adamNJ Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 On a recent video Stefan put forth the statement posted above. He did however say that he does not know if it is true or not. Well is it? I am here to see if we can find evidence in support or against it. Thanks.
MMX2010 Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 On a recent video Stefan put forth the statement posted above. He did however say that he does not know if it is true or not. Well is it? I am here to see if we can find evidence in support or against it. Thanks. Not "date". "Have sex with". 1
Nutrigirl26 Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 I believe that truly nice women are attracted to the truly nice men. The women that are attracted to or date 20% of the men, I find them to be fairly close minded and mean because normally the 20% that they are dating have their good looks and money to get themselves in that category rather than their virtue. I find myself to be a pretty nice and honest person and I was mainly attracted to the guys who weren't arrogant or mean. I am currently in a relationship with a virtuous guy and I have never been happier. I believe this puts me in the supporting category! 1
Kevin Beal Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 It's from analysis done by the people who run OKCupid, the dating site, from this article. The quote is actually slightly different than what was mentioned: women rate an incredible 80% of guys as worse-looking than medium Men rated women's attractiveness on the site to be like a shallow bell curve with the hump being average attractiveness. Women's rating of men on the site however show a very different appraisal with most men being below average. And that's a HUGE sample size they are working with. Maybe the type of men on OKCupid really are below average, or women generally have unrealistic expectation. Pretty frustrating. 3
Bipedal Primate Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 Men rated women's attractiveness on the site to be like a shallow bell curve with the hump being average attractiveness. Women's rating of men on the site however show a very different appraisal with most men being below average. And that's a HUGE sample size they are working with. Maybe the type of men on OKCupid really are below average, or women generally have unrealistic expectation. Pretty frustrating. I think a lot of women do in fact have very unrealistic physical expectations/requirements. I have met so many daft women who openly refuse to even consider dating a guy shorter than 6'0. And a lot of 'these' women are really short, which is baffling. I'm 5'8" and have no problem dating guys my own height or shorter than me. I actually prefer men closer to my own height, holding my head up to kiss is a PITN ;-) 4
Magnus Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 It's very interesting that there'd be such a marked difference in the shapes of the male and female bell curves on OkCupid's attractiveness rating. I think it can give us some illuminating insights into the psychological aspects of mate selection.I generally operate from the assumption that women are more sexually selective than men. Or, put another way, men are less sexually discriminating than women. This is a feature of our reproductive realities, in which women take a far greater risk in mating with a suboptimal male (one that's less desirable than she is capable of attracting), as compared to a male's minimal risk of mating with a sub-optimal female. The female invests a year of her life in pregnancy, and invests many more years in childcare after pregnancy. The idea of committing to a father who is less desirable than the female could have chosen is sufficient reason for her to be very careful in her selection process.I don't think it would be a stretch to deduce from this that a woman's dating strategy would be to consider all men to be unacceptable as mating partners, until proven otherwise. For men, the default strategy would likely be the reverse – that all women are at least potentially acceptable as mating partners.That would account for a female selection bell curve that's skewed negative. 8
shirgall Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 I think a lot of women do in fact have very unrealistic physical expectations/requirements. I have met so many daft women who openly refuse to even consider dating a guy shorter than 6'0. And a lot of 'these' women are really short, which is baffling. I'm 5'8" and have no problem dating guys my own height or shorter than me. I actually prefer men closer to my own height, holding my head up to kiss is a PITN ;-) Yeah, when I was 5'9" on match.com I got a lot less hits than if I tested with a lie of 5'10". Another amusing thing is if I included my salary I was "bragging" or "lying" but if I left it out I was considered unemployed. My now-wife saw my profile on match.com and skipped me because I looked "snarky" in my picture. Didn't even read the blurb. We ended up going out because she came to one of my firearms classes I taught. 1
Kevin Beal Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 That would account for a female selection bell curve that's skewed negative. That makes too much sense. It is a shame though, that the selection criteria is so often "he's got a high paying job" or "he's tall" or something else that has nothing to do with virtue. If it were all about virtue, then I'd probably celebrate this, but the guys aren't a whole lot better when it comes to who they end up messaging.
