men who won't date fat women

Page 16 of 21 [ 324 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 ... 21  Next

Schneekugel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jul 2012
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,612

11 Jun 2013, 5:05 am

Quote:

Zooey Deschanel without makeup:

Image


Maybe you should try to get out of your fitness gym with all that posters, and try to look at real women again. Because then you would know that white woman dont have natural black eyeliner marks around their eyelids.

No, whatever you want to say. No. White woman simply normally dont have 100% black strips showing on their skin, that are additional coincidentally right on the spot, where you are applying black make up eyeliner.

I do no want to suppose, that you wanted to trick us on purpose, so I do believe that you searched for photos that were told to have no additional make up on it, but stars that are forced to wear make up every days, simply wear permanent make up, means non permanent tattoo ink, that disappears after some years. Additional they normally use BB-Cream, means the normal moisturing cream already contents a coloured make up cream. Additional every photograph nowaday that is presented official in a newspaper, video or VIP-chitchat homepage is standard photoshopped. Even my wedding photographs are already photoshopped, this is absolutely standard nowadays for photos. Thats why 50 year old woman nowadays look so sexy, its the so called "photo shop cream" :)Image This photo is not about make up or not, both sides alerady show the same amount of make up, so the right side is the best it naturally gets after all the work a professional make up artist, I could never afford, has done.

Celebrities havent nowadays found the secret of eternal youth, and hidden us from everyone else. They look with 50 as everyone else does.

As I said, I dont think you tried to trick on purpose with your "no make up photo", but you simply have no clue of todays beauty and fashion industry and live in a world of illusions. And your knowledge of human biology and hormones seem to be based on fitness magazines that are supported by producers o artificial hormones and steroids.



meems
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Dec 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,869

11 Jun 2013, 6:56 am

Yeah, Zoey Deswhatevernel is definitely wearing makeup in that picture. Maybe not a lot, but she's definitely wearing makeup.


_________________
http://www.facebook.com/eidetic.onus
http://eidetic-onus.tumblr.com/
Warning, my tumblr is a man-free zone :)


meems
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Dec 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,869

11 Jun 2013, 7:08 am

Yeah, all you have to do is google the image from the People Magazine issue where they did a spread showing celebrities without makeup, she looks nothing like that without makeup, even in an airbrushed photo


_________________
http://www.facebook.com/eidetic.onus
http://eidetic-onus.tumblr.com/
Warning, my tumblr is a man-free zone :)


The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

11 Jun 2013, 8:30 am

Schneekugel wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Kjas wrote:
Sure Boo, I have no problem with that. Why would I?


Because 90% of university-degree girls would, so I though it would be very probable that you would too.


Gotta say, I would disagree. The higher degree you have on your own, the more you dont need to look at the degree of your partner. So I am into feminism and that stuff, means everybody shall be the way he prefers to be. But when its about partnership, you also have to think about stuff like building a house, buying kitchen gears, .... simply money. We dont live anymore in the 19th century, where money was automatic a male-topic and caring for the home was automatic a female-topic, but at least one of both has to focus on earning the money you need as partners. If you are a woman and earn 600 Dollar at Mc Donalds for room cleaning, then dating a school janitor is a problem, not because of him being a school janitor, but because none of both earning enough for a family, so dating doesnt make much sense, when anyway how much sympathy there is, never will be able to afford a family. While if you earn yourself enough, the less you need to care for how much your partner earns. I think its also important, how much experiences the involved have. The less experience, the more often the are only seeking for external preferences, making their partner to a kind of status symbol. If you are still searching for a status symbol as partner, you wont be happy with a janitor. If you are already searching for a real matching life partner, the external preferences become less and less important.

