"the Danimal" <dmocsny@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:1146876515.008245.306340@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> yamuna wrote:
>> the Danimal wrote:
>> [..]
>> >
>> > So you are saying you like some superficial people?
>> > Even to the point of having *** with them?
>>
>> Twist as you wish and take things out of context as you wish. You guys
>> are childish people.
>>
>> >
>> > If you have *** with superficial people, for superficial
>> > reasons, what does that make you?
>>
>> Twist as you wish and take things out of context as you wish. You guys
>> are childish people.
>>
>> >
>> > Note: having *** with a man simply because he wants
>> > *** with you and you can't say no sounds pretty superficial
>> > to me
>> .
>> Twist as you wish and take things out of context as you wish. You guys
>> are childish people.
>
> Tell me if I have the context right now:
>
> 1. When I have *** with a woman I don't very well, I am superficial.
> 2. When you have *** with a man you don't know very well, you
> are not superficial.
>
> Does that about sum it up?
Gee... that would almost suggest that she's a hypocrite.
As well as a bigot and racist...
>>> > > > How many hours did he spend getting to know you before
>> > > > he first wanted to have *** with you? It's possible he already
>> > > > found you ***ually attractive before the first time he spoke
>> > > > to you.
>> > >
>> > > Possible. After all, everything is controlled by the brain.
>> >
>> > Yes. For the most part that would be the emotional brain.
>> >
>> > > > At the time when you first had *** with him, how well did
>> > > > you actually know him? Did you know details such as
>> > > > his middle name, his mother's maiden name, the names of
>> > > > his grandparents and cousins, where he went to school,
>> > > > where he was born, where he grew up,
>> > >
>> > > Funny you asked that. I used to ask all these question routinely
>> > > out
>> > > of culturla habit but I only asked the guys I was getting involved
>> > > unlike my fellow countryman who would ask everybody.
>> >
>> > Actually I did not mean you would learn a list of facts
>> > about a man by interrogating him, and then you would
>> > "know" him. Instead I mean you have learned all these
>> > things by spending time with the man in many different
>> > situations, sharing experiences with him, and allowing
>> > these details to emerge naturally.
>>
>> Understood but for me, asking question and learning, for example, they
>> didn't go to college at all, allow me to screen them because it would
>> be very hard for soemone lik e that to enjoy the kind of jokes or
>> things I do.
>
> Wouldn't it be more accurate just to tell some jokes and do
> some things you like, and see if the other person enjoys those
> things?
>
> I'd expect a chemist to understand that a direct test of something
> is usually better than an indirect test.
She's a chemist? She might know a few things about white powdery
substances
or crystalized synthesis...
> Now, maybe if you have hundreds of guys asking you out, you
> have to screen them quickly and superficially, but you were
> saying you don't have any local friends, so it doesn't sound like
> guys are beating down the door to get with you.
Oh no... ALL married men want to sleep with her, remember.
>> The guy I was with before I moved to this state was so fun
>> to be with because we get the same jokes because out knowledge are is
>> very similar. I remember when we were watching a movie (comedy) in a
>> theatre where this guy filling in for his lawyer friend got a witness
>> who said "just move O (Oxygen atom) here and move N (Nitrogen) here"
>> and "what the difference? It's just a little moving" and we both broke
>> into laughs. There were not many people in the theatre but we wer the
>> only 2 who got the jokes and laughed.
>
> I'm guessing that even if you hadn't laughed, that guy would
> still want *** with you.
>
> Laughing together may have been hugely im****tant to you,
> but I bet he could have managed without it.
>
> In any case, laughing at the same joke is superficial. All
> that means is you happened to find that one joke funny.
> Almost any two people can have at least one joke they
> both find funny.
>
>> > I merely asked these
>> > questions to illustrate the kinds of details two people
>> > have not yet picked up about each other while their
>> > ***ual relation****p is new. Yet they still find each other
>> > ***ually attractive, because ***ual attraction for most
>> > people is SUPERFICIAL.
>> >
>> > If you read an encyclopedia article about Hawaii, you can
>> > then recite a number of facts about Hawaii. But that is not
>> > the same as living there for many years. What you can read
>> > in the encyclopedia is superficial knowledge about Hawaii.
>> > The deep knowledge comes from years of personal
>> > experience, and much of it is not available in words, and
>> > maybe cannot even be put into words.
>> >
>> > In a long-term relation****p, the partners can eventually
>> > finish each other's sentences. That kind of knowing does
>> > not emerge from asking a stranger a list of questions
>> > about where he went to school and so on.
>> >
>> > In most cases, a couple has *** most often, and most
>> > intensely, while the relation****p is still new and superficial.
>> > As they get to know each other better, they usually have
>> > *** less.
>>
>> Not the case with everybody.
>
> Not much is. But you can get back to us in 30 years and
> tell us whether you defied the trend.
>
>> > Thus, not only is *** superficial, but superficiality is
>> > necessary for the most enjoyable ***.
>>
>>
>> > Do you know why most people are not ***ually attracted
>> > to their siblings? Because they know them too well.
