# Ladies: what % of men are you attracted to?



## nuclearnightmare

I have wanted to try this question out for awhile. its not an easy one to answer but am very curious at how broadly or narrowly women see men - physically. there is the oft-repeated "women only find the top 20% of men attractive" and other claims. have become too curious as to whether there is a real answer to the question

so note the first qualifier - I'm essentially asking you to imagine a random selection of men, none of which you know - what portion of them would you find physically attractive? a couple more suggestions --

i. try not to mix in the effects of age. i.e. I'm asking the question from the standpoint of men in their physical prime. men in their 20s or 30s, say.

ii. take care to avoid self-selected groups of individuals - e.g. the men your friends dated when you were single or that you dated. It's too easy to end up evaluating a group that is atypical of the norm.

so it's tough but e.g. a high school yearbook might be a good tool for this, if you have one from your senior year. you would go through and count the number of individuals that meet or exceed your attractiveness threshold. trying to be as honest as possible if it was a person you knew. what number do you come up with? 

e.g. I've tried this vis-a-vis women and come up with a number around 40% (attractive vs no).


----------



## Revamped

Every. Single. One. Of. Them.

I love men. Men are great.

I could essentially try them all. But there's a label for that...


----------



## firebelly1

I think the 20% number may be pretty accurate. Maybe even less actually if we are talking just pure physical appearance from photos. That number might go up if I was meeting the men in person and got to talk to them a bit. Or...it might go down.


----------



## Cletus

Revamped said:


> I could essentially try them all. But there's a label for that...


Connoisseur?


----------



## Anonymous07

Attraction to me is always more than just physical looks. If I took out my year book, a lot of what other women may think of as "attractive", I would call ugly because they were mean/rude/arrogant guys. I don't care how "good looking" a guy is, if he is a jerk, then I find him ugly. 

From a random grouping of guys, I would probably find many(maybe most) of them attractive, but that number would drop quickly if they acted in a way I didn't like(disrespectful, arrogant, etc.).


----------



## SimplyAmorous

I'm thinking somewhere between 30 - 45% are doable..... in their 20's *physically speaking*...enough to catch the eye...even if one might do some undressing in the mind.. take the glasses off...put him in some levis & boots...

If the question was pointed to older man (like in their 50's)...I'd only say something like 10% ... 

Though once other things were thrown into this... lifestyle, attitude, how they treat others, what trips their triggers, issues of compatibility.. this would drop considerably lower.. narrowing it down below 10% I am sure... 

It's always so much more than just physical.


----------



## ConanHub

Revamped said:


> Every. Single. One. Of. Them.
> 
> I love men. Men are great.
> 
> I could essentially try them all. But there's a label for that...


I love this response so much! Made my day! What a woman!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Middle of Everything

I think SA hit on what Nuclear was driving at. 

The way most guys think. As in looking at his yearbook example going over and saying, "I'd do her, do her, do her, do her, not her, maybe her etc etc.

Could be wrong though.


----------



## Cletus

SimplyAmorous said:


> I'm thinking somewhere between 30 - 45% are doable..... in their 20's *physically speaking*...enough to catch the eye...even if one might do some undressing in the mind.. take the glasses off...put him in some levis & boots...


SA, we really have to have a talk about your undressing skills.


----------



## Healer

Cletus said:


> Connoisswh0re?


Fixed it. ;-)


----------



## Anon Pink

I can see a physically attractive man and appreciate that about him. But without the personality none of it matters a bit. I've met men who aren't exactly physically attractive, yet something about them make them attractive.

When things are going well in my marriage I think my husband is the man that broke the mold. When things aren't going well...he's Ummm not.

So as I contemplate the relative attractiveness and percent of men in any given age group as attractive, I weed out the d!ckheads, the sh!t heads, the asshats, the weasels, and that leaves the 75% that are pretty damned attractive.

Okay maybe I'm just easy...


----------



## ConanHub

Anon!&#55357;&#56842; LOL!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EleGirl

When I think of “attracted to”, I think of working into a room and seeing some guy across the room and it’s “WOW”. But that’s never real.

I’d say maybe 30%-40%. To me intelligence, a good sense of humor, personality, being kind and love are more important than looks.

There also has to be a spark there... the spark can be there when first meeting... or it can develop over time as I get to know the guy... like a good wine.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Cletus said:


> SA, we really have to have a talk about your undressing skills.


:rofl: ...I just speak a little TOO MUCH don't I.. Ok let me explain...Husband had very dorky glasses when we met...no wonder he never got hit on.. 

When he asked me to go with him. you know what I thought in my head ... "Well if he takes those Gawd awful glasses off, he isn't too bad ...and he's got the body I like!'.. Yes, I was assessing it all physically ....

His Mom bought him these not so cool JC penny jeans....nerdy..... I did suggest he get some Levi's.....and Boots always adds something to the man!... I don't mean cowboy boots, more working boots... ..

Just speaking from a little experience here.


----------



## Anon Pink

SimplyAmorous said:


> :rofl: ...I just speak a little TOO MUCH don't I.. Ok let me explain...Husband had very dorky glasses when we met...no wonder he never got hit on..
> 
> When he asked me to go with him. you know what I thought in my head ... "Well if he takes those Gawd awful glasses off, he isn't too bad ...and he's got the body I like!'.. Yes, I was assessing it all physically ....
> 
> His Mom bought him these not so cool JC penny jeans....nerdy..... I did suggest he get some Levi's.....and Boots always adds something to the man!... I don't mean cowboy boots, more working boots... ..
> 
> Just speaking from a little experience here.



Me too SA. I had to spiff up my husband big time, shine that diamond right up!

His clothing back in the day... Ugh! But no amount of fine clothing makes a man a gentleman! That gentleman was so obvious to me from the get go!


----------



## Cletus

SimplyAmorous said:


> :rofl: ...I just speak a little TOO MUCH don't I.. Ok let me explain...Husband had very dorky glasses when we met...no wonder he never got hit on..


My wife has always said that an attractive man looks best in a well tailored suit.
I always reply that a woman always looks best in her birthday suit.

We've agreed to disagree.


----------



## Revamped

I say, if 33 flavours were guaranteed to satisfy... What would 100 be like?

Food for thought, guys.


----------



## ConanHub

Revamped said:


> I say, if 33 flavours were guaranteed to satisfy... What would 100 be like?
> 
> Food for thought, guys.


I'm absolutely into monogamy but your appetite is awesome.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Cletus

Revamped said:


> I say, if 33 flavours were guaranteed to satisfy... What would 100 be like?
> 
> Food for thought, guys.


There is a word for that - gluttony.


----------



## Anon Pink

Revamped, we just have to use our awesome power to fight for goodness and truth!

This is good and I truthfully want it right damn now!


----------



## ConanHub

I have always admired women with healthy appetites.&#55357;&#56842;
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Cletus said:


> *My wife has always said that an attractive man looks best in a well tailored suit.
> I always reply that a woman always looks best in her birthday suit.
> 
> We've agreed to disagree*.


He'll agree with the B-day suit , I kinda got mad at him years ago asking him WHY he never once bought me any lingerie.. that would have been fun ! - HINT -HINT! he said what's the point, it's just coming off anyway, that I didn't need it....

Suits do like good... yes.. but also a little dirt on the working man...I guess since I married a blue collar guy who wears rags to work...comes home in grime... it's good it doesn't take a suit to do it for me.. 

If I seen a farmer standing next to a lawyer out & about.. chances are I would be more drawn to the working man... 














> *Avon Pink said: **Me too SA. I had to spiff up my husband big time, shine that diamond right up!
> 
> His clothing back in the day... Ugh! But no amount of fine clothing makes a man a gentleman! That gentleman was so obvious to me from the get go*!


Men are funny.. they don't care how they look, doesn't seem to dawn on them how much help them need.. in it's own way.... I like this too, just shows they need a woman.....a little undressing ...gives many possibilities !! :smthumbup:


----------



## ConanHub

Cletus said:


> My wife has always said that an attractive man looks best in a well tailored suit.
> I always reply that a woman always looks best in her birthday suit.
> 
> We've agreed to disagree.


I find your comment"revealing".
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Cletus

ConanHub said:


> I find your comment"revealing".
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Eyes are up here, buddy.


----------



## ConanHub

Cletus said:


> Eyes are up here, buddy.


I am no damn good at that. If a body part catches my attention, I look. I have developed tact however.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Anon Pink

SimplyAmorous said:


> He'll agree with the B-day suit , I kinda got mad at him years ago asking him WHY he never once bought me any lingerie.. that would have been fun ! - HINT -HINT! he said what's the point, it's just coming off anyway, that I didn't need it....
> 
> Suits do like good... yes.. but also a little dirt on the working man...I guess since I married a blue collar guy who wears rags to work...comes home in grime... it's good it doesn't take a suit to do it for me..
> 
> If I seen a farmer standing next to a lawyer out & about.. chances are I would be more drawn to the working man...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Men are funny.. they don't care how they look, doesn't seem to dawn on them how much help them need.. in it's own way.... I like this too, just shows they need a woman.....a little undressing ...gives many possibilities !! :smthumbup:



Well HELLO! What's holding up the farmers jeans?


----------



## EleGirl

SimplyAmorous said:


>


The way I see it, a guy should be able to go into any environment and fit in...

Wear jeans when that's what's called for,
a suit when that's called for,
and a tux at the right time.

While Mr. blue jeans there is hot with his pants falling off.. he's look like pretty silly in a board room dressed like that.

Oh and yes a guy showing lots of skin or naked is by far the best way to dress.. but in the right place..


----------



## ConanHub

Oh! My delicate sensibilities have been assaulted! Shameless hussies!&#55357;&#56833;
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Cletus

EleGirl said:


> While Mr. blue jeans there is hot with his pants falling off.. he's look like pretty silly in a board room dressed like that.


The problem with Mr. blue jeans is that he knows exactly how attractive he is, and uses it for personal gain. Probably arrogant with a below average IQ.

At least that's what I tell myself sobbing in the fetal position at night. 

I have a brother who, while not quite that attractive, is much more striking to the eye than I have ever been. It was so bleeping obvious growing up together, it just crushes your self image to be slowly reminded of your place in the physical ranking system.

He's an alcoholic type II bipolar divorced train wreck of a man today, so I guess it didn't translate into full-on life success after all.


----------



## Revamped

ConanHub said:


> I am no damn good at that. If a body part catches my attention, I look. I have developed tact however.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I look.

And salivate.

*wipes sleeve


----------



## Revamped

What I don't get...

Is why Healer has to change another post into something demanding and nasty.

And apparently, gets away with it.

Healer, if you were half the man you think you are, you'd still are only half a man.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

EleGirl said:


> The way I see it, a guy should be able to go into any environment and fit in...
> 
> Wear jeans when that's what's called for,
> a suit when that's called for,
> and a tux at the right time.
> 
> While Mr. blue jeans there is hot with his pants falling off.. he's look like pretty silly in a board room dressed like that.
> 
> Oh and yes a guy showing lots of skin or naked is by far the best way to dress.. but in the right place..


Oh I meant to find a pic with a shirt on with a little dirt on it.... guess I shouldn't have googled "







*Farmer*".... when I saw the ax & ripped jeans.... I just ran with it..... 

I remember seeing a guy a in a suit/ clean cut standing in line at a Ski resort and right beside him in the next line ...a more dirtier disheveled type in jeans/ boots..... I remember thinking he was a lot more physically attractive to me ...the thought entered my head that I bet most women wouldn't think so & swoon more for the richer looking guy with the briefcase...

and Yes, I am married, but you still notice men when you are standing in line waiting for things...


----------



## ConanHub

Blow it off Revamped. I took no note of it. I admire loyalty and appetite.

I actually find women who really love food and men attractive.

Appetite is a turn on for me at least. Seems healthy.:smthumbup:


----------



## ConanHub

SimplyAmorous said:


> Oh I meant to find a pic with a shirt on with a little dirt on it.... guess I shouldn't have googled "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Farmer*".... when I saw the ax & ripped jeans.... I just ran with it.....
> 
> I remember seeing a guy a in a suit/ clean cut standing in line at a Ski resort and right beside him in the next line ...a more dirtier disheveled type in jeans/ boots..... I remember thinking he was a lot more physically attractive to me ...the thought entered my head that I bet most women wouldn't think so & swoon more for the richer looking guy with the briefcase...
> 
> and Yes, I am married, but you still notice men when you are standing in line waiting for things...


Someone needs to buy that po boy some pants that fit! LOL!


----------



## Revamped

Fine.


----------



## EleGirl

ConanHub said:


> Oh! My delicate sensibilities have been assaulted! Shameless hussies!&#55357;&#56833;


When I was in the Army, the guys had playboy pin ups tacked up on the walls in their barracks. 

We, the women, started putting up playgirl pin ups in our barracks.

The reaction of the male cadre was priceless. "You women are disgusting. Take this trash down. blah blah blah." 

When a formation of the guys passed by any woman, they would shout out marching cadences.

So we took the same cadences and changed the genders around and when we passed any male we did what they guys did... 

Again he male cadre was so very upset.. I heard them call us pigs, and all kinds of names. :rofl:

We were only doing what he male soldiers have been doing for a very long time. I can remember being on military bases as a young teen and having formations of guys say these cadences at me... 

Here are two sample cadences...

*I wish all the men*

I wish, I wish, I wish all the men
Were bells on a tower
And I was the bellgirl
I'd bang 'em by the hour

I wish, I wish, I wish all the men
Were pies on a shelf
And I was the baker
I'd eat 'em all myself

I wish, I wish, I wish all the men
Were bricks in a pile
And I was the mason
I'd lay 'em all like tile

*Roll me over* (cleaned up version)

Roll me over
In the clover
Roll me over in the clover do it again, do it again.(chorus)

He said, "baby, I'm not done."
Put your body next to mine
Drive it on down the line

(Chorus)

He said, "baby, we're not through."
Put your body next to mine
Drive it on down the line

(Chorus)

He said, "I'll give it all to you."
Put your body next to mine
Drive it on down the line

(Chorus)

He said, "baby, give me more"
Put your body next to mine
Drive it on down the line

(Chorus)


----------



## EleGirl

Cletus said:


> The problem with Mr. blue jeans is that he knows exactly how attractive he is, and uses it for personal gain. Probably arrogant with a below average IQ.


Oh I agree. Note that he's all shined up too with oil. 

I would never go for a guy based on looks alone. Some of he ugliest men I know are like models on the exterior. And the average IQ... oh yea. I'm not interested in men like that.

Now if he looked like that, had a high IQ, great sense of humor, etc... oh yea...



Cletus said:


> At least that's what I tell myself sobbing in the fetal position at night.


Poor baby... you need some lovin'



Cletus said:


> I have a brother who, while not quite that attractive, is much more striking to the eye than I have ever been. It was so bleeping obvious growing up together, it just crushes your self image to be slowly reminded of your place in the physical ranking system.


Well, that's what women who don't fall into the 9-10 Hollywood type or look like porn stars feel like. I think it's one of the reasons that so many women have a problem with porn.

How would you feel if your wife spent a large amount of time getting off to petty boys like Mr. Blue Jeans there?




Cletus said:


> He's an alcoholic type II bipolar divorced train wreck of a man today, so I guess it didn't translate into full-on life success after all.


----------



## ConanHub

Priceless Ele!!:smthumbup::lol::rofl:


----------



## ConanHub

Revamped said:


> Fine.


I agree with you BTW.


----------



## Ikaika

ConanHub said:


> I agree with you BTW.



Sounds like someone has a bromance


----------



## EleGirl

What did I miss? How come I miss all the fun?


----------



## Revamped

ConanHub said:


> Someone needs to buy that po boy some pants that fit! LOL!


Boots and pants, boots and pants, boots and pants...


Puss'nboots! The movie. Get your mind out of the gutter.


----------



## Ikaika

What percentage of men are you attracted to? All under the age of 50 I'm sure. :rofl:


----------



## Revamped

Sean Connery? 84.

I'd do him.


----------



## southbound

EleGirl said:


> I would never go for a guy based on looks alone. Some of he ugliest men I know are like models on the exterior. And the average IQ... oh yea. I'm not interested in men like that.
> 
> Now if he looked like that, had a high IQ, great sense of humor, etc... oh yea...


This forum must have only women of high intelligence; no average females here. I remember, even from years past, that IQ and intelligence always seems to pop up when women here are listing attractive characteristics.

Either that, or it shows how long I've been out of the dating scene. I married in my 20s and divorced 18 years later. I don't recall IQ being on and young females list back in the day. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they were looking for dummies, but it wasn't something I ever heard mentioned. 

I left the dating scene when a few bucks in your pocket and the time to spend time with a girl got her attention. Now, at 46, I have to have a psychological report to verify my IQ and be able to have "stimulating conversation" about whatever is stimulating at the time.:rofl:


----------



## Rowan

EleGirl said:


> Well, that's what women who don't fall into the 9-10 Hollywood type or look like porn stars feel like.


:iagree:

I have an also-single friend who is stunningly beautiful. Seriously, she's just utterly gorgeous - easily a 9+. When she and I are anywhere together, I am effectively invisible. Men don't even register my presence. It's really pretty funny. I have actually startled men by speaking to them, because they literally haven't even seen that I'm standing there right next to her.


----------



## EleGirl

southbound said:


> This forum must have only women of high intelligence; no average females here. I remember, even from years past, that IQ and intelligence always seems to pop up when women here are listing attractive characteristics.
> 
> Either that, or it shows how long I've been out of the dating scene. I married in my 20s and divorced 18 years later. I don't recall IQ being on and young females list back in the day. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they were looking for dummies, but it wasn't something I ever heard mentioned.
> 
> I left the dating scene when a few bucks in your pocket and the time to spend time with a girl got her attention. Now, at 46, I have to have a psychological report to verify my IQ and be able to have "stimulating conversation" about whatever is stimulating at the time.:rofl:


When I was 20 I would not have said that intelligence was important as I was not really all that aware of my selection process. But I've never been out with a guy who was not above average intelligence. I tend to also associate with women who are above average intelligence. It's not being a snob. It's who I get along with.

Being able to have a stimulating conversation on just about any topic is extremely important me. This was all important to my parents and they passed that along to all of their 8 children.

So this is just me, always has been.


----------



## heartsbeating

Revamped said:


> Every. Single. One. Of. Them.
> 
> I love men. Men are great.
> 
> I could essentially try them all. But there's a label for that...


Thorough?


----------



## Anon Pink

Revamped said:


> Sean Connery? 84.
> 
> I'd do him.


Totally!


----------



## Anon Pink

Rowan said:


> :iagree:
> 
> I have an also-single friend who is stunningly beautiful. Seriously, she's just utterly gorgeous - easily a 9+. When she and I are anywhere together, I am effectively invisible. Men don't even register my presence. It's really pretty funny. I have actually startled men by speaking to them, because they literally haven't even seen that I'm standing there right next to her.


