# Should the wife ever have a higher sex rank than her man?



## Goldmember357

How does it work?

In my opinion if you think about it the husband should always have the higher sex rank especially as he ages. 

A female who is a 6 more than likely will marry a 5 or a 7. A female who is a 10 will not marry a 4 in most cases and the times she does he is rich and she is a gold digger. 

People go for people on their level typically and females want a man they find physically attractive, and who they hold an emotional attraction to as well. So in most cases the spouses find one another to be the epitome of what they want in a partner. 

Since a woman's sex rank/value decreases as she ages, if you think about it any man +30 and older with a wife +30 and older should have a higher sex rank thank his wife. It does not matter if his wife was a 9 at age 22 and is still a 9 at age 40 compared to other 40 year olds (she is hot and looks amazing) but she is still not as beautiful as she once was/could of been, since youth is valued everywhere across the board. A 40 year old woman who is a 9 still gets put to shame by a 22 year old or 27 year old who is a 9. So in reality is a 40 year old woman who is a 9 (in respect to her age) really a 9? 

A wealthy 41 year old man (who was a 7 in looks in his early 20's) who makes 200k a year, is fit, and dresses sharp and is confident in himself now is likely 8 if not higher given his status and his clear cut advantage over most men. (higher income/dresses well/and athletic). This 41 year old athletic sharp dressed man is not only attractive to older women but could enjoy and wife women from their mid 20's if he wanted. 



Thoughts?


And I realize this thread may not be popular with the females. My apologizes just my thoughts


----------



## Mo42

My thought is that this whole sex rank thing is a little ridiculous. 

I see it is pretty well thought of on here but I would feel like a fool if I tried to have a discussion regarding this in real life.


----------



## remorseful strayer

Goldmember357 said:


> How does it work?
> 
> 
> Since a woman's sex rank/value decreases as she ages, if you think about it any man +30 and older with a wife +30 and older should have a higher sex rank thank his wife. It does not matter if his wife was a 9 at age 22 and is still a 9 at age 40 compared to other 40 year olds (she is hot and looks amazing) but she is still not as beautiful as she once was/could of been, since youth is valued everywhere across the board. A 40 year old woman who is a 9 still gets put to shame by a 22 year old or 27 year old who is a 9. So in reality is a 40 year old woman who is a 9 (in respect to her age) really a 9?
> 
> A wealthy 41 year old man (who was a 7 in looks in his early 20's) who makes 200k a year, is fit, and dresses sharp and is confident in himself now is likely 8 if not higher given his status and his clear cut advantage over most men. (higher income/dresses well/and athletic). This 41 year old athletic sharp dressed man is not only attractive to older women but could enjoy and wife women from their mid 20's if he wanted.
> 
> 
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> 
> And I realize this thread may not be popular with the females. My apologizes just my thoughts


I disagree. Some women in their 60s are more attractive then some 20 year olds. 

I think older, slim, intelligent and well maintained is attractive to me and to a lot of men. 

I do agree that an older, very old, ugly or even average guy may attract more attention from younger women simply because he is attracting the attention of a subset of younger women who are gold diggers. 

But then there are older female actresses who have very young boyfriends. Those relationships fail at the same rate as older younger connections fail with men. 

When I am 90, I will still want a women closer to my age. All the better to share memories with.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Gold said: "This 41 year old athletic sharp dressed man is not only attractive to older women but could enjoy and wife women from their mid 20's if he wanted."



The problem with this equation is that it isn't true. Men want to believe it is, but it isn't.

The 41 yo man in your example is just as wrinkly, saggy and baggy as the 41 yo female in your example. And even though a young woman might get with him to be supported and take his money....she is NOT going to be hot for the wrinkly old man.

He just wants to pretend that somehow, these young women don't care about that because the money somehow can "create physical attaction" or that "physical attraction is less important to women". :rofl:

So yeah, if a man wants to have a woman on his arm that is just pretending to want to have sex with him and if he doesn't care that this isn't true, no problem! The young hottie will end up sleeping with the pool boy, but maybe the old husband will consider that just part of the package.


----------



## Mavash.

You think a 40 year old woman who keeps herself fit, sexy and hot couldn't find a younger boyfriend? She's in her prime sexually. And nowadays many women make money too and are also confident.

This could go both ways.


----------



## Created2Write

Oh yeah, I agree with FW. If a woman's sexual rank decreases, then a man's decreases too. Both can do things to keep their sexual rank up, but neither can do anything to completely stop the decrease...just prolong it. But neither is immune to it. If a 40-something man can have a 20-something lady on his arm, then a 40-something woman has just as many chances of having a 20-something guy on hers.


----------



## coffee4me

Goldmember357 said:


> How does it work?
> 
> A wealthy 41 year old man (who was a 7 in looks in his early 20's) who makes 200k a year, is fit, and dresses sharp and is confident in himself now is likely 8 if not higher given his status and his clear cut advantage over most men. (higher income/dresses well/and athletic). This 41 year old athletic sharp dressed man is not only attractive to older women but could enjoy and wife women from their mid 20's if he wanted.
> 
> Thoughts?


A wealthy 41 year old woman (who was a 7 in looks in her early 20's) who makes 200k a year, is fit, and dresses sharp and is confident in herself now is likely 8 if not higher given her status and her clear cut advantage over most women. (higher income/dresses well/and athletic). This 41 year old athletic sharp dressed woman is not only attractive to older men but could enjoy and marry a man from their mid 20's if she wanted. 

Works both ways. Perhaps the literature says she loses sex rank as she ages but just like a man she can still buy what she wants.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I have lots of female cougar friends. Some with full out marriages, not just arm candy cubs. 

For the men who think their sex rank goes up but a woman's goes down...you'll find out the truth yourself.

Men just want to tell themselves that they age better than women, but it simply isn't true. Any man who says this is simply not into older women. That's just fine...but that same man will have to face that MANY YOUNGER WOMEN ARE NOT INTO OLDER MEN, in the exact same way.

I am 46 and I regularly get hit on by guys in their 20's, 30's, 40's, 50's and 60's. Seems my options would be pretty open if I was on the market again.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Faithful Wife said:


> Gold said: "This 41 year old athletic sharp dressed man is not only attractive to older women but could enjoy and wife women from their mid 20's if he wanted."
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with this equation is that it isn't true. Men want to believe it is, but it isn't.
> 
> The 41 yo man in your example is just as wrinkly, saggy and baggy as the 41 yo female in your example. And even though a young woman might get with him to be supported and take his money....she is NOT going to be hot for the wrinkly old man.
> 
> He just wants to pretend that somehow, these young women don't care about that because the money somehow can "create physical attaction" or that "physical attraction is less important to women". :rofl:
> 
> So yeah, if a man wants to have a woman on his arm that is just pretending to want to have sex with him and if he doesn't care that this isn't true, no problem! The young hottie will end up sleeping with the pool boy, but maybe the old husband will consider that just part of the package.



Thank you, this is something a lot of men don't understand. An older man with some money can get a younger woman but that doesn't mean she's really attracted to him. I have to laugh at the gold digger comments though, this has to be one of the biggest double standards out there. A man with money is allowed to be shallow and simply buy the hottest woman he can get, yet she is supposed to be above that and love him for him. He's in it for shallow reasons so why can't she be too? Typically men will rate themselves a lot higher than women will rate them so they often think they can do better then they really can. "But I'm a nice guy" is often code for "I am entitled to a hot woman regardless of how hot I am, because my niceness should be enough even though I don't consider a woman's niceness".
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## TiggyBlue

lifeistooshort said:


> Thank you, this is something a lot of men don't understand. An older man with some money can get a younger woman but that doesn't mean she's really attracted to him. I have to laugh at the gold digger comments though, this has to be one of the biggest double standards out there. A man with money is allowed to be shallow and simply buy the hottest woman he can get, yet she is supposed to be above that and love him for him. He's in it for shallow reasons so why can't she be too? Typically men will rate themselves a lot higher than women will rate them so they often think they can do better then they really can. "But I'm a nice guy" is often code for "I am entitled to a hot woman regardless of how hot I am, because my niceness should be enough even though I don't consider a woman's niceness".
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


:iagree:
A young women who is with looked for someone with money is no worse/better than a man who looked for youth looks, they both are getting something from each other.
The woman that go after men with money are attracted to the money, the money has not automatically the man more attractive, he's now playing gooseberry between the woman and her true attraction.....money. 


On the men attractiveness going up in their 40's, that's something I've heard a lot of men say and very few women say.


----------



## Acorn

I think sex rank is really just a reflection of emotional needs.

Men tend to rate physical attraction and sexual fulfillment high on the list, so if they are at a bar and two women are there - one who is physically attractive but unemployed, the other who is moderately attractive and well employed - he'd probably go after the more attractive one first. Generally speaking.

Women tend to rank physical attraction lower and financial security higher. Generally speaking. So the woman would be more likely than the man to pursue the moderately attractive guy who is well employed. Again, generally speaking.

I'm not sure it's worth analyzing sex rank much beyond that other than to say that if you let yourself go or decide to mooch off your spouse long term, you are putting the attraction at risk in the relationship.

Real, deep love isn't going to care about the age or the sex rank... there is an attraction there, and if it includes an age difference, so be it.


----------



## lifeistooshort

TiggyBlue said:


> :iagree:
> A young women who is with looked for someone with money is no worse/better than a man who looked for youth looks, they both are getting something from each other.
> 
> On the men attractiveness going up in their 40's, that's something I've heard a lot of men say and very few women say.


Right? That's a line men feed themselves; how often on this site do we see men advised to replace their WW with someone younger and hotter, and it's always assumed that he can do this? My hb is 19 years older than me so it's not like I have an issue with age differences, and while he's still pretty darn hot to say he's gotten better with age is ridiculous.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

Acorn said "Real, deep love isn't going to care about the age or the sex rank... there is an attraction there, and if it includes an age difference, so be it."


This is true, but a man should never just assume that this type of love is an entitlement and it means that this "love" should provide a younger, hotter woman to him, just because he read somewhere that "mens sex rank goes up with age while women's goes down".