bootoo Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 no way to know what 20% of 4 billion people are doing with 80% of 4 billion people seems a bit silly 1 1
Kevin Beal Posted November 19, 2014 Posted November 19, 2014 no way to know what 20% of 4 billion people are doing with 80% of 4 billion people seems a bit silly Which is why I clarified what was actually being claimed: women rate an incredible 80% of guys as worse-looking than medium 1
Bipedal Primate Posted November 19, 2014 Posted November 19, 2014 Yeah, when I was 5'9" on match.com I got a lot less hits than if I tested with a lie of 5'10". Another amusing thing is if I included my salary I was "bragging" or "lying" but if I left it out I was considered unemployed. My now-wife saw my profile on match.com and skipped me because I looked "snarky" in my picture. Didn't even read the blurb. We ended up going out because she came to one of my firearms classes I taught. I always want to ask these people: Is there really that much of a difference between 6'0" and 5'11" or 5"8" and 5'7" .... are you really going to let one inch subtract a potential life partner who might be fucking amazing in bed, super kind, intelligent, funny, loyal, and someone you could spend the rest of your life with. WTF? -- Obviously, anyone who is this short sighted, no pun intended, has not started the process of self knowledge. I suspect, men in general, put less time, effort, and thought into the type of pictures they take and display on their online profiles. Women tend to take more photos of themselves with the goal of achieving optimal beauty in the picture. More photos gives women more choices. The more pictures one takes of one's self will lead to more knowledge about how to pose to show off one's best features. Many times, I have seen a guy's profile pic on facebook etc, and thought he was not very attractive, but then when I see him in person I am blown away by how handsome he is. Or maybe it is actually his awesome personality that alters my perception of his attractiveness, lol :-D I might be wrong, and please correct me if I am. I suspect, guys in general, don't put as much thought, as women, into choosing and posting photos that highlight their attractive features and /or they aren't even aware of their best angles or how lighting can alter the way they look in pictures. Therefore, I wonder if the online dating site's results are skewed due to the fact men in general are posting crappy pictures of themselves? What do you think? 3
Kevin Beal Posted November 19, 2014 Posted November 19, 2014 I might be wrong, and please correct me if I am. I suspect, guys in general, don't put as much thought, as women, into choosing and posting photos that highlight their attractive features and /or they aren't even aware of their best angles or how lighting can alter the way they look in pictures. Therefore, I wonder if the online dating site's results are skewed due to the fact men in general are posting crappy pictures of themselves? What do you think? Best angles? Lighting? Uh oh. It's worse than I realized! Yea. Just speaking for myself, and other guys that I know personally, what you're saying is very true. 1
growler76 Posted November 19, 2014 Posted November 19, 2014 Yeah, when I was 5'9" on match.com I got a lot less hits than if I tested with a lie of 5'10". Another amusing thing is if I included my salary I was "bragging" or "lying" but if I left it out I was considered unemployed. My now-wife saw my profile on match.com and skipped me because I looked "snarky" in my picture. Didn't even read the blurb. We ended up going out because she came to one of my firearms classes I taught. I've posted a profile on Match before and then I realized I didn't meet the minimum height requirements of 90% of the women* (I'm 5'6"). I was apparently even too short for many women that are 4'11 or 5'. Granted, I'm just average looking, but I hardly got any hits at all to my profile. It dawned on me that I was probably not even showing up in anyone's search results. Many of the women also posted a minimum salary requirement above mine, and I'm just under median for my area. *Disclosure: stat pulled out of my ass.
Bipedal Primate Posted November 19, 2014 Posted November 19, 2014 My now-wife saw my profile on match.com and skipped me because I looked "snarky" in my picture. Didn't even read the blurb. We ended up going out because she came to one of my firearms classes I taught. Best angles? Lighting? Uh oh. It's worse than I realized! Yea. Just speaking for myself, and other guys that I know personally, what you're saying is very true. I definitely think the picture you chose for online dating profiles takes precedence over anything you have written. Your picture is the gateway to your profile, and if your facade doesn't look inviting people won't want to enter and will never even find out how interesting, funny, etc. you might be. For example, here are two pictures of myself: Geek vs Chic. I would wager, my first geeky picture would be ranked at a low level of attractiveness, while picture #2 would be ranked at a high level of attractiveness. If most women are actively posting the absolute best picture possible and men are doing the opposite by posting pictures that actually make them look worse than in real life, then the attractiveness votes would not actually be accurate of people's real life attractiveness. 3
effo Posted November 19, 2014 Posted November 19, 2014 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle i think it works other way around too, 80% of men want to marry 20 of women maybe. 80% of pleasure comes 20% of time, etc. 1
Kevin Beal Posted November 19, 2014 Posted November 19, 2014 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle i think it works other way around too, 80% of men want to marry 20 of women maybe. 80% of pleasure comes 20% of time, etc. 20% of your customers take up 80% of your time, and is the reason that the customer is not always right and it's actually best for everyone to tell irritating and demanding customers to go take a hike. For example, here are two pictures of myself: Geek vs Chic. I would wager, my first geeky picture would be ranked at a low level of attractiveness, while picture #2 would be ranked at a high level of attractiveness. I like the geek look, personally
shirgall Posted November 19, 2014 Posted November 19, 2014 I suspect, men in general, put less time, effort, and thought into the type of pictures they take and display on their online profiles. Women tend to take more photos of themselves with the goal of achieving optimal beauty in the picture. More photos gives women more choices. The more pictures one takes of one's self will lead to more knowledge about how to pose to show off one's best features. We put a lot of effort into that query message, because we all know women receive 100X more queries than we do, and we have a crowd to stand out in. I base this on the idea that the women I knew searching on match.com spent most of their time responding to queries than sending them, whereas most of the men I knew on match.com spent most of the time writing queries in order to get a conversation started.
