simple question

Keith300

clairefontaine wrote: »

Sure, but if you say something so generalised and So discriminating about men it can also be called misandrist.

So what is it?

I don't believe generalisations, trends or averages are misandrist or mysogynist if they are based on reality or at least a fair estimate at reality.

Men and women are different, there are traits and characteristics in men and women which are more or less likely in men and women.

I think it is a fair estimate to say most single men would happily have sex with stunning woman simply based on her looks. Based off my experience to date and evolutionary theory. If I'm shown evidence to the contrary I'll happily change my opinion.

clairefontaine

Keith300 wrote: »

I don't believe generalisations, trends or averages are misandrist or mysogynist if they are based on reality or at least a fair estimate at reality.

Men and women are different, there are traits and characteristics in men and women which are more or less likely in men and women.

I think it is a fair estimate to say most single men would happily have sex with stunning woman simply based on her looks. Based off my experience to date and evolutionary theory. If I'm shown evidence to the contrary I'll happily change my opinion.

I was in a pool today and noticed there were 20 people in it with ginger hair, of different shades and qualities. Two others and myself do not have ginger hair. It might lead me to believe the majority of swimmers are gingers, and I might call this generalisation "reality". And I might build this assumption into all my future perceptions, assumptions, and conclusions. If I didn't know any better that is.

That's the problem with selective abstraction.

maguic24

Keith300 wrote: »

I don't believe generalisations, trends or averages are misandrist or mysogynist if they are based on reality or at least a fair estimate at reality.

Men and women are different, there are traits and characteristics in men and women which are more or less likely in men and women.

I think it is a fair estimate to say most single men would happily have sex with stunning woman simply based on her looks. Based off my experience to date and evolutionary theory. If I'm shown evidence to the contrary I'll happily change my opinion.

So, all of us ugly females are f*cked.......

.....or rather 'not f*cked'.......

Keith300

clairefontaine wrote: »

I was in a pool today and noticed there were 20 people in it with ginger hair, of different shades and qualities. Two others and myself do not have ginger hair. It might lead me to believe the majority of swimmers are gingers, and I might call this generalisation "reality". And I might build this assumption into all my future perceptions, assumptions, and conclusions. If I didn't know any better that is.

That's the problem with selective abstraction.

That would be silly indeed as there is clearly a vast array of evidence to the contrary. I doubt you have only ever been in swimming pool's with ginger haired people.

28064212

Keith300 wrote: »

I think it is a fair estimate to say most single men would happily have sex with stunning woman simply based on her looks

I'm sure they would. And most single women would happily have sex with a stunning man simply based on their looks. That's not exactly a stunning revelation

clairefontaine

28064212 wrote: »

I'm sure they would. And most single women would happily have sex with a stunning man simply based on their looks. That's not exactly a stunning revelation

I think when you imagine, "simply based on their looks" you are imaging at worst a bland personality. Once I start to imagine horribly negative personality traits, I question this thesis altogether.

28064212

clairefontaine wrote: »

I think when you imagine, "simply based on their looks" you are imaging at worst a bland personality.

Actually, I'm imagining a lack of knowledge about that personality

Keith300

28064212 wrote: »

I'm sure they would. And most single women would happily have sex with a stunning man simply based on their looks. That's not exactly a stunning revelation

I don't know if most women would to be honest simply based on looks. From my observations looks play a less significant role in determining attraction for women.

28064212

Keith300 wrote: »

I don't know if most women would to be honest simply based on looks. From my observations looks play a less significant role in determining attraction for women.