----------



## Disenchanted

Lol this thread is funny.

The highest rated male sex symbols are all in there 40s and 50s while the highest rated female sex symbols are barely the age of legal consent.


----------



## Faithful Wife

The "highest rated"....by whom?

Um, hello?

Channing Tatum? Never heard of him? Let me guess, you are not female.

Open up any issue of Cosmo. Not saying it is a great publication, nor that it speaks for all women...however, you're not going to see any 40 or 50 yo dudes in the "hunk without a shirt" monthly features.


----------



## Disenchanted

Channing is 33

I suppose you've never heard of George Clooney. Or Pierce Brosnan. Or Sean Connery.

The most widely recognized male sex symbols of all time are older.

Are you going to tell me that Clooney has never been recognized as one of the sexiest men of all time?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Are you being serious?

Only the old ladies are still hot for those guys. You actually think YOUNG women are? Please provide proof, because I know there isn't any. If you can find one 20 yo girl saying she's into Clooney, sorry man, that doesn't matter. She's one of very few.

Yeah, Channing is 33....NOT 40 or 50!


----------



## Faithful Wife

If you are saying that these men were totally HOT at one time, yep! They were! So was Sohpia Loren.

But unfortunately, they don't get to stay hot like that as they get older, they just age gracefully.

Younger ones come in and take their place.

But sure...go on thinking that young girls are into geezers. I have a bridge to sell you, too.


----------



## Disenchanted

Here the 41 year old Ben Affleck takes home the honor "Sexiest man at the Oscars", beating out younger Channing Tatum.

Affleck, Clooney, Tatum: Which Sexiest Man Alive was the sexiest? | PopWatch | EW.com


----------



## Disenchanted

Faithful Wife said:


> If you are saying that these men were totally HOT at one time, yep! They were! So was Sohpia Loren.
> 
> But unfortunately, they don't get to stay hot like that as they get older, they just age gracefully.
> 
> Younger ones come in and take their place.
> 
> But sure...go on thinking that young girls are into geezers. I have a bridge to sell you, too.


Lol would you like me to list the ages of these men when they were awarded "sexiext man alive"?

All over 40


----------



## Disenchanted

Sean Connery was 59 when he was awarded sexiest man alive.


----------



## Disenchanted

Clooney was 45


----------



## Faithful Wife

What you have posted is a poll asking for votes on that topic. This is your "proof"?

WHO answered the poll? 20 yo women? NOT.


----------



## Disenchanted

Brosnan 48


----------



## Faithful Wife

Go on believing and telling yourself this.

Hey, I like old men. My husband is 50 and is hot as hell. But I am 46.

When I was 26 I would have turned my nose up at it.

But sure!!! Most 26 yo women just loooooooves those old dudes, go on and tell yourself.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I hope you also realize that the "sexiest man alive" according to People magazine isn't exactly science? Again, open up a Cosmo. You'll see what I mean.

Or don't, just tell yourself anything you can to accept what you already wanted to believe.


----------



## Disenchanted

Lol I'm 41, my last gf was 22.


----------



## Disenchanted

"Sexy" is subjective, there is no hard science here, only soft data.

But when year after year after year older men are recognized for being some of the sexiest people alive by a wide panel of judges and younger women are judged the same it's a pretty safe bet.


----------



## sparkyjim

It sounds like goldmember needs a bit of an ego stroke...

But I still kind of see where he is headed with his thinking. I don't know if it's cultural or if it's evolution but the best couples do seem to have the male being older than the female.

My own theory is that throughout life women are more emotionally mature than men their same age. I think that they are attracted to men that fit their emotional maturity, and that is why they fit better with a man who is a little older. It's just my opinion, of course. I don't know if it anyone has ever conducted a test in this regard.

Also, I disagree with the women who think that men and women age in the same way. I have dated women my age and they all looked older than I do. Again, this is just my opinion, but I know many couples, and the women all look older than the men.

Maybe it's because they have to put up with us...


----------



## Created2Write

Disenchanted said:


> Channing is 33
> 
> I suppose you've never heard of George Clooney. Or Pierce Brosnan. Or Sean Connery.
> 
> The most widely recognized male sex symbols of all time are older.
> 
> Are you going to tell me that Clooney has never been recognized as one of the sexiest men of all time?


But look at _when_ they were so widely considered sexy. It's been years since any of them have been recognized as sex symbols. Also look at _who_ considers them sexy these days. It's definitely not going to be the 20-something females.


----------



## Disenchanted

What better proof can there be than a good old "let's see who's sexiest" celebrity death match right her on TAM.

I started it. Take notice of what the majority of pics posted in their efforts to out sexy my efforts:

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/social-spot/50547-celebrity-name-game-276.html#post4308586

Older men.

Lol


----------



## Faithful Wife

"But when year after year after year older men are recognized for being some of the sexiest people alive by a wide panel of judges and younger women are judged the same it's a pretty safe bet."


You are still talking about People magazine, I presume? The one whose readers are mostly middle aged women?


----------



## Disenchanted

FrenchFry said:


> Disenchanted, you are also a 40 something dude going through a divorce. Stereotypes ahoy there.


fair enough


----------



## Faithful Wife

sparkyjim said "....best couple do seem to have the male being older than the female."


The average age difference in married couples is 4 years and this does seem to be a good amount of age difference.

Not the 15 or more years some men want to believe.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I never said a 20 yo wouldn't go ahead and hitch her wagon to an older man...happens all the time. What I said is she isn't hot for him.


----------



## Jellybeans

Goldmember357 said:


> In my opinion if you think about it the husband should always have the higher sex rank especially as he ages.


So are you saying your sex rank is higher than your wife's? Have you told her you think this?


----------



## Created2Write

Disenchanted said:


> "Sexy" is subjective, there is no hard science here, only soft data.
> 
> But when year after year after year older men are recognized for being some of the sexiest people alive by a wide panel of judges and younger women are judged the same it's a pretty safe bet.


Them being voted sexiest man alive after 40 years old doesn't mean anything. Look at who actually made those votes, find proof that they were all or mostly 20-something females, and you'll have proven your point. 

Until then, though, the only thing you've proven is that a few men over 40 were considered hot and sexy.


----------



## Jellybeans

Hmm... who would I do?

Halle Berry or Lindsay Lohan?

Halle every time. I'm just saying. Just cause a woman is older doesn't mean she can't be hotter than a younger woman.

Lol.


----------



## Disenchanted

Created2Write said:


> Them being voted sexiest man alive after 40 years old doesn't mean anything. Look at who actually made those votes, find proof that they were all or mostly 20-something females, and you'll have proven your point.
> 
> Until then, though, the only thing you've proven is that a few men over 40 were considered hot and sexy.


The folks who conduct these polls are people who sell beauty for a living.


----------



## Faithful Wife

"The folks who conduct these polls are people who sell beauty for a living."

Yes, they sell it to middle aged women.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

Goldmember357 said:


> How does it work?
> 
> In my opinion if you think about it the husband should always have the higher sex rank especially as he ages.
> 
> A female who is a 6 more than likely will marry a 5 or a 7. A female who is a 10 will not marry a 4 in most cases and the times she does he is rich and she is a gold digger.
> 
> People go for people on their level typically and females want a man they find physically attractive, and who they hold an emotional attraction to as well. So in most cases the spouses find one another to be the epitome of what they want in a partner.
> 
> Since a woman's sex rank/value decreases as she ages, if you think about it any man +30 and older with a wife +30 and older should have a higher sex rank thank his wife. It does not matter if his wife was a 9 at age 22 and is still a 9 at age 40 compared to other 40 year olds (she is hot and looks amazing) but she is still not as beautiful as she once was/could of been, since youth is valued everywhere across the board. A 40 year old woman who is a 9 still gets put to shame by a 22 year old or 27 year old who is a 9. So in reality is a 40 year old woman who is a 9 (in respect to her age) really a 9?
> 
> A wealthy 41 year old man (who was a 7 in looks in his early 20's) who makes 200k a year, is fit, and dresses sharp and is confident in himself now is likely 8 if not higher given his status and his clear cut advantage over most men. (higher income/dresses well/and athletic). This 41 year old athletic sharp dressed man is not only attractive to older women but could enjoy and wife women from their mid 20's if he wanted.
> 
> 
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> 
> And I realize this thread may not be popular with the females. My apologizes just my thoughts


I think if you take the inverse square root of the woman's sex rank at age 23 and subtract derivative of the function of her aging through the age of 60, you can obtain what her sex rank over time is. Then you have to find the common denominator of the husband's sex rank as it approach's the age of 51. But you must then utilize Liebniz's notation in order to compensate for any weight gain or plastic surgery.



PS don't forget to take into account PERSONAL TASTES, because, while some women would find me to be a fat old guy, some women find me very attractive (because I still get hit on).....go figure, I'm a sex rank of 2 to some and 8 to others and I think this is common place.


----------



## Created2Write

Disenchanted said:


> The folks who conduct these polls are people who sell beauty for a living.


So? That doesn't mean anything, if you're trying to prove that young women prefer older men. A lot of middle-aged women sell beauty for a living.


----------



## Disenchanted

Not trying to prove anything really. Just noting that the general curve in attractiveness tends towards older men and younger women.

There are obvious reasons why this reality isn't "attractive" to some people. lol


----------



## Acorn

I will say from a so-called 41 year old wrinkly, baggy, saggy man's perspective that I have a much easier time dating now than in my 20's. Am I physically hotter now? No. Am I more mature? Much. Can I better provide financial security? Yes, a lot better. Do I have more life experience? Yes.

Does this mean my sex rank is higher now? I don't know. I don't buy much into the sex rank.

I don't think my experience is unique as a guy, and while I think sweeping generalizations like "my rank is up, yours is down" are ridiculous, I do feel like my rank, if I have one, is higher. Just based on the evidence I see.

Maybe all the interested women have pool boys on the side. I will have to consider that angle.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

I think making a flat out statement that a 20 something year old woman doesn't find George Clooney hot is a little.....off.

What the OP said was ridiculous, I hope my previous post made my opinion abundantly clear, but to say there aren't 40, 50 and even 60 year old MEN or WOMEN that 20 something year olds find hot is also ridiculous.

