Calling all boys (NOT about medicine)

[PhoenixFlare500]

high quality doesn't equal attractive, if someone tries to sexually intimidate you and you pay no attention to them, clandestinely reveal their monolithic sense of self worth by using esoteric words in a casual and non ostentatious fashion, while acting bored and maintaining good body language... this completely destroys the paradigm they adhere to gain an extraneous sense of self worth and hot bimbos will croon over you or just pretend they don't like you because they don't want to damage others' perceived image of them.

 

I just thought this post was a little ironic.

[leap87]

The fact is that 70% of a man's attaction to a woman comes from her looks. The other 20% is in how likely he perceives the woman is to sleep with him, and the remaining 10% is from factors like intelligence, class, etc. Note that these are estimations based on over 25 years of being male, and having talked about women with countless other males.

 

Beauty is not in the eye of the beholder, that has been discovered years ago. We've taken pictures of white women to countries in Africa where the men there have never even seen a white woman before. The women they selected as most attractive correlated with our choices with an r value of something like 0.95. Beauty is universal, not in the eye of the beholder.

 

Having problems figuring out how attractive you are? Go to Hotornot.com, post your picture, and get rated.

 

If you find you're ugly, you need to change. Get into shape. The idea body mass index for a woman is something like 18-22. You can find calculators for this on the internet. If you're too skinny, gain weight. If you're too fat, lose weight. If you have small breasts or a big nose, get plastic surgery. Get accutane if you have bad acne.

 

As for other things like making your hair prettier or wearing nicer clothes, that stuff only works if you are already decently attractive. If you're a fat piece of ****, you could be done up like a supermodel, and no guy would look twice at you.

 

This is a minor thing, but a woman's voice matters too. If you talk in a deep/low pitched voice, or a throaty voice, quit it. Get voice coaching. Try to act bubbly and energetic - it shows that a woman is young and healthy enough to look after children. Note that this does NOT mean that a woman's personality matters - this only refers to voice tonality. In fact, it matters for nearly ZERO.

 

As for talking to a guy you're interested in, just act like you think he's the sexiest guy in the world. Make eye contact, stand with your feet together, face him, touch him on the arm, compliment him, be submissive to his requests, etc. Basically, act like a real woman (i.e. a pre-feminism woman).

 

Honestly, in my 24 years of life, I have seen some of the tiniest women, with smallest breasts get in long-term relationships, get engaged and get married. So your theory #1 fails miserably. Theory #2: fail. Once you get into higher education, this theory blows for 90% of men. Be submissive and he'll walk right over you or beside you - depending on where you stand. Obviously, you shouldn't walk around insulting anyone either...

 

Your views are so conservative. It's time to start spinning those wheels. What are we living in: the 60s?!

[Dongzhuo]

Very interesting discussion. Actually dating dynamics is very interesting to me, and I want to put in my 2 cents worth.

 

This is all generalities and many exceptions exist of course, but I find that from the ages of 13 or so to 35, women dominate the dating field. In real estate parlance, we could call it a "woman's market". Most women (unless they are unwilling to date or are quite unattractive or have a really strange personality) are usually able to get a date/boyfriend. I agree with posters above who say that most young guys have a lower dating-threshold than girls- in that unless she has a very high BMI or really unappealing in terms of facial features, she is probably acceptable as a girlfriend. Many "average" girls get hit on by guys on a regular basis, whereas many "average" guys get rejected/ spurned by most guys he hits on. The same is apparant on dating websites, even the most average and unappealing females apparantly get many messages from men. Hence this is the age the woman's market. Why? Because woman's main asset (traditionally at least, this is the case) is her youth and appearance. During the ages of 13 to 35 this asset is at peak value, making her most marketable in the dating world.

 

From the ages of 35 onwards, the market turns into a "man's market", whereby guys will get much more attention from females than the other way around. At around this age, I believe that while both sexes physical attractiveness have decreased from the twenties, the rate of deceleration in females may be greater than that of the male. The female also has the issue of competition with younger females. On the other hand, the male's competitive advantage has risen dramatically. The main asset of the guy (at least traditionally speaking) is his ability to provide for the family, and protect the family. The guy at this stage of life is rising quickly in his career, and is far ahead of the 25 year old guy. Girls are attracted to this, consciously and subconsciously. And hence that is why you see many rich, average looking or unattractive males in their 30's to 40's with very attractive, younger mates.

 

Hence, what is the take home message from this? According to my little theory, girls have the highest value before age of 35, and hence should try to "sell" before then. Guys, your assets are undervalued before age of 35 and hence leasing (ie dating not marriage) may be the right decision until later when bargain deals may come (ie really hot girls who you thought might never give you the time of day 10 years ago may come banging on your door).

 

This is all theory of course, but if you fall in love, then whatever goes

[apache]

you could probably send that into an evolutionary psychology journal and have it published, lol, it's logical, intuitive and self-coherent, haha. this would actually make a good satirical sketch on snl if you did it right and did like a john stuart like news bulletin.

 

Very interesting discussion. Actually dating dynamics is very interesting to me, and I want to put in my 2 cents worth.

 

This is all generalities and many exceptions exist of course, but I find that from the ages of 13 or so to 35, women dominate the dating field. In real estate parlance, we could call it a "woman's market". Most women (unless they are unwilling to date or are quite unattractive or have a really strange personality) are usually able to get a date/boyfriend. I agree with posters above who say that most young guys have a lower dating-threshold than girls- in that unless she has a very high BMI or really unappealing in terms of facial features, she is probably acceptable as a girlfriend. Many "average" girls get hit on by guys on a regular basis, whereas many "average" guys get rejected/ spurned by most guys he hits on. The same is apparant on dating websites, even the most average and unappealing females apparantly get many messages from men. Hence this is the age the woman's market. Why? Because woman's main asset (traditionally at least, this is the case) is her youth and appearance. During the ages of 13 to 35 this asset is at peak value, making her most marketable in the dating world.