About these league stuff: There are no general leagues, simply because everyone creates his own leagues. Whats a 10 in someones league, can be a complete zero in another ones league. As example men that are much into externals are not my kind. Simply because such guys often see much importance in that external stuff, that I mostly dont care for, and I simply dont get along with that type of people and if they are additionaly simply dumb I often have been blamed by such guys, for not caring myself for external stuff. So if you run around with a suit, a breitling and an expensive sport car, the more I know we will never fit as partners, because a partner that cares for such nonsense would often want to force me to care as well for that stuff, often have many friends that care for such nonsense and so on. There was a show some years ago "The model and the freak." with a guy that looked pretty normal for me, jeans, funny T-shirt, little beard, little belly, playing warhammer-tabletops and so on. Thats the kind of boy I meet among my friends, so I feel comforted by that type of guy, thats normally the kind of people that treat me friendly, and that I can share jokes about similar topics and so on. Then they went to the hairdresser with him, gave him new cloths, new eyeglasses, ... in the end he looked like a hipster, that I have bad memories about. So they often share themselves, to feel strong and then try to bully others, thats simply my personal experiences with hipsters. So I dislike them. Looking like a hipster turns you automatic into a badass in my league system, while looking like a little tabletop nerd raises you, simply because of me having very positive experiences with that kind of guys and feeling comfortable around such guys.

So there are definitely leagues, but there are definitely no general leagues. Everyone simply carry his own league system with him.



I don't know, but this is not how women think/behave/function before my EYES when it comes to mating choice.

It's not like "Oh, I have a high position, I make good money, then I can afford to date someone with entry job" logic but "I am an X I want an X + 1 man" logic.

From what I see, women marry/date UP regardless of their economical position, a senior manager would go for a more senior manager or regional manager, a highschool student would prefer to go for a college student.


Here are the married couples at my workplace, real examples (F for female, M for male):
-Midwife F (young and pretty) is wife of the project Manager M (older, bald, blue eyed and sharply smooth talker)
-Fresh graduated elementary teacher (pretty) F is wife of the head of graphic design dept M (well built and mature).
-The former secretary F (very endowed lol) is wife of a Stock broker M (strong personality, very well built)
-The current secretary F (very overweight) is engaged with an interior designer M (very overweight)
-My assistant F (model-like) is dating our Team leader Presales Engineer M (bulky and successful)
-An auditor F (petite, hyper and cute) is wife of our Chief Financial manager (a 'hot' guy and into extreme sports) .
-The head of HR F is the wife of GM M
-A nurse F (gorgeous) is the wife of senior Engineer M (drop dead gorgeous)
-Telecom engineer M(with a side business, tall and handsome) is dating a model F (yes, she works as model).
-Our senior deputy manager F is still waiting for her millionaire (her own words, literally)


The (very predictable) trend is very obvious around me, I can't find an opposite example.



Last edited by The_Face_of_Boo on 11 Jun 2013, 8:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

meems
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Dec 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,869

11 Jun 2013, 8:32 am

DialAForAwesome wrote:
I'm not gonna dignify meems with any more responses, in fact I didn't even look at her reply to my post...


Maybe you should just not mention me in your posts anymore, then. You clearly had a lot of built up anger toward me and you never expressed any of it until this thread. We barely ever spoke and you act like we were friends and I've somehow betrayed you. I never got the chance to be friends with you because the few times we spoke it was superficial and just a few lines, save for maybe the first or second time we ever spoke, which I only vaguely recall.

You wrote a NOVEL in response to my brief posts, twice, that's a little odd and it threw me for a loop(which is why I didn't really respond to the emotional explosion of word vomit until this post) because I barely know you. In fact I didn't even realize who you were when you sent that borderline creepy message on facebook before you blocked me. I was confused, there was barely any chat history and if you hadn't called me Meems in it I wouldn't have guessed who you were.

Being spared your melodrama in the future would be rad though. :)


_________________
http://www.facebook.com/eidetic.onus
http://eidetic-onus.tumblr.com/
Warning, my tumblr is a man-free zone :)


Geekonychus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Nov 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,660

11 Jun 2013, 8:43 am

I reiterate that leagues are just socially ascribed nonsense. There are no real objective criteria to measure a persons dating worth (although many people would like to claim there are.)