I could list a couple women in their 70's that I still find attractive. Of course it's EASIER for a 20 something year old to be hotter, but still, saying someone is hotter based on age alone, didn't compare these two









vs









PS, yeah I grabbed a really old guy who is also...*gasp* bald not by choice


----------



## Cosmos

Should the wife ever have a higher sex rank than her man? If you're a woman, the answer is yes. If you're a man, the answer is no... The idea being that it's always nice to feel that you can keep your SO on their toes, no matter which gender you are.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Dad&Hubby said:


> I'm a sex rank of 2 to some and 8 to others and I think this is common place.


:iagree:
Our own genetics will rank people's attractiveness differently to how other people would rank them.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Disenchanted said:


> *There are obvious reasons why this reality isn't "attractive" to some people. * lol


I agree, there's also a obvious reason people will try to pull up polls to prove this reality exists lol.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

Cosmos said:


> Should the wife ever have a higher sex rank than her man? If you're a woman, the answer is yes. If you're a man, the answer is no... The idea being that it's always nice to feel that you can keep your SO on their toes, no matter which gender you are.


Interesting take on it. I completely see where you're coming from.

In my marriage, I would say my wife's sex rank is higher and she would say my sex rank is higher. I think problems can occur when one spouse looks at themselves as the hotter one in the relationship. I think the healthiest is when each sees the other as hotter...keeps them appreciating the other.


----------



## 3Xnocharm

I know and see couples all the time where the wife waaayyy outranks the hub! Women seem to be willing to look beyond the exterior and appreciate the person more so than men do.


----------



## Created2Write

I'm not saying a 20-something wouldn't find an older man attractive. I'm saying most 20-somethings wouldn't _prefer_ an attractive older man to a younger, hotter man based on their looks/sex rank alone. I happen to think Bruce Willis, Liam Neeson, George Clooney, and Johny Depp are very good looking and attractive. 

However, if you place those four men beside Henry Cavil, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Chris Hemsworth, and Hugh Dancy, there's just no contest. None.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

Created2Write said:


> I'm not saying a 20-something wouldn't find an older man attractive. I'm saying most 20-somethings wouldn't _prefer_ an attractive older man to a younger, hotter man. I happen to think Bruce Willis, Liam Neeson, George Clooney, and Johny Depp are very good looking and attractive.
> 
> However, if you place those four men beside Henry Cavil, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Chris Hemsworth, and Hugh Dancy, there's just no contest. None.


So very true. PS interesting tastes C2W...LOL To go from Josepth Gordon-Levitt to Chris Hemsworth. God bless variety!!


----------



## ntamph

Of course a 20 year old guy looks better than a 40 year old and a 20 year old girl looks better than a 40 year old woman.

The reason that it becomes easier for men is that the above 40 population has a lot more men than women. The under 30 population is mostly men. There are fewer men around so women actually have to compete for them. They didn't have to do this when they were 20 and surrounded by lots of horny guys (and there were more guys than girls).

Women have the most power when they're teens and it steadily falls until the 40s 50s and 60s when there are few men and they can have their pick of women.


----------



## Jellybeans

Dad&Hubby--just saw your signature on TAM... Love it!


----------



## Cosmos

TiggyBlue said:


> :iagree:
> Our own genetics will rank people's attractiveness differently to what how people would rank them.


Exactly. I have a very definite taste in what I find attractive in a man, and I rank it very highly. However, I know that my taste isn't necessarily shared by all women, the same as I don't always share theirs.

You either have 'it' or you don't - no matter what your age - and 'it' is going to be different for everyone.


----------



## thunderstruck

Back to the original question, in the few marriages I know of in which the wife has a much higher s*x rank vs. her hubby...the wife ended up cheating and/or leaving for a higher rank guy. Not saying that happens every time. That's just what I've seen.


ntamph said:


> The reason that it becomes easier for men is that *the above 40 population has a lot more men *than women. The* under 30 population is mostly men*. There are fewer men around so women actually have to compete for them.


Huh? Where are you getting this from? I've never looked it up, but I would assume that it's close to a 50/50 split of men/women, until men start dying in bigger numbers around 70 years of age.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Disenchanted said:


> The folks who conduct these polls are people who sell beauty for a living.


You mean gay men?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## lifeistooshort

Disenchanted said:


> Not trying to prove anything really. Just noting that the general curve in attractiveness tends towards older men and younger women.
> 
> There are obvious reasons why this reality isn't "attractive" to some people. lol


Dude, I'm sure you look great but I could argue that there are obvious reasons a 40 something year old guy we would cling desperately to what he refers to as "this reality", given that he clearly has a dog in this fight.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Unique Username

Oh silly thread ( I meant that in a happy way)

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

For every weird quirk you have there is someone out there who is turned on by it.

There are always more men than women...um period. Of genders, we (women/girls) are the most prolific regardless of age demographic.

Other than for sexual recreation......older women (let's say 40+) have nothing else in common with a twenty something boy.


I am over 40 and could easily date younger men. But I prefer older more seasoned and mentally and financially stable grown men. 
Not the slightest bit interested in boys (other than as eye candy)

Take an example of the most public of cougar/cub relationships -
Demi Moore and Ashton Kucher (divorced) Courtney Cox and David Arquette (divorced) , Halle Barry and her baby Daddy (divorced)
Susan Serandon and TIm Robbins (split up), Cher and any number of her husbands except for the first with Sonny Bono (she was 16 he 11 years older - that also ended in divorce)
Those are celebrity examples


lol It's all hooey this ranking business. No one has the same set of criteria. How can you compare a Fuji apple to a Granny Smith?
All in the taste buds of the rater.

Enjoy the banter.


----------



## Unique Username

The May December Romances of Older Men Younger women

also often don't work out.

How many times has Hugh Hefner been married (and yeah it's because of his above average looks? hahahahahahahaha um sure)

Larry King and what 8 wives (he married 1 twice)

Another example George Clooney was with Stacie Kiebler for a bit longer than most of the women he's dated. She wanted kids and marriage he didn't (sworn bachelor) so off to the next 20 something he finds interesting.


----------



## Disenchanted

I'd say that financial, emotional and career stability gives older men an edge in general. After all I keep hearing women say it's not about looks and all that.

I would argue that beauty is objective.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/fashion/09skin.html?_r=2&8dpc&oref=slogin&


----------



## Disenchanted

lifeistooshort said:


> You mean gay men?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


It's not who selling it that matters, it's that it's being bought.


----------



## anotherguy

I find the original premise and sweeping generalizations of this thread completely preposterous. Im surprised it is getting the airtime it is.

shrug. Carry on.


----------



## Moulin

It's simpler when you're similar. 

My H is 46 and still gets looks from 20-something women (not based on income but looks alone).

Thankfully, we appreciate each other enough not to be worried about which of us is hotter in the equation. 

How does that calculate? 

Measurements + Low BMI - Age + Income = Rank

LMAO


----------



## Faithful Wife

Disenchanted said: "Not trying to prove anything really. Just noting that the general curve in attractiveness tends towards older men and younger women."

So your examples of older men being sexy have all been men who were totally sexy when they were young. They aren't men who were 6's when they were young only to turn into 9's when they got older. They were already 9's.

Are you saying that you think somehow the average man will age the same way that George Clooney has? It doesn't happen that way, unless you looked like a young George Clooney, you're not going to look like an older George Clooney.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Disenchanted said: "...it's that it's being bought."

It is being bought by middle aged women.

Again, you haven't shown anywhere that 20 yo women are the ones who are saying older men are hotter.


----------



## Faithful Wife

When at the gym, I have often heard 20 yo women in the locker room complaining about the "yucky old men" checking them out on the machines. I have NEVER EVER heard one of these women say "wow that hot older guy was totally checking me out".

I have, however, heard 20 yo women talk about scamming a man for drinks, cash, and more...because "he actually thought I was into him."


----------



## Disenchanted

I'm not trying to pinpoint which demograph likes what, at all. I don't care. I'd rather hear you tell me that you yourself don't find these men attractive.

There isn't a single 20 year old man in this list. You will NEVER find a list of sexiest women with this age spread, EVER, ANYWHERE.

1985: Mel Gibson, 29

1986: Mark Harmon, 34

1987: Harry Hamlin, 35

1988: John F. Kennedy Jr., 27

1989: Sean Connery, 59

1990: Tom Cruise, 28

1991: Patrick Swayze, 39

1992: Nick Nolte, 51

1993: Richard Gere and Cindy Crawford ("Sexiest Couple Alive")

1994: None

1995-Brad Pitt, 31

1996-Denzel Washington, 41

1997-George Clooney, 36

1998- Harrison Ford, 56

1999-Richard Gere,50

2000-Brad Pitt,. 36

2001-Pierce Brosnan, 48

2002 -Ben Affleck, 30

2003 Johnny Depp, 40

2004- Jude Law, 31

2005- Matthew McConaughey, 36

2006-George Clooney, 45

2007- Matt Damon, 37

2008- Hugh Jackman, 40

2009- Johnny Depp, 46

2010- Ryan Reynolds, 34


----------



## Faithful Wife

Disenchanted....No one would argue that women in their 30's and up are into the men you are listing.

You are the one who is saying that 20 yo women must also agree.

They do not agree at all.

YES us older women dig all the men on your list...that's because we are older. You don't get that? It matters who the demographic is because YOU are the one trying to say that YOUNGER women are the ones who dig older dudes. That is not correct. ALL the other, older women do.

No one would argue with that. Of course the women who are the same age as these men think they are hot. Why wouldn't they?


----------



## Disenchanted

Faithful Wife said:


> You are the one who is saying that 20 yo women must also agree.


Actually I never said that.

But this is a very funny conversation to me.


----------



## Faithful Wife

You have said enough silly things to make this a funny convo to me, too. Like the idea that all men will turn into George Clooneys because older men are hotter. Um yeah, sure.


----------



## Disenchanted

Look, if you understand the origin of the term "Sex rank" you understand that a lot more then physical appearance plays into it for women, whereas men are primarily sexually attracted to looks. It's just a fact of life.