 

From the ages of 35 onwards, the market turns into a "man's market", whereby guys will get much more attention from females than the other way around. At around this age, I believe that while both sexes physical attractiveness have decreased from the twenties, the rate of deceleration in females may be greater than that of the male. The female also has the issue of competition with younger females. On the other hand, the male's competitive advantage has risen dramatically. The main asset of the guy (at least traditionally speaking) is his ability to provide for the family, and protect the family. The guy at this stage of life is rising quickly in his career, and is far ahead of the 25 year old guy. Girls are attracted to this, consciously and subconsciously. And hence that is why you see many rich, average looking or unattractive males in their 30's to 40's with very attractive, younger mates.

 

Hence, what is the take home message from this? According to my little theory, girls have the highest value before age of 35, and hence should try to "sell" before then. Guys, your assets are undervalued before age of 35 and hence leasing (ie dating not marriage) may be the right decision until later when bargain deals may come (ie really hot girls who you thought might never give you the time of day 10 years ago may come banging on your door).

 

This is all theory of course, but if you fall in love, then whatever goes

[ubcMDhopeful]

Very interesting discussion. Actually dating dynamics is very interesting to me, and I want to put in my 2 cents worth.

 

This is all generalities and many exceptions exist of course, but I find that from the ages of 13 or so to 35, women dominate the dating field. In real estate parlance, we could call it a "woman's market". Most women (unless they are unwilling to date or are quite unattractive or have a really strange personality) are usually able to get a date/boyfriend. I agree with posters above who say that most young guys have a lower dating-threshold than girls- in that unless she has a very high BMI or really unappealing in terms of facial features, she is probably acceptable as a girlfriend. Many "average" girls get hit on by guys on a regular basis, whereas many "average" guys get rejected/ spurned by most guys he hits on. The same is apparant on dating websites, even the most average and unappealing females apparantly get many messages from men. Hence this is the age the woman's market. Why? Because woman's main asset (traditionally at least, this is the case) is her youth and appearance. During the ages of 13 to 35 this asset is at peak value, making her most marketable in the dating world.

 

From the ages of 35 onwards, the market turns into a "man's market", whereby guys will get much more attention from females than the other way around. At around this age, I believe that while both sexes physical attractiveness have decreased from the twenties, the rate of deceleration in females may be greater than that of the male. The female also has the issue of competition with younger females. On the other hand, the male's competitive advantage has risen dramatically. The main asset of the guy (at least traditionally speaking) is his ability to provide for the family, and protect the family. The guy at this stage of life is rising quickly in his career, and is far ahead of the 25 year old guy. Girls are attracted to this, consciously and subconsciously. And hence that is why you see many rich, average looking or unattractive males in their 30's to 40's with very attractive, younger mates.

 

Hence, what is the take home message from this? According to my little theory, girls have the highest value before age of 35, and hence should try to "sell" before then. Guys, your assets are undervalued before age of 35 and hence leasing (ie dating not marriage) may be the right decision until later when bargain deals may come (ie really hot girls who you thought might never give you the time of day 10 years ago may come banging on your door).

 

This is all theory of course, but if you fall in love, then whatever goes

 

 

This is an awesome analysis!!

But the problem I see with it is that if this was actually followed , the average age between a married man and a women should be 5+ years but it is less in Canada ( http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/070117/dq070117a-eng.htm)

[Curi0user]

Wow this thread just makes me doubt all the confidence I thought I had, LOL.

[apache]

i wrote a 2 page mini-diatribe critiquing everything he had mentioned (which, given due diligence, i could expand into a 100 page rough draft theoeretical masters thesis) since i have keen interest in social psychology and he's way off base, it's actually impossible to be on base about an "area" of north-american psycho-socio-sexual behaviour, let alone relationships in general, because as much as we try and simplify things, the simplest social psychological models are excruciatingly in depth in practice. the 2 paragraphs in a social psych textbook are for dinner parties, in reality, the literature is so much more complex and nuanced. no respectable social psychologist would make such broad sweeping generalizations about a sub topic (which, in itself is infinitely vase) of cultural/social psychology.

 

i liked my other response more, it was a lot more valuative, this is just academic and boring. but holy ****, something autosaved half of what i wrote, so i'll just paste it:

 

i kind of find it personally funny because his description of the ideal girl are the kind of girls that i'd be totally unattracted too.

 

here's my ideal girl:

 

5'0-5'4, 110-140, b-c cup, dark haired caucasian with pale skin.

 

for me, looks are on a cutoff basis, i'm not attracted to fat or tall people, simple as that, so there is an element of truth to getting in shape (which i think is self evident to most people)

 

as for clothes i dislike feminine clothing on an everyday basis, i'd be much more attracted to someone with a tank top, form fitted dc hoodie, jeans and sneakers.

 

i dislike the whole bubbly type personality, and i'm pretty much happy 95 percent of the time. i prefer the passionate, assertive (in a relaxed way), intense about life, i also like optimists.

 

i don't really want a girl that wants to have kids, at least that i would meet know, since i want to have kids in my 40's if i do, and there's always adoption (does it really matter that the child you raise from birth onwards didn't come from a sperm in my testicles, rationally speaking? if someone told me today my dad wasn't my biological father i would shrug my shoulders and say whatever: he raised me and to me, he's my dad no matter what... sorry for the aside, i just find it strange that people are obsessed with passing on their "seed", you're raising a child, a lot of the reasons i have the beliefs, idea's i do today is because i had an extraordinary father, so i would say he passed something on, just like every adoptive parent has the possibility to do.

