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.
This semi-scientific sampling implies that 95% of local women in my age bracket who are interested in online dating are already mothers. I included only college graduates (presumably the birth rate is even higher amongst non-graduates, whence if I included everyone, the motherhood rate would be even higher) but did not filter for race, "body type" or any hobby/social/lifestyle preferences.
Presumably, the other 5% of women are interested in a stable, mutually rewarding, child-free relationship; as am I. But it is quite harrowing to even begin one's search amongst just 5%.
"Having an idea women" or "liking small breasts" is different than stating a cutoff point in breast size whereby you absolutely, positively cannot find a woman attractive if she doesn't make the cut.
It is absolutely amazing how you're taking every shallow viewpoint of the male and making it into something somehow non-shallow.
I think this POV (and MO) show where you're getting such a skewed idea of women being so much more shallow than men. By your design, women's shallowness is shallowness; men's shallowness has a good point, a health tie-in and/or a modifier in most cases.
It's amazing what people will rationalize in order to make their own surface motives seem almost gallant.
Sorry. Still looks, still shallow.
lol
So you're saying that if I have any physical requirements, I'm shallow. Well then, I'm shallow, because I wouldn't date Megan Fox if she never showered or if she was obese.
You know this is ridiculous. Someone who is fat has voluntarily knocked their looks down about 8 points.
So you're saying that if I have any physical requirements, I'm shallow. Well then, I'm shallow, because I wouldn't date Megan Fox if she never showered or if she was obese.
You know this is ridiculous. Someone who is fat has voluntarily knocked their looks down about 8 points.
I'm saying that shallowness is shallowness. I never said nobody should ever have physical requirements. What I challenge is your assertion that men's physical requirements -- shallowness, in other words -- somehow has a very good reason in your mind, whereas women's shallowness is some terrible, cruel thing: hence, your (erroneous) conclusion that women are "more shallow" than men...because you personally make up the rules on what forms of shallowness are okay/have qualifiers and which aren't/don't..
I'm saying that shallowness is shallowness. I never said nobody should ever have physical requirements. What I challenge is your assertion that men's physical requirements -- shallowness, in other words -- somehow has a very good reason in your mind, whereas women's shallowness is some terrible, cruel thing: hence, your (erroneous) conclusion that women are "more shallow" than men...because you personally make up the rules on what forms of shallowness are okay/have qualifiers and which aren't/don't..
No, I think we can agree some definitions regarding shallowness. For instance, if I said I wasn't attracted to a woman because she never showered and therefore smelled awful all the time, I'm sure we could agree that it would be less shallow than if I said I wasn't attracted to a woman because she's a redhead.
I'm saying that shallowness is shallowness. I never said nobody should ever have physical requirements. What I challenge is your assertion that men's physical requirements -- shallowness, in other words -- somehow has a very good reason in your mind, whereas women's shallowness is some terrible, cruel thing: hence, your (erroneous) conclusion that women are "more shallow" than men...because you personally make up the rules on what forms of shallowness are okay/have qualifiers and which aren't/don't..
The reason men are mostly interested in physical looks when choosing a mate is simple, we are naturaly made that way. According to evolutionary theory, beauty and youth are signs of good health and fertility and this is why men seek out young and beautiful women. There is absolutely nothing shallow about it, you should embrace it instead of fighting it. Even though I couldnt care less if women are interested in physical looks when choosing a mate (because its mostly false), they do so by choice not because that is how they are naturaly created. Men cannot get pregnant, thus their looks mean very little from evolutionary perspective. Their behavior on the other hand means everything, considering it subconsciously communicates their ability to protect and provide, which is what ultimately women seek in their partner. It isnt exactly rocket science.
Presumably, the other 5% of women are interested in a stable, mutually rewarding, child-free relationship; as am I. But it is quite harrowing to even begin one's search amongst just 5%.
Are you able to relocate to where there are more child-free single women in your age range?
The reason men are mostly interested in physical looks when choosing a mate is simple, we are naturaly made that way. According to evolutionary theory, beauty and youth are signs of good health and fertility and this is why men seek out young and beautiful women. There is absolutely nothing shallow about it, you should embrace it instead of fighting it. Even though I couldnt care less if women are interested in physical looks when choosing a mate (because its mostly false), they do so by choice not because that is how they are naturaly created. Men cannot get pregnant, thus their looks mean very little from evolutionary perspective. Their behavior on the other hand means everything, considering it subconsciously communicates their ability to protect and provide, which is what ultimately women seek in their partner. It isnt exactly rocket science.
Amazing how men that really, really dislike women are able to rationalize via pseudo-science (the above is not fully accurate, I say this having studied human behavior on an academic level for many years) in order to continue to want what they want...but demand that women want them although they have little to offer, or else the woman in question is just a b*tch.
You can always tell the men who deep down seriously dislike women when you read what they write on this forum.
For the record, biologically speaking, women don't just need to worry about the man being "a good provider," they need to worry about that child's future when that child is an adult and self-supporting too. *Biologically* we want the physically fittest, tallest, most symmetric (read: handsomest), smartest male in order that our offspring have those same traits and have their own best chance at survival once sperm-daddy is dead/has wandered off somewhere/has kicked them out or whatever. Hence, yes, we do drool over the hot-looking guys. Biologically speaking, a woman does not find much merit in her children growing up to be chunky, slow-moving, prematurely balding (overt, if not accurate, sign of a shorter life span/shorter vitality span just as, say, slenderness is an overt, if not accurate, sign of youth in a woman) putzes who whine to get what they want and somehow have come into some (possibly very temporary...it does disappear, after all) money.
Now on the other hand, if they can have a bit of confidence that their children will grow up to be strong, fit and attractive enough to pass on their genes eventually, then the mom will have done her biological job.
It is societal that women think of all the short, fat, bald, fugly rich men as "good providers," not biology. In the wild, pulling out your Capital One card isn't going to do a great job of fending off an angry boar.
So the whole "women have a choice, for men it's biological" stuff is just that, unscientific, erroneous B.S. that makes some men feel better about demanding gorgeous young hotties when they themselves are non-go-getting, non-handsome, non-tall, non-fit, non-winning-type men.
Good lord, educate yourselves, people...well, unless you don't want to because it's so much easier to rationalize why you should be able to pound your fists on your thighs like a pizzed three-year-old while demanding that the thing (or person) you want be fabulously evolved and non-shallow. (rolling eyes)
I'm a man, I have plenty of deal breakers, many of them physical.
...So no, I don't think women are more shallow than men, and in my experience, men seem to care far more about appearances than women do. Exemplified by the fact that my wife actually married me.
I'm a man, I have plenty of deal breakers, many of them physical.
...So no, I don't think women are more shallow than men, and in my experience, men seem to care far more about appearances than women do. Exemplified by the fact that my wife actually married me.
Aww come on, LOL, you're a cool dude, Viking, I'm sure there must be something to ya!
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.