So while a man may become less physically attractive there are other attributes that potentially raise his sex rank as he ages.

Stability being a big one.

I agree that nobody looks better with an extra 20 years, but I have heard many a woman talk about how much they like the distinguished look. I think that's more to do with the confidence a man may gain with age.

As for me, I don't care. I get more attention from women then I ever have, of all ages. But at the same time I'd rank myself at about 2.


It's a ridiculous conversation because it's so glaringly obvious.


----------



## Moulin

I think folks are way too invested in this 'sex rank' idea. There are hot 20 year olds, 40 year olds. 

Many women (including me) are very attracted to the older guy - not for financial reasons - but because they're a lot more knowledgeable sexually. Equally as many want someone the same age. 

For both sexes, it really depends on the investment they make in keeping up a physical appearance. For those who remain physically active and fit, younger and older remain attractive.


----------



## Unique Username

So while a man may become less physically attractive there are other attributes that potentially raise his sex rank as he ages.

But first you were saying that sex rank is physical attractiveness.
Wallet size does not = physical attractiveness.
Wanting the old dudes money though, does become the reason younger women would toy with the idea.

(Yes George Clooney was hot when young but I think Hotter now. He is just sexier now than when he was on Rosanne. 
His physical hottness factor/rank has increased. so maybe 7 on Rosanne and a 10 now 

I was looking at Michael Douglas today - and boy is he looking old. I'd say his Sex ranking has diminished whereas his wife's physical attractiveness had improved 

hmm go figure


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yes, Disenchanted...I have read the crap you linked. I know EXACTLY where you and other men are getting these ridiculous ideas. From a man who hasn't dated in 20 years.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes, Disenchanted...I have read the crap you linked. I know EXACTLY where you and other men are getting these ridiculous ideas. From a man who hasn't dated in 20 years.



It's awesome that he is informing us women of what we are looking for.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Disenchanted

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes, Disenchanted...I have read the crap you linked. I know EXACTLY where you and other men are getting these ridiculous ideas. From a man who hasn't dated in 20 years.


Well that is where the term "sex rank" originated.

Sex rank = 

women start high ranking and go lower 

Men start low and get higher

That's the definition of the term.


----------



## Disenchanted

So if y'all don't like the term and what it implies I suggest you don't bother yourself with participating in a thread that is centered on the term. 

Lol.


----------



## Faithful Wife

No, that's the definition that particular man made for his particular book, the one about how men are sooooo much better than women in every possible way, including that they magically become hotter when they get old....men become unicorns, doncha know!? A magical transformation comes over them and suddenly young women want them.

Any guesses as to who buys his books? Oh yes, it would be those men who want to be reassured that miracles can happen.

Do you really think you are educating me on this? I've read all the crap. I live in the real world, where people age, yet people are still into each other and most relationships are age appropriate.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Disenchanted said:


> I'd say that financial, emotional and career stability gives older men an edge in general. After all I keep hearing women say it's not about looks and all that.
> 
> I would argue that beauty is objective.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/fashion/09skin.html?_r=2&8dpc&oref=slogin&



True, but you've just made the point FW was making, that you might get a younger woman to hook up with you but that doesn't mean she's hot for you. Her agreeing to have sex with you in exchange for your stability doesn't mean she's all that attracted to you. This is a fundamental difference between men and women. If you're cool with that then carry on, just know that while she's enjoying your stability she's also got her eye on a younger hottie. That's how things roll.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Disenchanted

Faithful Wife said:


> No, that's the definition that particular man made for his particular book,


Google the term.

When the OP of this thread said "sex rank" I pretty sure this definition is what was implied.


----------



## Disenchanted

lifeistooshort said:


> True, but you've just made the point FW was making, that you might get a younger woman to hook up with you but that doesn't mean she's hot for you. Her agreeing to have sex with you in exchange for your stability doesn't mean she's all that attracted to you. If you're cool with that then carry on, just know that while she's enjoying your stability she's also got her eye on a younger hottie. That's how things roll.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


You are defining something other then sex rank.

Hotness perhaps?

Who cares, it's basically a thread jack.


----------



## lifeistooshort

To answer the original question, I think partners with comparable sex ranks are the best matches.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

Men who feel they were "cheated" by a woman tend to find MMSL. They want a way to feel better about themselves, I get that. But of course, the author only offers a fantasy he cooked up himself.

If Athol Kay is the ONLY source you are going to believe when telling yourself that younger women dig older men AND that they really don't care as much about physical looks...then well, I feel sad for you when you realize that just isn't the case. If there were lots of younger women exclaiming the same thing, and books by women saying the same thing, and books by psychologists saying the same thing...I'd be more than happy to change my stance.

However, my stance is based upon being a woman, talking to literally thousands of women over the years about this exact topic, and knowing what women say and do by observation, and by reading 1000's of threads on relationship boards.

Guess what?

When we say we aren't that into looks to you, we are being kind. If you want to believe that your wallet will keep her SEXUALLY attracted to you as you age, you are fooling yourself. If she isn't physically attracted to you WITHOUT your wallet, you will find eventually she isn't having sex with you anymore.


----------



## anotherguy

Moulin said:


> I think folks are way too invested in this 'sex rank' idea.


:iagree:


----------



## lifeistooshort

Disenchanted said:


> You are defining something other then sex rank.
> 
> Hotness perhaps?
> 
> Who cares, it's basically a thread jack.


Whatever, I was polite before but if this is how you want to roll then keep telling yourself whatever you want. Good luck with that. Since you brought it up, you're the one that's been desperately trying to prove that men get better and have access to all the young women they want, but have not answered the original question either, which is only who should be hotter.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Disenchanted

Doug Hutchinson and Courtney Stodden are well paired on sex rank I'd say.


----------



## Disenchanted

lifeistooshort said:


> you're the one that's been desperately trying
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


hyperbole doesn't strengthen your argument


----------



## Faithful Wife

Well to answer the original post...I think if you are a guy who actually thinks your sex rank will go up as you age and your wife's will go down, you should probably go to a nursing home and check out how we ALL end up looking, and find couples who are madly in love and ask them for their opinion on it. 

At some point when you stop fearing your own age and accept yourself as you are and welcome aging as a natural process, you will attract people of similar mindset and values.

If you are a man who will stop valuing your wife as she ages but you want to call that "diminishing sex rank", then I'm pretty sure you are headed for a divorce anyway so what does it matter? Might as well get the highest sex rank replacement wife you can find, sure why not? She's not going to want to screw you in a few years, but go ahead, it will be great in the beginning while she's still having fun spending your money.

It is very sad that according to Athol Kay, hot looking older men won't get any action unless they don't have huge paychecks, too. Because as only he knows best, chicks be gold diggin'!


----------



## SadSamIAm

Disenchanted said:


> You are defining something other then sex rank.
> 
> Hotness perhaps?
> 
> Who cares, it's basically a thread jack.



I think this is the disconnect.

Supposedly Sex Rank for a man isn't just his looks.

For a man, these are the things that can affect his 'sex ranking'. There are a few factors that influence this, and in no particular order, and with different women valuing different traits differently:

1. Intelligence - Pretty easy to explain, women often like smart men because it generally means the next two items
2. Humour - One of the biggest things that make women wet in their nethers
3. Wealth - whether actual or potential (i.e. if you are a doctor)
4. Height - Taller is better generally but there's not a lot you can really do about this one
5. Sociability - Women like guys who can work a crowd effectively, might be related to charm or charisma but not necessarily the same thing
6. Looks - Of course, women would prefer their men looking more like Brad Pit instead of John Goodman


Men typically use 'Looks' as the primary factor in determining the sex rank of the woman.


----------



## Faithful Wife

SadSam...there's no disconnect. We've read all that drivel.

Beauty is much easier for women to pull off than it is for men. So women actually have fewer options of truly beautiful men to pick from. We like the tall ones, but only one in 10 are over 6foot tall....so we have no choice but to divide up the other 90% and rank them by any means available.

If every young woman could choose her ideal mate, he would be HOT, TALL, RICH, and AGE APPROPRIATE.

Since there are not enough hot, tall, rich young men to go around, the ranking system is what it is.

The problem here is that men then mistake this for being actual preferences, instead of seeing that our real preferences are not plentiful enough for us all to have a man we'd prefer.

Given the choice between a man of the same age or only slightly older or younger, who is rich and hot and tall....why would a woman pick a much older man?

She wouldn't.


----------



## Disenchanted

FF that's awesome, lol. Thanks for laughing with me.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Women Find Men With Bigger Penises More Attractive, Study Says | TIME.com

There's also this...but of course, women will tell you that they don't actually care.


----------



## Disenchanted

Faithful Wife said:


> We like the tall ones, but only one in 10 are over 6foot tall....so we have no choice but to divide up the other 90% and rank them by any means available.


Hell I'm 6'3" and being the ass whole that I am I can't even get a single date, lol.


----------



## Faithful Wife

What happened to your 22 yo?


----------



## Disenchanted

The street lights came on.


----------



## SadSamIAm

Faithful Wife said:


> SadSam...there's no disconnect. We've read all that drivel.
> 
> Beauty is much easier for women to pull off than it is for men. So women actually have fewer options of truly beautiful men to pick from. We like the tall ones, but only one in 10 are over 6foot tall....so we have no choice but to divide up the other 90% and rank them by any means available.
> 
> If every young woman could choose her ideal mate, he would be HOT, TALL, RICH, and AGE APPROPRIATE.
> 
> Since there are not enough hot, tall, rich young men to go around, the ranking system is what it is.
> 
> The problem here is that men then mistake this for being actual preferences, instead of seeing that our real preferences are not plentiful enough for us all to have a man we'd prefer.
> 
> Given the choice between a man of the same age or only slightly older or younger, who is rich and hot and tall....why would a woman pick a much older man?
> 
> She wouldn't.



How about this, is there any truth to it anymore????