Had a room mate as beautiful as that. Her BF was just as stunning. They had dates in front of a mirror. Not kidding. He was more vain than she was, by a lot!


----------



## heartsbeating

nuclearnightmare said:


> so note the first qualifier - I'm essentially asking you to imagine a random selection of men, none of which you know - what portion of them would you find physically attractive? a couple more suggestions --


If I'm imagining them, they're all attractive.



nuclearnightmare said:


> i. try not to mix in the effects of age. i.e. I'm asking the question from the standpoint of men in their physical prime. men in their 20s or 30s, say.


Ageist!



nuclearnightmare said:


> ii. take care to avoid self-selected groups of individuals - e.g. the men your friends dated when you were single or that you dated. It's too easy to end up evaluating a group that is atypical of the norm.
> 
> so it's tough but e.g. a high school yearbook might be a good tool for this, if you have one from your senior year. you would go through and count the number of individuals that meet or exceed your attractiveness threshold. trying to be as honest as possible if it was a person you knew. what number do you come up with?


I pretty much despised high school and the guys there didn't spark my interest - aside from maybe three? So that exercise is pointless for me. I was attracted to guys outside of my school and/or who I met through mutual common interests. 

I've worked in large corporate environments and I'd say there were about 10-20% I found attractive, although not necessarily attracted to. A big part of that factor was personality and again, common interests. I like character, quirkiness, someone slightly off-beat... this goes for women I find attractive too and develop rapport with. Being in a smaller team environment whereby cultural fit is important, the chances of being more like-minded and/or similar values is greater over a larger group but the larger group means a greater exposure to different people. I've liked many people in those large offices, developed good rapport, but as for the attraction factor I guess it's been fairly low. As for the age-factor, one of my colleagues absolutely had a soft spot for some of the older men - board members and execs. Not because of their title but because she developed a good rapport with a couple of them.


----------



## heartsbeating

SimplyAmorous said:


> Oh I meant to find a pic with a shirt on with a little dirt on it.... guess I shouldn't have googled "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Farmer*".... when I saw the ax & ripped jeans.... I just ran with it.....
> 
> I remember seeing a guy a in a suit/ clean cut standing in line at a Ski resort and right beside him in the next line ...a more dirtier disheveled type in jeans/ boots..... I remember thinking he was a lot more physically attractive to me ...the thought entered my head that I bet most women wouldn't think so & swoon more for the richer looking guy with the briefcase...
> 
> and Yes, I am married, but you still notice men when you are standing in line waiting for things...


Friend and I on lunch-break together, went to a grocery store, and as there was construction work nearby, it was teaming with (predominantly) men in work clothes. She was single and pointed to the clean-cut man in the suit she had her eye on. I personally didn't find him attractive, she wanted to know who would catch my eye based purely on looks - it was the dark haired guy with stubble in work clothes. She then joked that I'd be her perfect 'wing-woman' as we had different tastes. 

At that time, my husband had facial hair, long hair, wearing casual clothes. She saw a photo of him clean shaven with short hair in a suit and her eyes popped out. I told her to behave! haha. I'm more drawn to the 'unkept' look. My husband wears European cut suits. These days he wears a stylish cut of jeans, button down shirt and suit jacket with detail. With his (slightly) long hair. And I think he looks frickn hot.


----------



## Anon Pink

Hearts, that does sound hot. Euro cut suits!!!!


----------



## Revamped

What's it matter what they're wearing?

I KNOW what's underneath... That's the good part!

Yes, the over active imagination takes over...


----------



## happy as a clam

I love sex, and I love men!

But the honest percentage for me is probably somewhere less than 10%. eek:

First of all, these days I am really only attracted to men around 45 and up (I am 49). IMHO, age adds character and a whole level of sexiness . Honestly, I can't even remember the last time I looked at a man in their 20s and 30s. No offense to you young pups :lol:.

Second, I have to be WILDLY attracted to someone (not MILDLY attracted) to want to be with them physically. So that eliminates a whole bunch more.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## firebelly1

Yeah...I started noticing my limits a few months ago. I was on the train looking around thinking "How many of these guys would I actually want to date?" Not many. Truthfully...there is a higher percentage of younger guys that are in general more physically attractive. But not much, honestly. Especially when they are skinny and everyone where I live seems to be not just thin but SKINNY. Disadvantage of being an American in Canada. 

But here's the other question ladies...how many women do you find attractive? I don't consider myself bisexual, but there are particular types of women that I find myself particularly enamored of and interestingly, it's about the same percentage as the men I find attractive - 10 to 20 percent.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

southbound said:


> This forum must have only women of high intelligence; no average females here. I remember, even from years past, that IQ and intelligence always seems to pop up when women here are listing attractive characteristics.
> 
> Either that, or it shows how long I've been out of the dating scene. I married in my 20s and divorced 18 years later. I don't recall IQ being on and young females list back in the day. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they were looking for dummies, but it wasn't something I ever heard mentioned.
> 
> I left the dating scene when a few bucks in your pocket and the time to spend time with a girl got her attention. Now, at 46, I have to have a psychological report to verify my IQ and be able to have "stimulating conversation" about whatever is stimulating at the time.:rofl:


I have no idea what my IQ is.. or my H's... he was never one to get great grades.. he struggled in English, I struggled in math... So long as there is common sense & a good "give & take" , some life experiences to speak of.... isn't this all we need to go places in communication?? Even the Amish dutch can have a sense of humor & we can learn things from them. 

I like to keep learning but I have not traveled the oceans or experienced what many others have, I have lived a more sheltered life ...only been on an airplane once (in my teens)... reading more so takes me to other places...if I stopped reading, I would probably have to disengage from the human race.. I am not up on Politics or sports at all.. I have no degrees.. 

I still have a curious mind and want to learn of others.. I hope this is good enough for the majority of people....When/if I get around a room full of highly successful people ...(not often mind you)... I pretty much hang low and wouldn't say much unless spoken to...as I don't feel I have much to offer in comparison to their lives. 



> *heartsbeating said* : Friend and I on lunch-break together, went to a grocery store, and as there was construction work nearby, it was teaming with (predominantly) men in work clothes. She was single and pointed to the clean-cut man in the suit she had her eye on. I personally didn't find him attractive, she wanted to know who would catch my eye based purely on looks - *it was the dark haired guy with stubble in work clothes. *She then joked that I'd be her perfect 'wing-woman' as we had different tastes.
> 
> At that time, my husband had facial hair, long hair, wearing casual clothes. She saw a photo of him clean shaven with short hair in a suit and her eyes popped out. I told her to behave! haha. I'm more drawn to the 'unkept' look. My husband wears European cut suits. These days he wears a stylish cut of jeans, button down shirt and suit jacket with detail. With his (slightly) long hair. And I think he looks frickn hot.


 Yes Heartsbeating.. long hair...the stubble look... work boots... if I conquered up a fantasy.. this is what it would be made of... 

One of my favorites....British actor Richard Armitage...Playing "Guy of Gisborne"...


----------



## Revamped

firebelly1 said:


> But here's the other question ladies...how many women do you find attractive? I don't consider myself bisexual, but there are particular types of women that I find myself particularly enamored of and interestingly, it's about the same percentage as the men I find attractive - 10 to 20 percent.


Every. Other. One.

A girl has standards, you know...


----------



## EleGirl

SimplyAmorous said:


> I have no idea what my IQ is.. or my H's... he was never one to get great grades.. he struggled in English, I struggled in math... So long as there is common sense & a good "give & take" , some life experiences to speak of.... isn't this all we need to go places in communication?? Even the Amish dutch can have a sense of humor & we can learn things from them.
> 
> I like to keep learning but I have not traveled the oceans or experienced what many others have, I have lived a more sheltered life ...only been on an airplane once (in my teens)... reading more so takes me to other places...if I stopped reading, I would probably have to disengage from the human race.. I am not up on Politics or sports at all.. I have no degrees..
> 
> I still have a curious mind and want to learn of others.. I hope this is good enough for the majority of people....When/if I get around a room full of highly successful people ...(not often mind you)... I pretty much hang low and wouldn't say much unless spoken to...as I don't feel I have much to offer in comparison to their lives.


From what you write here, you have an above average IQ. I also think that you have a high emotional intelligence. Your husband is probably he same. 

Keep in mind that Einstein is considered a genius, but he could not tie his shoes. Even geniuses tend to do well in some areas.

The thing is that IQ is far from all that matters. EQ (emotional quota) is just as important. 
There is a book, "Emotional Intelligence", that is discusses a study of IQ vs EQ. They followed people from college on for several years.

The higher the person's IQ is, the lower their EQ tends to be. They found that most of the highest IQ people end up being not very successful in life. They are not able to balance things in life. Think of the student in college that pulls a sold 4.5 GPA but has no social life, does not do any community service, does not date, etc.

Most people who are extremely successful have mid to high mid IQ's and high EQ's.


----------



## Revamped

Seriously?

I want a "real" type person.

Nothing flashy, fancy, flighty.

Just someone I think I could connect with in some way.

And there ARE so many ways!


----------



## heartsbeating

firebelly1 said:


> But here's the other question ladies...how many women do you find attractive? I don't consider myself bisexual, but there are particular types of women that I find myself particularly enamored of and interestingly, it's about the same percentage as the men I find attractive - 10 to 20 percent.


Interesting question. The percentage for me may be slightly higher for women. I think it's because I can develop that closer rapport with women than men (being married). It's still the same theory though - personality and presence etc. makes up a large part of why I find them to be attractive people. One friend is a model so in a fashion sense she has a certain look that's valued. What makes her attractive to me though, is how she breaks into just being goofy, how honest and down to earth she is. I think all of my friends are attractive.

We all know how it is when someone looks a certain way, or we perceive them a certain way, then the personality increases or decreases that attraction. However, if I'm just on the train, looking around, I'll admire various facial characteristics, maybe admire an outfit, hair-style, see that she's about to work-out (and that inspires me, unless she's just wearing yoga pants because they're comfy haha), how great she looks without makeup etc. Maybe I notice some of these things (like those without makeup and how great they can look), because I'm one who does wear makeup... I don't know.


----------



## heartsbeating

happy as a clam said:


> I love sex, and I love men!
> 
> But the honest percentage for me is probably somewhere less than 10%. eek:
> 
> First of all, these days I am really only attracted to men around 45 and up (I am 49). IMHO, age adds character and a whole level of sexiness . Honestly, I can't even remember the last time I looked at a man in their 20s and 30s. No offense to you young pups :lol:.
> 
> Second, I have to be WILDLY attracted to someone (not MILDLY attracted) to want to be with them physically. So that eliminates a whole bunch more.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I'm in my (late) 30s and am more likely to look at a man in his 30s - late 40s than in his 20s.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

EleGirl said:


> From what you write here, you have an above average IQ. I also think that you have a high emotional intelligence. Your husband is probably he same.
> 
> Keep in mind that Einstein is considered a genius, but he could not tie his shoes. Even geniuses tend to do well in some areas.
> 
> The thing is that IQ is far from all that matters. EQ (emotional quota) is just as important.
> *There is a book, "Emotional Intelligence", that is discusses a study of IQ vs EQ. They followed people from college on for several years.*


 Funny.. I have that book.. I read some of it... It was suggested by poster *AFEH* here years ago.. I really liked his posts.. He was a deep thinker & I enjoyed him even if he lost his temper here quite a few times & got perma banned. 

I buy many books but read few to the end.. I get too side tracked online...



> The higher the person's IQ is, the lower their EQ tends to be. They found that most of the highest IQ people end up being not very successful in life. They are not able to balance things in life. Think of the student in college that pulls a sold 4.5 GPA but has no social life, does not do any community service, does not date, etc.
> 
> Most people who are extremely successful have mid to high mid IQ's and high EQ's.


 This is probably what the books lays out.. .. our teen sons hang out with the #1 class ranked Senior, high honors, a pianist...the BRAIN.. they have spoken how he has NO COMMON SENSE.... Personally I love talking to him....I can't see it....He is very logical, awkward, a little Nerdy... yet I tell him some day he can hire our sons..I feel he will do well in life .

Our 2nd son is ranked #20th in his senior class (I was impressed seeing this on his transcripts -wondering how that happened).... I remember being #54 I think...H said he was #401 out of #402 (he is kidding- has no idea nor did he care)....

Husband did manage to pass some psychological test for the job he has now...the interesting part of that was... HE DID LIE to pass the test.. (like saying he felt like running away from home or he thought about stealing)....he figured if he was totally honest -they would THINK he was LYING ...I don't know how that works really.. but he got the job!

I did not know this about Einstein.  Well like anything else in life... it just wouldn't be fair if some people had it ALL....

Though it seems like Some do manage to snag it all.. I think of singer/pianist *John Legend*.... he was home schooled.. skipped 2 grades, Ivy league education...song writer, won 9 grammys...married to a successful Model.. can't we spread the goods around a little ! 

Love his "*All of me*" though..one of my all time favorites!


----------



## EnjoliWoman

A rather smallish percentage in both physical appearance and personality. The magical space of a Venn diagram in the middle leaves closer to 10% after I hear their first 500 words or so.

Physically attractive men? I'd guess around 20% I would consider going out with based on physical features only and likely the same if I only spoke to them without seeing them. 

I have NEVER just looked at ANY man and got hot and bothered or instantly desired him sexually. My motor seems to be more tied to how I feel about a man as a person coupled with some physical attributes that make him sexy to me. I seem to operate on a dimmer switch vs. on/off toggle.


----------



## Rowan

EnjoliWoman said:


> I have NEVER just looked at ANY man and got hot and bothered or instantly desired him sexually. My motor seems to be more tied to how I feel about a man as a person coupled with some physical attributes that make him sexy to me.


I think I'm probably more like this, too. 

I met a very nice guy a few weeks ago and we exchanged numbers. We spoke a couple times on the phone. A good friend of mine was a little appalled that I would be willing to go out with him. In her words, "But he's just a bit shy of being totally unfortunate looking! You could find someone much hotter!" Frankly, that hadn't even really registered with me. She was right, though, the guy was not particularly good looking. He had a nice athletic body, dressed acceptably, was well groomed and a non-smoker - good enough. What drew me was his charm, intelligence, humor, sense of fun, wittiness, and that he seemed genuinely kind. We also shared hobbies and interests. 

It turned out that he's just really not in a good place to date yet, as his divorce is still very fresh. But, yeah, I'd have totally dated Mr. Not-Quite-Unfortunate. I can objectively say whether or not a man is attractive, but what actually makes a man attractive to me personally is less about looks than about personality. So, I guess there are probably a fairly broad percentage of guys - maybe 40%+ - I would find acceptable physically. A much smaller percentage would be acceptable to me based on other factors. It's those other factors that determine whether a particular man is just an attractive guy, or whether I'm actually attracted to him.


----------



## Miss Taken

As for raw primal attraction, I have felt that perhaps two or three times that I recall. One was to my current spouse. I saw him walking towards my direction on a street one day. I don't buy into cliches like soulmates and chemistry... well, maybe chemistry. I think I was attracted to him on a very physical, (chemicals, pheromones or what have you), level right away. His personality and other character traits just happened to connect with what attracts me as well.

Another memorable time was a stranger in an elevator. I never spoke to the guy, I wasn't single at the time but I felt a really primal attraction to him right away. He looked and smelled delicious and it wasn't his cologne (he wasn't wearing any) lol. If I was single, at least a first date would definitely be a go if he was interested in me too. How attracted I felt was more similar to my current spouse than the typical noting that this guy is hot or attractive. There was something more to it than that. 

On the basis of - hey, that guy is attractive or "he's doable" (physical attractiveness alone) I feel/think that a lot. I have never thought to put a number on it but out of the hat, I'd say 40% or even a generous 50%. These men are from all races and ages ranging from mid-twenties to late forties/early fifties... with a couple of exceptions at either end of the spectrum. I am also attracted to a variety of different body types. So it's hard to narrow that one down either. Faces tend to be most important physically, followed by voices, at least to me. 

However, stating 40% is not to say there are 40% of men out there that I think are potential suitors. Other traits such as intelligence, probably with emotional intelligence ranking higher for me, sense of humour - (if the best way to a man's heart is his stomach - the best way to mine is my frontal lobe), quality conversation etc. that plays a far larger role. 

I have been unattracted - not repulsed by, but just kind of "meh" towards some men whose personalities, intelligence and other qualities created physical attraction in me and I dated them - one for two years having developed a strong attraction after the fact. I have also been completely repulsed by great looking men who's personalities and attitudes turned me off completely. 

I think the number of guys that I am attracted to both inside and out is probably slimmer than 20% I would wager about 10%. That said, save 2012 when we separated, I have not been single in a long time so haven't been open to entertaining more than just noting in passing that a guy is physically "shackupable". I don't really get close enough to other men to gauge that so it's a bit of a shot in the dark.


----------



## always_alone

EnjoliWoman said:


> I have NEVER just looked at ANY man and got hot and bothered or instantly desired him sexually. My motor seems to be more tied to how I feel about a man as a person coupled with some physical attributes that make him sexy to me. I seem to operate on a dimmer switch vs. on/off toggle.


I get sparks off guys all the time, but I wouldn't exactly call it "hot and bothered". More often than not, I feel a brief pull, then pass by without pause or thought.

For simple, raw attraction, I've sparked on a pretty wide range. As for who I would actually spend any time or thought on? Very small -- but also dependent on how hungry I am.


----------



## Cletus

As a guy, I'll let you in on a little secret.

I size up every woman I see every day for her potential as a sexual partner. Every. Single. One. And I am by no means alone in this regard. 

Of course I do absolutely nothing about it. But even then, probably one in three passes muster, and as the saying goes, I wouldn't kick her out for <xxx>. It's been that way since puberty. I don't try to make it happen, and I couldn't stop it if I wanted to.


----------



## firebelly1

Cletus said:


> As a guy, I'll let you in on a little secret.
> 
> I size up every woman I see every day for her potential as a sexual partner. Every. Single. One. And I am by no means alone in this regard.
> 
> Of course I do absolutely nothing about it. But even then, probably one in three passes muster, and as the saying goes, I wouldn't kick her out for <xxx>. It's been that way since puberty. I don't try to make it happen, and I couldn't stop it if I wanted to.


I do that with every man I meet, even if I'm not conscious of it. 90% are a "no."


----------



## Cletus

firebelly1 said:


> I do that with every man I meet, even if I'm not conscious of it. 90% are a "no."


And that is the difference in a nutshell.


----------



## always_alone

Cletus said:


> I size up every woman I see every day for her potential as a sexual partner. Every. Single. One. And I am by no means alone in this regard.


I'm sure you're not alone, but I also think you are overstating things just a bit.

