Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Psychology
 [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 06-12-2014, 04:28 PM
 
Location: Tattnall County, GA
79 posts, read 118,294 times
Reputation: 287

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by tairos View Post
The difference is that men find all but the dredges of the female sex attractive, while women find all but the cream of the male sex (as defined by all sorts of appalling criteria) unattractive.
Are you female? Is that how you came by this astute observation? Because, frankly, it's a lie.

I don't prefer, or even like, men who most consider "the cream of the male sex." I looked for a spouse who was kind, caring, loving, compassionate, and comfortable with himself -- and, as I mentioned earlier, I was engaged to him before I ever saw him face to face!! And, for those who might care, he's certainly not the cream of the crop based on today's twisted and warped idea of who is beautiful; however, he possesses an inner beauty that far surpasses any temporal attractiveness he might have possessed. You know, you can be drop dead gorgeous according to Hollywood's airbrushed view of beauty, and you can get hit by a truck or a drunk driver or you can be in a skiing accident or your plane can crash, and you can end up looking like a troll. If your inner beauty is there before this happens, it will still be there after it happens. THAT is what matters.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-12-2014, 04:28 PM
 
Location: USA
1,034 posts, read 1,081,190 times
Reputation: 2353
Let's explore what you said in the previous post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by goodheathen View Post
I don't know if most lonely men think the women they like should date them, but I'm sure many of them are frustrated with common female behaviors and attitudes.
They may be, but they cannot control women, they can only control their own behavior and reactions.
They don't get to blame women (even nasty-behaving women) for their own actions.

Quote:
Rejecting in nasty ways,
I agree, no one should be nasty. It's needless and rude.
Quote:
shooting down guys very fast for not creating instant sparks,
Eh. If she doesn't feel like giving a guy a chance, she has no obligation to do so. She may be missing out on a good guy, but that's her loss. She owes him nothing. As long as she's not nasty and rude when she tells him she's not interested.

Quote:
using men for free drinks or free meals,
Agreed, very rude and not nice behavior.
Quote:
having ridiculous standards (e.g., being average-looking and expecting a rich stud),
Stupid, yes, but it is her who loses out. Men do the same thing all the time (you were lamenting about men who were unable to "date up"). Both men and women lose out by shooting too high. However, they owe nothing to anybody. If an average-looking woman wants to aim for the handsome stud, then she risks more rejection, but she is taking nothing away from other guys, because she owes them nothing in the first place. (And the same works with men wanting to date above their league.)
Quote:
using Facebook and online dating for pseudo-companionship and ego-feeding,
Eh, that makes them silly and shallow, but again that really only harms themselves in the long run.
Quote:
putting little real effort into being attractive (e.g., obesity, enmeshment with moms, and cat-hoarding),
If they are less attractive to some men, so be it. If they lament that they are not attracting the men they'd like to attract, then it's up to them to do something about it. But they can be overweight and have a jillion cats and no man has any right to be angry at them for it, because it's none of his business. If these women are putting themselves in the "undatable" column for these guys, so what of it? Maybe these women want to be in the undatable column. They owe mankind as a whole nothing. Men have no right to be angry at a woman for making herself unattractive to him. There is no obligation on her part to tailor herself to be more "datable" to him. Besides, some qualities (like being somewhat overweight) have their admirers. What if a woman wants to attract a guy who likes bigger girls?

And furthermore, if a woman struggles with her weight, has a plainer face, loves cats, is socially awkward and doesn't dress too flatteringly and fashionably, it seems quite ridiculous to "blame" her for men's anger. So she's not attractive to them. The end. Leave her alone, then. She may be quite happy to be left alone. But stop blaming her like it's her duty to be more attractive.
Quote:
giving disingenuous dating-related advice to men, etc.
Please give some examples of this.
Quote:
Those are things the sisterhood should address, lest other guys violently lash out or probably directly or indirectly kill just themselves at high rates.
Oh really. So when women are not as attractive as some men would like, then it's their fault when men "lash out" violently or commit suicide?



And if a woman is rude and makes her personality unattractive, just stay away.