 

i don't really take anything very seriously, i don't care if you think i'm sexy or not, retarded or smart, whatever... i come off as super assertive because most people can't back up any of their statements or make a good argument for a point, but that's because most people are really emotional, and think this is a personal knock on them. i love people who challenge me on every point i make, so long as they know what they're talking about, and if they're right or bring to light information i was unaware off, i love that, i don't take being wrong personally, you can't know everything about everything, and i appreciate when someone has the guts to stand up and say but you missed this (it's rare that people know more about topics i discuss more than me, but if they do i love to sit back, not say anything and learn, i met a guy in a coffee shop the other day who was studying theology and i learned a lot of stuff about theology - i think people would live much happier lives if being challenged or admitting you're wrong wasn't such a threat to them emotionally, and if you make this your modus operandi - then you don't always have to be right) i had no idea about so i can re-evaluate my opinions, maybe i've been getting gross misinformation?

 

i think your last statement maybe true for snagging losers, i'm good looking, but i'm not brad pitt, and i don't need you to compliment me to boost my ego, i have a pretty stable, internal self esteem. if it's sincere (i like your sweater print, it's got an interesting design etc. it's cool, but please don't bs with me). i get told that i just blew someone's mind or that i'm a genius like 3 times a day, no exaggeration. the only two girls i've really liked in my life would say that's an interesting criticism, what's the answer, is it pragmatic... but how do you handle this aspect, have you considered this... oh, that's similar to this other concept, or if they disagreed with me they'd be like **** off, what about the environment (or whatever factor i had deemed as less important in my argument).

 

i like people like this, they're real, they're not trying to impress me, in 3 months am i going to want to date the real you? who i've yet to meet if you're being fake for the first month we're dating... i can't give an answer because i don't know what you're like when you eventually regress to the mean that's you over time. also, what's with the whole docility housewife thing, i prefer ambitious (in a they want to achieve their goals in life, not societies imposed goals in life kind of way, which could be in art, engineering, photography whatever. just don't let your life pass you by doing something you don't enjoy to impress people you don't care about (or even people you care about, lol)... this could be medicine, being an engineer, a housewife, anything really.) girls to someone that's going to stand by my side on my pedestal and just look pretty, i want a team mate, a best friend, not a ****ing trophy. i don't want a submissive pushover, to me this is the absolute biggest turn off ever, i avoid overly submissive people, because sometimes i cant resist walking all over them (subtly in a discussion or something), out of the hope that they stand up, push the table over and tell me im a ****ing ******* (i was trying to push you far enough to stand up for yourself, i actually like you as a person, lol), so now i just avoid these people. in the end, i want to be with a person, not an object, i want someone who tells me how theyre feeling about something and why, instead of pretending nothing is wrong and having an emotional argument days later about something that's been going on for a while, and which is triggered out of emotion and a lack of understanding of the other person's intentions etc.

 

Honestly, in my 24 years of life, I have seen some of the tiniest women, with smallest breasts get in long-term relationships, get engaged and get married. So your theory #1 fails miserably. Theory #2: fail. Once you get into higher education, this theory blows for 90% of men. Be submissive and he'll walk right over you or beside you - depending on where you stand. Obviously, you shouldn't walk around insulting anyone either...

 

Your views are so conservative. It's time to start spinning those wheels. What are we living in: the 60s?!

[ubcMDhopeful]

i wrote a 2 page mini-diatribe critiquing everything he had mentioned (which, given due diligence, i could expand into a 100 page rough draft theoeretical masters thesis) since i have keen interest in social psychology and he's way off base, it's actually impossible to be on base about an "area" of north-american psycho-socio-sexual behaviour, let alone relationships in general, because as much as we try and simplify things, the simplest social psychological models are excruciatingly in depth in practice. the 2 paragraphs in a social psych textbook are for dinner parties, in reality, the literature is so much more complex and nuanced. no respectable social psychologist would make such broad sweeping generalizations about a sub topic (which, in itself is infinitely vase) of cultural/social psychology.

 

As you mentioned, it is very hard to make broad generalizations, apart from the obvious, about things such as relationships since they are really personal and random in nature. But you also mentioned that there is "complex" literature on this subject which is "excruciatingly in depth in practice". I thought the whole point of scientific studies is to make generalizations about natural phenomenons; as a result, I fail to see how literature in this subject can do anything further rather than just pointing that the issue is complex and random.

 

I might be very naive as I have never taken a social science course (despite having an interest) and I have always wondered how they go about making conclusions. Perhaps this topic is an opportunity for me to learn more about the social sciences

[leap87]

Muse, I live in a very, what may seem to me, conservative part of Canada. That's not to say that ALL people I have met at this particular university and around are conservative. But people are getting engaged and married at such a young age that it shocks me (~24-25 years of age). Apparently everyone has met their soulmate in undergrad (sometimes I wish this was the case for me, but other times I'm glad that I'm in this position).

 

I am yet to meet a man whom I don't "scare off" because of my ambitions (I'm sure he exists somewhere out there). And I am also the type of person who will tell you you're way off the tangent and then debate with you about it. I'm not the woman who stands still and nods. Somewhere down the line though, in this particular town, I realized that won't get me anywhere with men (in a career, I'll bloom).

 

So that being said and not giving too much info about this board, I whole heartedly agree with your post. I guess I am also searching for guy who is along the same lines as your "perfect" girl description. Except I couldn't really care less about their hair or eye colour. I do want someone athletic but only because I am athletic and if he was a couch potato, it just wouldn't make sense.

 

Anyways, to give you an example of what I utterly dislike about some women in this particular area. One of my friends was dating a girl (now they're engaged and about to get married) who wouldn't utter a word during dinner unless someone asked her something. So, in my case, she was sitting there for 5 hours looking pretty! But look - she got engaged... she's getting married to a guy whom many would think is intelligent and successful and good looking (I'd agree with some aspects but not the others) and what am I doing?! Oh yes, dating around. So I wondered whether for the sake of getting to that stage I should pretend I'm this "thing" and then I said "screw it" - it's just not me. I'm not that type of a person. I have a fiery personality and I can debate with people on a lot of things. Besides, I like to get to know people, especially if I'm sitting with them at a dinner table....