>> >
>> > I read somewhere that the same thing happens in the
>> > Kibbutzim of Israel. Even when men and women are not
>> > sister and brother, if they grew up together as if they were,
>> > they prefer to look elsewhere for their *** partners.
>>
>> Wait a minute. I heard that jews used to marry cousins.
>
>>From who? The Nazis? They also said the Jews would boil and
> eat their babies.
Well, she should know. She's right in line with that sort of thinking.
Although she might fit in better with Hindutva, the RSS, or some other
Asian
hate group.
>> > > Since I only dated
>> > > Americans (Caucasian) and one naturalized American (non Caucasian)
>> > > who
>> > > was also like a typical Americans when it comes to being asked
those
>> > > questions, my experience was their uncomfortableness. Most (not
>> > > necessarily had ***) were okay with it since these guys met me in
>> > > foreign student environment and were culturally more exposed but
>> > > after
>> > > one guy acted so differently, I stopped asking that much as I
myself
>> > > changed.
>> >
>> > My point is that when you spend enough time with someone
>> > to get to know him well, you do not need to ask these questions.
>>
>> But I don't want to spend time with the person who at leats meet my
>> basic requirement.
>
> Sure, and you only need a few hours with someone at most to
> determine whether they meet your basic requirements, because
> basic requirements are superficial.
>
>> > The information comes up in the normal course of the time you
>> > share. For example, eventually you meet his family and friends,
>> > you learn something about his job, he volunteers information about
>> > his past, and so on.
>>
>> For guys, it may be easy to accept a wide range of women because guys
>> are into women physical attributes more than other things. But we women
>> are not like that thoguh physical attaribute of a man is im****tant.
>
> Granted, but we are discussing superficiality. A woman only needs
> a few hours to evaluate a man's superficial qualifications to meet
> her other requirements.
>
> A woman doesn't need ten years to figure out whether she wants to
> sleep with a man. Usually it's no more than ten hours, spread over
> a few dates maybe. She might not sleep with him that soon, but
> she can tell that she's warming to the idea.
>
>> > These details you can recount about him
>> > are not all you know about him. You actually learn much more
>> > about him that you cannot easily express in words.
>> >
>> > But you don't need to wait for such deep knowledge before
>> > you can have *** with him, and enjoy it. Even if the *** is
>> > his idea, if you give in and enjoy it, that means your
>> > superficial conditions for *** have been met.
>>
>> I didn't know him that deeply when I got involved with my last bf whom
>> I met on campus in Fall 2004. But the fact that we have known each
>> other for about 5 weeks helped when we hooked up. As we got to know
>> each other, we still liked each other because we already sensed from
>> the beginning what type of person I was and what type he was. If it
>> weren't for the age difference, he wouldn't try to please his
>> controlling Mommy and we'd still be together. He is till upset that I
>> didn't continue the ***ual relationsho[ with him. He knows he won't
>> find another perosn like me easily and I won't find another person like
>> him easily.
>
> A grippingly tragic tale of two star-crossed lovers. Someone
> should write this into a play.
Was it Hamlet or maybe Romeo and Juliet?
> But the point is you started a *** life that seems to have been
> satisfying to at least one of you, at a time when you only had
> superficial knowledge of each other.
She'll deny it.
>> Funny things was that the *very* first time I laid my eyes on him I
>> sensed something VERY strong but I dismissed it immeidatley as "Oh, may
>> be I was just surprised to see such a handsome man in the computer
>> lab".
>>
>> Would you call this attraction "superficial attraction"?
>
> Absolutely. Any attraction for a stranger the *very* first time you
> lay eyes on him is superficial. That is exactly what superficial
> attraction is! Now feel free to write 500 megabytes
> trying to deny the obvious.
It'll only be 125MB denying it. Another 125MB saying she never said that
in
the first place. 50 to say you are taking things out of context. 50 more
going off on some tangent about some other obscure story that's unrelated,
and the last 150 explaining why she thinks Asian men are better than all
others.
>> You probably
>> would. To To me, it was more than that. It was super natural. He
agreed
>> too when I told him about it. Both of us are not religious at all but
>> we know that there is something bigger than us.
>
> Well, your ego certainly doesn't lack for size. Not to mention
> the messianic sense of im****tance.
Well, racists are like that. She's a rival for Hitler, Stalin, or Mao
Zedong.
> But don't think you're anything special there. I have looked at women
> for the first time and it's almost like watching the tape fast forward.
> Of course it doesn't always play out exactly like I wish---it rarely
> does---but when it does, I can later retroactively declare that
> my initial superficial attraction was "more than that." LOL.
>
> There may have been something "bigger than us" in your case,
> but it sounds like his controlling mom was even bigger. LOL some more.
ROTFLMAO!!
> Obviously whatever magic was going on there did not extend to
> warning you that his mother would wreck the party.
She'll just lie and say this was yet another man... or come up with some
other change to the story. It's hard even for her to keep her stories
straight.