My experience from the other side of the fence is that most men don't even register the existence of about half the female population. And so their claims to want half or a third is actually only about 15-20% of all the women actually out there.

And then, when push comes to shove, they aren't anywhere near as willing to "not kick her out of bed" as they say.


----------



## Cletus

always_alone said:


> I'm sure you're not alone, but I also think you are overstating things just a bit.
> 
> My experience from the other side of the fence is that most men don't even register the existence of about half the female population. And so their claims to want half or a third is actually only about 15-20% of all the women actually out there.
> 
> And then, when push comes to shove, they aren't anywhere near as willing to "not kick her out of bed" as they say.


Thank you for correcting my numbers. I had no idea I was so inaccurate. 

Do you speak for all men, or just for me?


----------



## always_alone

Cletus said:


> Thank you for correcting my numbers. I had no idea I was so inaccurate.
> 
> Do you speak for all men, or just for me?


I thought I pretty explicitly and clearly said that I am speaking from *my* experience on the other side of the fence.


----------



## Cletus

always_alone said:


> I thought I pretty explicitly and clearly said that I am speaking from *my* experience on the other side of the fence.


"I'm sure you're not alone, but I also think you are overstating things just a bit."

Bull****. You don't get to rewrite my words to suit your agenda. 

I stated exactly what I intended to state. Of the six men I know in enough detail to have an opinion (3 family members, 1 friend, 2 co-workers, all but one college educated or in school, all gainfully employed and in long term relationships), we're all the same. The rest I haven't asked. 

One of them has this quote: "The great thing about getting older is that the pool of women you'd be interested in screwing just keeps getting bigger and bigger".


----------



## Faithful Wife

Her "agenda"? :scratchhead:

I don't know why people have to get nasty at each other around here. Always was just saying that she feels most men don't notice her at all. That is HER experience, which is what she shared. Her "agenda" is the same as yours, just sharing your experience. Sheesh.


----------



## always_alone

Cletus said:


> "I'm sure you're not alone, but I also think you are overstating things just a bit."
> 
> Bull****. You don't get to rewrite my words to suit your agenda.
> 
> I stated exactly what I intended to state. Of the six men I know in enough detail to have an opinion (3 family members, 1 friend, 2 co-workers, all but one college educated or in school, all gainfully employed and in long term relationships), we're all the same. The rest I haven't asked.
> 
> One of them has this quote: "The great thing about getting older is that the pool of women you'd be interested in screwing just keeps getting bigger and bigger".


I did not rewrite your words. I took them at face value, and then suggested that what you say may be true of you, and likely some others, but doesn't necessarily apply across the board.

On my side of the fence, huge numbers of women are completely invisible. Are you telling me that every 80 year-old and 18 year old is subject to the same review by you? If so, I'd venture that you are more democratic than most.

I have been told explicitly, by men, that I am invisible. And I too have at least 6 friends that can say the same thing.


----------



## Cletus

Faithful Wife said:


> Her "agenda"? :scratchhead:
> 
> I don't know why people have to get nasty at each other around here. Always was just saying that she feels most men don't notice her at all. That is HER experience, which is what she shared. Her "agenda" is the same as yours, just sharing your experience. Sheesh.


Her reply: "I'm sure you're not alone, but I also think you are overstating things just a bit."

Nothing I said was an overstatement. I did not speak for all men, as can be verified above. I provided my take on the matter and that of people I know enough to be able to speak for them - hence I am also not alone. I was, to my knowledge, 100% accurate in every word I posted. 

If she was sloppy in her choice of wording, I'm not accountable. I can only respond to what's written. What was written was that *I* was overstating.


----------



## Cletus

always_alone said:


> I did not rewrite your words. I took them at face value, and then suggested that what you say is true of you, and likely some others, doesn't necessarily apply across the board.


No, that's what you implied, which was not the message received. Chalk it up to a communication failure. What you actually wrote implied to me that I was lying. 



> On my side of the fence, huge numbers of women are completely invisible. Are you telling me that every 80 year-old and 18 year old is subject to the same review by you? If so, I'd venture that you are more democratic than most.


No, but then I don't run into that many 80 year old women. Far more 18 year-olds with two in college in a city with a younger than average population. Put me in Jupiter, Fl. and the numbers would be lower. 

Just because a woman feels invisible doesn't mean she hasn't been "sized up". I don't leer at you when doing it, and it takes all of about 2 seconds. 

I'm nothing special to look at either. I could imagine men with higher sexual rank having lower numbers than me and my average friends - except I know my brother, who is more attractive, is the same if not worse.


----------



## always_alone

Cletus said:


> No, that's what you implied, which was not the message received. Chalk it up to a communication failure. What you actually wrote implied to me that I was lying.


I didn't mean to imply you were a liar, just thought you might be overstating. As you say, you don't actually size up all 80-year old women, and how was I to know you live in a town where most women are young and hot, and likely to grab your attention?




Cletus said:


> Just because a woman feels invisible doesn't mean she hasn't been "sized up". I don't leer at you when doing it, and it takes all of about 2 seconds.


Oh, I've no doubt that I've been sized up on occasion. And one or two maybe even put me in the "yes" category. Amazing that.

But, truth is, many women are actually completely invisible to many men. I know this because I've also taken other men at their word when they tell me what they do and do not "size up".

In many respects, I think men and women are similar in this regard.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening all
As a (probably atypical) man, for me the way it works is:

First - attraction takes a number of forms - I find many women attractive, but not in a sexual way.

That aside, I don't "size up" most women. Maybe 10% are physically attractive enough to be sexually desirable. But - if I talk to them that attraction may or may not instantly go away.

Then there are the women who did not attract my attention by appearance but who become attractive to me once I talk to them. This is a higher number ~30% I'd say. Appearance still matters, there are women I find unattractive, but it is less important. 

Maybe the way to say it is that I find ~10% of women attractive ONLY based on their appearance. I find an additional ~30% of women to be physically attractive after I have met them - but their appearance was not noticeable at first.


----------



## southbound

SimplyAmorous said:


> I have no idea what my IQ is.. or my H's... he was never one to get great grades.. he struggled in English, I struggled in math... So long as there is common sense & a good "give & take" , some life experiences to speak of.... isn't this all we need to go places in communication?? Even the Amish dutch can have a sense of humor & we can learn things from them.
> 
> I am not up on Politics or sports at all.. I have no degrees


Sounds good to me. From reading here, it seems like people want to go out and discuss the evening news in detail; that bores me to tears, I guess my interests are closer to home, so to speak.

Also, I'm like you SA, I don't care to discuss politics and I don't care for sports; I've noticed that kills 80% of the conversation with most people. 

It's funny, there is a new guy at work and we were exchanging some small talk. He asked if I was in to basketball. I said, "No, not really." I could tell that took the wind from his sails.




EleGirl said:


> The higher the person's IQ is, the lower their EQ tends to be. They found that most of the highest IQ people end up being not very successful in life. They are not able to balance things in life. Think of the student in college that pulls a sold 4.5 GPA but has no social life, does not do any community service, does not date, etc.
> 
> Most people who are extremely successful have mid to high mid IQ's and high EQ's.


May that's the problem of my brother and I, our IQ is so high. I say that jokingly, but who knows.

I've noticed that I tend to look at things and look to solve things logically without all the bull, I don't know if that's the sign of a higher IQ, or someone who is too simple minded.

For example, things that the higher ups make 100 page manuals to explain, I usually think is way overboard and i could sum it up and get the best results in about two pages.


----------



## notmyrealname4

southbound said:


> For example, things that the higher ups make 100 page manuals to explain, I usually think is way overboard and i could sum it up and get the best results in about two pages.


The "higher-ups" write 100 page manuals to cover their azzes.

And/or, a lot of them are justifying their existence.

Not all of them; but a lot.

[And I do believe that truly invested, caring executives can make all the difference in the world to their employees, company and community.]


----------



## Deejo

Revamped said:


> I could essentially try them all. But there's a label for that...


I call it Enthusiastic.


----------



## notmyrealname4

Cletus said:


> As a guy, I'll let you in on a little secret.
> 
> I size up every woman I see every day for her potential as a sexual partner. Every. Single. One. And I am by no means alone in this regard.
> 
> Of course I do absolutely nothing about it. But even then, probably one in three passes muster, and as the saying goes, I wouldn't kick her out for <xxx>. It's been that way since puberty. I don't try to make it happen, and I couldn't stop it if I wanted to.



Cletus,

Why do you come to the Ladies Lounge, pick a thread specifically directed at ladies; and then let us know that you wouldn't kick 2/3's of the female sex out of bed.

In other words, why the one upmanship? Why do you need to tell us that you believe you check out women more often than we check out men? 

You had that approach on another thread, too. You seemed to either not believe, or not _want_ to believe that women could have such high sex drives.

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/ladies-lounge/236514-women-whats-your-sex-drive-like.html

I don't understand why you are contentious. What's it to you?


----------



## JCD

EleGirl said:


> Well, that's what women who don't fall into the 9-10 Hollywood type or look like porn stars feel like. I think it's one of the reasons that so many women have a problem with porn.
> 
> How would you feel if your wife spent a large amount of time getting off to petty boys like Mr. Blue Jeans there?


Thank you, Elegirl.

That was an epiphany moment for me.

I need to rethink things. I may not change my mind, but I will certainly give women's views on porn viewing a lot more respect in the future.


----------



## JCD

EnjoliWoman said:


> A rather smallish percentage in both physical appearance and personality. The magical space of a Venn diagram in the middle leaves closer to 10% after I hear their first 500 words or so.
> 
> Physically attractive men? I'd guess around 20% I would consider going out with based on physical features only and likely the same if I only spoke to them without seeing them.
> 
> I have NEVER just looked at ANY man and got hot and bothered or instantly desired him sexually. My motor seems to be more tied to how I feel about a man as a person coupled with some physical attributes that make him sexy to me. I seem to operate on a dimmer switch vs. on/off toggle.


I can just imagine your online dating profile.

"Single white female with kids. Please send a recent picture. Our first date will be spent at the university for the 'blue book' portion of the application process."


----------



## JCD

Cletus said:


> No, that's what you implied, which was not the message received. Chalk it up to a communication failure. What you actually wrote implied to me that I was lying.
> 
> 
> 
> No, but then I don't run into that many 80 year old women. Far more 18 year-olds with two in college in a city with a younger than average population. Put me in Jupiter, Fl. and the numbers would be lower.
> 
> Just because a woman feels invisible doesn't mean she hasn't been "sized up". I don't leer at you when doing it, and it takes all of about 2 seconds.
> 
> I'm nothing special to look at either. I could imagine men with higher sexual rank having lower numbers than me and my average friends - except I know my brother, who is more attractive, is the same if not worse.


Ah.

A classic communication failure.

You said you size up every woman.

always feels that as a woman of a certain age, type or perhaps weight, are in fact 'invisible'.

Well, no. That isn't quite accurate. They are seen and stuck in the 'no' category very quickly. But an assessment WAS made....

THEN they are most likely treated as invisible. The economy of time.

This is still a sort of veiled slur on men. "Men only want women for their bodies" sort of thing.

Guess who else is essentially invisible to men, or at least me? Other men who aren't related to me, who don't share or engage my interest(s), whom I don't have a relationship with and who can't help me in some way.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

I am mostly physically attracted to 2 different kinds of men.
The tough looking, scruffy ones and the shy, sweet, even a little nerdy looking ones. 
(Think Daryl from walking dead and Spencer from Criminal minds) 

I've never been into the jock guys, the 6 pack abs and highlighted hair, perfect face, like a lot of the movie stars. 

But almost every guy has something that can I can find attractive about him and personality is more important and can change the way I see someone. 
Be a jerk and it doesn't matter if you're the hottest guy in the world, I won't see it. Be a good man and you'll be sexy. 

I wouldn't skip over someone that wasn't automatically my "type" before getting to know them. 

I am sure that most men would skip over me after a 2 second assessment of my worth, but that's fine. I'm not into the chase. I'm at the point where I like myself as a person and have a lot to offer so if I'm ever back on the dating market I'll just be me and wait for someone who finds that attractive to them.


----------



## always_alone

JCD said:


> always feels that as a woman of a certain age, type or perhaps weight, are in fact 'invisible'.
> 
> Well, no. That isn't quite accurate. They are seen and stuck in the 'no' category very quickly. But an assessment WAS made....
> 
> THEN they are most likely treated as invisible. The economy of time.
> 
> This is still a sort of veiled slur on men. "Men only want women for their bodies" sort of thing.


Oh, thanks for that helpful clarification! Not invisible, just *treated* as invisible. That makes all the difference in the world to what I was saying.

And can certainly reassure any men here who were worried that they might be failing to size up each and every woman for their sexual potential. 

(But of course it's *me* saying that men only want women for their bodies)


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Cletus said:


> *As a guy, I'll let you in on a little secret.*
> 
> *I size up every woman I see every day for her potential as a sexual partner. Every. Single. One. And I am by no means alone in this regard.
> *
> *Of course I do absolutely nothing about it. But even then, probably one in three passes muster,* and as the saying goes, I wouldn't kick her out for <xxx>. * It's been that way since puberty. I don't try to make it happen, and I couldn't stop it if I wanted to*.


This conversation reminds me of this old thread.. http://talkaboutmarriage.com/mens-clubhouse/24519-way-men-really-think.html .. Never forgot one of Unbelievable's posts that explained this...



> Originally Posted by *unbelievable *:
> I have already said that fixating on a woman (ie, imaging an actual sex act with her or fantasizing about her stripping) is a bit creepy and, of course, that is a choice. My point is that there is an immediate "*yes*", "*no*", *"Maybe* if I was drunk" sort of selection going on for the briefest of nanoseconds in every male brain (at least the straight ones). Having been male for nearly 50 years, I have been "listening" to "yep", "nope", "no way in hell", etc every day for at least 40 years.
> 
> Of the thousands of guys I have worked and lived closely with, they all seem to have the same thing going on. Naturally, only a creton would attempt to act on those thoughts and one would be sort of a perv to dwell on the subject and create disgusting mental scenarios. I'm a Christian and I'm married. Neither experience rendered me blind or oblivious to my surroundings. The OP asked how men thought and I've given the most honest answer I can.


I read my H that post that day... and wanted to know how HIS brain worked... he said that was TRUE of him also. 

Here is how he explained it ....

1st he looks at the face, this will not sound nice but he says "if she is dog faced, no sense in going any further", then he automatically puts them into baskets >>> "Doable" ..."Maybe".... or "ewwww NEVER". He said IF there is a CHOICE in these matters, it would be to LOOK AWAY immediately, but he admitted he doesn't want to do that, "it is no fun". Then here is his next mental thoughts within seconds "I love my wife, STD's, I love my kids , STD's" and that is the end of the fleeting fantasy.


----------



## always_alone

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> But almost every guy has something that can I can find attractive about him and personality is more important and can change the way I see someone.
> Be a jerk and it doesn't matter if you're the hottest guy in the world, I won't see it. Be a good man and you'll be sexy.
> 
> I wouldn't skip over someone that wasn't automatically my "type" before getting to know them.
> 
> I am sure that most men would skip over me after a 2 second assessment of my worth, but that's fine. I'm not into the chase. I'm at the point where I like myself as a person and have a lot to offer so if I'm ever back on the dating market I'll just be me and wait for someone who finds that attractive to them.


Seems to me most women will also size up most men, at least when single, and will also find quite a broad range of them to be potentials. 

But with lots also slotted immediately into the "no" category.


----------



## Jellybeans

Cletus said:


> As a guy, I'll let you in on a little secret.
> 
> I size up every woman I see every day for her potential as a sexual partner. Every. Single. One. And I am by no means alone in this regard.


I kind of do this with men, too. Not with every single one but I definitely notice if I am attracted or not. If I see someone who really pings my nether parts, in my head I say, "Would get."



It's normal to notice who you are attracted to.

As for the percentage of who I am attracted to, I wouldn't say it's extremely high, like 90% but I do find a lot of people attractive.


----------



## JCD

This thread isn't about how men look at women. It is about how women look at men.

Ladies, I heard about this poll where 80% of men are below average in looks according to women.











How do any of these gents fare?

But here is the thing: girls rated most guys as ugly (i.e. less than attractive) but sent these so called ugly guys more messages. (Guys targeted hot women naturally in general.)

Looks seem to be one of the smaller parts of attractiveness.


----------



## JCD

Jellybeans said:


> I kind of do this with men, too. Not with every single one but I definitely notice if I am attracted or not. If I see someone who really pings my nether parts, in my head I say, "Would get."
> 
> 
> 
> It's normal to notice who you are attracted to.
> 
> As for the percentage of who I am attracted to, I wouldn't say it's extremely high, like 90% but I do find a lot of people attractive.


Maybe it is my outlook, but I can generally find some trait that I find attractive. "Oh...she has nice hair." "Her eyes really pop." "She might be heavy, but she holds herself very well." "Oh...she doesn't look TOO much like Marlon Brando."

This doesn't mean that I would sleep with someone just based on hair. Just my assessment seems to twig onto things it likes and is able to separate the bow from the rest of the package at time.

Or maybe I just have low standards.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

JCD said:


> This thread isn't about how men look at women. It is about how women look at men.
> 
> Ladies, I heard about this poll where 80% of men are below average in looks according to women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do any of these gents fare?
> 
> But here is the thing: girls rated most guys as ugly (i.e. less than attractive) but sent these so called ugly guys more messages. (Guys targeted hot women naturally in general.)
> 
> Looks seem to be one of the smaller parts of attractiveness.


It totally depends on what they have written too. Based on looks alone I might message 1 and 4. 2 maybe if he sounded nice on his profile but he's not my type instantly. 

I don't think that as many woman would fall for this kind of stuff
4 Things I Learned from the Worst Online Dating Profile Ever | Cracked.com
But attractiveness does matter, it just might be formed in different ways (how they act, what they say, etc)


----------



## Revamped

JCD said:


> This thread isn't about how men look at women. It is about how women look at men.
> 
> Ladies, I heard about this poll where 80% of men are below average in looks according to women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do any of these gents fare?
> 
> But here is the thing: girls rated most guys as ugly (i.e. less than attractive) but sent these so called ugly guys more messages. (Guys targeted hot women naturally in general.)
> 
> Looks seem to be one of the smaller parts of attractiveness.


None of them is what I'd consider "ugly."

Only one has a crotch shot... I'd want to see how the others would stack up.


----------



## JCD




----------



## Jellybeans

JCD said:


> This doesn't mean that I would sleep with someone just based on hair.


What's wrong with that? Some people have really great hair! :rofl:


----------



## Anon Pink

Revamped said:


> None of them is what I'd consider "ugly."
> 
> Only one has a crotch shot... I'd want to see how the others would stack up.


LOL, you are a naughty girl. Wanna be my new best friend?