 

So with this all being said, I see where AtomShasher is coming from. Maybe he's one of those guys who loves submissive, housewife girls. However, I've met so many women who are not like that over the course of my career.... some of them in long-term relationships, others getting married, while some totally single and having trouble finding that "perfect" man.

 

I'm not too worried though. If I get married when I'm 35 - that's ok (not that I believe in marriage really). If I have kids around the same age - I don't care really. So while sometimes this place kind of annoys me because everyone has someone and that someone is the perfect someone, I go back to the city and realize that, in the real world, a lot of people are single and a lot of people are getting a divorce.

 

 

i wrote a 2 page mini-diatribe critiquing everything he had mentioned (which, given due diligence, i could expand into a 100 page rough draft theoeretical masters thesis) since i have keen interest in social psychology and he's way off base, it's actually impossible to be on base about an "area" of north-american psycho-socio-sexual behaviour, let alone relationships in general, because as much as we try and simplify things, the simplest social psychological models are excruciatingly in depth in practice. the 2 paragraphs in a social psych textbook are for dinner parties, in reality, the literature is so much more complex and nuanced. no respectable social psychologist would make such broad sweeping generalizations about a sub topic (which, in itself is infinitely vase) of cultural/social psychology.

 

i liked my other response more, it was a lot more valuative, this is just academic and boring. but holy ****, something autosaved half of what i wrote, so i'll just paste it:

 

i kind of find it personally funny because his description of the ideal girl are the kind of girls that i'd be totally unattracted too.

 

here's my ideal girl:

 

5'0-5'4, 110-140, b-c cup, dark haired caucasian with pale skin.

 

for me, looks are on a cutoff basis, i'm not attracted to fat or tall people, simple as that, so there is an element of truth to getting in shape (which i think is self evident to most people)

 

as for clothes i dislike feminine clothing on an everyday basis, i'd be much more attracted to someone with a tank top, form fitted dc hoodie, jeans and sneakers.

 

i dislike the whole bubbly type personality, and i'm pretty much happy 95 percent of the time. i prefer the passionate, assertive (in a relaxed way), intense about life, i also like optimists.

 

i don't really want a girl that wants to have kids, at least that i would meet know, since i want to have kids in my 40's if i do, and there's always adoption (does it really matter that the child you raise from birth onwards didn't come from a sperm in my testicles, rationally speaking? if someone told me today my dad wasn't my biological father i would shrug my shoulders and say whatever: he raised me and to me, he's my dad no matter what... sorry for the aside, i just find it strange that people are obsessed with passing on their "seed", you're raising a child, a lot of the reasons i have the beliefs, idea's i do today is because i had an extraordinary father, so i would say he passed something on, just like every adoptive parent has the possibility to do.

 

i don't really take anything very seriously, i don't care if you think i'm sexy or not, retarded or smart, whatever... i come off as super assertive because most people can't back up any of their statements or make a good argument for a point, but that's because most people are really emotional, and think this is a personal knock on them. i love people who challenge me on every point i make, so long as they know what they're talking about, and if they're right or bring to light information i was unaware off, i love that, i don't take being wrong personally, you can't know everything about everything, and i appreciate when someone has the guts to stand up and say but you missed this (it's rare that people know more about topics i discuss more than me, but if they do i love to sit back, not say anything and learn, i met a guy in a coffee shop the other day who was studying theology and i learned a lot of stuff about theology - i think people would live much happier lives if being challenged or admitting you're wrong wasn't such a threat to them emotionally, and if you make this your modus operandi - then you don't always have to be right) i had no idea about so i can re-evaluate my opinions, maybe i've been getting gross misinformation?

 

i think your last statement maybe true for snagging losers, i'm good looking, but i'm not brad pitt, and i don't need you to compliment me to boost my ego, i have a pretty stable, internal self esteem. if it's sincere (i like your sweater print, it's got an interesting design etc. it's cool, but please don't bs with me). i get told that i just blew someone's mind or that i'm a genius like 3 times a day, no exaggeration. the only two girls i've really liked in my life would say that's an interesting criticism, what's the answer, is it pragmatic... but how do you handle this aspect, have you considered this... oh, that's similar to this other concept, or if they disagreed with me they'd be like **** off, what about the environment (or whatever factor i had deemed as less important in my argument).

 

i like people like this, they're real, they're not trying to impress me, in 3 months am i going to want to date the real you? who i've yet to meet if you're being fake for the first month we're dating... i can't give an answer because i don't know what you're like when you eventually regress to the mean that's you over time. also, what's with the whole docility housewife thing, i prefer ambitious (in a they want to achieve their goals in life, not societies imposed goals in life kind of way, which could be in art, engineering, photography whatever. just don't let your life pass you by doing something you don't enjoy to impress people you don't care about (or even people you care about, lol)... this could be medicine, being an engineer, a housewife, anything really.) girls to someone that's going to stand by my side on my pedestal and just look pretty, i want a team mate, a best friend, not a ****ing trophy. i don't want a submissive pushover, to me this is the absolute biggest turn off ever, i avoid overly submissive people, because sometimes i cant resist walking all over them (subtly in a discussion or something), out of the hope that they stand up, push the table over and tell me im a ****ing ******* (i was trying to push you far enough to stand up for yourself, i actually like you as a person, lol), so now i just avoid these people. in the end, i want to be with a person, not an object, i want someone who tells me how theyre feeling about something and why, instead of pretending nothing is wrong and having an emotional argument days later about something that's been going on for a while, and which is triggered out of emotion and a lack of understanding of the other person's intentions etc.

