Well, if you really believe that then you're putting yourself below women and acting accordingly. Don't blame what comes of that on anyone but yourself. You're also seriously discounting the experiences of women who fall outside the stereotypical desireable range. It's convenient to say that they could get laid if they just open their legs but as far as having meaningful relationships, being taken seriously, being cared about? That's another story.
Leave the poor straw man alone, he didn't do anything. My statements in no way place me or men below women, I was trying to explain why there's a different perception of men who get laid a bunch vs women who get laid a bunch.
You bring up a good point: what happens to women who fall outside of 'desirable range'. To that I'll say this: unless you are morbidly obese, psychotic or disfigured there will be a decent amount of men* who find you attractive enough to date and care about.
*The problem is, these men aren't the high-value, attractive sort that women can see. Maybe they're potbellied and 5'6", have a weak chin or collect trash for a living. This is what I mean when I say that men see more women as possible mates than the other way around.
Yeah, no 5'6....fat...or garbage man...EVER gets laid, let alone is in a relationship.
Tell that to the short fat garbage man from my old hometown. He apparently didn't get that memo. And if you want to make it about money, well my best male friend worked there and made good money and always wanted to go out with me but I wasn't interested because I simply did not like him in that way. Had nothing to do with his looks or money or even dick size (he 'accidentally' showed me a picture), I just did not like him romantically. Period. Working for the garbage man was one of the best gigs you can get around there. True in a lot of other places too.
And attractive people have an easier time hooking up and getting in relationships than non-attractive people? Wow, major insight. You're just claiming it's easier for unattractive women than men. No proof and no sound reasoning provided.
For every unattractive person in a relationship, there's another party involved. Where is this supply of overly-attractive men that are settling for unattractive women because they just can't do better? Why can't they do better? Do they even exist?
Let me try to lay out your reply as best as I can.
You started by painting my example as an extreme, like it was some axiom my entire argument was dependent upon. If you wanted to know when you did it, look for the capslock.
You then continued, writing an essay to tear my analogy a new asshole. This isn't my argument here, and you've proved nothing beyond the fact that short garbage men give you dick pics.
You then mispainted my argument so that you could dismiss it without addressing it:
"And attractive people have an easier time hooking up and getting in relationships than non-attractive people? Wow, major insight."
Of course it's no major insight, it's also not my point. My point is that the pool for potential mates is far deeper on the women's side than the men's. I'll spare you an analogy because I know what you do to them.
The reality is, 80% of women have descendants while only 40% of men do. You don't have to look at the math too hard to realize there are much more women getting laid than men.
"80% of women have descendants while only 40% of men do."
While true, does this have much significance today? No. The reason it's true was never because of women's choice in men, rather the lack of it. Women weren't the ones keeping men from reproducing, other men were. For instance, men taking multiple wives...but not the other way around. What happens when 1 man has 5-10 wives? 5-10 other men get no wives. Women didn't even have their own choice to reproduce due to rape being perfectly fine, no birth control and being treated as property. Also, what happens when the men in charge send all the young men into war and it decimates the male population? Dead men can't father children. I'd like to see how those numbers have changed since modern laws against rape and access to birth control have had time to set in. And more responsible military management. Don't even try to use this as some kind of positive for women, and act like they had much influence on it, it's not, it's quite the opposite. It hasn't been until very recently that women (and still not even ALL women) have had any choice in reproducing, it's still pretty limited even in the US from lack of access to affordable birth control, abortion and rape still being pretty 'normal'.
I'm not painting your example as an extreme...you say all women have to do is spread their legs yet at the same time men have to work for pussy? How do those 2 reconcile? If a woman is just spreading her legs then it follows that some guy is getting easy pussy (not working hard for it)...so isn't it relatively equally easy for both involved?...do you realize that for anyone, male or female, to get with a person they actually want to be with....it takes work on both their parts?