>> Even though we started
>> talking a bit to each other in labs (never more than 2-5 mins), without
>> even asking each other's name, the trigger point that broguth us
>> together was when I was at my wit's end to find someone to help me with
>> some PC hardware issue that needed immediately attention. I didn't
>> think of asking him and one day, I was sitting in the lab, very
>> frustrated and then I lifted my head up, I saw him sitting in direct
>> view of me at the end of the room. So, I decided to bother him. I had
>> no idea what was about to happen.
>
> "And they called it ... Geeky love." (Sung to the tune of "Puppy Love")
>
>> I didn't even ask his name when I asked whether he knew PC hardware
>> very well. Of course, he's a man, and he was already attracted to me
>> (as he later told me) , he answered "yes" enthusiastically.
>
> He had probably already downloaded your photos and added them
> to his shrine.
Yes, becasue, as she claims, all men are automatically ***ually attracted
to
her. Especially married men. And, she didn't even know his name when she
was
comtemplating having a hot, steamy, rugromp with him.
>> (Later, he
>> told me that he hates dealing with hardware issues but he kept that to
>> hismelf.) I told him my PC problem and we exchanged name and ph
>> numbers and at that *very* moment, I knew what was going to happen. At
>> that time, I still didn't know him well yet but at least I knew he's in
>> IT like me but with skills in diferent areas. That was underlying thing
>> that may have contibuted in the ***ual/physical attraction. Would you
>> put this attraction "superficial physican/***ual attraction"?
>
> Of course I would. Because I'm not a raging egomaniac
> who goes around dissing other people for being superficial
> while pretending I'm not.
See, she "knew" what would happen AS they were exchanging names. She was
already planning ***ual perversions before she had finished even getting
him
name. She knew he was Asian, an IT geek (or at least knew how to fix PCs),
not to short, and not fat... so he was game on. Learning things about him
such as his favorite breakfast beverage would be found in the morning,
asuming he spent the night with her. She didn't even bother to ask what
his
wife's name was. Perhaps she was just planning on a quickie and kicking
him
out before sundown.
But that's not superficial.
>> I
>> wouldn't. To me, ***ual attraction (strong enough for to engage in
>> ***) is influenced by other things. BTW, we didn't do it the first
>> time we met up. We, actually, I avoided the second time meeting which
>> was not for PC issue.
>
> Sure, you may have taken some time to close the deal. But
> your attraction was there from the start, when it could only
> have been superficial.
Well,, she'll either claim it's "out of context" or she'll outrightly lie
about it, but she did say... and I quote...
I told him my PC problem and we exchanged name and ph
numbers and at that *very* moment, I knew what was going to happen.
At
that time, I still didn't know him well yet but at least I knew he's
in
IT like me but with skills in diferent areas.
> In my experience with women, all the best experiences worked
> much the same way: it was obvious they were attracted to me
> almost from our first conversation. That doesn't happen very
> often, but it's almost a requirement if I am to find a girlfriend.
> A woman who doesn't show interest right away usually turns
> out to be a lost cause. If I'm hearing negatives or whatever
> in the first conversation, or she doesn't make any effort to
> meet me halfway, I move on. If she's interested, she will
> do her part to make it work.
>
> That is why I say superficial attraction is NECESSARY for
> a good relation****p. If an attraction is going to be strong, it
> usually starts right away. How could it be otherwise? The
> way I am acting right now is much like I will be acting in
> a year. Why would a woman love my act a year from now
> if it does nothing for her right now?
>
>> > > Why pick on just height when women also have other criteria they
use
>> > > in
>> > > picking partners? It just depends on what a person prefers.
>> >
>> > Because we were talking about superficiality.
>>
>> Height is not the only superficiality.
>
> It's an easy one to discuss.
And it's one of many she claimed she checked. Then denied she did. And
said
once again she does.
>> > 1. Height is a nearly universal requirement with women---almost
>> > every woman requires a man to exceed some minimum height
>> > before she will find him ***ually attractive.
>> >
>> > 2. Height is a superficial trait which you can estimate with a
>> > glance. A woman can glance at the men at a party, for example,
>> > and instantly rule out some of them as being too short for her.
>> >
>> > 3. You called me superficial. I am pointing out a way in which
>> > all women are even more superficial than I am.
>>
>> That's your opinion/view.
>
> It's the meaning of "superficial." Superficial means having
> to do with the surface. When you first see someone, you
> only see the surface. A person's height is something you
> can see with a glance, but it tells you nothing about his
> character.
Come now, you don't expect her to use a dictonary or refer to the commonly
accepted definition of a word, do you. She makes it up as she goes, and
when
it no longer fits or suits her, she claims it's out of context.
> If you only interact with him for a few hours, you do not
> see the full range of his character. You don't know how he
> reacts to many different situations. Your knowledge of him
> is superficial, but you can still form a strong attraction
> quickly. Sometimes the attraction is strongest before you
> get to know him well.
Hell, she didn't even know if he was married. and after all, she claims
that
is such a pitfall for her... you'd think she'd ask that almost before
getting his name and number.
> People such as you like to diss superficial attraction, but
> it's cool and you know it is, because you experience it
> yourself.
She'll deny this too. Or claim it's out of context.
