College Student’s F List Goes Viral (feelings, celebrate, physically)

[Nutz76]

Originally Posted by captaincatfish

I'm 100% man, and your theory has more holes than a ball of Swiss cheese...I DO passionately care about a woman's career and education---I'm sorry (and no offense to ANY of my CD 'lady-friends' LOL) but big boobs, a bubble butt, and a pretty face mean zippo-squat if she has no brains, heart, drive, ambition, and just plain old common sense about her...

And the ability to bear 'healthy babies'? That's kinda Fred Flintstone-ian there, don'tcha think? A woman's place in your life should NOT be to eventually become a baby-factory ('OK babe...you can come back and pack the plank to me again...and in 9 months we'll have ANOTHER healthy kid [accompanied by a vapid Stepford-Wife smile]!') or some macho-guy screw-toy, to be kept like some bling-bling trophy in your garage next to your Harley Fat-Boy and your King Kong pickup truck...

I'm not gonna lie...a nicely turned bottom, or a warm smile, or a voluptuous shape, have been known to turn my head (LOL---just described Mrs catfish almost to a T)...but if she opens her mouth, and the conversation starts '(giggle-giggle) I don't eat meat...'cause I'm a veterinarian!', then I don't care if you can offer the greatest sex since Moses parted the Red Sea, I'm gone, because all that looks and body mean NOTHING if nobody's home in the intelligence department...

Mother Nature may not be a feminist, but she sure as shootin' isn't some bubbleheaded trophy chick either

Her personality or job isn't what's drawing your attention from across the room or street and giving you the urge you to ask her out (among other things). As for the baby thing, it's just an instinct. Even if you don't cognitively want kids your hindbrain doesn't care and will still respond to the same fertility signals we evolved to respond to.

[Sprawling_Homeowner]

A woman's looks matter to men. Period.

A man's look matter to women. Period.

However, a person's personality, character, intellect, education, values, etc., are also highly important. Looks can get a person's foot in the door, and in certain cases, a person's looks may be sufficient to lead the partner to overlook glaring personality flaws or bad habits.

In most cases, I would hope that healthy, wise adults with sufficient life experience would be discerning enough when meeting a new acquaintance of the opposite sex. Looks may mystify and enthrall at first, but after some time spent together, the real "her"/"him" will inevitably emerge. Chemistry and compatibility are determined by how well we mesh with the other person. Looks do help - but they are not everything.

The last woman I fell in love with, or came close to, was not at all "pretty" by my biased criteria; I've dated many women who were quite good-looking. I know this because virtually all men who saw them or knew them agreed. This last one wasn't "up to par" - but I fell in love with her for who she was. The outer shell mattered only so much after the sparks flew. To this day, I've not met any woman who has excited me as much as she has, and I'm not referring to genital blood flows when I speak of excitement.

[captaincatfish]

Originally Posted by Nutz76

Her personality or job isn't what's drawing your attention from across the room or street and giving you the urge you to ask her out (among other things). As for the baby thing, it's just an instinct. Even if you don't cognitively want kids your hindbrain doesn't care and will still respond to the same fertility signals we evolved to respond to.

But what I said in my other post is basically how I'M wired...I totally understand what you're saying, but, to me anyway, physical attractiveness and 'fertility signals' are secondary in importance...

Like I said, she can be drop-dead, make-you-shout-hallelujah gorgeous, and built like a brick warehouse to boot, but if she doesn't have anything resembling brains, or drive, or ambition, then all that other stuff means nothing...and remember, that's just MY take on it...I can't speak for you or any other guy out there, but that's what ultimately gets my attention

[Black Jack22]

*notices the amount of people attacking Nutz76*

[Neemy]

Originally Posted by Djuna

Oh what a load of crapola. Evolve already

No kidding. I am getting pretty sick of the argument that men are wired this way and women that way, for preservation of the species, bla bla bla... I mean, we all grow wisdom teeth, too. Unless you're still ripping into a wild boar with your teeth, I would assume you've evolved past the need for a third set of molars.

Humans are capable of exerting self-control because we have to be in order to adapt to an ever-changing society. We have that psychological advantage over other animals. Mindsets change. Ideas change. Roles change. Or are some of us still apes?

[Nutz76]

Originally Posted by captaincatfish

But what I said in my other post is basically how I'M wired...I totally understand what you're saying, but, to me anyway, physical attractiveness and 'fertility signals' are secondary in importance...