----------



## Anon Pink

JCD said:


> This thread isn't about how men look at women. It is about how women look at men.
> 
> Ladies, I heard about this poll where 80% of men are below average in looks according to women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do any of these gents fare?
> 
> But here is the thing: girls rated most guys as ugly (i.e. less than attractive) but sent these so called ugly guys more messages. (Guys targeted hot women naturally in general.)
> 
> Looks seem to be one of the smaller parts of attractiveness.


First, none of these men would float my personal boat however...

Batchelor #1 seems to have a level of enthusiasm that I find attractive

#2 whispers pretty boy syndrome, and that makes him a toss up. He is attractive but his personality would have to also be attractive.

#3 Guitar player! Chicks dig guitar players. They have well developed fine motor skills.....

#4 No. His picture tells absolutely nothing about him. He looks boring. He is neither attractive nor unattractive.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening slowlygoingcrazy
Maybe not. There may be a correlation between men who are not looking for just on physical characteristic and men who do not so openly exhibit their interest.

I suspect that most of the women that I find attractive aren't aware that I do. Even if I were not in a relationship, I would want to know something about a woman before I hinted that I found her attractive. 



SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> snip
> 
> I am sure that most men would skip over me after a 2 second assessment of my worth, snip..


----------



## Deejo

Revamped said:


> Only one has a crotch shot... I'd want to see how the others would stack up.


I LOL'd.

Like.


----------



## Deejo

Anon Pink said:


> First, none of these men would float my personal boat however...
> 
> Batchelor #1 seems to have a level of enthusiasm that I find attractive


*Because unbeknownst to all, he isn't wearing pants. Yes, I've been told this is a 'thing' kind of like tiger photos.*



Anon Pink said:


> #2 whispers pretty boy syndrome, and that makes him a toss up. He is attractive but his personality would have to also be attractive.


*Is gay. Total red herring.*



Anon Pink said:


> #3 Guitar player! Chicks dig guitar players. They have well developed fine motor skills.....


*Suffers from low self esteem and can't actually play the guitar. Someone just told him it would generate more interest ... and they are correct.*



Anon Pink said:


> #4 No. His picture tells absolutely nothing about him. He looks boring. He is neither attractive nor unattractive.


*Loves the outdoors. And cats.*

It's important to have these interpretive skills. But Revamped is right. Anyone posting an online profile needs to include a full body shot.


----------



## Rowan

JCD said:


> But here is the thing: girls rated most guys as ugly (i.e. less than attractive) but sent these so called ugly guys more messages. (Guys targeted hot women naturally in general.)
> 
> Looks seem to be one of the smaller parts of attractiveness.


I don't think any of the guys you posted photos of are "ugly", but I do think I wouldn't rate any of them as objectively good looking, either. I can make an objective "he's an attractive guy" statement about a handsome man, without it meaning I'm personally attracted to him. For me, looks really are a fairly small portion of what makes a man attractive.

I would talk to any of those 4 guys. Whether I found them attractive enough to continue engaging with would be predicated much more on their personalities than their looks. I wouldn't date even a really physically attractive guy if his personality didn't work for me. I don't have it in me to spend time with a guy I don't particularly like, no matter what he looks like. 

Maybe I have low standards for physical attractiveness in men because I have no illusions that I, myself, am anything more than average-looking. Since I know I'm not hot, nor even particularly pretty, maybe I'm willing to give men in the same boat the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## Deejo

I also think that for many people stepping into the dating arena, particularly women, to START with, they will trend towards sure things.

A guy that has a lower sex rank than they do. Greatly reduces the odds of rejection if the woman initiates the messaging. 

I wonder if there is a metric about how many of those messages to 'uglier' dudes actually translate into dates?

Online dating is it's own ecosystem. I don't know if it translates directly into real world behavior, but undoubtedly we can extrapolate.

I remember reading an article that stated that women's rejection rate of male matches was over 80%.

I have no problem with this.

My rejection rate of potential female matches was over 95%.


----------



## Rowan

Deejo said:


> *Because unbeknownst to all, he isn't wearing pants. Yes, I've been told this is a 'thing' kind of like tiger photos.*
> 
> 
> 
> *Is gay. Total red herring.*
> 
> 
> 
> *Suffers from low self esteem and can't actually play the guitar. Someone just told him it would generate more interest ... and they are correct.*
> 
> 
> 
> *Loves the outdoors. And cats.*



:rofl:


----------



## Anon Pink

Deejo said:


> *Because unbeknownst to all, he isn't wearing pants. Yes, I've been told this is a 'thing' kind of like tiger photos.*


That explains the enthusiastic smile at least...




> *Is gay. Total red herring.*



Damn! You have excellent gaydar Deejo!





> *Suffers from low self esteem and can't actually play the guitar. Someone just told him it would generate more interest ... and they are correct.*


I was thinking that too. Like maybe he was leaning to play but can't really play. His facial expressions seems a tad self conscious.





> *Loves the outdoors. And cats.*


Ew...do you think he is into that "furry" fetish too? I can totally see that.



> It's important to have these interpretive skills. But Revamped is right. Anyone posting an online profile needs to include a full body shot.


I guess that makes sense. I just think facial expressions say so much more about a person than a full body shot.


----------



## Revamped

"I guess that makes sense. I just think facial expressions say so much more about a person than a full body shot."

Oh.

Odd, I usually look at the face, second...


----------



## Anon Pink

Revamped said:


> "I guess that makes sense. I just think facial expressions say so much more about a person than a full body shot."
> 
> Oh.
> 
> Odd, I usually look at the face, second...


Only when I'm exceptionally horny.


----------



## nuclearnightmare

Revamped said:


> Every. Single. One. Of. Them.
> 
> I love men. Men are great.
> 
> I could essentially try them all. But there's a label for that...


have not logged in since I posted the question but, right off the bat, here we have the correct answer!


----------



## Ikaika

Deejo said:


> I also think that for many people stepping into the dating arena, particularly women, to START with, they will trend towards sure things.
> 
> A guy that has a lower sex rank than they do. Greatly reduces the odds of rejection if the woman initiates the messaging.
> 
> I wonder if there is a metric about how many of those messages to 'uglier' dudes actually translate into dates?
> 
> Online dating is it's own ecosystem. I don't know if it translates directly into real world behavior, but undoubtedly we can extrapolate.
> 
> I remember reading an article that stated that women's rejection rate of male matches was over 80%.
> 
> I have no problem with this.
> 
> My rejection rate of potential female matches was over 95%.



Ok a small highjack, just thought of a theme for a TAM calendar. Use photos of males willing to submit their pics and using the Gaussian curve to start with low rank in January grading to a medium rank in June and highest rank in December. Ok, I'm willing to be the January poster boy 

End Jack.


----------



## Jellybeans

You_ would _be January... in Hawaii. LOL


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening all
I wonder how many people do see things in terms of "sex rank"? Its never seemed that way to me at all - there are movie stars and supermodels I wouldn't want to date. I can't imagine a woman so beautiful that I would think I was "beneath" her. 

I pursued my (future) wife in college because she was the person I most wanted, not because she was the best I thought I could get. 

I honestly think I am the best person for my wife, not someone she settled for. Not that I'm as attractive as a movie star, nor wealthy as an oil sheik,, nor fit as an Olympic athlete, but taken as a whole I think I am the best choice fro her. 




Deejo said:


> I also think that for many people stepping into the dating arena, particularly women, to START with, they will trend towards sure things.
> 
> A guy that has a lower sex rank than they do. Greatly reduces the odds of rejection if the woman initiates the messaging.
> 
> I wonder if there is a metric about how many of those messages to 'uglier' dudes actually translate into dates?
> 
> Online dating is it's own ecosystem. I don't know if it translates directly into real world behavior, but undoubtedly we can extrapolate.
> 
> I remember reading an article that stated that women's rejection rate of male matches was over 80%.
> 
> I have no problem with this.
> 
> My rejection rate of potential female matches was over 95%.


----------



## Deejo

Anon Pink said:


> Ew...do you think he is into that "furry" fetish too? I can totally see that.


I honestly have no idea how one broaches that conversation in a dating relationship. But mad points for knowing what a furry is.


----------



## Cletus

intheory said:


> You had that approach on another thread, too. You seemed to either not believe, or not _want_ to believe that women could have such high sex drives.
> 
> http://talkaboutmarriage.com/ladies-lounge/236514-women-whats-your-sex-drive-like.html
> 
> I don't understand why you are contentious. What's it to you?


Allright, I'll spell it out clearly. Sorry for the wall of text. 

There are plenty of women with high sex drives. I love that. I have been with a couple, and would probably have married one given the opportunity that didn't arise. I am glad for you and I am glad for the partners you are with. 

There is a small but vocal group here who claim that women (and I don't mean a specific woman, or any sub-group, but women in general) are as innately sexual as men in general. This is simply not supported in the scientific literature. When you point to any study supporting that conclusion, which is every study to date that has tried to objectively measure the phenomenon across time, cultures, or geography, you get a litany of apologetics as to how every study is flawed. We've certainly learned that the difference is not as wide as was once believed, but it is not zero.

Given the practices of the animal kingdom, the chromosomal and hormonal differences between men and women, and yes, even the social conditioning, it would truly be astounding if both genders, in the ensemble average, were identical in their innate sexual desire. It is in fact almost beyond the pale to believe it likely. 

Perhaps you won't believe me when I tell you that I don't care which gender has more innate sexual desire, but that's the truth. Anyone familiar with the particulars of my situation knows that I wouldn't mind it if things were the other way around. But the question has an answer. I care about the truth of the answer, which is well demonstrated, and I too don't understand the seeming desire of some to have to repeatedly challenge it. That big jolt of testosterone those of us with a Y chromosome receive in utero and again at puberty does terrible things, and for many of us it never really stops. At least, for more of us *on average* than for you.

I revel in everyone who has a healthy sexuality. I'm glad for you, I believe you, and I have no doubt of your existence. Even if I found your stories unconvincing (which I do not), statistics requires it. This is not a personal issue. It's one of accuracy. I'm a data and numbers person, so if the data leads me to a conclusion, I have to accept it. The data on this issue has spoken loud and clear. If you have to repeatedly hand wave away the data, your position is untenable. 

I've written software for mental illness classification, where you take a broad range of measurements to try to determine if someone has a particular problem. The differences between the healthy and the sick or so small - a tenth or a quarter of a standard deviation - that you would think the task impossible. But it isn't. If you measure the right things, you can classify someone as in one group or another with impressive but imperfect accuracy. 

Take the distribution of sexual desire for women. It will be a bell curve, like most things in nature. Take the distribution of sexual desire for men. It too will be a bell curve, but one with steeper slopes and a narrower peak - there is less variability between man than there is between women. Overlay the two curves. There will be enormous overlap. Many, many women will have sex drives higher than many men. But the peak in each curve will be at a different place. On average, we masturbate more. We think about sex more. We are driven to take greater risks for and spend more money on things of a sexual nature. This says nothing about any individual, and it includes plenty of men that have well below average desire as well.

But it does not erase the fact that there is today a quantifiable average difference between the sexes. Perhaps 200 years from now that difference will have reduced - I'm not even attempting to explain why, today, in this time, the effect is real and measurable. 

The position that no such difference exists when one is clearly demonstrated is with what I get frustrated. It's exactly the same reaction I get to global warming deniers, for comparison, but that topic doesn't come up here, so you don't see it.

Let me add that my first post simply pointed to the Kinsey site as a place to get representative numbers that didn't suffer from so much self selection bias, if you really want to know the sexual practices of men vs. women.


----------



## Cletus

Revamped said:


> "I guess that makes sense. I just think facial expressions say so much more about a person than a full body shot."
> 
> Oh.
> 
> Odd, I usually look at the face, second...


Exactly. That's why god invented the paper bag or the dimly lit room.


----------



## Cletus

Ikaika said:


> Ok a small highjack, just thought of a theme for a TAM calendar. Use photos of males willing to submit their pics and using the Gaussian curve to start with low rank in January grading to a medium rank in June and highest rank in December. Ok, I'm willing to be the January poster boy
> 
> End Jack.


Get in line, pal.


----------



## Anon Pink

Deejo said:


> I honestly have no idea how one broaches that conversation in a dating relationship. But mad points for knowing what a furry is.




I used to watch CSI... I know things...


----------



## Rowan

Anon Pink said:


> I used to watch CSI... I know things...


Me, too. Back before Grissom left the show. When it was still awesome.


----------



## Deejo

William Peterson. Attractive man.


----------



## Revamped

Cletus said:


> Allright, I'll spell it out clearly. Sorry for the wall of text.
> 
> There are plenty of women with high sex drives. I love that. I have been with a couple, and would probably have married one given the opportunity that didn't arise. I am glad for you and I am glad for the partners you are with.
> 
> There is a small but vocal group here who claim that women (and I don't mean a specific woman, or any sub-group, but women in general) are as innately sexual as men in general. This is simply not supported in the scientific literature. When you point to any study supporting that conclusion, which is every study to date that has tried to objectively measure the phenomenon across time, cultures, or geography, you get a litany of apologetics as to how every study is flawed. We've certainly learned that the difference is not as wide as was once believed, but it is not zero.
> 
> Given the practices of the animal kingdom, the chromosomal and hormonal differences between men and women, and yes, even the social conditioning, it would truly be astounding if both genders, in the ensemble average, were identical in their innate sexual desire. It is in fact almost beyond the pale to believe it likely.
> 
> Perhaps you won't believe me when I tell you that I don't care which gender has more innate sexual desire, but that's the truth. Anyone familiar with the particulars of my situation knows that I wouldn't mind it if things were the other way around. But the question has an answer. I care about the truth of the answer, which is well demonstrated, and I too don't understand the seeming desire of some to have to repeatedly challenge it. That big jolt of testosterone those of us with a Y chromosome receive in utero and again at puberty does terrible things, and for many of us it never really stops. At least, for more of us *on average* than for you.
> 
> I revel in everyone who has a healthy sexuality. I'm glad for you, I believe you, and I have no doubt of your existence. Even if I found your stories unconvincing (which I do not), statistics requires it. This is not a personal issue. It's one of accuracy. I'm a data and numbers person, so if the data leads me to a conclusion, I have to accept it. The data on this issue has spoken loud and clear. If you have to repeatedly hand wave away the data, your position is untenable.
> 
> I've written software for mental illness classification, where you take a broad range of measurements to try to determine if someone has a particular problem. The differences between the healthy and the sick or so small - a tenth or a quarter of a standard deviation - that you would think the task impossible. But it isn't. If you measure the right things, you can classify someone as in one group or another with impressive but imperfect accuracy.
> 
> Take the distribution of sexual desire for women. It will be a bell curve, like most things in nature. Take the distribution of sexual desire for men. It too will be a bell curve, but one with steeper slopes and a narrower peak - there is less variability between man than there is between women. Overlay the two curves. There will be enormous overlap. Many, many women will have sex drives higher than many men. But the peak in each curve will be at a different place. On average, we masturbate more. We think about sex more. We are driven to take greater risks for and spend more money on things of a sexual nature. This says nothing about any individual, and it includes plenty of men that have well below average desire as well.
> 
> But it does not erase the fact that there is today a quantifiable average difference between the sexes. Perhaps 200 years from now that difference will have reduced - I'm not even attempting to explain why, today, in this time, the effect is real and measurable.
> 
> The position that no such difference exists when one is clearly demonstrated is with what I get frustrated. It's exactly the same reaction I get to global warming deniers, for comparison, but that topic doesn't come up here, so you don't see it.
> 
> Let me add that my first post simply pointed to the Kinsey site as a place to get representative numbers that didn't suffer from so much self selection bias, if you really want to know the sexual practices of men vs. women.


Very well written, Cletus.

You put alot of thought and energy into this post and I for one,are appreciative.

Just one question though...



How big is your "package"?

Just for the people who do have very active imaginations...


----------



## Cletus

Revamped said:


> Very well written, Cletus.
> 
> You put alot of thought and energy into this post and I for one,are appreciative.


Thank you



> Just one question though...
> 
> 
> How big is your "package"?


:scratchhead:

I don't know. I never measured. 

Big enough to be useful but not so large as to be a distraction to anyone?


----------



## Revamped

Does it offend you that I asked?


----------



## ConanHub

Cletus. How about if every study on male sexuality to date determined that 75% of men were homosexual? It would be at odds with what is observed by most of us. I and others are questioning studies that in no way reflect what we have observed our entire lives.

Every woman I know is an extremely visual being. More so than any man I know. Studies say the opposite of my every day life for my whole life. Makes me question those studies.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Cletus

Revamped said:


> Does it offend you that I asked?


No, but you might be the first to ask directly.


----------



## Cletus

ConanHub said:


> Cletus. How about if every study on male sexuality to date determined that 75% of men were homosexual? It would be at odds with what is observed by most of us. I and others are questioning studies that in no way reflect what we have observed our entire lives.


Part of being a scientist is understanding that our experiences are grossly tainted - by our expectations, by our prejudices, by where we live, by our income - by damn near everything in life. Yours and mine, included. Bias is hard to remove. 

Your experiences and mine are anecdotes, not data. Data comes from properly choosing the population to study (usually, a random population from a wide demographic is absolutely necessary), asking the right questions, and properly interpreting the data. This is not a simple task.

One of my favorite web sites is fivethirtyeight.com. It's run by Nate Silver, the guy from the NY Times who predicted the Presidential election and all 50 Senate races in 2012. He was called a fool on air by Carl Rove and other pundits for being grossly out of touch, because his findings were counter-intuitive to their experience. But he was right. 

Any study that showed that 75% of men were homosexual _would_ raise a lot of eyebrows, and would be quickly followed by other studies supporting or denying its results. 



> Every woman I know is an extremely visual being. More so than any man I know. Studies say the opposite of my every day life for my whole life. Makes me question those studies.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


It should make you question those studies. But why stop there? Why doesn't it make you question your every day life, or perhaps your perception of everyday life? One of them is wrong, so buck human nature a little and ask the question from the other side. Don't ask "why are they wrong when I know I'm right" - ask "what could account for why we disagree"? Sometimes that answer will be that the study was flawed. Sometimes it won't.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

SimplyAmorous said:


> Though it seems like Some do manage to snag it all.. I think of singer/pianist *John Legend*.... he was home schooled.. skipped 2 grades, Ivy league education...song writer, won 9 grammys...married to a successful Model.. can't we spread the goods around a little !
> 
> Love his "*All of me*" though..one of my all time favorites!


I swear John Legend is singing about what it's like to date a girl with BPD.

"what would I do without your smart mouth, drawing me in and kicking me out" -push/pull, I hate you don't leave me. BPD signature.

"beautiful mind"

"magical mystery ride"

"so dizzy"

"my heads underwater"

"You're crazy and I'm out of my mind."