[apache]

i'll just start with one example: sub-cultures - which are developed by combinations of factors, check out the next six concert vids (there's some you won't want to finnish, and imagine the kind of girl the "average" guy at each girl would be looking for.

 

to put a long story short there are reasons why we call things in physics laws, because they're consistent for a hundred years or so, social science phenomena are much more qualified when making generalization, so as to say, these socio economic factors in this ethnicity which is from this country and was conquered by so and so who braught this religion is likely to be more of a so and so culture, and from more general rearch we know that these factors produces so and so behaviours attitudes and perceptions within a group

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sUOk91PhxQ

 

 

 

 

i should also point out that a lot of literature in clinical medicine is the same... as every doctor knows, you can't predict what happens in the individual patient, even when they have the same prognosis, diagnosis, ethnicity, weight, etc. it's all probabilistic

 

As you mentioned, it is very hard to make broad generalizations, apart from the obvious, about things such as relationships since they are really personal and random in nature. But you also mentioned that there is "complex" literature on this subject which is "excruciatingly in depth in practice". I thought the whole point of scientific studies is to make generalizations about natural phenomenons; as a result, I fail to see how literature in this subject can do anything further rather than just pointing that the issue is complex and random.

 

I might be very naive as I have never taken a social science course (despite having an interest) and I have always wondered how they go about making conclusions. Perhaps this topic is an opportunity for me to learn more about the social sciences

[AtomSmasher2]

Very interesting discussion. Actually dating dynamics is very interesting to me, and I want to put in my 2 cents worth.

 

This is all generalities and many exceptions exist of course, but I find that from the ages of 13 or so to 35, women dominate the dating field. In real estate parlance, we could call it a "woman's market". Most women (unless they are unwilling to date or are quite unattractive or have a really strange personality) are usually able to get a date/boyfriend. I agree with posters above who say that most young guys have a lower dating-threshold than girls- in that unless she has a very high BMI or really unappealing in terms of facial features, she is probably acceptable as a girlfriend. Many "average" girls get hit on by guys on a regular basis, whereas many "average" guys get rejected/ spurned by most guys he hits on. The same is apparant on dating websites, even the most average and unappealing females apparantly get many messages from men. Hence this is the age the woman's market. Why? Because woman's main asset (traditionally at least, this is the case) is her youth and appearance. During the ages of 13 to 35 this asset is at peak value, making her most marketable in the dating world.

 

From the ages of 35 onwards, the market turns into a "man's market", whereby guys will get much more attention from females than the other way around. At around this age, I believe that while both sexes physical attractiveness have decreased from the twenties, the rate of deceleration in females may be greater than that of the male. The female also has the issue of competition with younger females. On the other hand, the male's competitive advantage has risen dramatically. The main asset of the guy (at least traditionally speaking) is his ability to provide for the family, and protect the family. The guy at this stage of life is rising quickly in his career, and is far ahead of the 25 year old guy. Girls are attracted to this, consciously and subconsciously. And hence that is why you see many rich, average looking or unattractive males in their 30's to 40's with very attractive, younger mates.

 

Hence, what is the take home message from this? According to my little theory, girls have the highest value before age of 35, and hence should try to "sell" before then. Guys, your assets are undervalued before age of 35 and hence leasing (ie dating not marriage) may be the right decision until later when bargain deals may come (ie really hot girls who you thought might never give you the time of day 10 years ago may come banging on your door).

 

This is all theory of course, but if you fall in love, then whatever goes

 

This is good analysis. The only things I disagree with are as follows.

 

1) I would argue that it becomes a "man's market" closer to age 28. The average woman in Canada is married by age 28.5. Plus, it takes 1-2 years of dating before a couple typically gets married. I think around age 28 is when the average single woman has the "Oh ****!" moment and realises she has to get married as soon as possible. And that's when it becomes the man's market.

 

2) Marriage in general, sucks. First of all, I could never commit to one woman without sleeping with others. Second, the woman that you do marry is likely going to turn really ugly, really fast in our culture.

 

A woman's looks are pretty much constant from age 18 to 25. From age 25-30, they begin to go down, but insignificantly. After age 30, they start to drop significantly, and after age 35, they begin the plummet.

 

If you marry a 35 year old, you're going to have a few years of having a good looking wife, then you're stuck for life with an old, ugly woman with saggy tits.

 

But if you marry an 18 year old, you'll get about 12 years of having a good looking wife. That's more of a fair trade for a life of misery.

 

But the rise of feminism (and the pill) has allowed women to indulge in the asthetic pleasure of sleeping with good looking, but not financially secure men from the ages of 18-30, while they still have their looks. After that, they get to settle into financial security just before they turn ugly and thus undesirable. So they get the best of both worlds. Men, on the other hand, get the shaft. When it comes time to marry, we get saggy tits.

[apache]

I agree, I think some of his views are absolutely idiotic, and that because he comes of as a bigoted ******* because he doesn't qualify his comments or can articulate any reasoning to support his statements, but I like his lack of political correctness, political correctness is a vice that prevents the consideration of all ideas and progress in generally accepted societal ideology.

 

I don't ever plan to get married, I see no point in it... I'm not religious in the traditional sense, and I don't think I need some sort of license to prove that I love and care for someone, or that can raise children with that person. Finally, I see the need for monogamy as a result of the lack of emotional attachment emphasized in who we desire having long term relationships with; we're taught to be fake, to be someone we're not when courting other people, because we are to project ourselves as objects to the other sex, as fantasies and mental constructs which are not reality. That's why I like crude, anti-social, pragmatic and aggressive intellectuals, they're quite forward, and often don't internalize generalized societal beliefs, such as the notion of being of lesser value to your partner if they have sex with another person; we all know that there are different kinds of sex, there's hedonistic sex, loving sex, psychologically oriented sexually behaviour (s an m), however, when we get married we only consider a partners sexual relations with others to a hedonistic, or emotional threat to our egos, or our partners perception of us, but this isn't necessarily the case... when I have a girlfriend, my physical attraction to other women doesn't go away, but that doesn't mean I find my girlfriend to be the most emotionally and personally connected to me.

