Scientists find happy men are 'significantly less attractive' to ladies

Sinfonia

HavingCrack wrote: »

Yeah the actual study is slightly different to what the Daily Mail said. Women are more attracted to men who display 'shame' rather than hapiness? I have only had a quick glance over it but I can't really make out what they mean? How do you look ashamed all the time? Are you constantly blushing and looking shifty eyed

In the 'sample' pictures, that particular guy looks like a bit creepy when he's smiling, and in the 'pride' picture he does look to have pretty strong arms (a favourite with the ladies, no?)

Yahew

Absolutely. All those pictures are pictures of massive ham acting, and the smiler looks like a creep. It's a particularly fake smile too.

Yahew

Still sticking with the tortured writer look, however.

guitarzero

From what I've seen women wanna bone happy lads. The happy, bantering, all is well type of lad always has women around him. But this is Ireland. This study may apply to other cultures.

username_eh?

evercloserunion wrote: »

Yeah, but that's not the same as being sad. If anything, a guy who is happier with his life would be less needy than a guy who is sad.

If your giving off the happy vibe, caring vibe or the nice guy vibe it all sends out the same message. The attraction is generally the "but i can change him" thinking. If your messed which leads you to act distressed, depressed or even like a prick, the female "he needs to be loved to change him to what i want him to be" thing kicks in. Its always when ye never want us is when were going to be there as well have you never noticed that?

Yahew

My first college job in Ireland was in a Dublin pub where the 50 year old fat bald co-worker was boning half the staff. A witty Dubliner.

I went with the tortured writer act. That failed.

Sinfonia

guitarzero wrote: »

The happy, bantering, all is well type of lad .

That throws a whole lot of context into, which I don't think the study involves, I think they were literally focusing on the still facial expression.
But yeah, people in general are drawn towards people who look like they're having fun, I would think.

username_eh?

ok in my opinion, the sad thing usually only works for people that kind of already know you..not best friends or anything but your not going to be a babe magnet sulking in the corner of a pub if that was your plan?

PK2008

Wait a minute!!!??!!!

Women dont like nice guys????



http://wearethelolocaust.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/darth_vader_noooo1.jpg

Capt'n Midnight

seamus wrote: »

Their other breakthrough story today was a claim that Obama's secret service confiscated his glass from the pub in Moneygall yesterday to prevent "DNA Theft".

Let's just say I'm glad I didn't shake his hand.

OutlawPete

Why is everyone talking about "sad" and "miserable" men? Just because the study found women were not as attracted to smiling men, doesn't mean they were attracted to the opposite.

The study is saying that women are attracted traditional male qualities such as being assertive, pride, brooding, shameful bad boys and the men more attracted to happy, submissive, vulnerable types. Whether we want to accept it or not, there is no such thing as gender neutrality, men and women will always traits that have little to with conditioning and everything to do with dna.

Karona

I prefer smiley men, coz im a smiley person myself, i dont wanna be with someone that looks miserable the whole time.

Raze_them_all

SparkyTech wrote: »

. Ladies, is this true? Do ye only go for the broody, macho, twilight-esque rugged men?

....Twilight...macho, rugged and men in the same sentence.




NOT SURE IF SERIOUS

Pompey Magnus

SparkyTech wrote: »

Ladies, is this true? Do ye only go for the broody, macho, twilight-esque rugged men? :eek:

This is macho.

This is a girl with her novelty sized tampon.

Learn the difference.

Blitzkrieger

I was thinking about this and it might be because so many men look creepy when they smile.

I was leaving work yesterday when one of the lads came around a corner. He was smiling away to himself about god knows what. My initial reaction was "AAARRRGGGHHH!!! He's going to murder me and wear my hide as a poncho!"

But clearly he didn't.


Yet.

bnt

I was fed up with this whole business years ago, now I'm just fatalistic, even after I got lucky myself. If there's one thing that's going to turn this world in to an Idiocracy, it's women breeding with men based on what's "attractive" to them, instead of using their brains to make an informed decision about the long-term implications of their choices.

It used to be the case that the strongest, most macho man would be the best provider, but those days are long gone. Your children will need to be smarter than you are if they're to succeed: what do you need to do to make that happen? Too much? :rolleyes:

SparkyTech

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

This is macho.

This is a girl with her novelty sized tampon.

Learn the difference.

This is also a guy in twilight built like a horse (also looking broody and melancholic, maybe he featured in the scientists debate....)

Sinfonia

SparkyTech wrote: »

This is also a guy in twilight built like a horse (also looking broody and melancholic, maybe he featured in the scientists debate....)

Horses are gay

SparkyTech

Sinfonia wrote: »

Horses are gay

Evidence?

Sinfonia

SparkyTech wrote: »

Evidence?

...

...

...

Kevin Duffy

I am absolutely convinced of the results of this study. I have no evidence, qualifications, white coat or highly effective experiments to cite, but since almost every woman I have been in a relationship with has succeeded in making me fúcking miserable, I think the study shows women now lead such busy lives-what with days chock full of rollerblading all dressed in skintight white lycra while on their periods, or hanging around the diet coke machine eating aeros mumbling "mno, I wuv the bubbles!" stupidly* - that they just haven't the time for that process and now just want to find an already unhappy man to save time.