>> >Even though I
>> > prefer women to be as beautiful as possible, I am willing to
>> > be flexible if I have to, and a woman who is not so beautiful
>> > may be able to compensate somewhat by having a sufficiently
>> > wonderful personality. In contrast, most women have very
>> > rigid requirements for a man's height and their requirements
>> > are non-negotiable.
>>
>> Don't you think there might be a Biological reson for that and not
>> superficiality?
>
> Of course a woman's superficiality has a biological reason.
> She has an instant emotional reaction to a superficial cue
> of a man's desirability as a mate, because her brain has
> been shaped by millions of years of natural selection. Men
> with certain traits must have been consistently better
> reproductive bets for women in the past.
>
>> > Did you know women spend more money on their
>> > appearance (cosmetics, fa****on, etc.) than on their
>> > education?
>>
>> Not me.
>
> This is over a whole lifetime. Only some 15% of Americans hold
> a 4-year college degree. You probably spent more on education
> than most. But if you add up everything you will spend on
> clothes, cosmetics, toiletries, haircuts, etc., for your whole
> life, it probably adds up to a big number. That's why huge
> industries cater to the desire of women to look good.
Don't bet on it. After all, she doesn't care about her looks. She'd rather
be ugly. Or so she claims.
> How many bottles of lotions, creams, cleansers, etc., do
> you have in your bathroom? Every time I see a woman's
> bathroom, I am baffled by all those products. It's hard to
> guess what they are all for.
Well, none, of course. What would she need a lotion for? Why would she
care
about such things. She's not out to impress others or cares about her
looks.
So she, of course, wears no makeup, has no beauty products (because that's
SOOOO superficial), etc... etc... Her bathroom is cleaner than a chemist's
table.
>> > > > or even more if
>> > > > like most people they don't bother start saving until they
>> > > > hit their 40's or 50's. (How much have you saved, by the way?)
>> > >
>> > > I am an immigrant who had to start from scratch and so I'd say you
>> > > can't put me in that survey.
>> >
>> > Well, that's good for your tendency to save, then.
>>
>> I didn't say I saved either. Most my money went to non-resident
>> tution rate and books.
>>
>> >
>> > "The Millionaire Next Door" says, among other things, that
>> > getting a lot of help from one's parents often tends to be
>> > financially crippling. The basic principle is that it's easier
>> > to spend someone else's money, so when parents give
>> > their kids a handout, it conditions their kids to over-consume.
>>
>> that book doesn't apply to everybody.
>
> You could make it apply to you. That is, if you want to
> be a millionaire. Only between 3% and 6% of adults in
> the USA make that cut.
I'd be extremely suprised if it's that low. most might not have over a
million as disposable income... but there are a large number of people
that
have 401Ks. Heck, nearly anyone that's worked for Wal-Mart more than 15
years and been an active participant in their stock plan is almost
certainly
a millionaire. The janitor where I work is. Then again, he's making more
money than all but a select few of the people working in the IT
department.
>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Millionaire_Next_Door
>> >
>> > > > You may not care about other women, but I assure you
>> > > > every man you sleep with cares.
>> > >
>> > > I know and that's one reason I have been so cautious which made
left
>> > > me
>> > > as I am.
>> >
>> > If you were truly cautious, you would learn the facts
>> > about a problem instead of going into denial about it,
>> > and thinking you can scold it away.
>>
>> What do you think my problem is? Choosy? Well, that's me. I am choosy
>> with everything. For example, I don't wear synthetic fiber (not as the
>> first layer) because my skin can breath and I get annoyed.
>
> I don't know or care what your problem is. I am simply explaining
> that you are as superficial as I am. The difference is, I am not
> afraid to admit what I am, but you seem to be in denial.
She's more so. Do you care if the woman you are attracted to is taller
than
5' 2"? Or that she's not Canadian? Or some other racial stereotype?
> I think it is more superficial to be superficial and deny it, than
> to be superficial and admit it.
Agreed.
> I think my understanding of my superficiality, and its
> implications, is deeper than superficial.
>
>> > > > Unless he is blind, a (straight) man is constantly seeing other
>> > > > women, and his emotional brain is probably reacting to their
>> > > > physical appearance. If he frequently sees other women he finds
>> > > > more superficially attractive than you, that can put him under
>> > > > stress, and affect the quality of your relation****p.
>> > >
>> > > You are bringing up all the things that can possible happen to
worry
>> > > about in life. Know that it's not only in this area one has to
worry
>> > > that way. You could be driving on the highway and the guy coming
>> > > from
>> > > the other direction can be getting brain aneurysm or heart attack
and
>> > > hit you head-on. And we put our lives in the hand of pilot we
don't
>> > > even know when we fly or use ****ps.
>> >
>> > I notice you do not scold the people who have heart attacks
>> > while driving the same way you scolded me for being superficial.
>> > Why is that? Do you think you can change a person's
>> > ***ual preferences by scolding him?
>>
>> I didn't scold you. I just expected you to understand that not everyone
>> is like you were ****traying.
>
> If you did not scold me, why am I weeping?