J. D. Stembal Posted November 19, 2014 Posted November 19, 2014 Sandman has several no nonsense videos on online dating. 2
MMX2010 Posted November 19, 2014 Posted November 19, 2014 I liked those Sandman videos a lot. Thanks ETU.
Spenc Posted November 22, 2014 Posted November 22, 2014 I always want to ask these people: Is there really that much of a difference between 6'0" and 5'11" or 5"8" and 5'7" .... are you really going to let one inch subtract a potential life partner who might be fucking amazing in bed, super kind, intelligent, funny, loyal, and someone you could spend the rest of your life with. WTF? -- Obviously, anyone who is this short sighted, no pun intended, has not started the process of self knowledge. I suspect, men in general, put less time, effort, and thought into the type of pictures they take and display on their online profiles. Women tend to take more photos of themselves with the goal of achieving optimal beauty in the picture. More photos gives women more choices. The more pictures one takes of one's self will lead to more knowledge about how to pose to show off one's best features. Many times, I have seen a guy's profile pic on facebook etc, and thought he was not very attractive, but then when I see him in person I am blown away by how handsome he is. Or maybe it is actually his awesome personality that alters my perception of his attractiveness, lol :-D I might be wrong, and please correct me if I am. I suspect, guys in general, don't put as much thought, as women, into choosing and posting photos that highlight their attractive features and /or they aren't even aware of their best angles or how lighting can alter the way they look in pictures. Therefore, I wonder if the online dating site's results are skewed due to the fact men in general are posting crappy pictures of themselves? What do you think? This is covering so many of the ideas I've been having recently as I've delved into the world of online dating again. Like, the girls look like models in so many profiles! And I'm just throwing up any 3 pictures that a) show my face clearly in a couple of them and b) shows a longer view so they can see what physical shape I'm in. I generally don't take a lot of photos, and when I'm in photos I don't go to the effort to get copies of them or be tagged on facebook or whatever. So yeah, I have few photos to draw from and then even if there is good lighting or good angles, I wouldn't know it if I saw it. I might have an instinctive sense that a picture is better than others, but photography just doesn't interest me anough to know how it happened.
J. D. Stembal Posted November 22, 2014 Posted November 22, 2014 This is covering so many of the ideas I've been having recently as I've delved into the world of online dating again. Like, the girls look like models in so many profiles! And I'm just throwing up any 3 pictures that a) show my face clearly in a couple of them and b) shows a longer view so they can see what physical shape I'm in. I generally don't take a lot of photos, and when I'm in photos I don't go to the effort to get copies of them or be tagged on facebook or whatever. So yeah, I have few photos to draw from and then even if there is good lighting or good angles, I wouldn't know it if I saw it. I might have an instinctive sense that a picture is better than others, but photography just doesn't interest me anough to know how it happened. I forget where I heard this tidbit. It was probably one of the various MGTOW video on YouTube. You will more well received by women if you are doing an activity in the photograph. Women tend to be simply working the camera in theirs, trying to get the best lighting and angles and such. Also, showing off your body, like taking a picture of your ripped chest and shoulders is seen as male faux pas. This goes back to the Estrogen Based Parasites show, I believe, where Stefan argued that when women fantasize about men, they almost never picture them naked. They tend to picture men wearing uniforms of expensive clothes because these denote status. You can prove this by wearing dumpy looking clothes (t-shirt, jeans) to a public place where a lot of women congregate. Starbucks in a good example. Sit at a table and watch all the women as they come in. One in fifty of them might look at you for more than a split second. Most won't look at you at all. Do the same thing in designer clothes and you get a lot more eyeballs, smiles and hellos. I'm convinced that most women are programmed to look at the utility and status of a man before they see the person behind it. This is why in every city there is an underground army of homeless men, and no one seems to notice them. It's like they are invisible.
