Board index › Coping in life › Love and Dating

are men chasing after small percent of single women

Page 10 of 10 [ 155 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Previous topic | Next topic

The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,051
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

22 Apr 2013, 9:42 am

What matches my experience is that couples are often on the same 'level' of attractiveness - that might indicate that they're about equally visual.



Tyri0n
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,879
Location: Douchebag Capital of the World (aka Washington D.C.)

22 Apr 2013, 9:59 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
What matches my experience is that couples are often on the same 'level' of attractiveness - that might indicate that they're about equally visual.


Or that, for men, attractiveness tracks personality traits and money in many cases.

In addition, I have noticed plenty of ugly or average men with nice-looking women. One sees very little of the reverse, and everyone is shocked when it does happen; in fact, the media never shows it. Often, the ugly men are rich (which is a factor other than looks). But sometimes, they inexplicably aren't.

It seems that, for many women, the algorithm is such:

- looks
- wealth
- humor
- another factor whose identity is a mystery to me and which I don't think I have. It seems to be related to traditional gener roles in many cases, which would make sense that I don't have it since I don't believe in traditional gender roles.

For men, the factors are:

looks

.
.
.
.
personality (with passivity and femininity usually being favored)



MjrMajorMajor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jan 2012
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,748

22 Apr 2013, 11:17 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:

How dare you say that men and women are that different! hyperlexian is gonna shoot you!


:lol:

Hmm, just a brief perusal here but you do have a point.

Long dry scientificy article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2739403/

What caught my eye from said article:

A possible characteristic of sexual stimuli that men and women may attend to differently is the physical context or nonsexual details of the stimuli. This is supported by a recent eye tracking study demonstrating different gaze patterns for men and women viewing pictures of sexually explicit heterosexual activity (Rupp & Wallen, 2007). Although all participants spent the majority of their viewing time looking at the genitals, female faces, and female bodies in the photos, women using hormonal contraceptives looked more often at the background of the photos and clothing than did men. That study also found that men looked more often at the female actors’ faces in the pictures than did women. Because the men and women in this study did not differ in their ratings of how sexually attractive they found the pictures, [i]women’s bias towards the contextual features of the stimuli, specifically the clothing and background, did not appear to be associated with less positive appraisal of the photos. [/i]

Women were noticing those details, but not to the point where it would raise or lower someone's "ratings". Evaluating someone for a potential date would add in those additional factors to a point, but not effect any attraction itself.



Tyri0n
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,879
Location: Douchebag Capital of the World (aka Washington D.C.)

22 Apr 2013, 12:11 pm

MjrMajorMajor wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:

How dare you say that men and women are that different! hyperlexian is gonna shoot you!


:lol:

Hmm, just a brief perusal here but you do have a point.

Long dry scientificy article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2739403/

What caught my eye from said article:

A possible characteristic of sexual stimuli that men and women may attend to differently is the physical context or nonsexual details of the stimuli. This is supported by a recent eye tracking study demonstrating different gaze patterns for men and women viewing pictures of sexually explicit heterosexual activity (Rupp & Wallen, 2007). Although all participants spent the majority of their viewing time looking at the genitals, female faces, and female bodies in the photos, women using hormonal contraceptives looked more often at the background of the photos and clothing than did men. That study also found that men looked more often at the female actors’ faces in the pictures than did women. Because the men and women in this study did not differ in their ratings of how sexually attractive they found the pictures, [i]women’s bias towards the contextual features of the stimuli, specifically the clothing and background, did not appear to be associated with less positive appraisal of the photos. [/i]

Women were noticing those details, but not to the point where it would raise or lower someone's "ratings". Evaluating someone for a potential date would add in those additional factors to a point, but not effect any attraction itself.


From a biological standpoint, don't women, as a whole, have better peripheral vision and a superior ability to process multiple visual details at once? This could explain some of that, right?



BlueMax
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Aug 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,285

22 Apr 2013, 1:00 pm

Tyri0n wrote:
From a biological standpoint, don't women, as a whole, have better peripheral vision and a superior ability to process multiple visual details at once? This could explain some of that, right?