"On a genetic level, I don't think we've advanced past cavemen very far, so I tend to look at these things from an evolutionary standpoint. In that sense, men look for a healthy and attractive woman so that his offspring will be healthy and have better chances of finding a mate themselves. Women, on the other hand, have to raise and care for those children, so they look for a man who is strong and capable enough to protect the children and provide everything the family needs. Attractiveness would still matter to an extent, but security would be the primary goal."


----------



## Faithful Wife

Strong and capable = young, healthy, and many years left to raise a family.

Ie: NOT OLD.


----------



## TeaLeaves4

Faithful Wife said:


> Acorn said "Real, deep love isn't going to care about the age or the sex rank... there is an attraction there, and if it includes an age difference, so be it."
> 
> 
> This is true, but a man should never just assume that this type of love is an entitlement and it means that this "love" should provide a younger, hotter woman to him, just because he read somewhere that "mens sex rank goes up with age while women's goes down".


And then there's the guy whose Attitude (whether it's arrogance, ****iness, aggressiveness, insecurity, what have you) makes him totally [email protected]$kable no matter what. Oh yeah, unless he IS George Clooney which of course most are not.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Unique Username

I'm not looking for breeding stock.


----------



## Faithful Wife

OK can anyone provide any source OTHER than Athol Kay that claims that younger women dig older men? That younger women would agree that physical attraction is not necessary for them? That they would happily accept a bigger wallet and they would STILL be up for hot sex with this man if he is say 50 and she is say 35?

I don't mean individual stories of young women with older men.

I don't mean age differences of 5 years or less.

I want to see evidence that large numbers young WOMEN are saying this about their own preferences.

Anyone?


----------



## TiggyBlue

FrenchFry said:


> oh wait, that's not Doug.
> 
> *snerk*


lol I have never heard of her until celebrity big brother a couple of months ago, there was a lot of commotion about her grinding all over this guy one night


----------



## treyvion

Faithful Wife said:


> OK can anyone provide any source OTHER than Athol Kay that claims that younger women dig older men? That younger women would agree that physical attraction is not necessary for them? That they would happily accept a bigger wallet and they would STILL be up for hot sex with this man if he is say 50 and she is say 35?
> 
> I don't mean individual stories of young women with older men.
> 
> I don't mean age differences of 5 years or less.
> 
> I want to see evidence that large numbers young WOMEN are saying this about their own preferences.
> 
> Anyone?


I would surmise it depends upon the man.


----------



## SadSamIAm

SadSamIAm said:


> How about this, is there any truth to it anymore????
> 
> "On a genetic level, I don't think we've advanced past cavemen very far, so I tend to look at these things from an evolutionary standpoint. In that sense, men look for a healthy and attractive woman so that his offspring will be healthy and have better chances of finding a mate themselves. Women, on the other hand, have to raise and care for those children, so they look for a man who is strong and capable enough to protect the children and provide everything the family needs. Attractiveness would still matter to an extent, but security would be the primary goal."


I think this statement above was more true 30 years ago than it is today. But there is still some truth to it.

There are professional women that don't need a man for financial stability. They hire someone to take care of their kids while they are at work, so aren't dependent on a man to provide for them.

There are also professional woman that wish they had a man who was providing a good enough living that they could stay home and care for their children.

On the flip side, there are men that want a woman who earns a good living. Someone to help pay the mortgage, car payments and vacations. I guess there are a few, that would like a woman to earn enough money for him to stay home with his children. 

Just a guess but I think if you took a woman and asked her to pick from a great looking homeless guy or an average looking rich guy, probably 8 out of 10 women would pick the average rich guy.

But if you took a man and asked him to pick between a beautiful homeless woman or an average looking rich woman, probably 8 out of 10 men would pick the beautiful homeless woman.


----------



## Faithful Wife

treyvion...again I don't care about individual cases. 

The proof I am asking to be provided just doesn't exist.


----------



## Faithful Wife

SadSam said: "Just a guess but I think if you took a woman and asked her to pick from a great looking homeless guy or an average looking rich guy, probably 8 out of 10 women would pick the average rich guy.

But if you took a man and asked him to pick between a beautiful homeless woman or an average looking rich woman, probably 8 out of 10 men would pick the beautiful homeless woman."


It depends on what we are "picking" them for.

A husband? Of course she will pick the rich man. After all, women cheat, too. She can still get her hottie on the side.

A quick romp? Hey if there's a shower available, she's going to pick the hottie homeless man every time.


----------



## SadSamIAm

Faithful Wife said:


> OK can anyone provide any source OTHER than Athol Kay that claims that younger women dig older men? That younger women would agree that physical attraction is not necessary for them? That they would happily accept a bigger wallet and they would STILL be up for hot sex with this man if he is say 50 and she is say 35?
> 
> I don't mean individual stories of young women with older men.
> 
> I don't mean age differences of 5 years or less.
> 
> I want to see evidence that large numbers young WOMEN are saying this about their own preferences.
> 
> Anyone?


What Makes A Man Attractive? | Paging Dr. NerdLove

Lots of comments about what makes men attractive to women (confidence, humor, etc.)


----------



## SadSamIAm

Faithful Wife said:


> SadSam said: "Just a guess but I think if you took a woman and asked her to pick from a great looking homeless guy or an average looking rich guy, probably 8 out of 10 women would pick the average rich guy.
> 
> But if you took a man and asked him to pick between a beautiful homeless woman or an average looking rich woman, probably 8 out of 10 men would pick the beautiful homeless woman."
> 
> 
> It depends on what we are "picking" them for.
> 
> A husband? Of course she will pick the rich man. After all, women cheat, too. She can still get her hottie on the side.
> 
> A quick romp? Hey if there's a shower available, she's going to pick the hottie homeless man every time.


I think the entire discussion has been about marriage and relationships. 

Not just about who you would want to have sex with. That would be an easy answer. Both men and women would pick the hottest looking person.


----------



## Unique Username




----------



## Faithful Wife

Sorry, a handful of comments by women of VARIOUS ages on Dr. Nerdlove's article does not give us any evidence that YOUNG women specifically like men who are more than 5 years older than themselves.

Again...given the choice...the young hot woman will pick a YOUNG HOT MAN everytime. There is nothing anywhere that doesn't confirm this.

People tend to pair up with age appropriate partners by CHOICE.

It is only the older men who read MMSL who believe something different than this.


----------



## treyvion

Faithful Wife said:


> treyvion...again I don't care about individual cases.
> 
> The proof I am asking to be provided just doesn't exist.


The proof is it is not true on average except for very specific cases.

In some small specific cases a male will gain sex rank as he ages and have a greater cross section of suiteable relationship partners. 

In these small cases the male has some financial earning power, or money, and also a phisod which indicates freedom and great choices available to him in life. It won't only be about the money, because he may be a very handsome, intelligent, charismatic male. He may be in very good physical condition, and was a handsome male as a younger male, but has built up so much more over his life than looks alone...


----------



## Faithful Wife

Sam said: "I think the entire discussion has been about marriage and relationships. 

Not just about who you would want to have sex with. That would be an easy answer. Both men and women would pick the hottest looking person."

Exactly. For sex, both genders would pick the hottie. And everyone knows this, and it is always true in every case.

So now what is so confusing to me, is that an older man can tell himself that somehow, this hottness factor a young woman would pick FOR SEX no longer matters since it is now a relationship/marriage.

Doesn't this man want his wife to actually WANT to have sex with him out of physical attraction? Or is he actually ok with the fact that she would pick a younger hotter man if one was available? (and in fact, she will likely dump the older man for one of these anyway, because women who pick men for their wallet tend to do that)


----------



## treyvion

Faithful Wife said:


> So now what is so confusing to me, is that an older man can tell himself that somehow, this hottness factor a young woman would pick FOR SEX no longer matters since it is now a relationship/marriage.
> 
> Doesn't this man want his wife to actually WANT to have sex with him out of physical attraction? Or is he actually ok with the fact that she would pick a younger hotter man if one was available? (and in fact, she will likely dump the older man for one of these anyway, because women who pick men for their wallet tend to do that)


What if our old guy was ( 46 years old ) "LL Cool J" or ( 44 years old )"Shermar Moore", scoring a 25 years old younger but not fully established female?

Do the same rules apply, she's going to leave them for some physically well built 29 year old who doesn't have a lot going on for themself?

And yes they do tend to leave a wallet, for a younger guy more in their age bracket.

But some females LOVE their older guy and prefers it that way. Why can't a female accept this?


----------



## Faithful Wife

As I said, individual cases don't matter, the same way individual cases of cougars whose cubs LOVE and adore them don't matter. Why can't males accept this?

My female friend, age 52, is dating a man who is 29.

My other female friend, age 39, is marrying a man who is 28.

My other female friend, age 36, dates only men in their 20's (she prefers it this way, and apparently so do the men she dates).

Only one of these three women have "money" in the sense that she could provide for her cub financially, but she doesn't...because he has a good job, too and doesn't need her money.

All of the guys in these relationships are absolutely in love with these women and hot for them and not going anywhere.

Yet this says nothing about the average preferences of the average man.


----------



## treyvion

Faithful Wife said:


> As I said, individual cases don't matter, the same way individual cases of cougars whose cubs LOVE and adore them don't matter. Why can't males accept this?


I do. They probably feel like they get treated better and the sex is better.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I meant why can't males accept that there is really not a different standard for them when they get older. They get old, women get old, we all get old....men do not magically turn into George Clooney like a unicorn. Why can't men accept this?


----------



## treyvion

Faithful Wife said:


> I meant why can't males accept that there is really not a different standard for them when they get older. They get old, women get old, we all get old....men do not magically turn into George Clooney like a unicorn. Why can't men accept this?


It's normally true, except if they read Athol Kay's MMSL.


----------



## treyvion

Faithful Wife said:


> As I said, individual cases don't matter, the same way individual cases of cougars whose cubs LOVE and adore them don't matter. Why can't males accept this?
> 
> My female friend, age 52, is dating a man who is 29.
> 
> My other female friend, age 39, is marrying a man who is 28.
> 
> My other female friend, age 36, dates only men in their 20's (she prefers it this way, and apparently so do the men she dates).
> 
> Only one of these three women have "money" in the sense that she could provide for her cub financially, but she doesn't...because he has a good job, too and doesn't need her money.
> 
> All of the guys in these relationships are absolutely in love with these women and hot for them and not going anywhere.
> 
> Yet this says nothing about the average preferences of the average man.