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Rowan said:


> But he's just a bit shy of being totally unfortunate looking!


:rofl: 

I just about spit my coffee. Love this wording. :smthumbup:


----------



## ConanHub

Cletus. I am absolutely knowledgeable and practice scientific procedure. I have never observed, in any environment, women that are generally less visual than men. I am not simply relating personal, anecdotal evidence but pretty elaborate observations from many different environments.

I am also morbidly curious about why your package was brought up. Where is that going?&#55357;&#56833;
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> I'm sure you're not alone, but I also think you are overstating things just a bit.
> 
> My experience from the other side of the fence is that most men don't even register the existence of about half the female population. And so their claims to want half or a third is actually only about 15-20% of all the women actually out there.
> 
> And then, when push comes to shove, they aren't anywhere near as willing to "not kick her out of bed" as they say.


I disagree that it's over stated. Every guy I know has sized up every female in the room within the first few seconds of being there. Some say women do this too, albeit less purposefully(?). Given an age appropriate group, *at least* half are "maybe" and above. Which in guy terms usually means something like "I'd hit it." She doesn't have to be prototype to pass that bar.

I find most women reasonably attractive. I think your perception of going unnoticed, or men not actually being interested in the larger share of women claimed, is driven by the fact that most guys will focus way more attention on the 15-20% you mention.

Anyhoo... let's get back to topic - what women are attracted to.

Anyone put any faith in the data from dating sites like ******* or hotornot that show women rate 80% of men poorly, and 20% of men highly? There's a weird "gap" in those results. There are few middle and upper middle class men. 80% with sub 6 ratings, then a population gap or dip at 6-8, then another dense cluster above 9. When I saw them, I instantly thought "women aren't so much rating men on a scale... they're answering yes and no instead."


----------



## Cletus

ConanHub said:


> Cletus. I am absolutely knowledgeable and practice scientific procedure. I have never observed, in any environment, women that are generally less visual than men. I am not simply relating personal, anecdotal evidence but pretty elaborate observations from many different environments.


Are you equating visual with sexual? I think they're different. My wife, who by any measure is not very sexual, still appreciates looking an attractive man. She just never thinks of him in sexual terms - just "easy on the eyes". I have pressed her pretty hard on this question in the past. Maybe this is a form of sexual response, but if it is, it's pretty muted. 

I see an attractive woman, and I think "sex", pure and simple. I have of course been well conditioned to keep my fool mouth shut. 

So that's just my worthless anecdote to ask if we're comparing the same thing.

Oh, and I should add that it's well measured that men are better at certain visual tasks, like 3D object manipulation in space (and yes, there are mental functions which women are better at than men). When I think of men as being more visual than women, those are the terms, not that women don't look at men as much as men look at women.


----------



## Fozzy

ConanHub said:


> I am also morbidly curious about *why your package was brought up*. Where is that going?&#55357;&#56833;
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Lol at wording choice.


----------



## Revamped

ConanHub said:


> I am also morbidly curious about why your package was brought up. Where is that going?��
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I have found most men are very uncomfortable about being thought of as just a sex object. 

Men stare/glance at women's t&a all the time. But when a WOMAN stares/glances at a man's stuff, well, all of a sudden it's just not as appropriate.

JMHO.


----------



## Cletus

Revamped said:


> I have found most men are very uncomfortable about being thought of as just a sex object.
> 
> Men stare/glance at women's t&a all the time. But when a WOMAN stares/glances at a man's stuff, well, all of a sudden it's just not as appropriate.
> 
> JMHO.


Maybe the grass is always greener. Those who are always looked at as just sex objects probably have a different opinion than those of use who are not.


----------



## Ikaika

Revamped said:


> I have found most men are very uncomfortable about being thought of as just a sex object.
> 
> 
> 
> Men stare/glance at women's t&a all the time. But when a WOMAN stares/glances at a man's stuff, well, all of a sudden it's just not as appropriate.
> 
> 
> 
> JMHO.



Oh no, please stare and smile all you like. It does an old man good...


----------



## Fozzy

Revamped said:


> I have found most men are very uncomfortable about being thought of as just a sex object.
> 
> Men stare/glance at women's t&a all the time. But when a WOMAN stares/glances at a man's stuff, well, all of a sudden it's just not as appropriate.
> 
> JMHO.


If men get comfortable with this, we'll probably start walking around showing a little "neck".

In fact, we'll probably look a lot like some of SA's lumberjack pictures.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

ConanHub said:


> Cletus. I am absolutely knowledgeable and practice scientific procedure. I have never observed, in any environment, women that are generally less visual than men. I am not simply relating personal, anecdotal evidence but pretty elaborate observations from many different environments.


One could infer from the fact that even many of the responses here include the caveat "I need to talk to him, know his personality, humor" etc, that they are less visual. Or, at the least, that these non-physical attributes are required for all but the male elites. You've indicated yourself to be high on the scale of physical attraction, so perhaps that's why you haven't observed it to a lesser degree. The opposite problem AA speaks of in regards to going unnoticed perhaps? They're checking you out on looks so you perceive they're highly motivated by looks. But if women will show that behavior to 20% or fewer men, while men will show that behavior to even 30% of women, wouldn't that argue that men are more visual? Of course, one could always just say that women aren't as likely to be seen looking.

Regardless, any of our individual observations are limited and not at all scientific. These are worse than the not so great ******* or hotornot data. My observation is that very few guys draw interest on looks alone. But I certainly don't... or at least, it's rare. I'm not sure how we separate the bias of personal experience from our perception of what the other sex does. We lack data. That's why I like the ******* data, even for all it's flaws. What do we have that's better?

It could only be my perception/experience/friends, but I don't see men so quick to dismiss physical attributes in favor of personality/niceness/humor etc. It's like the hot crazy matrix. She can be crazy/boring/mean, as long as she's hot. I'd bet money most guys aren't going to pass her up. They might not date her, but I think most still try to have a go.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Revamped said:


> I have found most men are very uncomfortable about being thought of as just a sex object.
> 
> Men stare/glance at women's t&a all the time. But when a WOMAN stares/glances at a man's stuff, well, all of a sudden it's just not as appropriate.
> 
> JMHO.


Odd. I simultaneously feel slightly embarrassed and like a million bucks when women are so overt toward me.

My neighbor lady used to watch me doing yard work, about as obvious as could be. I'd usually be wearing a pair of ratty jeans, no shirt, work gloves. I wasn't interested in her, but I noticed she did this often. It didn't feel creepy. I just made sure to heft those bags of mulch and flex a little more. haha

I've over heard a girl tell another girl she'd like to jump my bones as I passed by. Objectify away ladies. Doesn't happen much, but when it does I've been all smiles.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Fozzy said:


> If men get comfortable with this, we'll probably start walking around showing a little "neck".


We already do. If you have a decent chest, V-neck shirts are in. And I've yet to meet a young single guy with good abs who doesn't seem to take advantage of any opportunity to take his shirt off. lol

More strangely, women seem to both love it and hate it. Ever see the dating profiles where women say "if you have a pic on your profile with no shirt on, don't even message me"? Yet, most women love a good firemen calendar doing the same thing. Hell if I know what that's all about.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Cletus said:


> *Given the practices of the animal kingdom*, the chromosomal and hormonal differences between men and women, and yes, even the social conditioning, it would truly be astounding if both genders, in the ensemble average, were identical in their innate sexual desire. It is in fact almost beyond the pale to believe it likely.


Please give examples in the animal kingdom of species where it is clear and PROVEN that that the male has more innate sexuality than the female? Not just assumed to have more innate sexuality based on projecting human traits upon the animals, but can actually be shown that the male has more innate sexuality than the female.


----------



## Fozzy

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> We already do. If you have a decent chest, V-neck shirts are in. And I've yet to meet a young single guy with good abs who doesn't seem to take advantage of any opportunity to take his shirt off. lol
> 
> More strangely, women seem to both love it and hate it. Ever see the dating profiles where women say "if you have a pic on your profile with no shirt on, don't even message me"? Yet, most women love a good firemen calendar doing the same thing. Hell if I know what that's all about.


LOL, not the neck I was referring to.


----------



## nuclearnightmare

I'm glad (but surprised) this thread has gotten so many responses. because I set it up, unfortunately, like a homework problem....i.e. "do it this way....." I'm glad most people did not let that distract them.

If women did have high physical standards in terms of sexual attraction to men - e.g. 90th percentile - then this could explain why a woman's sex drive tends to decrease more than her husband's during long-term marriage. i.e. even if she ends up with a 90% or above guy the aging process will sooner or later move him out of that attractiveness category. she then is no longer attracted to him.
Other than being 'simple' that explanation would be bad news for almost every man. good to see that it is probably not supportable.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Not the animal kingdom... but the human one...

Also, I'm actually playing Devil's Advocate for real, not just being my usual disagreeable self. 

There's the link between testosterone and sex drive. Women produce smaller amounts of T, and it has been shown that as ovaries age, women's T falls. Studies supplementing T in such women have been shown to increase their sex drives. Similarly, men's sex drives fall when T declines. Men have more T than women, if T is so critical to sex drive, this argues for men having a greater sex drive (albeit inconclusively, as other hormones may contribute to female drive). But now we're leaning...



http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/features/revving-up-womens-sex-drive?page=2 said:


> Testosterone
> 
> Two large studies presented at scientific meetings this year show the testosterone patch Intrinsa, made by Procter & Gamble, can increase sexual activity in 50% to 70% of women.





http://www.livescience.com/20119-men-women-sex-friendship.html said:


> The results revealed that men are more attracted to their female friends than their female friends are to them.





http://www.livescience.com/v said:


> Women masturbate less and report less desire.


In this case, it is unclear whether masturbation leads to desire, or desire leads to masturbation however. It may be that female masturbation is stigmatized, and thus women don't masturbate, and lower drive reported is the result of not masturbating. Sounds sketchy to me. I'm inclined to think it's the other way around, sex drive, drives masturbation. But there it is.



http://www.webmd.com/sex/features/sex-drive-how-do-men-women-compare said:


> "Sexual desire in women is extremely sensitive to environment and context," says Edward O. Laumann, PhD. He is a professor of sociology at the University of Chicago and lead author of a major survey of sexual practices, The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States.
> 
> In a survey of studies comparing male and female sex drives, Roy Baumeister, a social psychologist at Florida State University, found that men reported more spontaneous sexual arousal and had more frequent and varied fantasies.
> 
> "Men want sex more often than women at the start of a relationship, in the middle of it, and after many years of it," Baumeister concludes after reviewing several surveys of men and women. This isn't just true of heterosexuals, he says; gay men also have sex more often than lesbians at all stages of the relationship.


We don't need to look at the animal kingdom. There is plenty of evidence in the human kingdom. Of all human pairings, lesbians have the least sex.

I want to think women's sex drives are equal to men's. But there is some compelling evidence to the contrary. My personal experience varies *dramatically* from woman to woman. I'm not stating my opinion, just making the case.


----------



## Anonymous07

SimplyAmorous said:


> Oh I meant to find a pic with a shirt on with a little dirt on it.... guess I shouldn't have googled "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Farmer*".... when I saw the ax & ripped jeans.... I just ran with it.....
> 
> I remember seeing a guy a in a suit/ clean cut standing in line at a Ski resort and right beside him in the next line ...a more dirtier disheveled type in jeans/ boots..... I remember thinking he was a lot more physically attractive to me ...the thought entered my head that I bet most women wouldn't think so & swoon more for the richer looking guy with the briefcase...
> 
> and Yes, I am married, but you still notice men when you are standing in line waiting for things...


I didn't use to prefer one over the other in regards to suit vs casual wear, but my husband wears a suit to work every day and it is the hottest thing ever watching him walk through the door when he gets home from work. It never gets old.  Something about how powerful/masculine/confident he looks that really turns my head and makes me give my husband the once over. He looks great in jeans and casual clothing, but there is just something about him in a suit. 

That 'preference' doesn't apply to all men for me though because there are plenty of men I have seen in suits where I do not find them attractive at all(doesn't look right on them). That also tends to come down to how there needs to be much more than just physical looks for me to be attracted to someone. I've known a few guys who looked like models(one is a model now), but they were so arrogant and rude, that I never once considered them dating material. I always thought of them as "yuck". 

There is an interesting discovery channel piece on sexual attraction in regards to someone's "number"(how "hot" they are). Most tried to get with someone of a higher number, but ended up with someone close to their own "number". Real life is a lot more complicated than that study though, but it was interesting to watch.


----------



## TiggyBlue

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Not the animal kingdom... but the human one...
> 
> Also, I'm actually playing Devil's Advocate for real, not just being my usual disagreeable self.
> 
> There's the link between testosterone and sex drive. Women produce smaller amounts of T, and it has been shown that as ovaries age, women's T falls. Studies supplementing T in such women have been shown to increase their sex drives. Similarly, men's sex drives fall when T declines. Men have more T than women, if T is so critical to sex drive, this argues for men having a greater sex drive (albeit inconclusively, as other hormones may contribute to female drive). But now we're leaning...



Testosterone is definitely a component in female sex drive, but other hormones (ie progesterone/estradiol ect) also play a big part to play in the female sex drive as well.
Also females are more sensitive to testosterone than men are.
Hormone levels don't really seem to be comparable between the genders.


----------



## ConanHub

There are also men with no libido and regular levels
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Anonymous07 said:


> .* I've known a few guys who looked like models(one is a model now), but they were so arrogant and rude, that I never once considered them dating material. I always thought of them as "yuck"*.
> 
> There is an interesting discovery channel piece on sexual attraction in regards to someone's "number"(how "hot" they are)*. Most tried to get with someone of a higher number*, but ended up with someone close to their own "number". Real life is a lot more complicated than that study though, but it was interesting to watch.


I would be interested in seeing this.. out of pure curiosity, if you recall the name of it, please do let me know...

Obviously those who are "movie star" looks attractive ...they can pick & choose.. spoiled in sex.. spoiled with desire, fawning..... like your post said ...."most TRIED to get with someone with a higher number"...(the lust of the eyes is all this is).... 

How Ego boosting...no wonder they become arrogant...I can't help but go to the place of feeling these people don't take intimacy as seriously...as it's always at their feet , like anything else.. it looses it's delicate beauty with someone special (how would they recognize it) when it's so easily attained & expressed with an endless source of other hotties.......

Yet I'd still be able to say.. "Hey they are good looking BUT _________" 

I'd rather be with someone who wasn't so spoiled but had a deeper appreciation for the caring / loving coming his way..when the feelings are mutual -I'd feel he'd be more OPEN to that ..over someone spoiled with it... that way I could build him up... Just me.. not every woman he comes into contact with.. 

It's a different perspective .. that's all.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Anonymous07 said:


> There is an interesting discovery channel piece on sexual attraction in regards to someone's "number"(how "hot" they are). Most tried to get with someone of a higher number, but ended up with someone close to their own "number". Real life is a lot more complicated than that study though, but it was interesting to watch.


^The show is called "The Science of Sex Appeal".

I've written an iphone dating app based on that concept that I'm beta testing right now. I hope to have it publicly available in the app store in a few months.

Here's the premise:

Most women don't want to send the first message, but are generally heavily outnumbered by men on dating sites. As a result, they receive a ton of messages from men - so much so that they don't/can't respond to all of them (nor do they want to)... and as a result, miss some good potential matches by simply clearing their inbox or only reading the latest. Worse, the ignoring of men results in men tending to spam unimaginative messages at everything with a vagina (or so one of my female advisors to the project says). A problem of high effort required for small chance of success... low reward. A method of filtering down who was able to message her was necessary, without her explicitly selecting him as a match. So my algorithm is aimed at lowering the effort using ratings to limit messaging capability to those close to your own rating.

Upon creating an account, a user is mid ranked with no ability to message anyone until a sufficient number of people have ranked them and they have ranked a sufficient number of people. At which point I consider the ranking somewhat stable or more reliable.

While one's ranking is a number, people are not ranking each other by assigning a number. The app currently presents 2 people within a range of the user's present ranking. Each user is required to have 3 pictures (one head on face, one head on entire body, and one candid/user choice) for evaluation. The user then picks one of the two people. Two more are then shown, and one of them is picked. So on and so on to you're heart's content or until you start seeing repeats. 

Each contest awards points for being selected, and subtracts points for not being selected. The amount of the increment or decrement factors in the differential in existing ranking, with the greatest increase coming from being picked over someone who had a higher ranking. Age differential is also taken into account. From this data I calculate a normalized 0-1000 rank such that 500 should be about average, without forcing people to act like computers and assign numbers to anything. People choose people well, they don't choose numbers well. Similar methodologies are used in online game match making.

After you've been in a certain number of contests (I'm playing with different numbers for this) and judged a certain number of contests, those users who are ranked within a certain range of your own, and are within a user defined distance of you, are presented as available for messaging. You also appear as an option for them.

If there is any truth to the "like chooses like" concept, then the app presents people you would find reasonably attractive and who would likely find you reasonably attractive.

The app keeps no other information beyond location and age. It displays neither. Neither does it keep info on income, job title, names or anything else (well, there is an age differential influence to try to avoid older people being ranked poorly by younger people and thereby getting presented only with far less attractive young people - hard to explain; but I also wanted to avoid strict age constraints). These were consciously left out as I believe these things are better suited to conversation, and I don't want the rankings influenced by anything but the pictures. The app finds equivalent physical matches rather than matching hot women with doctors. The app also does not show you your rank. It only shows who the algorithm matches you up with - your male or female physical equivalent according to the collective choices of all men and women.

In the future, I'm planning to incorporate body and facial proportions, so that I can sub match to people with the proportions you tend to prefer most, but this is significantly more complicated... so it will have to wait.


----------



## Anonymous07

SimplyAmorous said:


> I would be interested in seeing this.. out of pure curiosity, if you recall the name of it, please do let me know...
> 
> Obviously those who are "movie star" looks attractive ...they can pick & choose.. spoiled in sex.. spoiled with desire, fawning..... like your post said ...."most TRIED to get with someone with a higher number"...(the lust of the eyes is all this is)....
> 
> How Ego boosting...no wonder they become arrogant...I can't help but go to the place of feeling these people don't take intimacy as seriously...as it's always at their feet , like anything else.. it looses it's delicate beauty with someone special (how would they recognize it) when it's so easily attained & expressed with an endless source of other hotties.......
> 
> Yet I'd still be able to say.. "Hey they are good looking BUT _________"
> 
> I'd rather be with someone who wasn't so spoiled but had a deeper appreciation for the caring / loving coming his way..when the feelings are mutual -I'd feel he'd be more OPEN to that ..over someone spoiled with it... that way I could build him up... Just me.. not every woman he comes into contact with..
> 
> It's a different perspective .. that's all.