Delving back into history brings in a lot of great insights, and I'll try to address some, but I'll also provide a much more modern explanation that you'll find hard to walk around.
Female chimpanzees, when they're heat, they don't have a choice—they'll mate with any chimp around. It's why dominant male chimpanzees chase weaker males out during this time. So in that manner, human women are very different—they do have control over who they want to mate with (even if they aren't always sure why). But while they may have conscious control over the physical act of mating, you are right in saying that (until recent human history), they haven't had a choice.
And also, until very recently, picking a mate was a life-changing decision and the most important one she'd ever make (so important that she often had little say in it). Without the pill, women had to naturally be very careful in mate selection, to produce the strongest and healthiest offspring—this is wired deep into female nature. I think this explains, at least a little, the research done by OkCupid, a dating service:
"As you can see from the gray line, women rate an incredible 80% of guys as worse-looking than medium. Very harsh."
"Females of OkCupid, we site founders say to you: ouch! Paradoxically, it seems it’s women, not men, who have unrealistic standards for the “average” member of the opposite sex."
I hope we can both agree that women are pickier than men are when it comes to attraction. I highly recommend you look at the charts and pictures in the link and come to your own conclusion. Just so you know, I am not hating on women or shaming them, I am trying to point out their nature.
And their nature creates a lot of 'invisible men'.
Boo hoo about 'invisible men', women who are 30-40-50+ are invisible too.
I don't really need to look at your charts and graphs; I know plenty of people in real life who are in relationships. And many are poor, ugly, fat, bald, retarded or old (or a combination).
If men had the burden of pregnancy and raising a child, maybe they'd be more picky too.
You can pick one...either you live in this society or you make stupid excuses for everything based on crappy unfounded 'evolutionary psychology'. You can't explain everything away yet act all sore when things don't go in your favor.
is it normal to be turned off by short guys?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
Well, if you really believe that then you're putting yourself below women and acting accordingly. Don't blame what comes of that on anyone but yourself. You're also seriously discounting the experiences of women who fall outside the stereotypical desireable range. It's convenient to say that they could get laid if they just open their legs but as far as having meaningful relationships, being taken seriously, being cared about? That's another story.
--
bubsy
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Leave the poor straw man alone, he didn't do anything. My statements in no way place me or men below women, I was trying to explain why there's a different perception of men who get laid a bunch vs women who get laid a bunch.
You bring up a good point: what happens to women who fall outside of 'desirable range'. To that I'll say this: unless you are morbidly obese, psychotic or disfigured there will be a decent amount of men* who find you attractive enough to date and care about.
*The problem is, these men aren't the high-value, attractive sort that women can see. Maybe they're potbellied and 5'6", have a weak chin or collect trash for a living. This is what I mean when I say that men see more women as possible mates than the other way around.
--
wigz
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Yeah, no 5'6....fat...or garbage man...EVER gets laid, let alone is in a relationship.
Tell that to the short fat garbage man from my old hometown. He apparently didn't get that memo. And if you want to make it about money, well my best male friend worked there and made good money and always wanted to go out with me but I wasn't interested because I simply did not like him in that way. Had nothing to do with his looks or money or even dick size (he 'accidentally' showed me a picture), I just did not like him romantically. Period. Working for the garbage man was one of the best gigs you can get around there. True in a lot of other places too.
And attractive people have an easier time hooking up and getting in relationships than non-attractive people? Wow, major insight. You're just claiming it's easier for unattractive women than men. No proof and no sound reasoning provided.
For every unattractive person in a relationship, there's another party involved. Where is this supply of overly-attractive men that are settling for unattractive women because they just can't do better? Why can't they do better? Do they even exist?
--
bubsy
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Let me try to lay out your reply as best as I can.
You started by painting my example as an extreme, like it was some axiom my entire argument was dependent upon. If you wanted to know when you did it, look for the capslock.