IndianaLee Posted December 16, 2014 Posted December 16, 2014 I believe that truly nice women are attracted to the truly nice men. The women that are attracted to or date 20% of the men, I find them to be fairly close minded and mean because normally the 20% that they are dating have their good looks and money to get themselves in that category rather than their virtue. I find myself to be a pretty nice and honest person and I was mainly attracted to the guys who weren't arrogant or mean. I am currently in a relationship with a virtuous guy and I have never been happier. I believe this puts me in the supporting category! This is so refreshing to hear. Good luck to you two! I always want to ask these people: Is there really that much of a difference between 6'0" and 5'11" or 5"8" and 5'7" .... are you really going to let one inch subtract a potential life partner who might be fucking amazing in bed, super kind, intelligent, funny, loyal, and someone you could spend the rest of your life with. WTF? -- Obviously, anyone who is this short sighted, no pun intended, has not started the process of self knowledge. I suspect, men in general, put less time, effort, and thought into the type of pictures they take and display on their online profiles. Women tend to take more photos of themselves with the goal of achieving optimal beauty in the picture. More photos gives women more choices. The more pictures one takes of one's self will lead to more knowledge about how to pose to show off one's best features. Many times, I have seen a guy's profile pic on facebook etc, and thought he was not very attractive, but then when I see him in person I am blown away by how handsome he is. Or maybe it is actually his awesome personality that alters my perception of his attractiveness, lol :-D I might be wrong, and please correct me if I am. I suspect, guys in general, don't put as much thought, as women, into choosing and posting photos that highlight their attractive features and /or they aren't even aware of their best angles or how lighting can alter the way they look in pictures. Therefore, I wonder if the online dating site's results are skewed due to the fact men in general are posting crappy pictures of themselves? What do you think? I think that's true for sure as far as guys not paying attention to light and taking many pics, etc,. I used to take pics of myself as photography is a sorta hobby. So, when I took photo's of me playing my guitar or doing something it for sure seemed like I was received a lot better by women. Interesting for sure. I think biology makes us seek the most attractive we can initially at least. I think women are actually much more forgiving in some ways than men. Men know exactly what they want as far as a girl looks. I mean it's really pretty simple. She has to be attractive and have physical attributes. Now, I'm 53, and I know of women that tell me that they find attractive something weird like a voice or a stance, etc,. I don't know how many times I have been told that my deep voice is sexy or something. Not trying to brag, but it's interesting. It's true too that women don't like short men for some reason. I suspect it has something to do with hunting and gathering or something back when we were humping in the night. Tall men might have had better luck at hunting or resource gathering or something. I'm not sure. Maybe not, just my observation about the whole thing. I'm 5. 11 1/2" and I get told all the time I'm tall by gals. My best friend is like 5. 6 or 5.7 and can't buy a date, and he's very virtuous, kind, owns a business, (isn't rich or anything) and has it together. I think it's mostly to do with Biology and the way we are raised and our values for sure. Just my two pence. :-) Tim
Zelenn Posted December 21, 2014 Posted December 21, 2014 I'm hoping that the shallowness of "some" women will act as an filtration device. Any woman who's perception stops at my clothing and wallet is not deserving of my time and attention. Money, status and height are about the only things I don't have going for me. I'm fit as a fucking fiddle. A Cross country cyclist, a rock climber. I train in a martial art or two. I can cook fairly well, great with kids, and I'm emotionally available. I can garden, milk cows, build sheds, install electrical wiring, free dive for oysters, and weld with plastic. My skill set is so versatile that I'm not even sure what is the extent of what I can do. I am certain that I can adequately perform in skills that I haven't even tried yet. I abide by the Non Agression principle, actively try to be logical, pursue self knowledge, manage what little money I have very well, and am basically a living god in bed, if I do say so myself. Lol. But unfortunately, I'm 5' 7", don't own a suit (and would probably never wear one), and have never earned more than $30,000 a year. My personal freedom means way too much to sacrifice it for something like money. Now, I'm going to "toot my own horn here", ... I'm freakin awesome. I'm 26, can do all kinds of practical things, I'm fit, fun, try to be virtuous... and I couldn't get a date to save my life. I'm not afraid to say that I have no clue what the fuck is going on. Finding a compatible woman shouldn't be this hard. 3 1
Sashajade Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 I've thought about the reasons why the 80% of women dating 20%of men. I think that especially younger generations of women who have grown up in single parent homes as a result of the ever growing welfare state has definitly influenced the types of men they get involved with. Since there are less financially stable guys available but more women who are now self sufficient or on welfare, everything is skewed. I think the successful women are really picky because they want an even more successful guy and that will narrow your prospects. You also got women who aren't very stable, who pick inappropriate partners due to attachment disorders, low self worth, due to coming up in dysfunctional homes. Definitly the economic conditions drive most women to men with money, because conditions for women in society are still unequal in many ways. Mostly for women who come from poverty backgrounds. 1