Everyone here is arguing subjective criteria which is quite a bit different. When push comes to shove, this is what fosters attraction, not leagues.



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

11 Jun 2013, 8:54 am

Geekonychus wrote:
I reiterate that leagues are just socially ascribed nonsense. There are no real objective criteria to measure a persons dating worth (although many people would like to claim there are.)



*Sigh* geeky geeko with a stubborn straightforward geeky mind. :lol:

The leagues thing is not a 1+1=2 thing, it doesn't have a definite formula because it's more complicated than that. You have to be more..... well...less idealist and naive (= innocent, I don't mean it not in bad way) and be more aware of your surrounding and a better observant to get what the leagues thing is.



Quote:
Everyone here is arguing subjective criteria which is quite a bit different. When push comes to shove, this is what fosters attraction, not leagues.


Attraction and leagues are related.



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

11 Jun 2013, 9:04 am

Even Okcupid is aware of the (looks-based) leagues thing, if you are let's say for example very low-rated in looks (rated by other members I guess) the very-high rated won't show up in your search results.

And POF profiles are divided into (income-based) leagues.

I've read once an article by a real-egalitarian feminist about pof complaining how its system prevents women to see men with lower income in their search results.

Now do you think that such huge businesses are doing this just because they're evil immoral bastards or they're doing this based on extensive research on their female and male members' behaviors in order to boost customer sanctification and hence profitability?



Last edited by The_Face_of_Boo on 11 Jun 2013, 9:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

11 Jun 2013, 9:16 am

Define "fat". If by "fat", you mean way over the top obese that she could barely get off the couch, it's not going to be a fun relationship and she has far more issues to be concerned about.

If by "fat", you mean obese and needs diet badly but can move around, that is something I can choose to help her with and support her as she loses weight. If she refuses and insists on refusing to lose weight, then that would be an issue for me as it often indicates a lack of care and respect for one's self. However, if it's something genetic that she couldn't do much about, and I can see myself accepting her as a partner regardless of her weight, I can compromise if I find myself attracted to her as a person.

If by "fat", you just mean "chubby", psshhh



Geekonychus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Nov 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,660

11 Jun 2013, 9:17 am

I know what the leagues thing is and once again reiterate my stubborn defiance against it..........

I'm too Ubermensch to buy into it.

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Geekonychus wrote:
I reiterate that leagues are just socially ascribed nonsense. There are no real objective criteria to measure a persons dating worth (although many people would like to claim there are.)



*Sigh* geeky geeko with a stubborn straightforward geeky mind. :lol:

The leagues thing is not a 1+1=2 thing, it doesn't have a definite formula because it's more complicated than that. You have to be more..... well...less idealist and naive (= innocent, I don't mean it not in bad way) and be more aware of your surrounding and a better observant to get what the leagues thing is.

Quote:
Everyone here is arguing subjective criteria which is quite a bit different. When push comes to shove, this is what fosters attraction, not leagues.


Attraction and leagues are related.


I'm idealist? :lol:



Geekonychus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Nov 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,660

11 Jun 2013, 9:22 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Even Okcupid is aware of the (looks-based) leagues thing, if you are let's say for example very low-rated in looks (rated by other members I guess) the very-high rated won't show up in your search results.

And POF profiles are divided into (income-based) leagues.

I've read once an article by a real-egalitarian feminist about pof complaining how its system prevents women to see men with lower income in their search results.

Now do you think that such huge businesses are doing this just because they're evil immoral bastards or they're doing this based on extensive research on their female and male members' behaviors in order to boost customer sanctification and hence profitability?


And that nonsense is good how? Imagine if we had to disclose our neurological condition on those sites. How many "leagues" would we drop automatically?

The very concept is socially constructed BS. Hell, most of the dating system is, but rather than do something about it or defy it, a lot of people here seem to just accept it or even argue in favor of it.

If I actually believed in leagues, I sure as hell wouldn't have bothered trying for the girl I'm into now.



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

11 Jun 2013, 9:28 am

Geekonychus wrote:
I know what the leagues thing is and once again reiterate my stubborn defiance against it..........