So the age gap keeps her hot for her younger partner.


----------



## Faithful Wife

When I was much younger, early 30's, I had a girlfriend who was about 26 and went on a date with a man who was 38. She felt attraction to his house, career, car, etc. She stated that to me straight out. She had a sort of physical attraction to him, "enough to kiss him" she said. So to me that seemed like enough attraction and I encouraged her to go out with him.

They went out on one date, then back to his place. They were making out on his couch. She cut the date short, thanked him, and left.

When talking later, she told me they had a nice date, she was really impressed with all his "stuff" and home...but when they started making out she had her hands on his back and, her words, "I couldn't do it, he had OLD MAN SKIN!" I'm like "you mean wrinkly?" She's like "no......the way it pulls across his back like it isn't even attached to his body, like it just slides around on top of his real skin or something!"

Having hugged a 40 yo man at that time, I knew what she meant. It grossed me out, too back then. Ah youth!

Being dumped for "old man skin" is something an older man looking to date a younger woman might have ahead of him.


----------



## Faithful Wife

treyvion...yes, the one who specifically always goes for the younger ones is very immature herself and typically can't relate to men her own age.


----------



## Moulin

Not sure what kind of 40 year old men you were groping, but even at the ripe elderly age of 46, H's skin is definitely not the way you describe as 'detached'. Gross.

Other than going grey and a few crinkles around the eyes, he looks the same way he did when we met 13 years ago. It's also interesting that the number and age of women who hit on him hasn't decreased either.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Red - I already said my H is 50 and sexy as hell. Not sure what you are getting at. I am simply saying when I was 26 not 46, I wouldn't have been hot for him at all. He would have been old to me.

Please don't try to paint my meaning that old isn't hot. What I'm getting at is that older men cannot expect younger women to be hot for them "just because MMSL said so".

When I was much younger I distinctly knew and felt the differences in the skin and musculature of older people. Back then, it freaked me out. NOW? I love it, I find differences so fascinating. But I'm older. That's my point. I even love the aging on my own body.


----------



## treyvion

Good notes here.


----------



## Moulin

Clearly you're a little touchy on this one. I'm not 'getting at' anything, simply sharing my perspective (as most on a forum are likely to do). I've been with older and younger men - and will pick older every time. 

I've not found 'most' men in their 40's to be the loose sacks of skin that you describe in your earlier post (although exceptions do exist). 

When H and I married, I was 29 and he was 36. *shrug* 

My attraction was never about money or his stuff. He's physically attractive, mentally stimulating and emotionally supportive - the trinity of attraction.


----------



## ntamph

thunderstruck said:


> Huh? Where are you getting this from? I've never looked it up, but I would assume that it's close to a 50/50 split of men/women, until men start dying in bigger numbers around 70 years of age.


The normal ratio of newborn babies is 105 baby boys for 100 baby girls. It starts to drop immediately but becomes pronounced after 30.


----------



## Faithful Wife

The loose sack of skin description was from the eyes of the 26 yo friend, that is why it was so "descriptive". To her, it was absolutely gross just because it wasn't the same as a very young person's.

Yes, you are right...I do not see loose sacks of skin everywhere.


----------



## Disenchanted

It is universally accepted that mature men are sexier then immature ones. that's why all of the sexiest men contests everywhere for all of history has middle aged men for winners (30-50 typically).

I'm 41. My 22 yo GF said I was the sexiest man she's ever been with. She shagged me like it was the last day of her life every day.

I have very tight skin, super muscle tone and I am more emotionally and financially stable then any counterpart 20 years younger.

This is a flipping ridiculous conversation.

At the same time I don't see anywhere that anyone has tried to argue that younger women go for older men. Some do, some don't.

But it's pretty much universally understood what comprises sexy on a man. It's what sells.


----------



## Disenchanted

Robert Downey Jr. Tops Forbes' List Of Hollywood's Highest-Paid Actors - Forbes


----------



## nuclearnightmare

lifeistooshort said:


> Right? That's a line men feed themselves; how often on this site do we see men advised to replace their WW with someone younger and hotter, and it's always assumed that he can do this? My hb is 19 years older than me so it's not like I have an issue with age differences, and while he's still pretty darn hot to say he's gotten better with age is ridiculous.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I don't know about younger and hotter but I often comment that they can replace W W with someone "better" -- considering all relevant factors.........


----------



## Unique Username

Robert Downey Jr. Has been hot forever...better now that he's sober.


----------



## Disenchanted

Unique Username said:


> Robert Downey Jr. Has been hot forever...better now that he's sober.


Apparently he isn't hot if you're a woman under 30, lolololozzzz


----------



## nuclearnightmare

Faithful Wife said:


> I never said a 20 yo wouldn't go ahead and hitch her wagon to an older man...happens all the time. What I said is she isn't hot for him.


I have to call you on this. Are you saying that a 20 yr woman's physical attraction to a man is not influenced by NON-physical factors?? Personality, confidence?? A woman of any age for that matter......


----------



## Disenchanted

nuclearnightmare said:


> I have to call you on this. Are you saying that a 20 yr woman's physical attraction to a man is not influenced by NON-physical factors?? Personality, confidence?? A woman of any age for that matter......


Of course that isn't true. I mean, what could Sean Connery possibly have that Chris Hemsworth doesn't?

snicker snicker


----------



## Disenchanted

Stop it FF, yer killin' my groove, lol.


----------



## TiggyBlue

FrenchFry said:


> lmao.
> 
> To be fair
> 
> Chris Hemsworth
> 
> You are killing your own argument here.


Isn't that Liam Hemsworth? (still hot, I remember drooling over him when he was in home and away).


----------



## TiggyBlue

FrenchFry said:


> LOL. Well um...the pic links to a Chris Hemsworth tumblr fansite.
> 
> I can't tell them apart either I guess!


No you're right, I was thinking Chris Hemsworth was the younger brother... my bad 
(they do look very alike, god bless their parents ).


----------



## Disenchanted

for levity, this is a good looking woman:


----------



## Disenchanted

Gawd she's hawt


----------



## TiggyBlue

You won't be saying that in 2 years, her sex rank will have decreased by then


----------



## Disenchanted

Yeah now that you mention it she's looking kinda saggy, bags under the eyes, forget her


----------



## Disenchanted

Ahhn now that's much better










(We'll see if FrenchFry knows who this one is)


----------



## Disenchanted

clap clap clap

2 more years....PERFECT


----------



## Caribbean Man

Funny thing about this thread is that everything in it is subjective and relative.
Another funny thing about this thread is that almost everyone on it is over 40 , either married or divorced.
But the funniest thing is, that absolutely no one on this thread is actually married to anyone half their age or twice their age.

See, from my personal observation , people rarely marry to anyone male or female more than ten years their senior.
People would have sex with anybody. When I was 19 yrs old I was having sex with women, some of them twice my age. One time I was actually in bed with a really sexy ladyfriend, just about 12 yrs my senior, when she started talking about " _love_ " and " _the future_."
I immediately lost my erection.
That was the last time she saw me naked.
I have never had sex with a female younger than me, that's just my preference.
I just always had a thing for mature women. I found them to be incredibly sexual and sexy.
My wife is three years older than me , and still fits perfectly into her Levi's low rise jeans. Her stomach is still flat, her skin not loose , boobies not saggy and her butt & legs still very firm.
I know for a fact that people age based on their lifestyle choices, irrespective of gender.
You want to age well?
Quit smoking , get plenty of sleep, eat a clean diet , exercise regularly and have a positive attitude to life
BTW, I'm 43, and all of my jeans are Levi's low rise too.

lol, mid life crisis.
We all _will _get old and die.


----------



## treyvion

FrenchFry said:


> lmao.
> 
> To be fair
> 
> Chris Hemsworth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are killing your own argument here.


I just see a pretentious d1ckhead in sunglasses who probably sucks in the sack.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## PreRaphaelite

Sex rank is a topic that bores me to death.


----------



## ReformedHubby

I haven't seen it mentioned on here but I have noticed that an awful lot of over 40 folks both men and women will date really unattractive people in their 20s just to say they have someone that is young. 

One of my neighbors is divorced and decent looking, she has dated a a handful of younger guys and each time she introduces one of her new boyfriends I think to myself why? One of them even had baked bean teeth. She seems to be enjoying herself though.

I've seen plenty of men do this too. Describing their hot young girlfriend beforehand, and then show up with a much younger but much uglier woman than the one they used to be with.

I guess what I'm saying is younger isn't always better.


----------



## WyshIknew

What a great thread. :smthumbup:

I haven't got a clue what our 'sex ranks' are.

I'm seven years older than my wife but I have a fitter, healthier body than her.

If sex ranks exist then they are relative, I'm sure that at my age (56) to a typical 20 year old girl I have a sex rank of -2 otherwise known as ifhewasthelastmanaliveitis however to somebody closer to my age I'm probably going to get up to a 4, 5 or 6.

And yes I agree that, in general, your average guy in his 40's/ 50's who isn't a zillionaire, rock star, film star is not going to be able to regularly attract and keep a woman in her 20's.

But I do think, and I hope I'm not reaching or indulging in wyshful thinking, that as you get older the age differential matters less and less. So to use FW's example of a 25 ish year old woman and a 35+ year old man I can see where that might be a no no.

But increase both their ages by 20 years and I could quite easily see, especially following break ups divorces whatever that a fit man in his fifties could make a compatible partner for a woman in her 40's

Yes/no?

Not blowing my own trumpet but I am regularly told that I have a bod that is 10 t0 15 years younger than my real age, although the grey hair and wrinkles rather let the side down!