Maybe that's why, when I watch them drive, their heads almost never move from dead-center. No looking around at traffic, no checking mirrors... the only time I see lady drivers look away from front-and-center is to play with their phones.
Texters get honked (and boy do they get mad at that!) :roll:



MjrMajorMajor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jan 2012
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,748

22 Apr 2013, 1:27 pm

Tyri0n wrote:

From a biological standpoint, don't women, as a whole, have better peripheral vision and a superior ability to process multiple visual details at once? This could explain some of that, right?


Interesting question. I can't use personal experience for those questions because I always seem to deviate from the norm quite a bit. I don't understand women either. :mrgreen:



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,051
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

22 Apr 2013, 1:56 pm

Tyri0n wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
What matches my experience is that couples are often on the same 'level' of attractiveness - that might indicate that they're about equally visual.


Or that, for men, attractiveness tracks personality traits and money in many cases.

In addition, I have noticed plenty of ugly or average men with nice-looking women. One sees very little of the reverse, and everyone is shocked when it does happen; in fact, the media never shows it. Often, the ugly men are rich (which is a factor other than looks). But sometimes, they inexplicably aren't.

It seems that, for many women, the algorithm is such:

- looks
- wealth
- humor
- another factor whose identity is a mystery to me and which I don't think I have. It seems to be related to traditional gener roles in many cases, which would make sense that I don't have it since I don't believe in traditional gender roles.

For men, the factors are:

looks

.
.
.
.
personality (with passivity and femininity usually being favored)


No, wrong, talk about yourself. That's only you.

I refuse this unfair and nevertheless false categorization of men.

I know 3 guys who were total players who had the most gorgeous women (total babes) after them all the time, they ended up marrying women who are totally average and they're totally in love!

For most men the factors for a long term or marriage are:

-LOYALTY and Personality (they are related)
- Good to average body , face comes second.

Not much "."s in between as you notice, maybe your listing is more accurate for flings but certainly not for long terms.


As for women, on dating sites it was always the looks come first due to the imbalance of gender ratio, but in real life it's not really a matter of listing, women's preferences are more like mosaic, a pie chart of Looks, personality and assets (ie. Money/job), no factor comes before the other but they are all important for the final result.



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,051
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

22 Apr 2013, 2:06 pm

MjrMajorMajor wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:

How dare you say that men and women are that different! hyperlexian is gonna shoot you!


:lol:

Hmm, just a brief perusal here but you do have a point.

Long dry scientificy article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2739403/

What caught my eye from said article:

A possible characteristic of sexual stimuli that men and women may attend to differently is the physical context or nonsexual details of the stimuli. This is supported by a recent eye tracking study demonstrating different gaze patterns for men and women viewing pictures of sexually explicit heterosexual activity (Rupp & Wallen, 2007). Although all participants spent the majority of their viewing time looking at the genitals, female faces, and female bodies in the photos, women using hormonal contraceptives looked more often at the background of the photos and clothing than did men. That study also found that men looked more often at the female actors’ faces in the pictures than did women. Because the men and women in this study did not differ in their ratings of how sexually attractive they found the pictures, [i]women’s bias towards the contextual features of the stimuli, specifically the clothing and background, did not appear to be associated with less positive appraisal of the photos. [/i]

Women were noticing those details, but not to the point where it would raise or lower someone's "ratings". Evaluating someone for a potential date would add in those additional factors to a point, but not effect any attraction itself.


oh come on, the quoted text really conclude that, the actors in the pics were NAKED porn actors so of course the female subjects wouldn't associate anything else to the activeness of the picture. However in real life men don't wander naked, are you telling me that women in general find men in dirty abaya more attractive than men in suits? Come on! The haircuts,, the clothing, the posture, the shoes... all these stuff women scan a lot in detail and I bet they certainly have their impact on activeness.

Men tend to notice much less such details, that's why a lot of men fail to recognize whether there's too little or too much make up on women (it's often other women who point them out), men look more at the "whole picture" (maybe boobs and ass in more detail) and get charmed if they like what they're seeing as a whole.