 

These kinds of people are also likely to acknowledge that physical beauty is something we all consider. I certainly won't be letting myself go when I'm forty, I'll still be in the gym five times a week; I wouldn't expect my partner to do any less, to dismiss physical attraction is to dismiss common sense (watch TV and check out the beauty ads everyone), and to fall prey to the dictates of the various antiquated forces which shape out society, as well as the societal institutions we have in place.

 

This goes back to having to present ourselves as objects, not our real selves. I try and be open and honest to every person I want to have a relationship with (and this is mostly based on personality, with a minimum standard of looks). I've met so many people that try and be fake with me on dates, and I'll start the most outrageous topic out there, and at first, many will be offended or confused, because they're taught to be, but after a while, they're like, wow, I get to say whatever I want, this is fun.

 

If you find someone that matches you in every way, and have an environment where almost complete honesty is acceptable (people with anti-social characteristics (which, in it's mild forms is really a synonym for people who don't automatically dismiss any and all possibilities and question the validity for almost axiom-like societal beliefs which are antiquated (people highly educated in the social sciences routinely score through the roof on a sociopathy subsection of the mmpi-2, probably because it only allows for yes or no answers and they're like, well, it depends... that's too simple and broad a statement and answer know to the law abiding answer) characteristics, tend to be much more unemotional about expressing their views, and educated people with these characteristics are much more likely to at least listen to and consider these views, even if they find them stupid. As a result, these people are far more open in relationships and able to question why any generalized statement is true, why does having sex with other women mean I don't love you, why does you having sex with other men mean I don't love you, why does me wanting to have sex with a more physically attractive you mean I don't like who you are... it's absolutely great, especially if you're extremely anti-establishmentarian, and you're able to form such a tight cognitive and emotional bond with someone that you know they won't find it with someone else, as well as able to criticize a partner or vice verca and not be overly-emotional about it. If I had a "life-parner" that was becoming physically unattractive to me, I'd let her know, and with the kind of person I'd be inclined to commit myself too, they would probably take care of it. The thing is, it would go both ways, I can't criticize my partner for not being physically attractive enough if I'm not willing to hit the gym when she tells me the same thing.

 

Also, the concept of love is so outdated... I've only met two people in my life who I've come close to "loving" and there we're lots of characteristics about them I didn't like, but I loved 90 percent of their characteristics, but I can't live in this fantasy world where I put someone on a penultimate pedestal and create an image of them that isn't true. I want to "marry" my best female friend, who I have a lot of sexual chemistry with, and who shares the same beliefs as me, and who's also attractive (which to me, is an atypical look from the norm, but still important)

 

Anyways, that's my treatise on marriage and love.

 

How hilarious and somewhat true.

 

Perhaps the truth of the matter is that the ideal of the monogamous marriage with childrearing as the ultimate goal is an antiquated ideal in our first-world society. We can have sex for pleasure without worrying about the consequence of an unwanted fertilization. We can have sex with multiple different people over a lifetime and not be shunned for it. Children are expensive and are better raised in stable households, but the world is large and there is so much to see and do and children will just get in the way of that.

 

And why was atomsmasher's first account banned? Sure he may have offended some people but who cares? It's ok to offend people.

[Dongzhuo]

I agree, I think some of his views are absolutely idiotic, and that because he comes of as a bigoted ******* because he doesn't qualify his comments or can articulate any reasoning to support his statements, but I like his lack of political correctness, political correctness is a vice that prevents the consideration of all ideas and progress in generally accepted societal ideology.

 

I don't ever plan to get married, I see no point in it... I'm not religious in the traditional sense, and I don't think I need some sort of license to prove that I love and care for someone, or that can raise children with that person. Finally, I see the need for monogamy as a result of the lack of emotional attachment emphasized in who we desire having long term relationships with; we're taught to be fake, to be someone we're not when courting other people, because we are to project ourselves as objects to the other sex, as fantasies and mental constructs which are not reality. That's why I like crude, anti-social, pragmatic and aggressive intellectuals, they're quite forward, and often don't internalize generalized societal beliefs, such as the notion of being of lesser value to your partner if they have sex with another person; we all know that there are different kinds of sex, there's hedonistic sex, loving sex, psychologically oriented sexually behaviour (s an m), however, when we get married we only consider a partners sexual relations with others to a hedonistic, or emotional threat to our egos, or our partners perception of us, but this isn't necessarily the case... when I have a girlfriend, my physical attraction to other women doesn't go away, but that doesn't mean I find my girlfriend to be the most emotionally and personally connected to me.

 

These kinds of people are also likely to acknowledge that physical beauty is something we all consider. I certainly won't be letting myself go when I'm forty, I'll still be in the gym five times a week; I wouldn't expect my partner to do any less, to dismiss physical attraction is to dismiss common sense (watch TV and check out the beauty ads everyone), and to fall prey to the dictates of the various antiquated forces which shape out society, as well as the societal institutions we have in place.

 

This goes back to having to present ourselves as objects, not our real selves. I try and be open and honest to every person I want to have a relationship with (and this is mostly based on personality, with a minimum standard of looks). I've met so many people that try and be fake with me on dates, and I'll start the most outrageous topic out there, and at first, many will be offended or confused, because they're taught to be, but after a while, they're like, wow, I get to say whatever I want, this is fun.