----------



## lifeistooshort

WyshIknew said:


> What a great thread. :smthumbup:
> 
> I haven't got a clue what our 'sex ranks' are.
> 
> I'm seven years older than my wife but I have a fitter, healthier body than her.
> 
> If sex ranks exist then they are relative, I'm sure that at my age (56) to a typical 20 year old girl I have a sex rank of -2 otherwise known as ifhewasthelastmanaliveitis however to somebody closer to my age I'm probably going to get up to a 4, 5 or 6.
> 
> And yes I agree that, in general, your average guy in his 40's/ 50's who isn't a zillionaire, rock star, film star is not going to be able to regularly attract and keep a woman in her 20's.
> 
> But I do think, and I hope I'm not reaching or indulging in wyshful thinking, that as you get older the age differential matters less and less. So to use FW's example of a 25 ish year old woman and a 35+ year old man I can see where that might be a no no.
> 
> But increase both their ages by 20 years and I could quite easily see, especially following break ups divorces whatever that a fit man in his fifties could make a compatible partner for a woman in her 40's
> 
> Yes/no?
> 
> Not blowing my own trumpet but I am regularly told that I have a bod that is 10 t0 15 years younger than my real age, although the grey hair and wrinkles rather let the side down!


Hon, my hb is 58 (I'm 39) and is pretty freaking hot, and has a better body then many half his age. If you look at him you'd know he's in his 50's but that's ok. As we're both athletes I think my body is pretty good too, so while I'm younger we're still well matched. I doubt anyone looks at us and wonders what I'm thinking....I do thing you're right about the issue of age gaps declining with age; we would've been a poor match at 20 and 39, but when we met at 31 and 50 it was fine.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Dad&Hubby

treyvion said:


> I just see a pretentious d1ckhead in sunglasses who probably sucks in the sack.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


That has to be the WORST picture of Chris Hemsworth I've ever seen.

The dude is THOR AND Captain Kirk's father (in the reboot) for gosh sake.

Here is the OLDER Chris...(not that young picture)

















(This is me being tongue and cheek)
See He's the exact example of how guy's sex rank goes up when they age

On the left..Young 20's Chris. On the right late 20's Chris
Also remember on the left is making 25K a year, right is millions per year. So did his sex rank go up?









CASE CLOSED.

(okay joking over because I hate this whole "sex rank" thing)


----------



## thunderstruck

Rank is partially based on looks, but other things come into play. I had some issues to work through in my 20s/30s, and my confidence was shaken. After going through MMSL/NMMNG and other material along those lines, I have my confidence back. I'm in good shape for a mid-40's guy, and I'm often told that I look 10 years younger than I am. 

I have no doubt that I'm not as physically attractive as I was 10-20 years ago, but I get hit on a helluva lot more now from women from about 25 to 50.


----------



## Disenchanted

I think the basis of the whole (male focused) sex rank thing is that men are very visual. We all know this already. What arouses a man needs to be little more than visual stimulus. Appaling as it is it has been determined that a woman at the height of childbearing health is what is most visually stimulating to a man, in general. This is barely legal age, if that.

What most men do not comprehend, and which is also the point of the book that so many women can not wrap their minds around, is that a woman's attraction is far more complicated then simple visual stimulation. A lot of guys have no comprehension of this, because it's very different for us.

As far as women choosing the hot dude for sex, it's more then just physical, it has got to be. Women are stimulated by a myriad of things, having fun, being entertained, feeling secure in the presence of a man, all of these things play into it. It's why these horrendously unattractive pick up artists are able to have notch counts in the thousands.

The correct answer to the OP's first post is this.

You should always work to keep your sex rank as high as you can,_ for yourself_. Don't let the comfort of a relationship make you complacent. 

That's all there is to it.


----------



## lifeistooshort

You should always work to keep your sex rank as high as you can,_ for yourself_. Don't let the comfort of a relationship make you complacent. 

[/QUOTE]

On this we can agree.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## thunderstruck

Disenchanted said:


> As far as women choosing the hot dude for sx, it's more then just physical, it has got to be.


I think *sometimes* it is just physical for women, just like it is with dudes. Maybe it's more with women < 25 yo, but during my college days I'd have women telling me they wanted to F within 15 mins or so of meeting me. Now, usually alcohol was involved, but not always. 

And no, I don't look like the Thor dude, or Brad Pitt, but I guess it's all relative.


----------



## Disenchanted

thunderstruck said:


> I'd have women telling me they wanted to F*** within 15 mins or so of meeting me


I'd wager that may have had as much to do with swagger and AMOG as it did with physical appearance.


----------



## committed4ever

Disenchanted said:


> clap clap clap
> 
> 2 more years....PERFECT


I thought this was Diva Devana???


----------



## Disenchanted

committed4ever said:


> I thought this was Diva Devana???


Yup, still is I think.


----------



## anotherguy

Disenchanted said:


> ...We all know this already....What most men do not comprehend...so many women can not wrap their minds around...A lot of guys have no comprehension of this...it has got to be..That's all there is to it.


Yeah. OK. Got it. Obvious.

So your advice is 'take care of youself'. Great. You want to turn it into some kind of 'sex rank'? Okie dokie, I guess.

'sex rank' is like 'BMI', only less specific. Thinking in terms of some imagined sex rank is...

oh nevermind.


----------



## thunderstruck

Disenchanted said:


> I'd wager that may have had as much to do with swagger and AMOG as it did with physical appearance.


No doubt that played a part.


----------



## WyshIknew

Disenchanted said:


> I think the basis of the whole (male focused) sex rank thing is that men are very visual. We all know this already. What arouses a man needs to be little more than visual stimulus. Appaling as it is it has been determined that a woman at the height of childbearing health is what is most visually stimulating to a man, in general. This is barely legal age, if that.
> 
> What most men do not comprehend, and which is also the point of the book that so many women can not wrap their minds around, is that a woman's attraction is far more complicated then simple visual stimulation. A lot of guys have no comprehension of this, because it's very different for us.
> 
> As far as women choosing the hot dude for sex, it's more then just physical, it has got to be. Women are stimulated by a myriad of things, having fun, being entertained, feeling secure in the presence of a man, all of these things play into it. *It's why these horrendously unattractive pick up artists are able to have notch counts in the thousands.*
> 
> The correct answer to the OP's first post is this.
> 
> You should always work to keep your sex rank as high as you can,_ for yourself_. Don't let the comfort of a relationship make you complacent.
> 
> That's all there is to it.


That's prolly why my notch count is one. Thank goodness I found her or I'd have died a virgin.:rofl:


----------



## TiggyBlue

Disenchanted said:


> What most men do not comprehend, and which is also the point of the book that so many women can not wrap their minds around, is that a woman's attraction is far more complicated then simple visual stimulation. A lot of guys have no comprehension of this, because it's very different for us.


See as a female and being around many female's my age I cannot relate or comprehend this either, when it comes down to sexual attraction it's comes down to visual in my experience (unless prostitution or looking for a sugar daddy then it's a job, or the one's with daddy issue's). 

There are some men in there men in their 40's who are very attractive (Idris Elba) but not nearly as many as who are in there 20's imo. I guess the sex rank theory confuses me because it totally contradicts things I've seen and experienced.


----------



## Disenchanted

TiggyBlue said:


> See as a female and being around many female's my age I cannot relate or comprehend this either, when it comes down to sexual attraction it's comes down to visual in my experience (unless prostitution or looking for a sugar daddy then it's a job, or the one's with daddy issue's).
> 
> There are some men in there men in their 40's who are very attractive (Idris Elba) but not nearly as many as who are in there 20's imo.


Would you approach a man simply because he is good looking?


----------



## TiggyBlue

Disenchanted said:


> Would you approach a man simply because he is good looking?


lol I have in the past many times.


----------



## Disenchanted

TiggyBlue said:


> lol I have in the past many times.


Well thank God for women like you cause otherwise I'd die a virgin too lol.

Problem is, a woman can be turned off by a doormat, a wimp, a whole lot of things. This I know.

You gotta really be a beotch to be unattractive to a guy if you're physically hot.

ETA Oh yeah except every woman that I've been involved with long term has cheated on me.

Oh yeah, that.


----------



## treyvion

Disenchanted said:


> Well thank God for women like you cause otherwise I'd die a virgin too lol.
> 
> Problem is, a woman can be turned off by a doormat, a wimp, a whole lot of things. This I know.
> 
> You gotta really be a beotch to be unattractive to a guy if you're physically hot.
> 
> ETA Oh yeah except every woman that I've been involved with long term has cheated on me.
> 
> Oh yeah, that.


How many is that?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Disenchanted

1000s


----------



## Faithful Wife

I can't even count how many men I've approached based purely on physical attraction. Far too many. Or not enough, who knows, how do we measure?


----------



## anotherguy

Disenchanted said:


> Problem is, a woman can be turned off by a doormat, a wimp, a whole lot of things.


Yep, agree. Or an overbearing preening narcissist. Or a guy that eats meat, or isnt a Brahmin, or works with his hands... or works with his brain... or is a Joker, or isnt a joker... Shrug. Is it worth enumerating what 'turns a woman off'? Isnt that the same numnber as there are stars in the sky? Same for guys right?

You are putting your finger on it. 'upping your sex rank' does what exactly? Are you trying to minimize the 'whole lot of things'? Your ideal mate just walked by and didnt even cast a glance - and when you tried she turned you down flat - why? Because your opening line didnt work. Or she didnt like your shirt. Or maybe she had a bad day. 

Then again maybe you meet someone and kick off a conversation and hit it off. She bought the package and you guys go for a ride.

And in 6 months you part ways because... well it isnt working. You think this imaginary, artifiicial 'sex rank' has ANYTHING to do with that? You think that it increases your odds of having a long lasting, meaningful, honest, mutually satisfying relationship with a compatible partner.. outside of simply trying to improve yourself as a person?

I admit, it is partly the silly lingo and combative alalogies that are costructed around the entire sex rank worldview that bothers me. Because language matters more than we generally realize - and shapes our thoughts and how we describe our feelings and situation - how we describe ourselves as well as others.


----------



## Disenchanted

I don't understand what provokes people to come to a thread that is designed to discuss the mechanics of an abstract concept only to argue the validity of the concept.

If the OP wants to discuss the book why is there so much passion on the part of so many folks to come here and dismiss the book.

Holy sh!t. If you don't like the ideas in the book, don't enter a conversation about them.