The series is called the Science of Sex Appeal:

Science of Sex Appeal | Other Shows | Discovery

The specific video I am talking about is the one labeled as The Dating and Mating Pool, but the other videos are interesting, too. I really wish I had kept the powerpoint and notes I had on it from class, but my lap top died last year and I lost most of my old school work except a few important ones backed up online. There is so much that goes into attraction based in science(symmetry of the face, body shape in general, how someone walks, their scent, sound of their voice, etc). It is interesting, but it's not all of what makes someone choose to be with a certain person, since there are a lot of different factors. It's just interesting to see some of what goes into mate selection that people are usually not aware of. Something I hadn't though of before that class(seeing those videos and discussions) was how attracted I am to my husband's(boyfriend at the time) scent. His natural body odor smells great to me. 

I've been through several surgeries and things that have "ruined" my body, so I have never put a huge value on looks. I have always prioritized other qualities(kindness, values, intelligence, humor, etc.) before how "hot" a guy is when looking for someone to date. That is probably not the typical 20 something viewpoint, but that is just me. A lot of the "hot" guys were a big turn off to me because their personality always ruined it. I find my husband to be very good looking, but he is a humble man. He doesn't go around thinking he is hot stuff and I'm glad he doesn't because there is no need to.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Oh wait... forgot... it also requires one to specify sexual orientation. Contests are presented only between those of matching sexual orientations. For example, a hetero user may only judge hetero and bi opposite sex contestants. A homosexual user may only judge homosexual and bi same sex contestants.

That way I don't have a bunch of gay dudes messing up my rankings of men for heterosexual women. Gay men don't get presented with ranking straight men.

That's been the biggest change to come out of beta testing so far. I wouldn't have thought it mattered much, but apparently gay men rank men significantly differently than straight women. I didn't have a good solution for bisexuals... so there rankings are finicky. Hetero men seem to judge a bi woman differently than bi women do. I don't show sexual orientation in the app however. The user is informed on first run that they will be presented only with compatible sexuality.


----------



## heartsbeating

JCD said:


> How do any of these gents fare?


I feel bad these dudes are ending up with their photo here for the sake of this thread's judgement. And they look young, for a start.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Deejo said:


> My rejection rate of potential female matches was over 95%.


So was mine. I totally sucked at the online thing. Less than 1 out of 10 who opened my messages would reply at all. After some conversation, usually lasting a few days, I got dates with about 2/3 of those. That's abysmal.

I have better odds with a cold pickup.

My impression of online dating was that the women I typically pursue weren't looking for reasonable matches or decently attractive guys. They weren't really looking. It was more about seeing where they stand, vanity or insecurity, seeing who would reply, and a long shot of a really hot guy or awesome message. A lot are just bored.

A friend of mine said it something like this, "Ideally, we don't want to meet our future husband on a dating site. We want to have a cute story to tell everyone about how we met and hear everyone go 'awww'. Not, 'Oh, he was the one guy who didn't send me a d*ck pic. So, I knew he was special.'"


----------



## JCD

Ikaika said:


> Ok a small highjack, just thought of a theme for a TAM calendar. Use photos of males willing to submit their pics and using the Gaussian curve to start with low rank in January grading to a medium rank in June and highest rank in December. Ok, I'm willing to be the January poster boy
> 
> End Jack.


I happily accept the nomination for Mr. October.


----------



## Cletus

JCD said:


> I happily accept the nomination for Mr. October.


Your name wouldn't be Reggie by any chance, would it?


----------



## heartsbeating

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> So was mine. I totally sucked at the online thing. Less than 1 out of 10 who opened my messages would reply at all.


Obviously you weren't wearing the Batman costume in your profile.


----------



## JCD

heartsbeating said:


> I feel bad these dudes are ending up with their photo here for the sake of this thread's judgement. And they look young, for a start.


I took their pictures from an article which they already acceded to public posting regarding this issue. Their pictures are on the link.

Essentially, they already threw their photos into the public sphere.

Please credit me with a touch of integrity. I have taken down photos and posts by TAM members who had a case of 'regrets' and had already been quoted by me.


----------



## heartsbeating

JCD said:


> I took their pictures from an article which they already acceded to public posting regarding this issue. Their pictures are on the link.
> 
> Essentially, they already threw their photos into the public sphere.
> 
> Please credit me with a touch of integrity. I have taken down photos and posts by TAM members who had a case of 'regrets' and had already been quoted by me.


My comment was not regarding your integrity. I apologize if it came across that way.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I've known several people who met online, some who are married, and every single one of them is happy to tell you all about how they met. 

"Oh well we met because he winked me first..." 

"No way, you winked me first, baby!" 

"Did I? How scandalous! Anyway the first time we had coffee I was like how cute is THIS guy?" 

"And I was like whoa, hit the jackpot!" etc etc


Anyone who is ready to for a real relationship doesn't care how they meet their beloved, they are just happy when it happens. Pretty odd to conclude "oh hey I didn't have luck with online dating because the women there aren't really looking for reasonable matches or decently attractive guys". Um, right, sure, it must be them, not you. No woman is ever looking for a reasonable match or a decently attractive guy...that's just CRAZEEE, of course, because everyone knows women are looking for unreasonable matches and unattractive guys in online dating. Yep.


----------



## heartsbeating

Faithful Wife said:


> Anyone who is ready to for a real relationship doesn't care how they meet their beloved, they are just happy when it happens.


Well said.


----------



## Personal

JCD said:


> How do any of these gents fare?



Since I am a male my opinion on this is probably disqualified, yet I would like to say those men do nothing for me aesthetically. 

Although I am not attracted to men sexually, my attention is often drawn to attractive people regardless of their gender. I tend to rate men, women and all other things aesthetically (without a score as such, so I like or I don't like) as I see them.


----------



## Revamped

Personal said:


> Since I am a male my opinion on this is probably disqualified, yet I would like to say those men do nothing for me aesthetically.
> 
> Although I am not attracted to men sexually, my attention is often drawn to attractive people regardless of their gender. I tend to rate men, women and all other things aesthetically (without a score as such, so I like or I don't like) as I see them.


Ok, why not?

The first one has a genuine smile. That is not a "fake" man. He might wear is heart on his sleeve, but you'll always know what he's feeling.

Number two. Bright tie. Isn't afraid to be bold and be outstanding. Colorful in more ways than one. Intense stare. The eyes are the key.

Three. Artistic and folksy. Maybe can carry a tune, but, hey, if you're listening, he doesn't care. So you shouldn't either.

Lastly, 4. Here he is. Take him or leave him. He is who he is. Refreshing in this day of guessing who/what a man is these days.


Of course I could be all wet with my assessments. Deejo may have been closer to reality than me. Just, give each and every one of them a chance. They just might surprise you.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I think all 4 of them are cute.


----------



## always_alone

Cletus said:


> But the question has an answer. I care about the truth of the answer, which is well demonstrated, and I too don't understand the seeming desire of some to have to repeatedly challenge it.


See, the thing is Cletus, is that you say you care about the truth, but you systematically ignore any evidence or argument against your foregone conclusion and then disparage anyone who raises objections as having an "agenda" or of being incapable of understanding science. Why is this? :scratchhead:

The challenges you wish to summarily dismiss are just as scientific as the statistical bell curves you wish to overlay to support your beliefs.  

-Evolutionary theory demonstrates great variability across species in mating behaviours, and belies many a stereotype that would paint males as inherently more sexual.

-Hormonal research shows pretty clearly that t levels are only minimally related to sex drive in women, and even in men is hardly the be-all and end-all.

-Further statistical analysis shows your "average differences" are not indicative of separate groups.

-Not to mention that how we theorize these statistical differences makes all the difference in the world.

How is it that all of this data from actual scientific inquiry is meaningless to your quest for truth?


----------



## Personal

Revamped said:


> Ok, why not?


They just don't have that undefinable something that makes me think they are visually attractive.

They're just like Kim Kardashian, as pictured they simply don't do anything for me.



Revamped said:


> Just, give each and every one of them a chance. They just might surprise you.


Having said that, they may be extraordinarily attractive people in person, which wouldn't surprise me either.

One of the reasons why it helps to meet people before assessing more accurately whether they are worth further exploration or passing by.


----------



## Miss Taken

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> One could infer from the fact that even many of the responses here include the caveat "I need to talk to him, know his personality, humor" etc, that they are less visual. Or, at the least, that these non-physical attributes are required for all but the male elites.


I don't think it says we are less visual. I think it says we're pickier. Case in point - a lot of porn out there today. I can't speak for others but for myself, once I see razor bumps or ass pimples, on the stars/models - even if it's on the woman who I'm not focusing on in the first place - I am turned off but many men have no problem spanking it to that same woman anyway.
But give me someone attractive to stare at and I can look at them all day. Most of the men JCD pictured here lacked symmetry in their faces.

I'd add that including the caveat of "I need to talk to him/read the profile first." doesn't detract from a woman's visual tendencies, it just adds her emotional ones to it. I don't feel the two are in-congruent, they can and often do coincide.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Miss Taken said:


> I don't think it says we are less visual. I think it says we're pickier. Case in point - a lot of porn out there today. I can't speak for others but for myself, once I see razor bumps or ass pimples, on the stars/models - even if it's on the woman who I'm not focusing on in the first place - I am turned off but many men have no problem spanking it to that same woman anyway.
> But give me someone attractive to stare at and I can look at them all day. Most of the men JCD pictured here lacked symmetry in their faces.


I'm the same way, I'm a very visual person but unfortunately there isn't many i find visually stimulating (especially in porn). It's hard being fussy


----------



## JCD

TiggyBlue said:


> I'm the same way, I'm a very visual person but unfortunately there isn't many i find visually stimulating (especially in porn). It's hard being fussy


Extraordinarily attractive women have much less sleazy options than to star in porn. Plaster and paint can make a 'fixer upper' look more appealing. But as I age and my gonads seem to do less of my looking than my brain, I tend to see that many of the people in porn are...well made up but average.


----------



## Cletus

always_alone said:


> How is it that all of this data from actual scientific inquiry is meaningless to your quest for truth?


You win, I give. Some fights are not worth fighting to a final, bloody conclusion. This is one of them.


----------



## Revamped

Ass pimples.





My day is ruined...


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

heartsbeating said:


> Obviously you weren't wearing the Batman costume in your profile.


:rofl:

Actually, I was at one point! 

Backstory:
My neighbor had arranged a friend to show up as batman but the guy had to cancel the morning of. He waved me down as I was coming home and asked if I'd be batman for the party. It was awesome. I was all about it. Who doesn't want to be batman??

He gave me the costume and I got this idea that I could show up on my motorcycle (which had flat black race body work at the time). So at the agreed time I just pulled out on the bike in costume and revved the engine on the street - and out poured kids. I handed out little battarangs (sp?) and batman themed stuff and led them in "super hero training" where we did things like shoot nerf guns at targets, tumbling and what not. Awesome fun.

I totally used one of the pics of me as batman from the birthday party on a profile. Wimmins eat that sh... up. 

Who wouldn't want to date Batman?

EDIT.... just realized you knew all this... I forgot I'd posted a batman pic on my profile here too. lol


----------



## TiggyBlue

JCD said:


> Extraordinarily attractive women have much less sleazy options than to star in porn. Plaster and paint can make a 'fixer upper' look more appealing. But as I age and my gonads seem to do less of my looking than my brain, I tend to see that many of the people in porn are...well made up but average.


The men in porn aren't even average a lot of the time IMO (Russian porn seem to have more hot young guys in it), more likely to find good looking men in amateur porn.


----------



## ConanHub

Miss Taken said:


> I don't think it says we are less visual. I think it says we're pickier. Case in point - a lot of porn out there today. I can't speak for others but for myself, once I see razor bumps or ass pimples, on the stars/models - even if it's on the woman who I'm not focusing on in the first place - I am turned off but many men have no problem spanking it to that same woman anyway.
> But give me someone attractive to stare at and I can look at them all day. Most of the men JCD pictured here lacked symmetry in their faces.
> 
> I'd add that including the caveat of "I need to talk to him/read the profile first." doesn't detract from a woman's visual tendencies, it just adds her emotional ones to it. I don't feel the two are in-congruent, they can and often do coincide.


Glad you had the patience to point that out.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ConanHub

TiggyBlue said:


> The men in porn aren't even average a lot of the time IMO (Russian porn seem to have more hot young guys in it), more likely to find good looking men in amateur porn.


A lot of the men in porn are not chosen for attributes above the belt.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## nuclearnightmare

JCD said:


> Extraordinarily attractive women have much less sleazy options than to star in porn. Plaster and paint can make a 'fixer upper' look more appealing. But as I age and my gonads seem to do less of my looking than my brain, I tend to see that many of the people in porn are...well made up but average.


agree. in fact no one should assume that _anything_ in porn is real. they are not in the reality business........


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> I've known several people who met online, some who are married, and every single one of them is happy to tell you all about how they met.
> 
> "Oh well we met because he winked me first..."
> 
> "No way, you winked me first, baby!"
> 
> "Did I? How scandalous! Anyway the first time we had coffee I was like how cute is THIS guy?"
> 
> "And I was like whoa, hit the jackpot!" etc etc
> 
> 
> Anyone who is ready to for a real relationship doesn't care how they meet their beloved, they are just happy when it happens. Pretty odd to conclude "oh hey I didn't have luck with online dating because the women there aren't really looking for reasonable matches or decently attractive guys". Um, right, sure, it must be them, not you. No woman is ever looking for a reasonable match or a decently attractive guy...that's just CRAZEEE, of course, because everyone knows women are looking for unreasonable matches and unattractive guys in online dating. Yep.


Ha, half the women disable winking on most of those sites. Is there a more weenie way a guy can show interest? "Hey, I've winked you... wink me back so I know I can message you without having to show any courage/confidence that you won't reject or ignore me".

But truly, I'm not saying people don't meet on dating sites. I'm saying it's widely believed less than ideal and less than a romantic story. When you meet someone fortuitously, your initial impression is dramatically different than when you first see someone's profile. In the virtual world, you miss all that juicy non-verbal communication that signaled interest. You miss all those butterflies and nerves when you're sitting on the couch in your jammies with your iPad shopping for a mate. For some people, that's great. For others, you've taken away one of the best parts of dating.

I didn't say "no woman ever" anything. I gave my impression of it, and the feedback I've received from women I know. To be honest, I don't care if it works for some people or not... as far as I'm concerned, it still sucks. It lacks all the wonderful human elements of approaching someone in real life and you don't have to deal with deciphering whether this is a pic of her from 5 years and 30 lbs ago.

My mom found a wonderful man online. I have a friend who found his wife online. I'm not dissing meeting someone online nor do I sense that anyone is ashamed of it. I'm relating the information I've received in talking to women about online dating. Each I've talked to doesn't want anyone they know to see their profile (so there is a measure of embarrassment, but not shame), and each preferred a fortuitous meeting in real life... a chance occurrence and chemistry over picking from a sea of pictures and inbox triage. I'm telling you how they said they said they felt about online dating, not making excuses for my lack of success.

If my impression of why online dating was so ineffective is so off base, give me another narrative? I know I'm decent looking and have some good pics. I used a variety of pics that show my personality and activity. I messaged a wide range of women, many I wouldn't pursue in real life... as I lowered my standards to account for lack of interest. I'm a halfway decent writer. I guarantee my bio was more creative/entertaining/interesting than most of my competition. Yet it was a total waste of time. Even women I wouldn't likely pursue if I met them out somewhere didn't respond. If I go and talk to women I don't know, out of the blue, in real life... I come away with more dates than I got *replies* online. Not even dates, *replies*. Well, except Tinder. I did ok on Tinder. But as we know, Tinder isn't really about dating.

You know, perhaps it's that we're talking different demographics. My information is decidedly biased toward women in their 20s - early 30s, who are more apt to be out clubbing with friends or have a variety of social outlets and opportunities to meet someone in real life. I suspect you're talking about older divorced women with kids, or homebodies.


----------



## firebelly1

I think somewhere around 30% of porn watchers are women now, so we must be somewhat visual. I've always thought the idea that we aren't visual is bunk.


----------



## ConanHub

firebelly1 said:


> I think somewhere around 30% of porn watchers are women now, so we must be somewhat visual. I've always thought the idea that we aren't visual is bunk.


On the road now but when I get back to my room I will look up the study where they tested men and women for a physical sexual response to videos with different and varying degrees of erotic content.

The women, regardless of orientation, had a physical sexual response to all or almost all the videos. The men did not.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ConanHub

ConanHub said:


> On the road now but when I get back to my room I will look up the study where they tested men and women for a physical sexual response to videos with different and varying degrees of erotic content.
> 
> The women, regardless of orientation, had a physical sexual response to all or almost all the videos. The men did not.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


It could be construed as sex response to visual stimulation differences but the stimulation was visual.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## richardsharpe

I don't know, the guys in porn seem pretty normal to me...



ConanHub said:


> A lot of the men in porn are not chosen for attributes above the belt.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ConanHub

richardsharpe said:


> I don't know, the guys in porn seem pretty normal to me...


Sure. Lots of 4 and 5 inchers abound.&#55357;&#56842;
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

JCD said:


>


I'd put money on #2 and #3 getting the most interest from women, if based solely on these pics. 

#2 looks decent, strikes me as socially outgoing, college student or young professional. Guys like him do well. He will get noticed. #3 has that weird cute but near brooding artsy thing going for him. Maybe even shy. Chicks dig a guy who can play. Still, I think #2 gets more interest from women in real life, if the social impression is true... simply for greater opportunity.

#1 is overly expressive (studies show women prefer men with subtle smirks or otherwise friendly faces without blunt grins), and strikes me as a little socially awkward (this is the guy many women love to say they like in abstract - ie BBT's Sheldon or Leonard - but rarely actually go for in real life). #4 is just a straight no. As vanilla and unimpressive as it gets. He won't be noticed.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> How is it that all of this data from actual scientific inquiry is meaningless to your quest for truth?


So you've addressed sexual diversity in the animal kingdom and doubts about T levels, so let's call them in doubt and take those off the table.

What about the evidence reported by men and women themselves, where men are shown to think of sex more often then women, have more vivid fantasies than women, and masturbate more often than women?

What about the fact that gay men have the most sex, hetero couples are in the middle, and lesbian couples have the least sex.

Please address these.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Miss Taken said:


> I'd add that including the caveat of "I need to talk to him/read the profile first." doesn't detract from a woman's visual tendencies, it just adds her emotional ones to it. I don't feel the two are in-congruent, they can and often do coincide.


I agree with your first paragraph. I can go with "pickier" over "less visual". 

But when we introduce the "talk to him" aspect, we're undoing "pickier". Many of the responses were "I don't care if he looks like a model, I want to know how he carries himself or acts." That's an awfully big discounting of looks that I don't think men do. I think we're more like "Yep, she's a bish... but she's a hot bish." Whereas women were pretty clear that the guy's attitude dictates whether he's attractive regardless of how "picky" they are on looks alone. Doesn't that argue "less visual"?