 

If you find someone that matches you in every way, and have an environment where almost complete honesty is acceptable (people with anti-social characteristics (which, in it's mild forms is really a synonym for people who don't automatically dismiss any and all possibilities and question the validity for almost axiom-like societal beliefs which are antiquated (people highly educated in the social sciences routinely score through the roof on a sociopathy subsection of the mmpi-2, probably because it only allows for yes or no answers and they're like, well, it depends... that's too simple and broad a statement and answer know to the law abiding answer) characteristics, tend to be much more unemotional about expressing their views, and educated people with these characteristics are much more likely to at least listen to and consider these views, even if they find them stupid. As a result, these people are far more open in relationships and able to question why any generalized statement is true, why does having sex with other women mean I don't love you, why does you having sex with other men mean I don't love you, why does me wanting to have sex with a more physically attractive you mean I don't like who you are... it's absolutely great, especially if you're extremely anti-establishmentarian, and you're able to form such a tight cognitive and emotional bond with someone that you know they won't find it with someone else, as well as able to criticize a partner or vice verca and not be overly-emotional about it. If I had a "life-parner" that was becoming physically unattractive to me, I'd let her know, and with the kind of person I'd be inclined to commit myself too, they would probably take care of it. The thing is, it would go both ways, I can't criticize my partner for not being physically attractive enough if I'm not willing to hit the gym when she tells me the same thing.

 

Also, the concept of love is so outdated... I've only met two people in my life who I've come close to "loving" and there we're lots of characteristics about them I didn't like, but I loved 90 percent of their characteristics, but I can't live in this fantasy world where I put someone on a penultimate pedestal and create an image of them that isn't true. I want to "marry" my best female friend, who I have a lot of sexual chemistry with, and who shares the same beliefs as me, and who's also attractive (which to me, is an atypical look from the norm, but still important)

 

Anyways, that's my treatise on marriage and love.

 

Man, Muse, are you sure you chose the right field by becoming a doctor? You would have made a wonderful sociology/ social psychology professor at a left leaning liberal arts college

 

I ABSOLUTELY agree that I don't believe in love. Whenever I express this, I get weird stares from people and get viewed as an outcast and sociopath. As I understand it, the concept of love and marriage simply facilitates gametes from two members of the human species to form an embryo. That's all there is. The brain, through thousands of years of evolution, is trained to "trick" itself to view this "amazing person" as completely lovely, put them on a pedestal, and turn a blind eye to his/her faults, smelly farts and cellulite included. This won't last, of course, and it wasn't meant to. I was meant to last long enough to make a few babies to propulgate the human race. The passionate, heated love between couples almost certainly degrades, and ends up, at best, a kind of companionship and partnership by the time late adult life comes around. Any story about 80 year olds being "madly in love" with each other are not using the same definition of "love", in my view, as is commonly understood among younger folks.

[Dongzhuo]

This is good analysis. The only things I disagree with are as follows.

 

1) I would argue that it becomes a "man's market" closer to age 28. The average woman in Canada is married by age 28.5. Plus, it takes 1-2 years of dating before a couple typically gets married. I think around age 28 is when the average single woman has the "Oh ****!" moment and realises she has to get married as soon as possible. And that's when it becomes the man's market.

 

2) Marriage in general, sucks. First of all, I could never commit to one woman without sleeping with others. Second, the woman that you do marry is likely going to turn really ugly, really fast in our culture.

 

A woman's looks are pretty much constant from age 18 to 25. From age 25-30, they begin to go down, but insignificantly. After age 30, they start to drop significantly, and after age 35, they begin the plummet.

 

If you marry a 35 year old, you're going to have a few years of having a good looking wife, then you're stuck for life with an old, ugly woman with saggy tits.

 

But if you marry an 18 year old, you'll get about 12 years of having a good looking wife. That's more of a fair trade for a life of misery.

 

But the rise of feminism (and the pill) has allowed women to indulge in the asthetic pleasure of sleeping with good looking, but not financially secure men from the ages of 18-30, while they still have their looks. After that, they get to settle into financial security just before they turn ugly and thus undesirable. So they get the best of both worlds. Men, on the other hand, get the shaft. When it comes time to marry, we get saggy tits.

 

And what is worst of all is when you are successful and your good looks are still well preserved, your now aged wife with "gravity induced sagging" will split half your fourtune if there is a divorce. They can then use your money and play around with young pool boys. Don't be a fool. Get a prenup.

[Renin]

And what is worst of all is when you are successful and your good looks are still well preserved, your now aged wife with "gravity induced sagging" will split half your fourtune if there is a divorce. They can then use your money and play around with young pool boys. Don't be a fool. Get a prenup.

 

Don't worry. I plan on taking a out a prenup against my aged husband with errectile problems too.

[apache]

Or just don't get married, and if looks are important to you find someone that's cool with you being open about that and that's cool being open with you if you start looking bad. You can also find women who have really good jobs and are all of the preceding. I recommend the liberal arts college grads who hate liberal arts college professors but love the liberal arts, they're super open-minded and liberal but not hipster bums that sit around writing papers no one will read.

 

And what is worst of all is when you are successful and your good looks are still well preserved, your now aged wife with "gravity induced sagging" will split half your fourtune if there is a divorce. They can then use your money and play around with young pool boys. Don't be a fool. Get a prenup.

[apache]

It's a matter of fact though, candour is completely devoid in our society, we all project fake personas and images of ourselves to appease what someone is taught they should want.

 

People have to realize that physical sexual attraction is an important part of attraction (unless you're in an atypical lifestyle, i.e. bdsm based relationships), whatever the specific person finds sexually attractive and if you're not, then it's going to hinder the relationship.

 

People always go on the defensive about women having to project this outward image, but men have to be attractive too, I use to be really fat when I was a kid, if I was a girl I probably wouldn't go out with me. While I think men are less objectified in society, although they're still categorized and put into groupings of varying self worth, girls still care if you're attractive. I wish someone taught me to run everyday and work out when I was in elementary and junior high, I'm definitely going to let my sons (if I have any) know that they'll have a huge advantage in school socially (instead of telling them it won't matter in 10 years, because they're not living in the world I am, they're living in junior high) if they take care of themselves, hit the gym, and exercise.