MjrMajorMajor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jan 2012
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,748

22 Apr 2013, 2:52 pm

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:

oh come on, the quoted text really conclude that, the actors in the pics were NAKED porn actors so of course the female subjects wouldn't associate anything else to the activeness of the picture. However in real life men don't wander naked, are you telling me that women in general find men in dirty abaya more attractive than men in suits? Come on! The haircuts,, the clothing, the posture, the shoes... all these stuff women scan a lot in detail and I bet they certainly have their impact on activeness.

Men tend to notice much less such details, that's why a lot of men fail to recognize whether there's too little or too much make up on women (it's often other women who point them out), men look more at the "whole picture" (maybe boobs and ass in more detail) and get charmed if they like what they're seeing as a whole.


It illustrated some differences in visual stimulation, which would most likely carry over when assessing someone for dating purposes. Of course the accessories matter, but I've seen that with both sexes. A guy with a sharp haircut and a nice suit is going to generate some positive attention, but if a woman puts on a form-fitting dress and stiletto heels she's going to turn more heads than in a baggy t-shirt and jeans. Men might not notice the individual details as much, but that doesn't mean the influence is less.



MjrMajorMajor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jan 2012
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,748

22 Apr 2013, 2:53 pm

appletheclown wrote:
MjrMajorMajor wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
It's funny for nessa saying that, since she and Major are somehow dictating what "unattractive" guys are supposed to like and what are not supposed to like.

I merely mentioned that any man automatically deeming himself "unattractive" in the first place is really shooting themselves in the foot.


I am hot stuff, and I got a date. No shooting myself in the foot, I'm a sniper, bam gotchya!


:wink: You betcha.



Tyri0n
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,879
Location: Douchebag Capital of the World (aka Washington D.C.)

22 Apr 2013, 3:05 pm

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Tyri0n wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
What matches my experience is that couples are often on the same 'level' of attractiveness - that might indicate that they're about equally visual.


Or that, for men, attractiveness tracks personality traits and money in many cases.

In addition, I have noticed plenty of ugly or average men with nice-looking women. One sees very little of the reverse, and everyone is shocked when it does happen; in fact, the media never shows it. Often, the ugly men are rich (which is a factor other than looks). But sometimes, they inexplicably aren't.

It seems that, for many women, the algorithm is such:

- looks
- wealth
- humor
- another factor whose identity is a mystery to me and which I don't think I have. It seems to be related to traditional gener roles in many cases, which would make sense that I don't have it since I don't believe in traditional gender roles.

For men, the factors are:

looks

.
.
.
.
personality (with passivity and femininity usually being favored)


No, wrong, talk about yourself. That's only you.

I refuse this unfair and nevertheless false categorization of men.

I know 3 guys who were total players who had the most gorgeous women (total babes) after them all the time, they ended up marrying women who are totally average and they're totally in love!

For most men the factors for a long term or marriage are:

-LOYALTY and Personality (they are related)
- Good to average body , face comes second.

Not much "."s in between as you notice, maybe your listing is more accurate for flings but certainly not for long terms.


As for women, on dating sites it was always the looks come first due to the imbalance of gender ratio, but in real life it's not really a matter of listing, women's preferences are more like mosaic, a pie chart of Looks, personality and assets (ie. Money/job), no factor comes before the other but they are all important for the final result.


Actually, I'm attracted to non-passive tomboys who can do "guy" activities with me. So that is not a description of myself. For me, looks are necessary but not sufficient. For many guys, they are sufficient also. What you describe is the fact that most guys are imperfect in their assets and, therefore, have to "settle" to an extent. So they look at other qualities because they can't have the hottest girl on earth. Those alpha males you describe? Maybe they just had different tastes in appearance, or may be cultural differences or family pressure. Who knows? Anyway, looks are most important for most guys at the outset, even if they ultimately settling for other desirable qualities.

I have several NT male friends who think this way. Including one who claims he is only interested in hot blondes who want to be stay-at-home mothers and do what they are told. He was happy to hear that we wouldn't be competing for girls.