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.
Well I certainly don't fit under that because I consider myself to be an average person.
I don't necessarily think that's true because a lot of women seem to think they can get something better as well. I've seen some ridiculous requirements women ask for, whether it's a height limit or being a certain ethnicity. In the end, both sexes have their good and bad apples. It's impossible to just generalize one side and thinking that the other is less faulty.
No. Dating has next to nothing to do with looks. The fact that so many people think it does is why there are so many disgruntled posters on here. That and this obsession with categorizing the genders in useless ways and assuming that the individuals that they are interacting with adhere to those categorizations.
So, you are saying Halle Berry has no greater advantage of attracting male mates to her than Oprah Winfrey does to herself. I disagree.
I suppose you want to espouse a view that "nature" is all kind and cuddly too. You've never seen a cat toy with a mouse I guess. And the Theory of Evolution in your mind, if you accept that theory as the best explanation for the origins of both life on earth and the origins of humanity, all works by a kind, gentle, path where all are equal and no one gets left out. Unless of course one has "bad" political views. Because everyone knows the Theory of Evolution explains how life on earth evolved from all organisms having the "good" political views.
And socio-political views like all religions are equal and equally meaningless, gender differences are "bad," a girl can be born in a boys body are what makes for a "good personality."
For the record, gender constructs are social constructs, and gender is not one and the same as sex. However, gender differences allow for us identifying a boy that dresses as a girl and identifies as a girl as a girl. I took a intro sociology course before. And the text book of the course stated transsexuals are people born either male or female but are of the opposite gender. That is key. Because sociology is largely dominated by feminists and political liberals. And even sociology seems to acknowledge that without gender differences you could not identity a boy dressed as a girl, identifying as a girl, as a girl.
Men tend to behold their own physical features from the viewpoint of muscularity and (for those obsessed with such things) height. Women, when evaluating men, tend to be more interested in lower body fat and overall proportionality. Your average man, including me, would gladly accept a 40" waist in exchange for 19" arms, with the gut being a small and unavoidable price of trying to bulk-up. Most women, on the other hand, would regard such physique as unbalanced and "compensation" for other inadequacies, physical or mental.
Men also tend to disregard seemingly minor details such as teeth and facial hair, while for women that's more important. I've had female colleagues in the workplace confide that they would prefer an obese man who's well-dressed, with good teeth, clean-shaven and good-smelling, than a stinky gladiator with scraggly beard.
Thus, it is simultaneously true that men regard themselves as good, looking, while women regard the same man as rather less attractive. The standards of attraction are different.
Somebody give this person a medal, women are (and should be) more selective with mate selection. Duh. Many men will sleep with just about anything that shows interest and doesn't look like a sea donkey.
Now, are you going to agree when I also state something that many here like to dismiss about the biological nature of sexual selection? That because women are biologically tuned to be more selective with thier mate selection, the ones that aren't (read easy, skanks, sleezy) are deemed less attractive by the men with options when it comes to committment?
@ bold: Thank you. And not necessarily for agreeing with me but for simply acknowledging not only what is easily observable but what Sexual Selection says about the mating wars anyways.
Sexual Selection says, "eggs are expensive and sperm is cheap." Basically that its takes a lot of energy for a woman to go through pregnancy and give birth to a child. As well as that men produce a lot of sperm. We can shoot sperm all over the place.
Actually, it's thought, or at least this is the prevailing explanation, that male chimpanzees have so large testicle relative to their overall body size, because they jump from female to female to impregnate as many as they can. I don't now if that explanation is good or accurate or not but its the one many seem provide.
I accept that eggs are expensive and women are more discriminating than men even if this reality does not "soften" life for me. I also accept the Theory of Evolution even if it does not "soften" life for me as a believer in the Christian conception of God.
So, why do so many atheist, agnostics, and feminists have trouble accepting women are more discriminating than males just because it does not "soften" life for them with respects to their prevailing views that female = victim and "settlers" contra the harsh males that are loathed to have sex with females until they find that precious, nice, "special one"?
Men tend to behold their own physical features from the viewpoint of muscularity and (for those obsessed with such things) height. Women, when evaluating men, tend to be more interested in lower body fat and overall proportionality. Your average man, including me, would gladly accept a 40" waist in exchange for 19" arms, with the gut being a small and unavoidable price of trying to bulk-up. Most women, on the other hand, would regard such physique as unbalanced and "compensation" for other inadequacies, physical or mental.
Men also tend to disregard seemingly minor details such as teeth and facial hair, while for women that's more important. I've had female colleagues in the workplace confide that they would prefer an obese man who's well-dressed, with good teeth, clean-shaven and good-smelling, than a stinky gladiator with scraggly beard.
Thus, it is simultaneously true that men regard themselves as good, looking, while women regard the same man as rather less attractive. The standards of attraction are different.
Well a professor for a biological anthropology course I had, stated in lecture that to attract female mates en must acquire muscle mass.
I don't think you're necessarily wrong except I think you underestimate how muscle mass on a man can be viewed as sexually attractive to women. Maybe not so huge as to look like a professional bodybuilder but that have some visible significant muscle mass, combined with definition of course. That could be a male swimmer's body or someone LL Cool J's size.
Men tend to behold their own physical features from the viewpoint of muscularity and (for those obsessed with such things) height. Women, when evaluating men, tend to be more interested in lower body fat and overall proportionality. Your average man, including me, would gladly accept a 40" waist in exchange for 19" arms, with the gut being a small and unavoidable price of trying to bulk-up. Most women, on the other hand, would regard such physique as unbalanced and "compensation" for other inadequacies, physical or mental.
Men also tend to disregard seemingly minor details such as teeth and facial hair, while for women that's more important. I've had female colleagues in the workplace confide that they would prefer an obese man who's well-dressed, with good teeth, clean-shaven and good-smelling, than a stinky gladiator with scraggly beard.
Thus, it is simultaneously true that men regard themselves as good, looking, while women regard the same man as rather less attractive. The standards of attraction are different.
You are so right. I find that men and women are typically clueless as to what the opposite gender wants to see him them! I believe we are!
ive never worried about how i look as long as im comfortable with my health. if i was unhealthy i would be concerned as they directly affect one another.
statistically at least, women actually tend to think men are worse looking than they are... at least assuming the medium or average man should be near the 50% mark, aka 2.5/5 or 5/10.
Yes, women may tend to view men as being worse looking overall, but they will message and interact with those men regardless because looks aren't everything to most women. Are they important? Yes! But I'll take a below average man with a shining personality over a handsome man who is a dullard in a heartbeat.
Men, on the other hand, may follow the curve more closely, but notice that according to that article 2/3 of the messages go to the top 1/3 of attractive women. They may view women as more attractive overall, but ignore the average ones and focus on the hottest of the hot. I found that very interesting.
Well a professor for a biological anthropology course I had, stated in lecture that to attract female mates en must acquire muscle mass.
I don't think you're necessarily wrong except I think you underestimate how muscle mass on a man can be viewed as sexually attractive to women. Maybe not so huge as to look like a professional bodybuilder but that have some visible significant muscle mass, combined with definition of course. That could be a male swimmer's body or someone LL Cool J's size.
Maybe I'm a weirdo, but I find neither of those men's physiques attractive.
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.