What is more of an issue (for both men and women) is to not be cruel or nasty. A plain woman isn't "owed" a date, but hopefully the men who don't want to date her don't have to be nasty to her or confront her like she's done something bad by just existing. Same goes for men—a nerdy, less attractive man isn't owed a date by any women, but no one should bully them or treat them like a leper for the crime of being nerdy. Beyond that, what do women (or men) owe the opposite sex? To be prettier? To "give a guy a chance" (not shoot him down)? To date a fat chick even if the guy doesn't like fat chicks? Of course not. None of these things are reasonable in the least. People should be kind to each other, but that shouldn't extend to giving someone a chance, romantically, when you don't want to, and certainly it shouldn't mean tailoring your appearance to cater to a particular taste (unless you want to).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2014, 04:34 PM
 
Location: State of Transition
102,063 posts, read 106,870,458 times
Reputation: 115814
Quote:
Originally Posted by tairos View Post
The difference is that men find all but the dredges of the female sex attractive, while women find all but the cream of the male sex (as defined by all sorts of appalling criteria) unattractive.
OMG, this is SO not true! Lots of average and plain women get no attention from men at all, for years. Decades, even. Even if they approach men themselves. If what you say were true, most women would have no trouble dating.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2014, 04:34 PM
 
Location: Tattnall County, GA
79 posts, read 118,294 times
Reputation: 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by tairos View Post
Not really. They're not (yet) the only men attaining ANY success, but they attain a vastly disproportionate share of it. Women have always rewarded that sort of personality type.
I've noticed that you have a pretty negative attitude towards women in general. You also have a tendency to run off at the mouth about things that expose your lack of education on many topics. Thus, I will from this point on try to ignore and not be offended by your juvenile comments. You make way too many statements of generalization, and those are the very kind of statements that lead to the type of behavior that started this thread.

SMH
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2014, 04:38 PM
 
Location: Tattnall County, GA
79 posts, read 118,294 times
Reputation: 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.P. View Post
That doesn't make her a 7. A woman who's a foot shorter than me and weighs the same is not a 7.
Maybe not in YOUR eyes, but she might be to someone else.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2014, 04:45 PM
 
Location: Tattnall County, GA
79 posts, read 118,294 times
Reputation: 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnthonyJ34 View Post
Which is why women have such a huge advantage in the dating game. It doesn't take much for a guy to be interested and to pursue a woman, but it takes a plethora of desirable male traits/assets for an even semi-attractive girl to even look in a guy's direction.
What a load of vulture crap. I had a 3.8GPA, I was in the honors choir, in the National Honor Society, and I was a relatively decent looking teenager. I didn't get asked to my prom, or even go on a date, until I was almost 21. It wasn't because of my looks. It was because I didn't put out. Y'all are making this sound like a "good old boys' club" with all the whining about women being at an advantage. Maybe if they're looking to get laid, but not if they want a friend who respects them and their morals.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2014, 04:50 PM
 
Location: USA
1,034 posts, read 1,081,190 times
Reputation: 2353
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth View Post
OMG, this is SO not true! Lots of average and plain women get no attention from men at all, for years. Decades, even. Even if they approach men themselves. If what you say were true, most women would have no trouble dating.
I think he thinks that just because some men will be willing to have sex with almost any woman (just for one night), that this qualifies as being "wanted" and the women now have "romantic options."

But most women don't think that being a replacement for a blow-up doll for one night is a "romantic option." Neither does it mean that the man really finds her attractive—it's just that she has the necessary body parts and hey, he can turn the lights off.

We get mixed messages on this thread. One one hand, a guy is saying that these poor, victimized men can't "perform" if the woman isn't attractive enough (therefore men's dating woes are her fault, for not being pretty, and the "sisterhood" should address this because more men are getting angry and possibly violent). On the other hand, we are being told that most women have "options" (some guy out there will spend the night with them). But wait! I thought that these poor men who all think they "deserve" pretty women can't perform! But somehow they can perform with anything female and willing, so that means that most women are really "attractive" to some men? Which is it?

And I've also read that some men are really turned off by promiscuity in women. But then again, since most women (even really ugly ones) have romantic "options" (meaning some guy will turn off the lights and do it with them once), that they can get sex if they want to. But in no way are many of these women "good enough" to have an actual relationship with.

So if they only have the "romantic options" of one-night stands, then eventually they'll become "damaged goods" because that's all they've good for—one night stands—and there will come a point when they'll not only be homely (not "good enough" for a real relationship) but also promiscuous (which of course is unforgivable for females, but awesome for males ).

Yeah. So no wonder many women would rather stay home with a carton of Ben and Jerry's and several cats. Who needs this? Men are angry at them for not measuring up physically, angry at them for not giving sex, telling them they can't be promiscuous, but at the same time telling them that since they could have sex (only with a lot of skeezy guys would bed them for one night, which in turn would make the women promiscuous after a while) that this is the same as having romantic options and they can't say that they're really 'unwanted'? LOL.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2014, 05:14 PM
 
Location: USA
1,034 posts, read 1,081,190 times
Reputation: 2353
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzarkChickenLover View Post
What a load of vulture crap. I had a 3.8GPA, I was in the honors choir, in the National Honor Society, and I was a relatively decent looking teenager. I didn't get asked to my prom, or even go on a date, until I was almost 21. It wasn't because of my looks. It was because I didn't put out. Y'all are making this sound like a "good old boys' club" with all the whining about women being at an advantage. Maybe if they're looking to get laid, but not if they want a friend who respects them and their morals.
And this too.