>
>> > If that were possible, then I would scold the Victoria's Secret
>> > lingerie models for feeling no interest in me. Perhaps I could
>> > scold them into wanting me.
>>
>> Funny.
>
> If it worked I would do it.
So would most men.
>> > > > However, because you would probably view his normal male
>> > > > behavior as a character defect ("superficiality"), and you
>> > > > seem to be in denial about the fact that you compete with
>> > > > other women,
>> > >
>> > > I didn't say I don't compete at all but not in the petty way you
were
>> > > thinking.
>> >
>> > What, do you only date blind men?
>>
>> But you strecth it (physical attractiveness) as the primary factor.
>
> It is, for men being attracted to women. Women include
> other superficial traits of a man when deciding in a few
> hours whether they will (eventually) sleep with him.
Agreed again.
>> > > > he probably wouldn't be able to communicate
>> > > > with you honestly about the source of his stress. He's not
>> > > > going to tell you what's going on in his head if it will only
>> > > > make you think less of him. Thus the stress might express
>> > > > itself indirectly, and degrade the quality of your relation****p
>> > > > in some other way that might not make sense to you.
>> > >
>> > > So what you are saying is that I should ask him about his
attraction
>> > > to
>> > > toher woman and help him relieve his stress. So why do I need to
>> > > bother
>> > > having such a guy?
>> >
>> > Because you seem to want some sort of guy, and virtually
>> > every guy responds ***ually to attractive women strangers
>> > on sight. You would have to search a long time to find a
>> > guy who isn't turned on by the sight of attractive women
>> > strangers, even if he has been conditioned to feel it is wrong.
>>
>> I accept men for what they are but they shouldn't one-sidedly pursue
>> their interest disregarding the woman's response. (Of cousre not every
>> man is liek that but a lot are.) Even my friend disregards what I
>> said and I had to get into argument with him and still he didn't accept
>> what I said. He think I am being picky, etc. Even if he calls it
>> "picky", I want him to accept that it's my right but he won't.
>
> Men usually take the path of least resistance. If it seems easier
> to keep pestering you, he will do that rather than go try to talk
> to other women strangers. Basically, even when you are rejecting
> him, you are still showing him more attention and receptivity than
> the women strangers do.
>
> One way to get rid of men you don't want is to find some other
> women who will pursue them. But for some reason, most
> women do not want to do that. They would just rather complain
> about the unwanted attention. Whatever.
Is it REALLY unwanted? If it were unwanted, they'd simply ignore the
person.
But, it's an ego boost to have someone fawning over them. Just as it is
for
a man. It's unwanted when it gets uncomfortable. Until then, it's just
something to complain about.
>> > I'm not saying you need a guy. Maybe you don't. Just that
>> > you seem to have liked some guys in the past, and I would
>> > bet a large sum of money that at least 80% of them respond
>> > ***ually to the sight of physically attractive women strangers.
>>
>> I am sure they did but my point was they didn't end up with these women
>> just based on that primordial ***ual attraction just as they checked
>> other things about me before they ended up with me.
>
> Sure, but if they weren't superficially attracted they wouldn't
> have bothered to check a few more things to find out signals
> were "go."
Bingo.
>> > For example, do any of the men you have dated enjoy looking
>> > at some type of ****?
>>
>> Only one. I accidentally saw the book. This was the guy that I threw
>> away my requirement of "No accountant".
>
> Most guys learn to keep their **** habits secret. That's why
> the Internet is so great. Storage devices keep getting smaller.
See... no accountants. Would you be so superficial as to dismiss a woman
simply because she was really good at making money?
>> > > > > I am one of a kind
>> > > >
>> > > > Everybody is one of a kind. It's not a question of you being
>> > > > one of a kind, the question is how many "kinds" a given man
>> > > > can be attracted to.
>> > >
>> > > I'd say that most people are attracted to the same type of person
>> > > excluding the superficial attraction.
>> >
>> > So all these guys you have dated, did they sit around waiting
>> > for you to show up? And have they remained celibate since?
>>
>> Again, you stretch things out of context. All of them did use the word
>> "unique" with me.
>
> Then I guess that makes it absolutely true! LOL.
>
> Have you always told the complete truth to men?
Certainly not in this conversation.
>> > If they have enjoyed other women, perhaps you are not
>> > so unique as you imagine.
>>
>> I am sure that those women were much like me.
>
> But you said you are unique.
her reply....
"Um... uh... that's out of context. I never said that. You are being
stupid.
You are an idiot. I knew this guy once that wore a red hat and he was
short
and I walked away from him. See. That proves my point."
>> > Now you're just being silly. Every man you've had ***
>> > with probably feels attracted to many different women,
>> > both before, during, and after the time you dated him.
>>
>> I meant he was *attracted enough to enagge in *** with them* while he
>> is with me. So far, no one has done that.
>
> That you know of. But I thought we were talking not necessarily
> about what they did, but what they wanted to do.
>
> Most men feel urges to have *** with lots of attractive women,
> strangers or not, almost whenever they see them. Of course
> most men cannot act on the vast majority of these impulses.
> It's just like having noise in your head all day. Only a few rock
> stars and such get to have *** with thousands of women.