Like I said, she can be drop-dead, make-you-shout-hallelujah gorgeous, and built like a brick warehouse to boot, but if she doesn't have anything resembling brains, or drive, or ambition, then all that other stuff means nothing...and remember, that's just MY take on it...I can't speak for you or any other guy out there, but that's what ultimately gets my attention

I get where you're coming from and I agree the weight of education, career, personality, etc can vary from person to person in determining whether or not they get into a relationship with that other person. What I'm talking about is that the stuff you call secondary in important, those fertility signals, you don't have a choice whether to find them attractive or not. Attraction is not a choice. My point before was that if you don't have that base instinct level attraction then all the education and personality in the world isn't going to matter. If you meet a woman with those qualities that you lack that deep evolutionary attraction for she'll just be perceived as some girl that's well educated with a good job, but just doesn't do it for you for some reason. That "some reason" is everything I've been talking about.

[ChessieMom]

Originally Posted by Nutz76

Has nothing to do with "old school" social dynamics and everything to do with human nature. Men generally could care less about a woman's education and career so long as she'll give him healthy babies. That's how we're wired. A woman's appearance is the #1 factor of whether or not we'll be attracted. Personality does matter to an extent as in it can determine if we'll stick around or not. Everything else is icing on the cake though. That's the cold hard reality of the past, present, and the future for as far as I can see.

Mother Nature is not a feminist.

Oh dear GOD. I know some men you need to talk with. I have a hard time believing anyone would actually write this...much less believe it.

[Phil75230]

The more I read about the PUAs, the more I pick up the airs of some Multi-Level Marketing "True Believer" types, or a religious cult. They convince people that they have the truth, then get a bunch of charismatic speakers good at rousing people up, and create some group-think that says "if you don't believe in us. you're a chump"

[mango tango]

Okay, I wanted to address a very common and hotly debated topic: the good old double standard of he's a stud and she's a $lut.

Here are my 2 cents... and remember, that's not worth very much in this great big world so if something I say causes you to huff and puff at the computer screen, never fear because I guarantee there will be many people who agree with your personal opinion.

And also, warning: I am not talking about how things should be but rather how they are.

The thing with sex is that often it seems like men are the pursuers and women the gatekeepers. The women "chooses" to let the man have sex with her and etc. Think about it. It is typically assumed that the man is going to try to have sex with the woman... you don't hear much about men being warned of women trying to get in their pants. Sex is seen as something women have and men take or that men want and women grant. Why is it like this? Maybe it's due to an old patriarchal society, maybe it's because of biology and the way our bodies - who knows. I certainly don't and will leave that topic for another thread.

So here's our metaphor: Women are the gatekeepers/gate-builders. Sex is the gate. Men are the pursuers trying to enter the gate. A man who is successfully able to break through a gate is seen as a conqueror. However, the woman has let her gate be broken... she hasn't conquered anything. A man who is able to break through many gates is practically held up a hero, but if a woman has her gate broken down everyday, well then she's just the owner of a weak gate and isn't very strong.

Okay, so that was an awkward analogy (I was not referring to virginity btw lol) and I probably used some awful choice of words, but for those of you that are able to take out the main point of a jumble of words, you should get what I'm trying to say (it's late, my mind is on finance class).

Furthermore, sex is relatively easy for women to achieve. If a woman is relatively decent looking (and even if she's plain), she will be able to go out and find some guy who will have sex with her. She may have to compromise on attraction and quality, but if a woman is looking for just straight up sex, she can easily find it and she won't even have to put on any charade to attain it. A simple "Hi, want to f/ck?" will suffice. Now, guys have to put in a little more effort because women are typically not of the "anyone will do for the moment" mindset. Women either want emotions involved, lots of physical attraction, for the guy to be a trophy (and in the Duke F List example, those guys were technically trophies), future commitment, etc. What's the exception? Women who are lackadaisical enough about sex to be apathetic toward their choice of partners (to them, it's just another d!ck), women who are extremely desperate, and women who are drunk.

If sex is hard (or at least harder than it is for women) for men to get and easy for women to get, then can we now see how the double standard emerged? The men have made "accomplishments," but the women haven't.

Please note that I'm not saying this is a great way of thinking. I'm just pointing out a view that is often rejected by people because they don't like it... but there is truth to it. Something that will forever be a slight annoyance to me is that it seems that women are forever tied to their sexuality by society in a way that men will never be. Whether you're a virgin or a $lut, it all goes back to sex. Is it unfair? Oh yeah. But in a strange sense, the power within our sexuality somewhat balances it out. After all, we can reverse the views behind the notion of "sex is hard for men and easy for women" and say that since sex is easy for women and not for men, we have the upper hand within it and can control the dynamic.

P.S. - Yes, I know that women have healthy sex drives and enjoy sex for purely pleasurable reasons as well as the implied emotional ties!

[*VaNiLlaGoRrilLa*]

What about sex toys? Women let them penetrate their gates all the time. Women like to get off, sometimes they don't even need a man for this. Does this still make them lousy gatekeepers?

It’s not always an emotional thing.