thing" but I was responding to the previous poster who used it.

However, beauty is not subjective, it's due to the golden ratio and how well your facial proportions match it.

"Shallow" is a shaming tactic FYI. I'm just being honest. All women prefer a wealthy provider but you don't hear men calling women shallow for it.
Golden ratio? What?

Sorry, not all women prefer a wealthy provider. Some of us want to be financially independent. I don't give a crap how much money a man has as long as he has enough to live the lifestyle he chooses. Some women prefer camping over staying in a fancy hotel, or street food instead of fine dining. It sounds like you've just met women who are looking for someone to fund their lifestyle and assume all women are that way. They're not.

 
Old Today, 03:29 PM
 
Location: Brentwood, Tennessee
43,941 posts, read 42,522,667 times
Reputation: 84870
Quote:
Originally Posted by archineer View Post

(though as I've said I'm only 5'8", so Tom Cruise ).
I've stood next to Tom Cruise, and in reality he's closer to 5'6".

He's also not known for his relationship stability, which drops his "value." Try another example.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carly1983 View Post
Golden ratio? What?
Yeah, some absolute crap in here today.
 
Old Today, 03:31 PM
 
Location: Continental Europe
775 posts, read 151,513 times
Reputation: 1229
Quote:
Originally Posted by archineer View Post
I've dated too many to know they're all the same. Ones who earn money and ones who don't. My last girlfriend owns her own spa, but she was no different. Women almost always date across and up, not down.
Well you just carry on then. You obviously have your set beliefs about what "all women" are like and when you come across someone who doesn't fit your mould of how the world is, it will probably be too unsettling for you to deal with that person anyway and you'll unconsciously seek out shallow people and gold diggers to confirm your beliefs about how the world works.
 
Old Today, 03:31 PM
 
Location: In a place beyond human comprehension
7,759 posts, read 4,977,090 times
Reputation: 12782
"Golden ratio?"

With so many people being attracted to those with asymmetrical faces and features?

You know what?

I'm done here. Ya'll can have it.
 
Old Today, 03:33 PM
 
Location: London, U.K.
2,915 posts, read 3,317,980 times
Reputation: 1599
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClaraC View Post
I agree with this post. Women, in general, if they can have their choice of man will choose a man who is at least average looking, who is a leader, charismatic, and wealthy.

But your other stuff, saying you only go for 9-10, because that's what you are, is baffling.

If you're ONLY attracted to women who have your same facial characteristics (and yes, there's a Seinfeld for that), you're in trouble. Because your height factors in, making you NOT a 9-10 physically.

Which doesn't mean you aren't attractive in other ways - but if you hold potential female partners to one single standard - physical perfection - you don't have that to offer yourself, so it comes off a bit baffling.

BTW - most men are in fact, not attracted to women who are the female mirror image of themselves. Some are, again, reference Seinfeld.
I prefer women who are 5'4" or so. If I was 6' then I would be dating women who are 5'7" at least. I know my shortcomings: my height, the fact I'm not a millionaire and now my failing health. But none of that changes who I'm physically attracted too.

Also, there is hard science that we are attracted to people who have similar facial characteristics to ourselves. 22% similarity is the figure apparently. I only have to look on my facebook page at my old school friends and they all look facially similar to their partners.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/b...le-who-look-us
 
Old Today, 03:34 PM
 
Location: Arlington, VA and Washington, DC
23,753 posts, read 33,660,574 times
Reputation: 32583
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg78 View Post
Iíve been with a lot of conventionally attractive woman and it was always high maintenance and a struggle to keep them happy because they have a ton of options and realize that.

Since then Iíve puprosely dated less attractive woman who are just grateful to be with a good looking guy (There words not mine lol) and do whatever it takes to please me and keep me happy and satisfied.

Im not gonna sit here and say Iím extremely attracted to these woman but they bend over backwards for me and i know they wonít be high maintenance or be looking for the next better option like woman who are I never high demand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TashaPosh View Post
He's calling them unattractive.......& putting feeding his ego about being *wanted*.... above being honest in a relationship.......
OP said LESS attractive, NOT unattractive. There is a difference. He is finding that the less attractive women he previously wouldnít have looked at twice treat him better, making him more open to someone who ainít drop dead gorgeous, which I think is a good thing.
 
Old Today, 03:35 PM
 
7,830 posts, read 3,065,559 times
Reputation: 12915
Quote:
Originally Posted by homina12 View Post
For those keeping score at home, the "number" is arrived at by the following formula:

11-2WH-(A/10)+HL

with WH being waist to hip ratio, A being age, and HL being hair length or hot librarian fantasy, depending on the guy's preference. If she fits the hot librarian fantasy, then **** the formula, she's a 10. The hair length is arrived at thusly:

Really short like a boy-1
Pixie cut-0
Bob (hair cut, not some dude)+.5
Shoulder length+1
Past shoulders+2
Even longer+2.5

So a woman with a WH of .7, who is 21 years old with even longer hair would be a 10. Check it out:

11-2(.7)-2.1+2.5=10

You may also note that the same woman at age 18 is a 10.3, and at 15 a 10.6. This apparent super perfect score is not a bug but a feature of the scoring, a bonus factor of sorts, because biology and fertility and shyt. Same if she somehow has hips twice as wide as her waist, for the same reasons.

Hope that helps.

And by the way, the rating system for men is mostly related to the proper, or at least plausibly proper use of the word thusly (5 points) along with the possibly dubious use of colons, which accrue 5 points if used correctly or 5 points for him having the balls to use colons at all.
Ah yes...men are judged by their colons.
(anyone notice those not dating are quite convinced that they are the most attractive, and yet do not see the correlation....)
 
Old Today, 03:36 PM
 
690 posts, read 346,220 times
Reputation: 496
I had a friend who was objectively very attractive. We are talking about Tom Cruise and he actually looked like Tom Cruise. But he didnt have success with women and I noticed I wasnt attracted to him either. He was friendzoned.

Why? I think it was something about his personality. He was simply...shallow? Dull? He was one dimensional, didnt have much beyond his good looks. He made good money too but that still didnt attract the women.

Personality makes or breaks someone. Looks and/or money alone wont cut it.
 
Old Today, 03:36 PM
 
Location: Continental Europe
775 posts, read 151,513 times
Reputation: 1229
Quote:
Originally Posted by homina12 View Post
for those keeping score at home, the "number" is arrived at by the following formula:

11-2wh-(a/10)+hl

with wh being waist to hip ratio, a being age, and hl being hair length or hot librarian fantasy, depending on the guy's preference. If she fits the hot librarian fantasy, then **** the formula, she's a 10. The hair length is arrived at thusly:

Really short like a boy-1
pixie cut-0
bob (hair cut, not some dude)+.5
shoulder length+1
past shoulders+2
even longer+2.5

so a woman with a wh of .7, who is 21 years old with even longer hair would be a 10. Check it out:

11-2(.7)-2.1+2.5=10

you may also note that the same woman at age 18 is a 10.3, and at 15 a 10.6. This apparent super perfect score is not a bug but a feature of the scoring, a bonus factor of sorts, because biology and fertility and shyt. Same if she somehow has hips twice as wide as her waist, for the same reasons.

Hope that helps.

And by the way, the rating system for men is mostly related to the proper, or at least plausibly proper use of the word thusly (5 points) along with the possibly dubious use of colons, which accrue 5 points if used correctly or 5 points for him having the balls to use colons at all.
lol.
 
Old Today, 03:37 PM
 
3,894 posts, read 1,803,068 times
Reputation: 7697
Quote:
Originally Posted by RbccL View Post
Ah yes...men are judged by their colons.
Toosh
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