>
>> > > Food and people as analogies? I do not like to eat the same food
>> > > everyday while I want the same peroson everyday. So much for the
>> > > analogy.
>> >
>> > I am just the opposite. I can eat the same foods every day,
>> > while I want a different woman every day (if that were feasible
>> > to arrange, and if it could be reasonably safe).
>>
>> Typical man.
>
> Yes. In this regard, I am probably much like the men you date.
>
> I'm atypically more honest than them.
>
> Like that geek you met in the computer lab. Do you think you
> are the only woman he has felt attracted to? If this was on
> a university campus, I guarantee you were not the only
> woman.
But all men want to have *** with her. So he can't have been attracted to
other women compared to her.
>> > > Of course, you can say that that's not the case with men.
>> > > Well, that mostly explians why I am alone.
>> >
>> > That and your habit of scolding men for being superficial.
>>
>> I don't scold any of them; none of them were *that* superficial.
>
> I'd bet handsomely they are just as superficial as I am.
> They merely put on the show you want to see.
Unless they are incredibly stupid. But, she does seem to be attracted to
the
less intellegent types.
> I don't care what you think of me because we will never
> meet, and I don't even know what you look like anyway.
> So I can afford to be honest.
And she'll hate you for it. After all, she knows all men want to have ***
with her. So she thinks.
> When I meet women in person I usually don't speak
> like I write. Unless I find they can take it. Most women
> are like you: horrified to learn the truth about men.
> I can't say I blame them. Men are basically dogs.
Woof. (but, dogs are easy to understand and they are VERY loyal)
> Really, the thing that would make most men the happiest
> would be if we could safely have *** with 10,000 beautiful
> women. Different ones every day, or at least every few weeks.
That 72 virgins thing for martys says it is 72 each day. I think most men
would be perfectly happy with just 5 to 10 different women a day. 72 is
just
overkill.
Then again, overkill is maybe what you need when you're trying to convince
someone to commit suicide.
> Now, there are a few rock stars who eventually settle
> down and get married after having *** with thousands of
> groupies. But most of them take their time getting to
> that point. They want to make sure.
And they don't have a very good track record in staying married, either.
> I've never met a woman who was really comfortable with
> the notion that a man wants to have *** with thousands
> of women. So most of the time I conceal that fact about
> myself. It's not a realistic option for me anyway, so I have
> nothing to gain by calling attention to it.
Bingo.
>> > It's so stereotypical and tiring.
>> For you, it is.
>
> Just once, I'd like to meet a woman with some new
> material. For example, a woman who admits she isn't
> really more unique than all the other women.
Or one that admits she wouldn't mind having a bit of variety in her ***ual
diet, too.
>> > I guess whatever you mean by that, it doesn't mean men
>> > who are OK with dating 90-year-old women. So what do
>> > you mean?
>> >
>> > See, "age" is something we can put numbers on. If you
>> > put numbers on it, everybody can know what you mean.
>> > So what age number are you talking about?
>>
>> Age gives general info about a person life experience. How can a
>> typical 28 year old possibly under me though he thinks he does?
>
> Who says he has to be typical? I'm sure when I was 28
> I understood more about some things than some people of
> 50.
>
> Maybe even a typical 28 year old man can learn to understand
> you. Do you require that he must already arrive fully complete?
Most women want one that's not complete. They wouldn't be able to fix them
up the way they want otherwise.
>> > > > If they
>> > > > don't care about age in the superficial sense, they should
>> > > > be just as likely to find women of any age attractive.
>> > >
>> > > Out of context.
>> >
>> > No, it's perfectly in context. You wrote about men who
>> > aren't concerned with a woman's age. That's the context.
>> > Either a man is concerned about a woman's age, or he
>> > isn't.
>> >
>> > If a man won't date any 90-year-old woman, that means he
>> > is concerned about her age. Either that, or he is concerned
>> > about traits which all 90-year-old women share. For example,
>> > the fact that they are all hideous.
>>
>> Age represents look and in that age range of 90 years old, would a 40
>> year old man date that woman unless she is filthy rich but that's a
>> rare case.
>
> Yes. Concern for age is superficial.
Yep. Practical. But superficial.
>> > > > Here's what is most likely: the men you date care about
>> > > > a woman's looks---intensely; and for the most part, they
>> > > > date the most physically attractive women they can attract.
>> > > >
>> > > > For example, let's assume you aren't as superficially
>> > > > attractive as the typical Victoria's Secret lingerie model.
>> > > > This means you are very unlikely to date any man
>> > > > who can attract those lingerie models. You can only
>> > > > date men from among the set of men those models
>> > > > reject.
>> > >
>> > > The men those models reject miight be the men who would look for
>> > > merit-based qaulities aside from just looks.
>> >
>> > It doesn't matter what those men want---the models reject
>> > them anyway.
>> >
>> > A model might reject a gay man as being unsuitable for
>> > her, before she even knows he is gay. The fact that he is
>> > gay and wouldn't want *** with her anyway is irrelevant
>> > to her ruling him out.
>> >
>> > > So it's not like they are rejects.