I disagree. In the same situation (i.e. single, extremely attractive other person, no strings), the reaction will be far, far more decided by cultural upbringing than it will by gender

Elmer Blooker

Keith300 wrote: »

I don't know if most women would to be honest simply based on looks. From my observations looks play a less significant role in determining attraction for women.

so so true, take a good looking guy who works 9-5 in an office or an unwashed scruffy looking bad boy type who plays in a band - I think its very obvious which one would the most attractive to women.
Actually I think women are very suspicious of the very good looking guys - no average looking bloke has ever been described as a "player"

kiffer

I think men are more appearance oriented than women for a few simple reasons... for the most part it's because it falls to men to pick a person out of crowd and approach them.
Given a room with a hundred people you pick a few people to approach and you can't approach them all to figure out who's interesting for reasons other than appearance.
Women on the other hand don't have to approach anywhere near as much as men in general do but are rather approached by a selection of men... some who stand out because they are attractive and as such interesting to talk to even if they are a bit dull really... "hahaha that's so funny, can I feel you arm?"
Some who stand out because even though they might not be some Adonis like figure but because once you get talking they are charismatic and interesting which makes them attractive.
Or they are neither attractive nor interesting in which case they get five minutes of polite conversion and then a series of hints to jog on... or rolled eyes/**** off/pointedly ignored.

The Corinthian

maguic24 wrote: »

So, all of us ugly females are f*cked.......

.....or rather 'not f*cked'.......

I think there's been too much emphasis on a rather simplistic anthropological model to date in this discussion.

While physical attractiveness is an important factor - typically the initial and likely the overwhelmingly dominant one in casual relationships, like one night stands - it's by no means the only one or, on balance, the dominant one.

I've dated a few very attractive women in my time (one was on the cover of Image magazine) and once you get over the euphoria of finding yourself in bed with an unbelievably beautiful woman, the reality overall is less attractive. They may be psychologically unbalanced, high-maintenance (emotionally and/or in material terms), boring, dumb, terrible in bed (very common with really beautiful people, in my experience) or just plain nasty - and not in the kinky way.

This isn't to say that all beautiful people are like that, but to highlight the fact that comeliness is only one factor in attraction; an important one, but not the only one. I may never be swayed to go for a horrifically ugly woman, but I will always pick the 'dented model' over the 'model' based upon factors that have nothing to do with physical beauty.

And beyond even things such as sex, personality, intellect, sanity and such, many people have unusual standards that they prioritize over looks, that most of us wouldn't even consider.

For example, I've come across women who seek men who are have a beer-belly. Or who are thirty years older than they are. Or men who will go for a woman based upon ridiculously large breasts (that she weighs 300 lbs is irrelevant). Or matriarchal.

The most curious relationships I've ever seen (more than once) was where the preference for one was a person that was nigh on incapable of functioning is society without help (we're not just talking unemployable, but even incapable of operating in most social situations). There, I suspect, the security felt by their partner being completely dependant (and thus never leaving them) was so important that it eclipsed all other factors.

CarlDunne1979

maguic24 wrote: »

So, all of us ugly females are f*cked.......

.....or rather 'not f*cked'.......

Actually you're a few clicks away on the internet from getting a one night sand from a dating site. Ugly males?... Either **** or frank-ly visit a lady of the night.

jaja321

Total generalisation - and I'm probably making a complete mess of phrasing this - but often really good looking people haven't had the same incentive to develop interesting personalities - they've gotten by primarily on their looks, particularly when they are younger.. while those more average looking have had to become more attractive in other ways - developing a personal sense of style, nurturing a talent, or whatever it may be.

maguic24

The Corinthian wrote: »

I think there's been too much emphasis on a rather simplistic anthropological model to date in this discussion.

While physical attractiveness is an important factor - typically the initial and likely the overwhelmingly dominant one in casual relationships, like one night stands - it's by no means the only one or, on balance, the dominant one.

I've dated a few very attractive women in my time (one was on the cover of Image magazine) and once you get over the euphoria of finding yourself in bed with an unbelievably beautiful woman, the reality overall is less attractive. They may be psychologically unbalanced, high-maintenance (emotionally and/or in material terms), boring, dumb, terrible in bed (very common with really beautiful people, in my experience) or just plain nasty - and not in the kinky way.