*My sources of knowledge about women may be a little limited.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Sinfonia wrote: »

Horses are gay

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwOptdOA-i0

Yahew

OutlawPete wrote: »

Why is everyone talking about "sad" and "miserable" men? Just because the study found women were not as attracted to smiling men, doesn't mean they were attracted to the opposite.

The study is saying that women are attracted traditional male qualities such as being assertive, pride, brooding, shameful bad boys and the men more attracted to happy, submissive, vulnerable types. Whether we want to accept it or not, there is no such thing as gender neutrality, men and women will always traits that have little to with conditioning and everything to do with dna.

You are reading what you want into this. Brooding is not = bad boy. And shameful is not the same as shameless ( which is what I think you mean although both words are beginning to mean the same. This survey showed attraction to the guy who looked ashamed, which is not a bad boy attribute.). As for the women: happy is not = submissive either.

I dont trust this survey, nor do I trust your reading of it.


EDIT: I missed this but

proud and powerful, or moody and ashamed, according to a study.

Those attributes are the exact opposite. So who knows.

Laisurg

Load of ****e i'd say, i don't think birds like moody blokes who never talk :pac:

Latchy

I stopped believing in these 'sterile' type scientific study's long ago ...load of shyte to be honest . A happy guy is suddenly not going to become miserable just so as to attract a lady , unless of course it's just to get laid .:pac:

Her - hey honey why you look so sad ?

Him- meeee......duuno

Her-ahhhh...( ruffles his hair )

Him - hands off biach ....(smack )

Him '' (snarls ) Ya wanna get laid ? :mad:

Her why yes ...of course ...thought you would never ask ( phew )

Her -Men (sigh)

zephyrz

I'd prefer to be happy, then to be attractive to these supposed sad-loving girls

OutlawPete

Yahew wrote: »

You are reading what you want into this. Brooding is not = bad boy. And shameful is not the same as shameless ( which is what I think you mean although both words are beginning to mean the same. This survey showed attraction to the guy who looked ashamed, which is not a bad boy attribute.). As for the women: happy is not = submissive either.

I dont trust this survey, nor do I trust your reading of it.

lol, I don't trust your reading of my post

Where did I say 'ashamed' = 'bad boy'? I said women showed attraction to shameful bad boys, that is quite different to saying that one is an attribute of the other. Kinda of ironic that you would question my reading of a study and yet make a complete hames of reading a two paragraph post.

However, according to your words, even if I did please you with my reading of the research, it wouldn't matter a jot as, in your words, you don't trust the study either. So it really makes no difference what I say now does it, your mind's made up.

dirtysteve

Scientific study = valid
Scientific study quoted in Daily Mail = instantly invalid.
Harsh, but true;

Yahew

OutlawPete wrote: »

lol, I don't trust your reading of my post

Where did I say 'ashamed' = 'bad boy'? I said women showed attraction to shameful bad boys, that is quite different to saying that one is an attribute of the other. Kinda of ironic that you would question my reading of a study and yet make a complete hames of reading a two paragraph post.

However, according to your words, even if I did please you with my reading of the research, it wouldn't matter a jot as, in your words, you don't trust the study either. So it really makes no difference what I say now does it, your mind's made up.

Yeah I corrected my mistake, unlike you, because I went back to see if you had read the report. You hadnt, but I got one thing wrong. You still haven't read the report. It says nothing about shameless bad boys.

The actual survey had a picture of a guy who was looking ashamed. You made up the whole "shameful" bad boy bit, without reading the report/ And to make you look even less intelligent you have quoted my post, where I pointed out the bit where they said women were attracted to ( and I am quoting both myself in the post you replied to here and direct quote from the report)

proud and powerful, or moody and ashamed, according to a study.


Now. We all clear? good.

richymcdermott

Im no science expert but i believe a women is a attracted to your wallet

Yahew

dirtysteve wrote: »

Scientific study = valid
Scientific study quoted in Daily Mail = instantly invalid.
Harsh, but true;

As contradictory as that sounds, it is a science fact.

Yahew

richymcdermott wrote: »

Im no science expert but i believe a women is a attracted to your wallet

science fact, also.

Latchy

richymcdermott wrote: »

Im no science expert but i believe a women is a attracted to your wallet

Then when she picks it out of your inside pocket ...whoosh ...she's away

richymcdermott

Latchy wrote: »

Then when she picks it out of your inside pocket ...whoosh ...she's away

Story of my life:rolleyes:

Latchy

richymcdermott wrote: »

Story of my life:rolleyes:

The moths in my wallet are well fossilised by now .

dirtysteve

Girls don't like boys
Girls like cars and money
Boys will laugh at girls
When they're not funny.

deathrider

SparkyTech wrote: »

Ladies, is this true? Do ye only go for the broody, macho, twilight-esque rugged men?

There was no macho, rugged and/or men in Twillight. It was full of pale skinny unhealthy boys who looked like they had just been turned down at the auditions for a new boyband.

Jesus Wept

I was voted most likely to go postal.

annascott

ok, here's the thing....

Women go for the moody unattainable types as trophy boyfriends. They look good to be seen with and make us the envy of our friends. However, we secretly crave the open normality of having a relationship with a 'happy' guy who we can laugh with.

Stay happy and 'normal' and you will get the girls in the end - all be it when they are left heart broken by yet another sultry creep - but your turn does eventually happen...