>> >
>> > No, in fact they are rejects. It's like the way I am a reject
>> > for the job position of physician, because I lack the training,
>> > even though I did not apply for the job.
>> >
>> > > There are a lot of tother factors involved unlike your
>> > > simplification based on looks.
>> >
>> > Sure, but beautiful women have those other factors, because
>> > as a group they are diverse.
>> >
>> > For example, there is a Cincinnati Ben-Gals cheerleader who
>> > is close to completing a Ph.D. in molecular biology. She is
>> > physically beautiful, but also she is smart and studious.
>> > Even if that is a rare combination, it does exist.
>>
>> Cheerleader is difefrent form being a career super model. It's an
>> extra curricular activity for that very active girl. If she wants to do
>> serious reserach as a mol Biologist, she couldn't continue such similar
>> activites after she graduates. She won't have time.
>
> Also, she will get too old to be a cheerleader. But she sure
> is hot now. Her photo is on the Ben-Gals Web site.
> I don't know how smart she really is, but a smart girl
> who looks that good and can move well just sounds
> too good to be true. Most guys will have to wait for
> *** robots before we get to experience that.
And cheerleader isn't that different from being a supermodel. The one
difference being that cheerleaders often have a primary job and cheerlead
on
the side. But, they travel like supermodels. They have busy demaning
schedules. Lots of male attention. Extreme demands on maintaining their
looks. They have to have very good money managers. Unlike supermodels,
though, cheerleaders have to be fairly intellegent.
>> > > You cannot be a good researcher. You do not take into account a
lot
>> > > of
>> > > factors.
>> >
>> > You do not take into account that no matter what a man
>> > looks for in a woman besides her looks, he wants those
>> > factors in the prettiest possible package.
>>
>> I din't say that he wouldn't. What I said was that "prettiest is not
>> the primary thing all men would look for".
>
> Actually it is the primary thing most men look for. We
> start by picking the best looking women we think we can
> attract, then we find out which ones we can get along with.
Well, the getting along part is only a concern if we plan on being with
them
for longer than a weekend at a time.
> The selection for looks is first---primary---and the selection
> for getting along is secondary. The actual basis on which
> we get along doesn't matter much to us. Most men aren't
> as persnickety about women about minor details of a
> partner's interests and so on.
Or career. Or ethnicity. Or height. (to a point) Or age (to a point)
Etc...
etc...
Most men are only superficial about looks. Most women are superficial
about
other things as well as looks.
>> > For example, if he can choose between two women who have
>> > all the other traits he wants, but they differ in looks, he chooses
>> > the more physically attractive one.
>>
>> I already gave my view on that to speeding.
>
> But a big difference in looks takes precedence over a big
> different in personality.
>
> Most men would rather have a supermodel with some problems
> than an ugly woman with no problems. A supermodel could
> even have lots of problems.
And again, it also depends on whether you are talking about a weekend
fling
or a LTR. For a weekend fling or a one night stand, the supermodel can
have
problems beyond count. She's hot, she gets the one nighter. I don't care
HOW
wonderful the ugly woman is... she's not going to get a one night stand
when
she's next to a good looking woman. Not unless she's buying it.
>> > Can you show us some examples of men who choose
>> > women who are much less attractive than the most attractive
>> > women they can get?
>>
>> Yes, the woman with money or power (as in royalty) are sometimes
>> chosen.
>
> You seem to be talking about arranged marriages. I'm talking
> about the kinds of relation****ps most people reading this
> newsgroup could have. Most people who would be posting to
> Usenet probably come from relatively modern or modernizing
> cultures.
Actually, though she is beig hypocritical, she is right. She stated my
example about Anna Nicole was out of context. Then she turns and makes the
very same claim she argued against me over. There are men that would
choose
a woman with power or money over looks. Given a choice, of course, they
would pick a better looking woman with money or looks. But, they might
select a rich woman over a better looking woman that is not nearly so
rich.
>> > > > And conversely, if a man is dating you, he is very unlikely
>> > > > to leave you for any woman who is substantially uglier.
>> > > > Women who are uglier are generally no competition for
>> > > > you.
>> > >
>> > > Again, that's very superficial. If the uglier woman had other
>> > > qualities that the current woman lacks that he wants desperately,
he
>> > > would go for the uglier woman.
>> >
>> > Unlikely, because if he can attract the current woman, he
>> > can probably attract some other similarly-attractive woman
>> > with the other traits he wants.
>> >
>> > You seem to assume the man is on a desert island with
>> > only two women.
>>
>> > In the real world, there are lots of women
>> > at a given level of attractiveness, with a range of other
>> > traits.
>>
>> Actually, that was my EXACT point.
>
> Which is why in an efficient market, almost every man ends up with
> a woman who is close to being the most physically attractive
> woman he can attract.
>
> As with everything else involving humans, there are some
> exceptions, but the general trend is that men select for
> looks first and foremost.
>
> A percentage of men end up alone, usually because the most
> physically attractive women they can attract are so far down
> the looks scale that the men cannot find them attractive.