engardeknave Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 Definitly the economic conditions drive most women to men with money, because conditions for women in society are still unequal in many ways. Mostly for women who come from poverty backgrounds. I'm sorry, that's just not true. All things being equal, women are paid more than men. 2
PatrickC Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 Yes, I think the economic (welfare) drivers are fairly recent. They certainly exacerbate the situation, but the drivers for this stat have always been there to one degree or another. But it's certainly worse than ever before for men. Men have always had to prove themselves to women. This was of course a lot easier when the economy was less regulated and even working class men could find suitable employment that gave them enough income to buy a small house and keep a family of 3 kids and a spouse in relative comfort. This class of men have now been almost entirely usurped by welfare. These days even lower/middle class families struggle to avoid some govt handouts. Young men rarely get a sniff at promotion in the corporate sector until their mid 30's and youngsters can barely get their foot in the door due to minimum wage restrictions. As engardeknave reminds us, all too often the corporate sector rewards younger women above their male counterparts and women seem to excel in the public sector, whilst the men are noticeably absent. All in all it means men have had to become ever more resourceful in an ever decreasing and more restrictive environment. It's why you see a lot of men in their 30's+ moving to the far east. Despite the (hysterical) claims they go there for the cheap sex, they mainly go there looking for work, less regulations and a more affordable cost of living. 1
MMX2010 Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 It's pretty to think that "Women are naturally loyal towards men, but economic factors pervert women's loyalty." But I think the truth is that "Women only pretend to be naturally loyal towards men when their freedom is curtailed, and the unprecedented amount of personal, interpersonal, economic, religious, maternal, and political freedom that women currently possess has revealed to everyone women's natural disloyalty towards men." Edited to add: I can support my argument above with scientific references, and I doubt that the downvoters (who always remain anonymous, even when asked to identify themselves) can do the same. 3 2
PatrickC Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 I found this rather interesting article regarding the 80/20 ratio. http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2010/09/14/hookinguprealities/sex-and-the-pareto-principle/
J. D. Stembal Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 I abide by the Non Agression principle, actively try to be logical, pursue self knowledge, manage what little money I have very well, and am basically a living god in bed, if I do say so myself. Lol. Now, I'm going to "toot my own horn here", ... I'm freakin awesome. I'm 26, can do all kinds of practical things, I'm fit, fun, try to be virtuous... and I couldn't get a date to save my life. I'm not afraid to say that I have no clue what the fuck is going on. Finding a compatible woman shouldn't be this hard. If you have money, you can get away with almost anything around women. Listen to a couple Tom Leykis shows and you'll get the picture. If you don't have much money, and you come across as arrogant, intimidating, or otherwise emotionally undesirable, most women won't look at you twice. I'm not saying you actually posses these qualities, but you displayed in your post pride in your physical, intellectual, and sexual powers, which may give women the impression that you are full of it. I wish more men could be loud and proud about being male without being ostracized, but unfortunately, proudly displaying your man-ness is not very well accepted these days. These are the qualities that our feminist dominated society is trying to filter out of the gene pool. Couple all this with a lack of material success, and it's not very mysterious why you are having trouble getting a date in this environment. I think the successful women are really picky because they want an even more successful guy and that will narrow your prospects. Again, I will point to Tom Leykis as a reference for his comments on the topic. He contends that no matter how much money a woman makes, she will still want to marry up. Men who marry more successful women are almost universally derided as deadbeat husbands or gigolos, especially men who endeavor to work in the home as full-time fathers, teachers or caretakers. It's pretty to think that "Women are naturally loyal towards men, but economic factors pervert women's loyalty." But I think the truth is that "Women only pretend to be naturally loyal towards men when their freedom is curtailed, and the unprecedented amount of personal, interpersonal, economic, religious, maternal, and political freedom that women currently possess has revealed to everyone women's natural disloyalty towards men." Edited to add: I can support my argument above with scientific references, and I doubt that the downvoters (who always remain anonymous, even when asked to identify themselves) can do the same. NAWALT! There is a campaign to downvote you into oblivion. I cannot prove it, but it seems that way. Usually, I feel compelled to read your posts, even when they are long and difficult to follow. I prefer the shorter ones without dashed lines. If your detractors manage to get you below the -25 threshold, I will quote every one of your posts.