This isn't to say that all beautiful people are like that, but to highlight the fact that comeliness is only one factor in attraction; an important one, but not the only one. I may never be swayed to go for a horrifically ugly woman, but I will always pick the 'dented model' over the 'model' based upon factors that have nothing to do with physical beauty.

And beyond even things such as sex, personality, intellect, sanity and such, many people have unusual standards that they prioritize over looks, that most of us wouldn't even consider.

For example, I've come across women who seek men who are have a beer-belly. Or who are thirty years older than they are. Or men who will go for a woman based upon ridiculously large breasts (that she weighs 300 lbs is irrelevant). Or matriarchal.

The most curious relationships I've ever seen (more than once) was where the preference for one was a person that was nigh on incapable of functioning is society without help (we're not just talking unemployable, but even incapable of operating in most social situations). There, I suspect, the security felt by their partner being completely dependant (and thus never leaving them) was so important that it eclipsed all other factors.

Totally agree with you. I'm going to go back to my original point, we're all different and the question is not at all simple. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that jazz.

Yes I have seen attractive males and thought 'I'd like a piece of that' but no relationship would last if we based everything entirely on looks.

Sometimes we don't even make it to the bedroom, even if the guy/girl is amazingly good looking, like you said, she/he could have the personality of an emery board and be annoying as f*ck....

Attractiveness is dependent on a lot of things, if there's no chemistry between the two people, you may as well be p*ssing against the wind....

Wibbs

Keith300 wrote: »

From my observations looks play a less significant role in determining attraction for women.

I'd generally agree with that. Beauty has a lot to do with a physical expression of good health, particularly reproductive health. Women have a smaller reproductive window than men, so men are more likely to select for that. Men have a larger window, plus from social evolution in our species* women required a resource provider between late stage pregnancy and weaning of any children, so social standing/resources can flavour attraction more.

IE

Elmer Blooker wrote:

so so true, take a good looking guy who works 9-5 in an office or an unwashed scruffy looking bad boy type who plays in a band

Band boy has more resources(if successful) and much higher social standing and there is far more competition for his attentions.

no average looking bloke has ever been described as a "player"

I'd disagree there. About the biggest "player" I ever knew was decidedly homely in appearance. Average height, bad hair mostly gone, carrying a gut and a face that would crack mirrors, yet his dance card was well full, even though he had a dubious rep. On the plus side he was funny, good craic to be around and very gregarious. His social confidence knew few bounds.



*Of course cultural aspects apply far more to us than any other animal there is, so these drives even when present can be sidetracked.

The Corinthian

Wibbs wrote: »

I'd disagree there. About the biggest "player" I ever knew was decidedly homely in appearance. Average height, bad hair mostly gone, carrying a gut and a face that would crack mirrors, yet his dance card was well full, even though he had a dubious rep. On the plus side he was funny, good craic to be around and very gregarious. His social confidence knew few bounds.

As you're pretty, so be wise
Wolves may lurk in every guise
Now as then, 'tis simple truth
Sweetest tongue has sharpest tooth.

ancapailldorcha

The Corinthian wrote: »

I've dated a few very attractive women in my time (one was on the cover of Image magazine) and once you get over the euphoria of finding yourself in bed with an unbelievably beautiful woman, the reality overall is less attractive. They may be psychologically unbalanced, high-maintenance (emotionally and/or in material terms), boring, dumb, terrible in bed (very common with really beautiful people, in my experience) or just plain nasty - and not in the kinky way.

I think you're onto something here. Most of the extremely attractive women I've ever known have been somewhat shallow and more concerned with what men think of them and their looks. There's a girl who's just started at my work. She's a former Miss X (X being the name of a country which shall remain nameless) and I've noticed she can be somewhat condescending and sarcastic to certain people.
I wouldn't dream of saying all extremely attractive women are like this. I've known a few who are very sound and down to earth but there does seem to be a bit of a trend.