----------



## Anonymous07

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I'd put money on #2 and #3 getting the most interest from women, if based solely on these pics.
> 
> #2 looks decent, strikes me as socially outgoing, college student or young professional. Guys like him do well. He will get noticed. #3 has that weird cute but near brooding artsy thing going for him. Maybe even shy. Chicks dig a guy who can play. Still, I think #2 gets more interest from women in real life, if the social impression is true... simply for greater opportunity.
> 
> #1 is overly expressive (studies show women prefer men with subtle smirks or otherwise friendly faces without blunt grins), and strikes me as a little socially awkward (this is the guy many women love to say they like in abstract - ie BBT's Sheldon or Leonard - but rarely actually go for in real life). #4 is just a straight no. As vanilla and unimpressive as it gets. He won't be noticed.


I actually like #1 and #4 before number #3(not into the musician thing), but all have something going for them. #1 looks like he has a genuine smile and looks at life positively. I also like the somewhat "nerd"(intelligent) look with glasses and a dress shirt. I dated a guy who looked similar to him. #4 looks down to earth. This is who he is and he isn't going to try to be someone he's not. I like that a lot and my husband is like that, too.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

firebelly1 said:


> I think somewhere around 30% of porn watchers are women now, so we must be somewhat visual. I've always thought the idea that we aren't visual is bunk.


Fireman calendars are a thing... so there's that.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Anonymous07 said:


> I actually like #1 and #4 before number #3(not into the musician thing), but all have something going for them. #1 looks like he has a genuine smile and looks at life positively. I also like the somewhat "nerd"(intelligent) look with glasses and a dress shirt. I dated a guy who looked similar to him. #4 looks down to earth. This is who he is and he isn't going to try to be someone he's not. I like that a lot and my husband is like that, too.


#1 seems to be well dressed, I'll give you that. #4 is definitely down to earth. A woman will notice him like she notices a blade of grass.

*runs off to create dating profiles with these pics so I can prove #1 and #4 get zilch.*

jk... ain't nobody got time fo that.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Anonymous07 said:


> *I actually like #1 and #4 before number *#3(not into the musician thing), but all have something going for them. #1 looks like he has a genuine smile and looks at life positively. I also like the somewhat "nerd"(intelligent) look with glasses and a dress shirt. I dated a guy who looked similar to him. #4 looks down to earth. This is who he is and he isn't going to try to be someone he's not. I like that a lot and my husband is like that, too.


:smthumbup:

I love the guitar thing but going by attraction alone, I think *#3 *is the least physically good looking of the *#4* (though the pic could be better).....*#1* is all my Husband.. those guys with glasses and a big smile ...I don't know..works for me!!

When you take the glasses off, get into a deep discussion.. many things start to surface ...oh the possibilities ! 

*#4* might come off like a blade of grass to some but I'd choose that over the ones who aren't the committed type (*#2* & *#3* probably has more women then they know what to do with & like it that way)...


----------



## ConanHub

SA. You are sooo very prejudiced!&#55357;&#56842;
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Anonymous07

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> #4 is definitely down to earth. A woman will notice him like she notices a blade of grass.


#4 is in shape(not overweight - healthy build), has a nice smile, seems comfortable in his skin. I think he would do fine getting noticed by women. My husband is probably the most similar to him than the others when I met him. He sure did get my attention and other women's as well.

I'll say for #2 and #3, I do not like the wild hair. Not my thing.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Anonymous07 said:


> T*he series is called the Science of Sex Appeal:*
> 
> Science of Sex Appeal | Other Shows | Discovery
> 
> *The specific video I am talking about is the one labeled as The Dating and Mating Pool..*.


 I had a reply on this , then my computer restarted and ate it.. darn it !

I seen this on Netflix yrs ago... or one of them, I didn't know it has others videos though.... 


> *Something I hadn't though of before that class(seeing those videos and discussions) was how attracted I am to my husband's(boyfriend at the time) scent. His natural body odor smells great to me.*


I recall it speaking of pheromones...I used to tell my H he smelled like







..and hey, that's my favorite chip ! It remember reading something about how when we are around a blood relative, their pheromones repel us..natures way so we won't inbreed or something... 

I can attest this is true.. when teen sons would get sweaty.. it was repelling to me...then I was thinking.. "Hmmm I bet his GF doesn't mind at all"...



> I've been through several surgeries and things that have "ruined" my body, so I have never put a huge value on looks. I have always prioritized other qualities(kindness, values, intelligence, humor, etc.) before how "hot" a guy is when looking for someone to date. That is probably not the typical 20 something viewpoint, but that is just me.* A lot of the "hot" guys were a big turn off to me because their personality always ruined it. I find my husband to be very good looking, but he is a humble man. He doesn't go around thinking he is hot stuff and I'm glad he doesn't because there is no need to.*


 I like to dote on my man so mine not thinking he is Hot stuff makes it more enjoyable somehow..... if all that was already in his head..I'd probably feel a little silly building him up.. it's something I enjoy..he was never the type to get a lot of female attention...



> *ConanHub said : **SA. You are sooo very prejudiced*!��


 I got a thing for the under dog I guess... I prefer the more humble type men... where others may not be attributing as much value to them -it all depends, we can't go by looks alone to know much about any of these people.. maybe *#2* is the most faithful of all of them.. and *#4* is a complete bumbling fool ..

Anyway.. isn't it refreshing we aren't all the same .... Anonymous07 is right.. *#4* has a decent enough body!


----------



## Anonymous07

SimplyAmorous said:


> I like to dote on my man so mine not thinking he is Hot stuff makes it more enjoyable somehow..... if all that was already in his head..I'd probably feel a little silly building him up.. it's something I enjoy..he was never the type to get a lot of female attention...
> 
> I got a thing for the under dog I guess... I prefer the more humble type men... where others may not be attributing as much value to them -it all depends, we can't go by looks alone to know much about any of these people.. maybe *#2* is the most faithful of all of them.. and *#4* is a complete bumbling fool ..
> 
> Anyway.. isn't it refreshing we aren't all the same .... Anonymous07 is right.. *#4* has a decent enough body!


My husband gets a good amount of attention, but he doesn't let it get to his head. He is usually oblivious of the fact that women are checking him out. I find it all entertaining. 

Although in the end looks have little to do with how good a mate will be. There has to be more than that. And there really is someone for everyone, with so many different preferences on looks.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Anonymous07 said:


> #4 is in shape(not overweight - healthy build), has a nice smile, seems comfortable in his skin. I think he would do fine getting noticed by women. My husband is probably the most similar to him than the others when I met him. He sure did get my attention and other women's as well.
> 
> I'll say for #2 and #3, I do not like the wild hair. Not my thing.


Do most guys not have healthy builds, nice smiles, and comfort in their skin? Only the guitar guy hints at grumpy emo.

I'm just saying #4 lacks a differentiator. The other three have something distinctive going for them - something that will set them apart. Can we really say the other three look uncomfortable in their skin?

Honestly though, I feel like all these guys are average at best. I suck at this. lol


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I'd put money on #2 and #3 getting the most interest from women, if based solely on these pics.
> 
> #2 looks decent, strikes me as socially outgoing, college student or young professional. Guys like him do well. He will get noticed. #3 has that weird cute but near brooding artsy thing going for him. Maybe even shy. Chicks dig a guy who can play. Still, I think #2 gets more interest from women in real life, if the social impression is true... simply for greater opportunity.


See for me that's exactly why I wouldn't pick #2 or #3. I'm an introvert. I have no interest in the party guy, the socially outgoing college type. Just wouldn't fit me. #3 is trying too hard, gives me the impression that he's trying to look cool and hot for the young, hot girls who dig band guys- which I am not. 
To me 1 and 4 are attractive as well and likely more my type/compatible so I'd go with them. 
I would rather pick someone best suited than the hottest.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> See for me that's exactly why I wouldn't pick #2 or #3. I'm an introvert. I have no interest in the party guy, the socially outgoing college type. Just wouldn't fit me. #3 is trying too hard, gives me the impression that he's trying to look cool and hot for the young, hot girls who dig band guys- which I am not.
> To me 1 and 4 are attractive as well and likely more my type/compatible so I'd go with them.
> I would rather pick someone best suited than the hottest.


That's interesting. So what if we assigned them characteristics regardless of their appearances:

Let's say they're all actually introverts. #1 only looks so peppy because he was caught in a candid moment. He's actually quite reserved. #2 was simply attending his sister's wedding and doesn't really like social outings or dressing up. #3 is actually a quiet guy genuinely passionate about music and has been playing since he was 6 years old. #4... is still #4.

#1 and #4 still win?


----------



## ConanHub

We are talking about just physical attraction.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## firebelly1

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I'd put money on #2 and #3 getting the most interest from women, if based solely on these pics.
> 
> #2 looks decent, strikes me as socially outgoing, college student or young professional. Guys like him do well. He will get noticed. #3 has that weird cute but near brooding artsy thing going for him. Maybe even shy. Chicks dig a guy who can play. Still, I think #2 gets more interest from women in real life, if the social impression is true... simply for greater opportunity.
> 
> #1 is overly expressive (studies show women prefer men with subtle smirks or otherwise friendly faces without blunt grins), and strikes me as a little socially awkward (this is the guy many women love to say they like in abstract - ie BBT's Sheldon or Leonard - but rarely actually go for in real life). #4 is just a straight no. As vanilla and unimpressive as it gets. He won't be noticed.


K...I would say you are accurate if these are the last four guys on earth. If each of them came up on my online dating swipe board, I would swipe "no" for all of them even if I was the same age.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> That's interesting. So what if we assigned them characteristics regardless of their appearances:
> 
> Let's say they're all actually introverts. #1 only looks so peppy because he was caught in a candid moment. He's actually quite reserved. #2 was simply attending his sister's wedding and doesn't really like social outings or dressing up. #3 is actually a quiet guy genuinely passionate about music and has been playing since he was 6 years old. #4... is still #4.
> 
> #1 and #4 still win?



If they were all compatible with me, I liked all their profile stuff and all that was left was looks, #3 would move up so 3,1,4. 
I'm still not big on #2. Can't quite put my finger on it. 

And other pictures of the same guys could change it again. It's #4 pic choice that is hurting him.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

ConanHub said:


> We are talking about just physical attraction.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Physical attraction for me includes what their look is telling me about their personality. 

We show a lot of ourselves by the way we look.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

That's always something I found interesting. It's like women aren't picking just a guy, they're picking a whole lifestyle. An entire narrative.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> That's interesting. So what if we assigned them characteristics regardless of their appearances:
> 
> *Let's say they're all actually introverts. #1 only looks so peppy because he was caught in a candid moment. He's actually quite reserved. #2 was simply attending his sister's wedding and doesn't really like social outings or dressing up. #3 is actually a quiet guy genuinely passionate about music and has been playing since he was 6 years old. #4... is still #4.*
> 
> #1 and #4 still win?


No ...then #2 would get the bigger vote.. IF they were all introverted faithful committed types....

But you know how it is.. there is always those impressions when you look at anyone.. Good looking often does = arrogant stud...add a few women hanging all over him and some beers.. it's as much a given that's his lifestyle.

I'd still put #3 at the bottom though..


----------



## firebelly1

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> That's always something I found interesting. It's like women aren't picking just a guy, they're picking a whole lifestyle. An entire narrative.


Guys don't do that?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> That's always something I found interesting. It's like women aren't picking just a guy,* they're picking a whole lifestyle. *An entire narrative.


YES....the LIFESTYLE makes or breaks all of it.. If he can't fit into what I also want for my future....how could that possibly get off the ground?.... We'd fight like hell, I'd be trying to change him, he'd resent the sh** out of me.. 

IT'S EVERYTHING [email protected]#$ .... It's what compatibility stands on.


----------



## Cletus

firebelly1 said:


> Guys don't do that?


Probably depends on the guy, but I don't. 

Physical attractiveness is completely unrelated to personality. When I'm assessing physical attractiveness, it's deciding what I might want to do for an hour together, not a lifetime.


----------



## ConanHub

Cletus said:


> Probably depends on the guy, but I don't.
> 
> Physical attractiveness is completely unrelated to personality. When I'm assessing physical attractiveness, it's deciding what I might want to do for an hour together, not a lifetime.


Exactly!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening all
for me personality trumps appearance even for an hour. I might look for somewhat different personalities for an hour and for a lifetime.


----------



## ConanHub

For me, it is character but I can tell who is physically"doable" and who isn't.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## firebelly1

Interesting. Because, yes, physical attractiveness to me includes a narrative about who he is as a person.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Cletus said:


> Probably depends on the guy, but I don't.
> 
> Physical attractiveness is completely unrelated to personality. When I'm assessing physical attractiveness, it's deciding what I might want to do for an hour together, not a lifetime.


Some guys might be hot to me but I could tell by their lifestyle/personality that I wouldn't even want to bother with an hour so it'd be a pass.


----------



## Mr The Other

Revamped said:


> Every. Single. One. Of. Them.
> 
> I love men. Men are great.
> 
> I could essentially try them all. But there's a label for that...


I think you sound lovely.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

firebelly1 said:


> Guys don't do that?


I don't.

She could be any of a slew of archetypes. I'm into punk chicks, high society types, country women, athletic women... introverted, extroverted... you name it pretty much.

Nothing like say, SA's preference for the humble country boy.

I guess I don't have a type. I like something about everything. If I'm physically attracted, then there's potential.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I don't.
> 
> She could be any of a slew of archetypes. I'm into punk chicks, high society types, country women, athletic women... introverted, extroverted... you name it pretty much.
> 
> Nothing like say, SA's preference for the humble country boy.
> 
> I guess I don't have a type. I like something about everything. If I'm physically attracted, then there's potential.


Yes and your LIKE to Cletus "*Physical attractiveness is completely unrelated to personality.* *When I'm assessing physical attractiveness, it's deciding what I might want to do for an hour together, not a lifetime*." ....speaks it ALL right there... 

This is why we DO need to care when it comes to men....I know how they [email protected]#.....if a women wants more than just a quick Lay, it's in her best interest to take heed of this reality ...

And Yes.. the humble Country boy.. Many of my fantasies have been geared around -just that...I grew up thinking how wonderful it would be to marry a Farmer.. (seriously)


----------



## Cletus

SimplyAmorous said:


> And Yes.. the humble Country boy.. Many of my fantasies have been geared around -just that...I grew up thinking how wonderful it would be to marry a Farmer.. (seriously)


I on the other hand know way too many ******* country boys.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

SimplyAmorous said:


> if a women wants more than just a quick Lay, it's in her best interest to take heed of this reality ...


I can't agree with that. The diversity of my taste in women doesn't speak to my desire for just a quick lay. I've said this before, but I generally don't plan it out like that.... I don't know if it's a quick lay until that's all it was. If there's no further click, or I desire to keep looking... then on we go.

For me, there's literally no tie between my enjoyment of a wide variety of types and my desire for sex. I could fall in love with virtually any type.

For example, accepting that sex were off the table to some fairly distant future, I still wouldn't turn your type down for being that type (obviously I'd have to find her attractive however). I'd also have to like her so much that the sexual denial was worth while. I suspect however, you'd turn down my type in a heartbeat regardless of the fact sex is off the table. I over complicate things, I'm logical to the point of appearing callous, and I'm somewhat c*cky, ambitious and competitive. You'd likely find me exciting but uncomfortable.

For me though, personality details and separate and distinct from the sexual details. I've never wanted to f someone's personality. Women, I gather... sort of do. lol


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Cletus said:


> I on the other hand know way too many ******* country boys.


Well, that's the same genus, but a different species... if you will.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I don't.
> 
> She could be any of a slew of archetypes. I'm into punk chicks, high society types, country women, athletic women... introverted, extroverted... you name it pretty much.
> 
> Nothing like say, SA's preference for the humble country boy.
> 
> I guess I don't have a type. I like something about everything. If I'm physically attracted, then there's potential.


What about if she looks/acts like a b*tch or a spoiled brat? Sometimes you can just tell these things. I can see some guys and feel they are a jerk or a d8uchebag. It's not always about a specific type, it's about if their personality is a good fit for you.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> What about if she looks/acts like a b*tch or a spoiled brat? Sometimes you can just tell these things. I can see some guys and feel they are a jerk or a d8uchebag. It's not always about a specific type, it's about if their personality is a good fit for you.


I don't know, it depends on the balance of all things. Sometimes I like the challenge. It would depend on whether I thought the "bish" was just a tough exterior, or if I genuinely think she's a sh*t person... but sh*t people can be of any type... so not really the types of which I speak.

A lot of times people aren't what they first appear to be. I like digging.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I can't agree with that. The diversity of my taste in women doesn't speak to my desire for just a quick lay. I've said this before, but I generally don't plan it out like that.... I don't know if it's a quick lay until that's all it was. If there's no further click, or I desire to keep looking... then on we go.


 Yes ... I know I repeat myself at nauseum on this subject...and I have learned also where you and men like YOU are coming from.. You are clearly a P in the temperament profile...(and I bet high on the bar)...



> *"A Perceiving (P) style takes the outside world AS IT COMES and is adopting and adapting, flexible, open-ended and receptive to new opportunities and changing game plans."*


I am high on the bar for a J...



> *"A Judging (J) style approaches the outside world WITH A PLAN and is oriented towards organizing one's surroundings, being prepared, making decisions and reaching closure and completion." *


That should give some explanation..you can't change how you look at this anymore than someone like myself.. it just IS..

I guess something that would need respected -if a couple was interested in each other, but it would be a sure fire conflict ! (myself and H are both J's so it makes sense)...



> *DvlsAdvc8 said*: For me, there's literally no tie between my enjoyment of a wide variety of types and my desire for sex._* I could fall in love with virtually any type.*_


 now this I find laughable.. if she is clingy, you'd want to unload her off at the next exit..you most definitely would not like certain types of women ... I've read many of your posts with a sour taste in my mouth to how off putting certain chicks would be to you... 



> For example, accepting that sex were off the table to some fairly distant future, I still wouldn't turn your type down for being that type (obviously I'd have to find her attractive however). I'd also have to like her so much that the sexual denial was worth while. I suspect however, you'd turn down my type in a heartbeat regardless of the fact sex is off the table. I over complicate things, I'm logical to the point of appearing callous, and I'm somewhat c*cky, ambitious and competitive. You'd likely find me exciting but uncomfortable.


 I think this is how it would BE... Utter pessimism at its highest degree -Not my type ..... and in doing this, somewhat of a wall is there.. but then I would probably feel free to laugh and let you know what a C0cky SOB you are and grind you into the ground in a sarcastic way.. There is a freedom when you can just be yourself and not give a da**. For sure ... which I know is always your aim with the ladies.. 