I'm too Ubermensch to buy into it.

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Geekonychus wrote:
I reiterate that leagues are just socially ascribed nonsense. There are no real objective criteria to measure a persons dating worth (although many people would like to claim there are.)



*Sigh* geeky geeko with a stubborn straightforward geeky mind. :lol:

The leagues thing is not a 1+1=2 thing, it doesn't have a definite formula because it's more complicated than that. You have to be more..... well...less idealist and naive (= innocent, I don't mean it not in bad way) and be more aware of your surrounding and a better observant to get what the leagues thing is.

Quote:
Everyone here is arguing subjective criteria which is quite a bit different. When push comes to shove, this is what fosters attraction, not leagues.


Attraction and leagues are related.


I'm idealist? :lol:


Yes, you are. You are guided more by ideals than by practical considerations.



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

11 Jun 2013, 9:30 am

Geekonychus wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Even Okcupid is aware of the (looks-based) leagues thing, if you are let's say for example very low-rated in looks (rated by other members I guess) the very-high rated won't show up in your search results.

And POF profiles are divided into (income-based) leagues.

I've read once an article by a real-egalitarian feminist about pof complaining how its system prevents women to see men with lower income in their search results.

Now do you think that such huge businesses are doing this just because they're evil immoral bastards or they're doing this based on extensive research on their female and male members' behaviors in order to boost customer sanctification and hence profitability?


And that nonsense is good how? Imagine if we had to disclose our neurological condition on those sites. How many "leagues" would we drop automatically?

The very concept is socially constructed BS. Hell, most of the dating system is, but rather than do something about it or defy it, a lot of people here seem to just accept it or even argue in favor of it.

If I actually believed in leagues, I sure as hell wouldn't have bothered trying for the girl I'm into now.


Why? Are you some basement pizza-eater loser while your girl is some robotic engineer in NASA?


Quote:
The very concept is socially constructed BS. Hell, most of the dating system is, but rather than do something about it or defy it, a lot of people here seem to just accept it or even argue in favor of it.


A lot of things are socially constructed but that doesn't make them unreal, hell, AS is probably AS now due to social construction while it's probably just a neurological variation.



Geekonychus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Nov 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,660

11 Jun 2013, 9:53 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
A lot of things are socially constructed but that doesn't make them unreal, hell, AS is probably AS now due to social construction while it's probably just a neurological variation.


Yes. Which is why I prefer to think of it as such.



Kurgan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,132
Location: Scandinavia

11 Jun 2013, 10:11 am

meems wrote:
Yeah, all you have to do is google the image from the People Magazine issue where they did a spread showing celebrities without makeup, she looks nothing like that without makeup, even in an airbrushed photo


By photographing celebrities on a day with facial bloathing, a bad hair day and when they're hungover, the magazines are taking it out of context. I'm not saying that regular women look like Zooey Deschanel without make-up or that most 46 year olds look like Halle Berry without, but it clearly shows that highly feminine women have traits that the make-up is supposed to emulate.



MXH
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,057
Location: Here i stand and face the rain

11 Jun 2013, 10:29 am

Geekonychus wrote:
I know what the leagues thing is and once again reiterate my stubborn defiance against it..........

I'm too Ubermensch to buy into it.

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Geekonychus wrote:
I reiterate that leagues are just socially ascribed nonsense. There are no real objective criteria to measure a persons dating worth (although many people would like to claim there are.)



*Sigh* geeky geeko with a stubborn straightforward geeky mind. :lol:

The leagues thing is not a 1+1=2 thing, it doesn't have a definite formula because it's more complicated than that. You have to be more..... well...less idealist and naive (= innocent, I don't mean it not in bad way) and be more aware of your surrounding and a better observant to get what the leagues thing is.

Quote:
Everyone here is arguing subjective criteria which is quite a bit different. When push comes to shove, this is what fosters attraction, not leagues.


Attraction and leagues are related.


I'm idealist? :lol:
you're not superhuman, just stuck up