There's a Catch-22 for women. If they don't put out, many men won't have anything to do with them. But if they do put out "too much," then they are a (insert rude slang term for promiscuous woman) and they are undatable, not worthy of a serious relationship. (Though of course a man can be super-promiscuous and that's totally fine. At the same time his own promiscuous self is "too good" for a serious relationship with an equally promiscuous woman. OF COURSE! Logical, right? )

So we have women who are raised conservative, religious, or for some other reason don't want to put out, that's bad—she's undatable!—and we also have women being told on this thread that since some knuckle-dragger would be willing to spend the night with her, that she is "wanted" and she can't complain that no one is "interested."

So if that's the case, then guys who are complaining about not being wanted should stop. Of course they are wanted! There probably is some repellant-looking granny who would give them a tumble, right? So they can't say they're wanted. Or they could consider another man. That's considered an option, right? If a woman (who is against one-night-stands) must consider the one-night-stand offers as "options," then hooking up with a guy is an option for these men who are whining. So stop complaining already! LOL
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2014, 05:18 PM
 
19,364 posts, read 12,017,274 times
Reputation: 26096
To be honest it is depressing that so many people don't seem to care about their appearance anymore. For me it is a bummer, but I suppose it could be worse for a young guy. It seems when I was in my twenties everyone put in effort to look nice, it was just a natural thing. Therefore there were few slobs or people that were morbidly obese.

It just is not a good thing that so many people don't have the pride to try to look half decent. And yes, singles are always on the lookout for nice looking people, and nicely presented people. So what, that is normal. And really,
people who don't seem to care how they look often have a bad attitude as well. Combine all that, it's not a pleasant picture out there. I've seen it as well from my perspective, I would hate to be single now, the pickings are very slim and it is not because of being shallow.

If a young woman wants to weigh 400 and have nine cats, it's her right but there is probably something wrong with her. Same with some greasy guy and his videogames and porn and misogynist attitude. Some of the things that are going on in society today are just skewed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2014, 05:31 PM
 
Location: State of Transition
102,063 posts, read 106,870,458 times
Reputation: 115814
Quote:
Originally Posted by elvira310 View Post
I think he thinks that just because some men will be willing to have sex with almost any woman (just for one night), that this qualifies as being "wanted" and the women now have "romantic options."

But most women don't think that being a replacement for a blow-up doll for one night is a "romantic option." Neither does it mean that the man really finds her attractive—it's just that she has the necessary body parts and hey, he can turn the lights off.

We get mixed messages on this thread. One one hand, a guy is saying that these poor, victimized men can't "perform" if the woman isn't attractive enough (therefore men's dating woes are her fault, for not being pretty, and the "sisterhood" should address this because more men are getting angry and possibly violent). On the other hand, we are being told that most women have "options" (some guy out there will spend the night with them). But wait! I thought that these poor men who all think they "deserve" pretty women can't perform! But somehow they can perform with anything female and willing, so that means that most women are really "attractive" to some men? Which is it?

And I've also read that some men are really turned off by promiscuity in women. But then again, since most women (even really ugly ones) have romantic "options" (meaning some guy will turn off the lights and do it with them once), that they can get sex if they want to. But in no way are many of these women "good enough" to have an actual relationship with.

So if they only have the "romantic options" of one-night stands, then eventually they'll become "damaged goods" because that's all they've good for—one night stands—and there will come a point when they'll not only be homely (not "good enough" for a real relationship) but also promiscuous (which of course is unforgivable for females, but awesome for males ).

Yeah. So no wonder many women would rather stay home with a carton of Ben and Jerry's and several cats. Who needs this? Men are angry at them for not measuring up physically, angry at them for not giving sex, telling them they can't be promiscuous, but at the same time telling them that since they could have sex (only with a lot of skeezy guys would bed them for one night, which in turn would make the women promiscuous after a while) that this is the same as having romantic options and they can't say that they're really 'unwanted'? LOL.
Well summed-up. And don't forget: if women suggest that men can have sex anytime by hanging around the bars until closing time and going with the women who are left, they scream bloody murder. They have to have "attractive" women for sex, not just any drunk. But women have "options" by doing the same. Women can get sex anytime by picking up the drunks at the local pub at 2 a.m.

Yeah, options for STD's and for being used without getting any sexual gratification at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

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 > Psychology
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top