Would I allow myself to show real vulnerability with your type.. NEVER.. I'd know better. That would take seeing another side entirely -those things I seek. 



> For me though, personality details and separate and distinct from the sexual details. I've never wanted to f someone's personality. Women, I gather... sort of do. lol


 and some of us can't separate a man from who he is, the whole package...it's all or nothing.. it's FRIEND / boundary set ..... or Romantic / potential "everything"..


----------



## Cletus

SimplyAmorous said:


> Yes ... I know I repeat myself at nauseum on this subject...and I have learned also where you and men like YOU are coming from.. You are clearly a P in the temperament profile...(and I bet high on the bar)...


INTP all the way, baby, and very high on the I.


----------



## Personal

SimplyAmorous said:


> That should give some explanation..you can't change how you look at this anymore than someone like myself.. it just IS..
> 
> I guess something that would need respected -if a couple was interested in each other, but it would be a sure fire conflict ! (*myself and H are both J's so it makes sense*)...


My wife and I are both J's as well, she's INTJ and I'm ENTJ.


----------



## heartsbeating

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> EDIT.... just realized you knew all this... I forgot I'd posted a batman pic on my profile here too. lol


The back-story is great! I didn't know that... or it slipped my mind but I do remember you posted some photos in the Clubhouse a while ago and one was with a Batman costume.

Sounds like the kids... ahem... had lots of fun that day! :smthumbup:


----------



## CuddleBug

I think and know women are the best thing on planet earth. If I could, I would have them all. Nothing beats the intimacy and sex of a woman, nothing. Women complete me as a man and make me whole, physically and emotionally.:smthumbup:


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

SimplyAmorous said:


> now this I find laughable.. if she is clingy, you'd want to unload her off at the next exit..you most definitely would not like certain types of women ... I've read many of your posts with a sour taste in my mouth to how off putting certain chicks would be to you...


I don't think of clingy as a type. Any type can be clingy. I think your confusion is the result of miscategorization. There are obviously specific attributes I prefer, and ones I will reject, but I'm just about wide open in regards to female archetypes.



SimplyAmorous said:


> Utter pessimism at its highest degree -Not my type


Strange. Where do you get that from my discussions? I consider myself extremely optimistic. I don't worry about anything. You hit the nail on the head with the P vs J thing... I'm exactly that, and totally adaptable. I know everything will always work out. Even if I can't change something, I will adapt. That's about as optimistic as it gets no? Perhaps you're confusing "critical". I'm very critical (in the analytical sense, not hostile sense). I like disagreement and differences. That's where all the juicy conversation is.

P and J aren't conflicting. In fact, if I recall my ideal matches were ENTJ and ESTJ, and I'm INTP (usually, the I is sometimes E, but usually I'm slightly on the introverted side). The most attractive, irresistible, and compatible woman I've ever known was an ENFJ or ENTJ I think (been a long time).



SimplyAmorous said:


> Would I allow myself to show real vulnerability with your type.. NEVER.. I'd know better. That would take seeing another side entirely -those things I seek.


Let me spin this my way: There are those who wear their emotions on their sleeve and hand them out willy nilly. There are those who are vulnerable at every turn to everyone. You often speak of reserving sex as precious, but I'd argue that this sort of vulnerability is even more precious. I don't want the easy vulnerability. I prefer the person with thick walls. Then it's really something when I'm allowed in. I often get the impression that women interested in me find appeal in that too. Someone's hard shell makes you feel that much more special when they allow you to see their soft underbelly.

That's the difference between something long term, and something that never becomes anything.


----------



## nuclearnightmare

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> For me though, personality details and separate and distinct from the sexual details. I've never wanted to f someone's personality. Women, I gather... sort of do. lol


ahh. I think you're wrong. that's right - I think that YOU are wrong about YOU. (I'm also trying to state my opening as provocatively as possible........to get the bang for my buck on your response back :rofl: )

a woman's personality can sometimes dictate and almost always influence a number of physical factors - such as how she speaks - e.g. word choice, how she walks, her eye expressions, how often she smiles, whether she smiles etc......

just giving examples of personality-related things that I think could immediately affect your physical, sexual response to an individual.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

nuclearnightmare said:


> ahh. I think you're wrong. that's right - I think that YOU are wrong about YOU. (I'm also trying to state my opening as provocatively as possible........to get the bang for my buck on your response back :rofl: )
> 
> a woman's personality can sometimes dictate and almost always influence a number of physical factors - such as how she speaks - e.g. word choice, how she walks, her eye expressions, how often she smiles, whether she smiles etc......
> 
> just giving examples of personality-related things that I think could immediately affect your physical, sexual response to an individual.


haha

Try this one on for size:

Take all those personality attributes (are those personality attributes even?) and put them in an ugly woman. My anaconda don't want none of it.

Now take a physically hot woman and give her none of those attributes. I still want to jump her bones, if nothing else.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> haha
> 
> Try this one on for size:
> 
> Take all those personality attributes (are those personality attributes even?) and put them in an ugly woman. My anaconda don't want none of it.
> 
> Now take a physically hot woman and give her none of those attributes. I still want to jump her bones, if nothing else.


So you would be the kind of guy to fall for this?
4 Things I Learned from the Worst Online Dating Profile Ever | Cracked.com

I've known guys who ignore all personality and lifestyle issues and end up with a horrible, but very hot, woman. 
IMO- if they end up miserable 10 years later, it's on them.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

SimplyAmorous said:


> I'm not one to believe anything until It's been proven... if a man started out C0cky, I'd think even worse of him...


Gotcha. I believe c*cky must be balanced by a little self-deprecation and revealing that you just don't take yourself THAT seriously. C*cky should be fun, not obnoxious. Somewhat of a "devil may care" attitude if you will... more so than conceit.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> So you would be the kind of guy to fall for this?
> 4 Things I Learned from the Worst Online Dating Profile Ever | Cracked.com
> 
> I've known guys who ignore all personality and lifestyle issues and end up with a horrible, but very hot, woman.
> IMO- if they end up miserable 10 years later, it's on them.


Nah, there's a big difference between dating and f...

I've been with some women who were sexy as hell, awesome fun to be around... but I wouldn't date them because they were a mess.

Lifestyle can be a deal breaker for dating too, but personality wise, I'm ok with almost everything. There is literally something appealing about all sorts of personalities. FW and AA are common detractors of mine, but I still find their personalities attractive. FW has that smart-assed sarcasm. They're both argumentative, stubborn and feisty (so am I). Same with created2write when she's not taking personal jabs. ScarletBegonia's personality fits me to a T. SouthernWife has an attractive personality. SA and EleGirl have attractive personalities. These women are dramatically different and half of them hate me, but the personality characteristics and types are all still attractive to me.


----------



## nuclearnightmare

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> haha
> 
> Try this one on for size:
> 
> Take all those personality attributes (are those personality attributes even?) and put them in an ugly woman. My anaconda don't want none of it.
> 
> Now take a physically hot woman and give her none of those attributes. I still want to jump her bones, if nothing else.


regarding the hot woman - she never smiles, she talks hesitatingly, unconfidently, she doesn't make eye contact, she holds head when she walks......she's hot otherwise

you'd be AS attracted to her sexually as you are to her identical twin manifesting the opposite behaviors??


----------



## Cletus

nuclearnightmare said:


> regarding the hot woman - she never smiles, she talks hesitatingly, unconfidently, she doesn't make eye contact, she holds head when she walks......she's hot otherwise
> 
> you'd be AS attracted to her sexually as you are to her identical twin manifesting the opposite behaviors??


Probably more so, since I gravitate more towards the introverts than the extroverts. Still, the point is valid, reversing the decision making process, that one of two identical twins would be more appealing that the other by virtue of her personality.

But that all requires you to get to know the person to some degree. On the subway from 15 feet away, they both look equally doable. I'll invent all of the personality details I need for the moment to fill in the blanks.


----------



## JCD

TiggyBlue said:


> The men in porn aren't even average a lot of the time IMO (Russian porn seem to have more hot young guys in it), more likely to find good looking men in amateur porn.


Blink blink. There are men in porn?


----------



## JCD

ConanHub said:


> On the road now but when I get back to my room I will look up the study where they tested men and women for a physical sexual response to videos with different and varying degrees of erotic content.
> 
> The women, regardless of orientation, had a physical sexual response to all or almost all the videos. The men did not.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Yes. The women were turned on by man on woman, woman on woman, and man on man porn.

Most men are, in general, NOT into one of those three. And women's 'orientation' is a lot...squishier than male orientation according to that same study.


----------



## Anon Pink

JCD said:


> Yes. The women were turned on by man on woman, woman on woman, and man on man porn.
> 
> Most men are, in general, NOT into one of those three. And women's 'orientation' is a lot...squishier than male orientation according to that same study.


What the study suggested was that women were responding to the eroticism, the atmosphere. The conclusions drawn weren't so much that women are attracted to other women, but more that women were turned on by watching people being turned on. Relational. Responsive.

This is why men who need their LD wives to initiate are missing more than half their opportunities for sex. She needs to feel his desire before she feels any desire.


----------



## JCD

firebelly1 said:


> Guys don't do that?


Well, let's just say that guys don't tend to write "Mrs. Prince Charming" in their notebooks a thousand times.


----------



## JCD

ConanHub said:


> For me, it is character but I can tell who is physically"doable" and who isn't.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Okay...how many ugly fat women 'with character' have you done in your life?

You don't get to make this pronouncement if every single person you've nailed was also a 5+ on the attractiveness meter. Because that is grace on the cheap 'Yeah...I like people with character...it just so happens that character is very closely related to big bazongas and low BMIs."


----------



## JCD

I had lunch with two ladies and another man and this conversation obliquely came up.

They were discussing one of their mutual friends. It seems he has it hard for a specific woman and she has zero interest in him. (Who hasn't heard that story boys? I mean except you Conanhub)

So these women are going through this absolute GLOWING rendition of his positive attributes. "He's friendly, he's got a good job, he's loyal, he has a nice personality....blah blah blah."

But both women felt that he had no sex appeal.

So part of this narrative seems to be 'how many boxes does each gender need to pick off.'

Women resent being told that 'looks aren't important'. But men are correctly (and undiplomatically) pointing out that while women LOOK...it is nowhere near the ONLY stat they look for or even the most important one.

It seems from an outside perspective (and listening here and now) that women have a hell of a lot of caveats. "Yes, he's hot but...(enter some other statistic which is vitally necessary for her to actually be interested)"

Men will see a woman and know BAM, right then that they are ready and willing to screw them no matter how much 'crazy' is involved. It is a price they are willing to pay (they may get buyers remorse later...) There is no 'I wonder if she loves puppies and sunsets'. Here, now, on the table. Let's go.

Since I am not a woman, I can't know if women feel the same way. But it doesn't sound like it.


----------



## JCD

Anon Pink said:


> What the study suggested was that women were responding to the eroticism, the atmosphere. The conclusions drawn weren't so much that women are attracted to other women, but more that women were turned on by watching people being turned on. Relational. Responsive.
> 
> This is why men who need their LD wives to initiate are missing more than half their opportunities for sex. *She needs to feel his desire before she feels any desire*.


You realize this last closely relates to the discussion on sexual aggression we've been having, don't you?

Not discussing that here. Just pointing it out.


----------



## JCD

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> What about if she looks/acts like a b*tch or a spoiled brat? Sometimes you can just tell these things. I can see some guys and feel they are a jerk or a d8uchebag. It's not always about a specific type, it's about if their personality is a good fit for you.


Hmm.

Let me go through my Ronco Female tabulator.

Add

10 attractiveness

- total bi+ch

+ predilection for fellatio

- very expensive wardrobe and tastes

+ her Dad owns liquor store.

________________________

Maybe. What does her mother look like?


----------



## Anon Pink

JCD said:


> You realize this last closely relates to the discussion on sexual aggression we've been having, don't you?
> 
> Not discussing that here. Just pointing it out.


If you are referring to the multiple rape threads I have to disagree in a tone of bewilderment.


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: Ladies: what % of men are you attracted to?*



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> These women are dramatically different and half of them hate me, but the personality characteristics and types are all still attractive to me.


May be the first thing they agree with you on.


----------



## lovesmanis

I am attracted to man who is intellectual and handsome. Age does not matter.
One of my ex'es was in his 50s. One of the guys I am seeing is in his 20s...


----------



## Vanille

I usually do not find anyone attractive until I know something about them that _makes_ them an attractive person. But I realize that you're talking purely physical, so... I probably only think 5-10% of the men I see/meet are good looking. Not that I find the others ugly, just ordinary. I just don't find the male form all that attractive and I don't really notice people's features until I have a reason to really look at them closely. 

I don't want to disappoint the OP though. I am bisexual so my attention is split. lol  I still don't find most people attractive until they give me a reason though!


----------



## ConanHub

JCD said:


> Yes. The women were turned on by man on woman, woman on woman, and man on man porn.
> 
> Most men are, in general, NOT into one of those three. And women's 'orientation' is a lot...squishier than male orientation according to that same study.


The key was it was all visual. There were no personalities involved at all. Just straight up nudity and visual erotica. Women had a sexual response to VISUAL stimulation. No emotions involved.

That somewhat supports my theory that women are at least as visual as men.

Also. Maybe the reason women, generally, make greater attempts to beautify themselves is because men are actually less visually stimulated and need more color and flash to attract their attention.


----------



## ConanHub

JCD said:


> Okay...how many ugly fat women 'with character' have you done in your life?
> 
> You don't get to make this pronouncement if every single person you've nailed was also a 5+ on the attractiveness meter. Because that is grace on the cheap 'Yeah...I like people with character...it just so happens that character is very closely related to big bazongas and low BMIs."


LOL!

I have actually been with what some may consider a 2 or 3 a couple times. I find strength of character and toughness to be an extreme turn on.

My favorite actresses portray tough women. Sigourney Weaver and Michelle Rodriguez. Yes they are pretty but it is their tough attitude portrayed on screen that revs my engine!

I am only repulsed by too much weight, a little extra is fine, and filth. So clean and healthy are base requirements. A sexy confident attitude can turn my head.

But as for an initial physical attraction, I would say close to 50% of women ranging from age 20 to 50 who are healthy, catch my eye. There are also quite a few that are higher in age that are simply spectacular.:smthumbup:


----------



## SimplyAmorous

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> These women are dramatically different and half of them hate me, but the personality characteristics and types are all still attractive to me.


I'm not one of those who dislike you ...but you already know this... MANY Things you say I actually agree with ...and feel you explain your position very thorough.. always some respect for that...even when it's not my way of being.... 

I deleted my last post as I feel I butchered what I was trying to say...I said I was a pessimist and critical...sounds fundamentally screwed up & ogrish.....

What I really meant was the enjoyment of "*Critical thinking*"...can always get lost in a lively debate where the 2 engaged are critical thinkers & get off on that sort of thing....with the bantering back & forth... it's a pure delight... always some humor in this as well.....it's an exciting way to get to know someone , start out arguing ~ but really I mean in a playful way.. yet still holding true to what is being said at the same time... keeping it going till the 2 can find some meeting of the minds through it all... 

There is surely chemistry in personalities on this level... some have made me laugh so hard, you loved being around them...they were exciting, dynamic.....yet the beliefs/ the lifestyle outside of this communication sphere...it just wouldn't mesh with mine... it's got to be a package thing.....

Although I like to carry on like that with some people , my H has told me I wouldn't fare well to be married to someone similar as we'd be too much alike.. He's probably right on this...I guess what he is really trying to say (but didn't) is I can be hard headed. 

The *pessimism* part is just about "not getting one's hopes up" too early....If he seemed like "the BOMB" early on/ encounters that left me dreamy...If I was too optimistic here, I could fall hard & fast and only end up very hurt and feel like a fool... So pessimism is really my friend ...keeping my feet on the ground.. 

Maybe that's not the best word, more cautious, taking it slow -being receptive to where the Man is at but never expecting more than he wants. I don't like getting my hopes up to be dashed, it's a protective thing..


----------



## Mr.Fisty

I think that the females around me are interested in my butt, or it could be the bulging wallet. JK!


----------



## heartsbeating

Being 'attracted' to may not have been the case for me yesterday while out and about but I consciously took note of who I'd consider good looking/physically appealing. 4 men - about 15 women. I almost asked one woman where she bought her skirt as her outfit looked really elegant. A blouse with puffy shoulders that was tucked into a skirt with sequins along the trim, a handbag that sort of matched without looking to matchy and low heels. But then decided I couldn't be bothered having the conversation. Style of outfit noted.


----------



## Rowan

ConanHub said:


> ...because men are actually less visually stimulated and need more color and flash to attract their attention.


In my experience, most men are easily distractible by what might be generally termed 'shiny objects' - whether that's flashy cars or flashy women.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

nuclearnightmare said:


> regarding the hot woman - she never smiles, she talks hesitatingly, unconfidently, she doesn't make eye contact, she holds head when she walks......she's hot otherwise
> 
> you'd be AS attracted to her sexually as you are to her identical twin manifesting the opposite behaviors??


AS attracted... probably not. But still attractive. She's not a "no" for having those characteristics. I've dated several of the shy type... and enjoyed bringing them out of their shells. Sometimes there's a cute innocent quality to it.

Now, if she's totally dumpy and negative about everything forever... sure... that would be a rare type I couldn't stay attracted to. But then, she's not giving anything to like. That's not a personality... it's lacking any personality.


----------



## Mr The Other

ConanHub said:


> The key was it was all visual. There were no personalities involved at all. Just straight up nudity and visual erotica. Women had a sexual response to VISUAL stimulation. No emotions involved.
> 
> That somewhat supports my theory that women are at least as visual as men.
> 
> Also. Maybe the reason women, generally, make greater attempts to beautify themselves is because men are actually less visually stimulated and need more color and flash to attract their attention.


I can support that theory. As a man, I went on Tinder. I was rather good at getting matches. However, I was not really interested in them as they were just pictures on a phone screen with whom I had no connection.


----------



## nuclearnightmare

I was just thinking today..and this is slightly off topic so prepare to forgive me.....

its interesting because if my wife is/has been attracted to another man during our marriage then I'd rather not know, especially if it could be construed as "purely physical." at the same time I'm DYING TO KNOW! we've discussed it a few times and her responses seem just a bit filtered for my benefit. There is no real path to the truth! then again I'd rather not know.......


----------



## Revamped

Well, it's not like I go out of my way to tell my husband I saw someone I thought was attractive.

He's got feelings, too!


----------



## Mr.Fisty

I just make the assumption that my girlfriend is attracted to other men. Then I stop stressing over it, I am the one she has an emotional bond with. Plus, I transform into a sex bot with a vibrating feature. Jk.


----------