 

I'm sure the best way to get a girl to respect herself is to tell her that she's completely unattractive to "quality" guys until she loses a couple pounds... If a guy won't go out with a girl 'cause she's got better things to do than spend copious amounts of money and time dressing and looking a little better than everyone else around her, then that guy's got issues.

[PhoenixFlare500]

It's a matter of fact though, candour is completely devoid in our society, we all project fake personas and images of ourselves to appease what someone is taught they should want.

 

People have to realize that physical sexual attraction is an important part of attraction (unless you're in an atypical lifestyle, i.e. bdsm based relationships), whatever the specific person finds sexually attractive and if you're not, then it's going to hinder the relationship.

 

People always go on the defensive about women having to project this outward image, but men have to be attractive too, I use to be really fat when I was a kid, if I was a girl I probably wouldn't go out with me. While I think men are less objectified in society, although they're still categorized and put into groupings of varying self worth, girls still care if you're attractive. I wish someone taught me to run everyday and work out when I was in elementary and junior high, I'm definitely going to let my sons (if I have any) know that they'll have a huge advantage in school socially (instead of telling them it won't matter in 10 years, because they're not living in the world I am, they're living in junior high) if they take care of themselves, hit the gym, and exercise.

I'm not denying that physical attraction is important in a relationship, it's required in order to take the first step in probably most relationships. However, I like to think that most people don't expect a perfect partner. As long as they meet some threshold of physical attractiveness then the people can take more steps in order to build their relationship. A lot of people that I wouldn't consider that attractive don't have a problem getting into relationships, so obviously one kid on the internet can't write the standards on what you have to do or how you have to look to get a boyfriend/girlfriend. Another way to look at this is, do you know average-looking people in relationships? Yeah. Do you know ugly people in relationships? A lot of people probably do.

 

Also it doesn't matter how hot you are, if you're a complete tool to the person you're wanting to date, it's probably not going to work out (unless that person has a really, really low self-esteem).

[apache]

Oh, I agree with most of what you said, I pretty much espoused the same view earlier when I described what you I look for in a girl, but I think we live in a culture that puts so much of a persons value on a persons looks, that it makes people afraid to ask their gf/bf to get into shape because they're afraid of hurting their partner. What I'm really going at is societal undertones that places a persons value on external variables, so that they internalize those variables and identify with them, and allow them to effect their self esteem. I remember one girl I was dating was a hardcore runner and one semester I let myself go a bit because of school, and she was like, yeah, you have to lose 10 pounds, so we did gym dates, if we were more fostered an environment of people with a completely internally based locus of self esteem (which will never happen, because it's not financially palatable to big business) then we would have people in much happier relationships, dating people they wanted too. I also dislike how this is portrayed as such a women's issue, there are a lot of men who suffer from self esteem problems because they don't have a car, or aren't in great shape, or aren't a hit with the bar stars (who are only acting like bar stars to re-affirm themselves, the best way to **** with them is to completely deny their advances in the most apathetic, uninvested way you can)... if they didn't internalize these concepts of self worth then they would be far less insecure about simply changing them, it's nothing personal, but people prefer driving in cars, and prefer people in shape... when you put it that way the guy is just like, well, it's not "me" who's the loser, and i'm not this kind of person (personality internalization of external characteristics), i just need to hit the gym and buy a car. if you take this very non-personal approach to life you'll be very successful, instead of taking criticism as a threat or knock to who you are, you consider it an its' benefits.

 

I'm not denying that physical attraction is important in a relationship, it's required in order to take the first step in probably most relationships. However, I like to think that most people don't expect a perfect partner. As long as they meet some threshold of physical attractiveness then the people can take more steps in order to build their relationship. A lot of people that I wouldn't consider that attractive don't have a problem getting into relationships, so obviously one kid on the internet can't write the standards on what you have to do or how you have to look to get a boyfriend/girlfriend. Another way to look at this is, do you know average-looking people in relationships? Yeah. Do you know ugly people in relationships? A lot of people probably do.

 

Also it doesn't matter how hot you are, if you're a complete tool to the person you're wanting to date, it's probably not going to work out (unless that person has a really, really low self-esteem).

[Dongzhuo]

I'm not denying that physical attraction is important in a relationship, it's required in order to take the first step in probably most relationships. However, I like to think that most people don't expect a perfect partner. As long as they meet some threshold of physical attractiveness then the people can take more steps in order to build their relationship. A lot of people that I wouldn't consider that attractive don't have a problem getting into relationships, so obviously one kid on the internet can't write the standards on what you have to do or how you have to look to get a boyfriend/girlfriend. Another way to look at this is, do you know average-looking people in relationships? Yeah. Do you know ugly people in relationships? A lot of people probably do.

 

Also it doesn't matter how hot you are, if you're a complete tool to the person you're wanting to date, it's probably not going to work out (unless that person has a really, really low self-esteem).

 

Average people....Average people. You know what my single biggest beef with the dating world is? Individuals who fail to understand their level in the hierarchy. There are 9's and 10's in the world, and there are 1's and 2's. The best kinds of relationships are the 9's and 10's who you date, but who are humble and treat you with great respect and as equals. In my life I am lucky to have had one. These are the true jewels. The second best kind of relationship would be either a mildly arrogant 9/10 or a loving 5/6. The very worst type would be an ugly 3/4 who might have a high bmi and thinks she's the hottest thing on earth. These girls even have the nerve to call themselves "down to earth" and "not pretentious". Guurl, you're already a 3, cant get much closer to earth! Anyways these girls are to be avoided, and I honestly need a tylenol 3 when I see or hear of one of these.