Kevin Beal Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 There is a campaign to downvote you into oblivion. Yea, I've noticed that too. If I've got votes left over, I usually try and cancel it out. I don't understand it... is it a politically correct thing? Like "zomg! He made a generalization about women!"
J. D. Stembal Posted January 13, 2015 Posted January 13, 2015 Yea, I've noticed that too. If I've got votes left over, I usually try and cancel it out. I don't understand it... is it a politically correct thing? Like "zomg! He made a generalization about women!" It's difficult to say. I will speculate that he pissed a couple members off in the thread about tattoos and childhood trauma because since then nearly all his posts have been negged. (Disclaimer: Correlation does not mean causation.) I don't think it has to do with MGTOW or hypergamy or the Rollo Tomassi blogs he links, because I would be getting negs, too, for posting Sandman vidoes. Maybe I'm the next target? You could be right, though. It's possible that we have donating members who are feminists.
MMX2010 Posted January 13, 2015 Posted January 13, 2015 There is a campaign to downvote you into oblivion. I cannot prove it, but it seems that way. Usually, I feel compelled to read your posts, even when they are long and difficult to follow. I prefer the shorter ones without dashed lines. If your detractors manage to get you below the -25 threshold, I will quote every one of your posts. Thank you. There is a campaign, but it's probably limited to two or three individuals. And I've asked those who downvote me to explain why, but that only leads to more downvoting. (Check out neeeeeeel's "Sociopathic Tendencies" thread for one such example.) -------------------- With regard to this topic, and SashaJade's post, Return of Kings author, Raywolf asks the most crucial question: "Were women obedient, loving and kind to men because alpha men led them well? OR Because THEY HAD NO OTHER CHOICE and their very survival depended on it? Everyone's answer will be unique to their own personal experiences and philosophical rigor, but your answer will largely determine your life's path. The full article is here: http://www.returnofkings.com/30667/the-red-pill-cant-bring-back-what-weve-lost 1 1
Sashajade Posted January 26, 2015 Posted January 26, 2015 Sorry about my comment about women being unequal in many ways. Yes as far as wages and opportunities, things are much more equal especially in developed nations. I think the reason I feel unequal has alot more to do with experiences of being victimized and being made to feel that way in my formative years. I guess when I think of inequality I think of my own history of being exploited and the choices I had made as a result. So it has to do alot with being mistreated early on by adult men and feeling as if I was somehow less valuable and less deserving of the same treatment because i was the female child. In response to the above post about Raywolf's crucial question: I'm going to say that I think that women do need men regardless of the independence that they have gained. Yes at one time it was even more so because our survival depended on it, but in reality it still does. Since there are many things that men prefer to do that women either can't or choose not to do, or just not equipped to do because we are biologically wired different. However, I think it is important to note that if a woman is healthy emotionally and is being treated with respect by men that this will influence wether a woman is obedient, loving, and kind to men. 1
AccuTron Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 For example, here are two pictures of myself: Geek vs Chic. I would wager, my first geeky picture would be ranked at a low level of attractiveness, while picture #2 would be ranked at a high level of attractiveness. In the interest of good science: The dork look, making a face, would still be yucky in the chic dress. A decent intelligent face above the "geek" clothing would be attractive. I think a female delusion has crept in here; that we men give a shit about your clothes. We immediately imagine you naked, not because we necessarily care, but because we realize that clothing on females is usually a form of false advertising. Somebody wants to sell a car, the paint job is nice, but who gives a crap if the transmission grinds and the pistons slap. Ignore the paint job, lets hear the engine. It's pretty to think that "Women are naturally loyal towards men, but economic factors pervert women's loyalty." But I think the truth is that "Women only pretend to be naturally loyal towards men when their freedom is curtailed, and the unprecedented amount of personal, interpersonal, economic, religious, maternal, and political freedom that women currently possess has revealed to everyone women's natural disloyalty towards men." I live in a right nice neighborhood. I don't know about most people here, but what I've witnessed just from my front yard -- how a woman who is married behaves, or one who is not yet separated -- leaves me in disgust.
Recommended Posts