>
> No single factor affects a woman's chances with men so
> much as her looks. Her behavior is also im****tant, but no
> amount of desirable behavior can help if the looks aren't
> there.
Agreed.
>> > > Speaking of being a bad researcher, you are merely
>> > speculating now instead of citing actual examples.
>> >
>> > I know men who date lots of women. The personalities
>> > of these women vary, but the women a particular man
>> > dates tend to be very similar in the physical cuteness
>> > factor.
>> See. I said that in one of my abive statement. A man goes for women
>> with similar qaulitites and traits. And I am sort of like that.
>
> A man goes for the best-looking woman who treats him
> well. If they have similar qualities and traits, she is more
> likely to treat him well.
>
> A woman can be very different than a man, but if she looks
> good to him and treats him well, he can enjoy her very
> much.
And, perhaps, very often ;)
> There are some men who marry women from other countries
> and they can barely speak the same language. A lot of these
> marriages do not work out in the long run, but the men
> "go for them." As long as the woman is willing to cooperate,
> a man's physical attraction for her can go a long, long way.
Mail order brides... big business.
>> > For example, if you know a man who dates lots of
>> > slender women, he is very unlikely to date an obese
>> > woman regardless of what other traits she has.
>>
>> I wouldn't date obese men. So it''s not juts men. We all have our
>> priorites.
>
> Yes. We are all superficial in some ways.
Doh. Did you just get her to admit she's superficial? She'll deny it.
> Note: it doesn't matter if you can list a lot of logical-sounding
> reasons after the fact to explain your initial lack of emotional
> impulse. The bottom line is that when you first see a fat slob,
> you are not attracted to him, and this is before you consciously
> list off all the reasons why it seems to make sense not to be
> attracted.
Bingo.
> The conscious mind has the job of making up plausible-sounding
> reasons to explain what the rest of the subconscious mind
> does.
>
> If you were initially attracted to the fat slob, and you later
> talked yourself out of it because you thought through a bunch
> of reasons, then you could say your choice not to be with
> him was not superficial. But the fact is your emotional brain
> instantly ruled him out based on superficial knowledge.
> The non-superficial explanations come later, and do not
> cause the lack of attraction.
>
> I don't know why you seem afraid to admit you have
> your superficial attractions. Just because they are
> superficial doesn't mean they can't work. My opinion is
> that the BEST relation****ps start out with a strong,
> intense superficial attraction that hits you at first sight.
> Talk to people with the best relation****ps, and most of
> them will say it was magical from the start. Often they
> can remember exactly where and when they first met,
> because that first meeting made such an impact. An
> impact that was, at the time, 100% superficial, but
> as they learned more about each other, no deal-killers
> emerged, and the attraction help up.
>
> Superficial attraction gets a bad rap because so often
> it doesn't pan out. But when it does pan out, it's the
> best. It's like picking the winning lottery numbers. You
> couldn't know before the drawing that you really had
> the winning numbers. You only know you liked those
> numbers.
It gets a bad rap because after the fact, men are more than happy to say
they had a one night stand based on being attracted to a woman. As a
general
rule, men don't mind or care admitting that they were attracted to a woman
simlpy because she was ***y. But, the reverse is not true. many women have
to explain why they were attracted. It can't simply be that they found the
guy hot, so had a one night stand. It has to be that the guy tricked them
or
somehow got them into having a ***ual only fling. With most men, if the
***
is good and the woman is good looking, then an additional fling... or two
..
or ten... wouldn't be unwelcomed. And, he'll get to know the woman and
decide that he enjoys being with her so much that it's love. And that the
relation****p should remain consistant... perhaps even monogamous. With a
woman, the same is true, but if things go south, then it's got to be for a
reason. A reason that doesn't include her in the blame.
But, yes, when it all works out... it's very magical.
> With your computer lab friend. You felt a strong superficial
> attraction. It turned out to be mutual. You had fun. Then
> later the non-superficial mommy factor interfered. Your
> superficial attraction at first did not know the mommy
> factor would crop up later.
>
> Now, if the mommy factor had not cropped up, maybe
> your relation****p would have deepened and survived.
> Either way, it was still superficial at first. And that's OK.
> It's 100% normal.
Exactly. Nothing wrong with it at all. Really, nothing wrong with having
just been together for a week or so and then splitting up either.
> Almost everybody who is at least somewhat attractive
> experiences some of that instant superficial mutual
> attraction. It's not like you are unique in that.
>
>> > That's because the ***ual market sorts women by
>> > attractiveness, with fat women and old women ranked below
>> > slender women and young women. If a man can attract
>> > several women who are young and slender, you will not
>> > see him with a woman who is fat and old, any time soon
>> > at least.
>>
>> > Only when he has lost his ability to attract
>> > slender young women will he consider fat old women.
>>
>> Though I do not agree wiht that totally, I would say this: The women
>> would do the same.
>
> Sure. Women are as superficial as men, and even though
> they respond to a larger set of superficial traits, they still
> care a lot about how a man looks. Most women would
> prefer a handsome man to an ugly man, all else being
> somewhat comparable.
>
> -- the Danimal
>
>
|