You then continued, writing an essay to tear my analogy a new asshole. This isn't my argument here, and you've proved nothing beyond the fact that short garbage men give you dick pics.
You then mispainted my argument so that you could dismiss it without addressing it:
"And attractive people have an easier time hooking up and getting in relationships than non-attractive people? Wow, major insight."
Of course it's no major insight, it's also not my point. My point is that the pool for potential mates is far deeper on the women's side than the men's. I'll spare you an analogy because I know what you do to them.
The reality is, 80% of women have descendants while only 40% of men do. You don't have to look at the math too hard to realize there are much more women getting laid than men.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/h4e/differential_reproduction_for_men_and_women/
--
wigz
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
"80% of women have descendants while only 40% of men do."
While true, does this have much significance today? No. The reason it's true was never because of women's choice in men, rather the lack of it. Women weren't the ones keeping men from reproducing, other men were. For instance, men taking multiple wives...but not the other way around. What happens when 1 man has 5-10 wives? 5-10 other men get no wives. Women didn't even have their own choice to reproduce due to rape being perfectly fine, no birth control and being treated as property. Also, what happens when the men in charge send all the young men into war and it decimates the male population? Dead men can't father children. I'd like to see how those numbers have changed since modern laws against rape and access to birth control have had time to set in. And more responsible military management. Don't even try to use this as some kind of positive for women, and act like they had much influence on it, it's not, it's quite the opposite. It hasn't been until very recently that women (and still not even ALL women) have had any choice in reproducing, it's still pretty limited even in the US from lack of access to affordable birth control, abortion and rape still being pretty 'normal'.
I'm not painting your example as an extreme...you say all women have to do is spread their legs yet at the same time men have to work for pussy? How do those 2 reconcile? If a woman is just spreading her legs then it follows that some guy is getting easy pussy (not working hard for it)...so isn't it relatively equally easy for both involved?...do you realize that for anyone, male or female, to get with a person they actually want to be with....it takes work on both their parts?
--
bubsy
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Delving back into history brings in a lot of great insights, and I'll try to address some, but I'll also provide a much more modern explanation that you'll find hard to walk around.
Female chimpanzees, when they're heat, they don't have a choice—they'll mate with any chimp around. It's why dominant male chimpanzees chase weaker males out during this time. So in that manner, human women are very different—they do have control over who they want to mate with (even if they aren't always sure why). But while they may have conscious control over the physical act of mating, you are right in saying that (until recent human history), they haven't had a choice.
And also, until very recently, picking a mate was a life-changing decision and the most important one she'd ever make (so important that she often had little say in it). Without the pill, women had to naturally be very careful in mate selection, to produce the strongest and healthiest offspring—this is wired deep into female nature. I think this explains, at least a little, the research done by OkCupid, a dating service:
https://theblog.okcupid.com/your-looks-and-your-inbox-8715c0f1561e
"As you can see from the gray line, women rate an incredible 80% of guys as worse-looking than medium. Very harsh."
"Females of OkCupid, we site founders say to you: ouch! Paradoxically, it seems it’s women, not men, who have unrealistic standards for the “average” member of the opposite sex."
I hope we can both agree that women are pickier than men are when it comes to attraction. I highly recommend you look at the charts and pictures in the link and come to your own conclusion. Just so you know, I am not hating on women or shaming them, I am trying to point out their nature.
And their nature creates a lot of 'invisible men'.
--
wigz
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
See More Comments =>
Who cares about chimpanzees?
Boo hoo about 'invisible men', women who are 30-40-50+ are invisible too.
I don't really need to look at your charts and graphs; I know plenty of people in real life who are in relationships. And many are poor, ugly, fat, bald, retarded or old (or a combination).
If men had the burden of pregnancy and raising a child, maybe they'd be more picky too.
You can pick one...either you live in this society or you make stupid excuses for everything based on crappy unfounded 'evolutionary psychology'. You can't explain everything away yet act all sore when things don't go in your favor.