[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
What quality is, is subjective in a lot of ways for men viewing women I think. One dudes crazy bitch is another guys dream girl.
Women seem to always want most of the same traits in men… It almost seems like we are supposed to have herem structures. You want a tall stable guy with decent to great looks and a lot of money.
Not that I like the idea, but all this talk about quality men and women seeking the same qualities points to that at first glance. Look at our closest relatives… I’m more open minded to this idea considering the demand for quality men and most men being shitty in your opinion. A shitty man is a shitty man, right? [/quote]
Are you talking to me? If so, I didn’t say most men are shitty, I said that yucky men are in greater supply generally speaking. Maybe my world is different - very possibly so. Also highly likely that I am a snob. But my point was that I don’t have to go out with them. And certainly “yucky men” are not every guy who isn’t tall, decent to great looking, with a lot of money.
I also dispute that all women want the same thing. Sure, on the surface it may sound the same (“smart, funny, blah blah”) but the particulars of that vary greatly. What is funny to me, and to the man who is right for me? Fitness and athleticism can be a great strain if there’s not agreement. What sort of television is acceptable. How sex works - rough, loving, kinky, missionary.
I also think you’re deluded if you don’t think women very often go for the male equivalent of “crazy bitch.” Charming, abusive men have their appeal to some women. The foolish ones.
[/quote]
I’m saying there’s a certain archetype of man. I don’t recall the name of the study but there is strong co-relation of men of power being tall and wealthy. If women tend be anthropologically geared towards being attracted to the types that would be both good protectors (tall) and good providers (tall being tied to wealth), that physical type fits those basic bills that are in demand for a woman. The archetype is that the guy is for the most part stable and not a pussy. So you see, it seems pretty easy for a woman. She looks for a tall guy who has money, that is decent to incredible looking (attractiveness)(tallness)(money) they all sort of link together in a neater way than women do for us.
I think all women are pretty much attracted to this sort of man more or less. Kinda like guys are generally attracted to a woman with certain body ratio’s. The thing is for us is the archetype/ personalities of women are pretty out there, and the dynamic of sex between men and women is such that we don’t command what is in demand. Women do. You are the gatekeepers to sex.
If you want a certain type, and archetype and there are very few of those men, and men will pretty much have sex with anything so long as it isn’t wrong, why not have herems? All it would take is a little adjustment to traditional western ethics. When we compare our dynamics to primates, if we are honest we will observe a lot of similarities. The way beta males have higher levels of anxiety and disease, etc. We are just smart chimps.
[/quote]
If your ability to discriminate between human beings is limited to “tall,” “not a pussy,” or “displaying X body ratio,” then your lack of discernment is the issue, rather than that the personalities of women are too “out there.”
[/quote]
Sorry it’s very general. I’m more blurting out things that I’ve observed.
Sometimes things can boil down to being very simple and true.
Men are attracted in general to women with certain waist to hip ratio’s for example, there are entire anthropology books written about sexual attraction, women, and how they carry fat.
There are books that boil down the very basic reasons women have sex, ranging from the anthropological hypothesis about being protectors, providers and being stable. They translate today to things like being tall (protector) having money (provider), and being stable is something you are going to look for in a mate if you rely on them to protect and provide for you.
For a man we tend to easily turn into the shitty man category as I have coined it, it’s not what you have said, I said it. If a man is lacking in one of these categories he’s basically a shitty man, sort of looked at as possibly a non quality man.
If you find out your mate has say anxiety issues, you may look at him as unstable, of course there could be medication to solve the problem but I think there is something to this… If a guy knows a woman has anxiety issues he might actually be more protective of her, she is still desirable, she is just a little more work… Does that make sense or am I crazy? It’s part of the difference in mate choosing as well.
There’s the whole men are dogs thing too. We will generally accept mates that are available to us. It just seems that some men have all the things desirable going on, it would make sense for more women to want to share their genes with them on an anthropological level so they can pass on superior genes to their children… Provisions come in the form of money, it makes a lot of sense to me and it seems to happen in some sense when we consider what traits are in demand when it comes to sperm donations. Do you think many women are going to opt for the short uneducated man with average income, or the tall educated man with wealth’s sperm? Would it make a difference if the short uneducated guy was sweet and the tall rich guy was sort of an ass?