I don't buy into it 100%, but I can certainly discuss it without condemning it.

Sex rank by numbers is a common practice that at least guys do to quickly and easily convey the level of attraction they have for someone to another guy. There is nothing scientific about it. It's just an abstract idea.

Here is the title of the thread:

"Should the wife ever have a higher sex rank than her man?"

And then following are pages upon pages of people condemning the very idea of sex rank.

:scratchhead:


----------



## anotherguy

Here is the very first link I find when I google up sex rank. Just as an example.. 

Relative Sex Rank vs True Sex Rank | Married Man Sex Life

_"...Look don’t get me wrong, being a MILF is great. It’s vastly better than being an unfvckable, over tanned, wrinkled, used up wh0re who looks and acts like she’s auditioning for the role of c0ckblock lady at the DMV..."_

laugh. Okkkaaaayy. This kind of thinking is desirable? This crap absolutely permeates the entire 'sex rank' mindset.

Thanks, I'll pass. OP asked about 'sex rank'. I think its a valid response to say that the entire thing might (might) be flawed and pointless and a broken way to view a relationship.


----------



## Disenchanted

anotherguy said:


> Thanks, I'll pass.


Then why the hell are you even posting in this thread?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

The idea that men "want to think" these things are true is utterly bogus. I'm open to any reasonable explanation that covers what I've experienced and among reasonable options I go with what I feel is most likely. I used to think there's no way an attractive 21 year old woman would be interested in me... I thought they were out of my dating range. Then I started going out again and lo and behold I got a lot more interest than I did when I WAS in that age range.

I have more wrinkles, I have less hair, less muscle, more body fat (even though I'm still slim, I'm far less defined) and yet I still get more interest. While I think I'm still a good looking guy for the most part, I was certainly better looking in my 20s. The difference between my 20s and my 30s is that non-physical things improved dramatically while my looks didn't decline as dramatically.

In my recent relationships, every time the subject of age difference has come up I hear the same things: "I'm not really into guys my age, they're too immature and half of them don't know what they're doing with their lives. Older men are better conversation, have more confidence, and don't act as stupid." I've even heard dominance mentioned... that younger guys are more likely to be nervous, deferring or even suck up to them. So its mostly personality.

I'm not naïve enough to believe that financial status doesn't play into it... but I don't think most of these women are gold diggers. Certainly the increased financial freedom (increased woo-ability lol), better clothes, better cars, nicer living arrangements etc etc... all play a part in the total package, but I think personality is the primary element for most women.

It just so happens that if a man was decent looking in the first place, and keeps himself fit such that he still passes the bar, the other things that tend to come with age will boost his attractiveness significantly.

Whereas men are more inclined to deal with a lot of unwanted sh*t from a hot female, women tend not to put up with as much cr*p for the sake of man's looks (especially early on). They'll put up with more, but its nowhere near as pronounced as it is in men. Some of these really hot women get away with murder... and guys still lap it up. Seems to me women only tend to get the "sucker" complex after bonding... in other words, not based on looks. I think that reveals a different value placed on looks.

That lower value placed on looks and higher value placed on non-physical things, combined with my still passing the bar on looks, is the reason I still appeal to a lot of 21 year olds I think.

That's the only explanation I've got that covers my experience. And certainly, non-physical things have never been enough to lure me into a relationship with an older woman.

Women don't want to hear it, but what other explanation is there? That I'm hotter than my 21 year old male competition, or that my town is chock full of young women with daddy issues who seem totally normal (regardless of whether I met them at the club, the bookstore or the college)? Both seem pretty far fetched.


----------



## treyvion

anotherguy said:


> Here is the very first link I find when I google up sex rank. Just as an example..
> 
> Relative Sex Rank vs True Sex Rank | Married Man Sex Life
> 
> _..Look don’t get me wrong, being a MILF is great. It’s vastly better than being an unfvckable, over tanned, wrinkled, used up wh0re who looks and acts like she’s auditioning for the role of c0ckblock lady at the DMV..._


You know what. And it sucks, but I know exactly what you are talking about. One that has been in that attention range for just far too long, and is no good for it anymore, but it's so apparent and no longer attractive. It was always a harpie who feasted on stupid mens brains.




anotherguy said:


> laugh. Okkkaaaayy. This kind of thinking is desirable? This crap absolutely permeates the entire 'sex rank' mindset.
> 
> Thanks, I'll pass. OP asked about 'sex rank'. I think its a valid response to say that the entire thing might (might) be flawed and pointless and a broken way to view a relationship.


It gives a basis to show that this value can be improved upon. It cannot be the end all.


----------



## anotherguy

Disenchanted said:


> Then why the hell are you even posting in this thread?


Because that is what this thread is. OP has not responded in any way to anything since post #1 - and yet you are dilligently acting as a sex rank advocate. I think it deserves a response.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Disenchanted said:


> Then why the hell are you even posting in this thread?


Why shouldn't he? It's not like the OP ever came back to support his claims or see this post through. 12 pages and not a peep. When you post a heated topic such as this, not coming back shows me this is exactly the outcome he was looking for, it wasn't about his wanting answers. At this point, does it matter what the original topic was if the poster himself could give a crap?


----------



## Created2Write

Disenchanted said:


> It is universally accepted that mature men are sexier then immature ones. that's why all of the sexiest men contests everywhere for all of history has middle aged men for winners (30-50 typically).
> 
> I'm 41. My 22 yo GF said I was the sexiest man she's ever been with. She shagged me like it was the last day of her life every day.
> 
> I have very tight skin, super muscle tone and I am more emotionally and financially stable then any counterpart 20 years younger.
> 
> This is a flipping ridiculous conversation.
> 
> At the same time I don't see anywhere that anyone has tried to argue that younger women go for older men. Some do, some don't.
> 
> But it's pretty much universally understood what comprises sexy on a man. It's what sells.


1. No one has said that younger women don't go for older men...many of them do, and for many different reasons. 

2. Maturity it NOT about age, and you seem to be implying that it is. My husband has all the qualities your GF says attracts her to you, and yet he's my age, and nearly half of yours. I think it's awesome that your gf is attracted to you and appreciates your good qualities. But you make the mistake in thinking that middle aged men are the only ones who have those qualities.


----------



## Disenchanted

It's no wonder OP hasn't responded.

Here's a metaphor of this thread:

Question:

"What do you think of Captain Ahab's yearning to find Moby D!ck?"

Answer:

"Herman Melville is a pedophile"


----------



## Created2Write

Disenchanted said:


> Of course that isn't true. I mean, what could Sean Connery possibly have that Chris Hemsworth doesn't?
> 
> snicker snicker


Sean Connery has suave. He's a great actor and has one of the best voices of any man, ever. But ask me if I would fvck Connery or Hemsworth, and I'll pick Hemsworth every single time.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Disenchanted said:


> It's no wonder OP hasn't responded.
> 
> Here's a metaphor of this thread:
> 
> Question:
> 
> "What do you think of Captain Ahab's yearning to find Moby D!ck?"
> 
> Answer:
> 
> "Herman Melville is a pedophile"


If he would have bothered, he could have steered the conversation back to his original point, like many of us posting heated topics have done. This was a hit and run post.


----------



## Created2Write

FrenchFry said:


>


I rest my case.


----------



## Created2Write

treyvion said:


> I just see a pretentious d1ckhead in sunglasses who probably sucks in the sack.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I'd be so focused on his beautiful face and amazing body and his glorious accent, I wouldn't care or notice if he sucked in the sack.


----------



## anotherguy

...a better analogy is:

"Herman Melville says Moby D!ck was a fish. Are fish good at attacking boats?"

No - Moby D!ck was a whale. There is no such thing as a 50 ton fish. But yes, whales can.


----------



## thunderstruck

anotherguy said:


> _"...Look don’t get me wrong, being a M*LF is great. It’s vastly better than being an unfvckable, over tanned, wrinkled, used up wh*re who looks and acts like she’s auditioning for the role of c*ckblock lady at the DMV..."_
> 
> This kind of thinking is desirable?


I don't know if that thinking is desirable or not, but that quote cracked me the F up.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

anotherguy said:


> ...a better analogy is:
> 
> "Herman Melville says Moby D!ck was a fish. Are fish good at attacking boats?"
> 
> No - Moby D!ck was a whale. There is no such thing as a 50 ton fish. But yes, whales can.


Swoon. I love intelligent men.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

I've got a man crush on Hemsworth. Dude is undeniably hot. Movie magic as far as a lot of his Thor musculature goes, but dude's got it. The looks, the voice, the demeanor. David Beckham edges him out for my best looking man award though. Hemsworth is just pretty. Beckham looks like a classy badass. Lucky bastards both of them! haha  

I'm not sure what that proves though. That Connery didn't maintain his appeal to younger women in spite of the ravages of age? No. That those women would choose Hemsworth over Connery is a no brainer. Hemsworth is hotter than Connery ever was. The way it actually works isn't Hemsworth vs Connery. Its old Connery vs young Connery... or old Connery vs average young guy. Don't ya think older Connery wins both matches? 

Wait till you see Hemsworth in 10 years with even more status under his belt. He's going to get hotter. Just like Mel Gibson did, just like Russel Crowe did... so on and on. Even the likes of Vin Diesel (not his real name) got hotter with age. He thickened up, developed a hell of a lot better presence and his voice just kept getting lower. Did you know Vin Diesel is now in his 50s? Watch and see it happen with Hemsworth too. I struggle to think of many female actors whose appeal increased... I can only think of one off the top of my head... Demi Moore.

btw, Hemsworth's new movie, Rush... is going to be bad @ss.


----------



## Disenchanted

anotherguy said:


> ...a better analogy is:
> 
> "Herman Melville says Moby D!ck was a fish. Are fish good at attacking boats?"
> 
> No - Moby D!ck was a whale. There is no such thing as a 50 ton fish. But yes, whales can.


Perfect example. The question you posed in your little story asks whether whales, or fish or whatever, are good (subjective) at attacking a boat.

So your answer doesn't address the question, it answers in an objective manner that is no answer at all.


A correct answer to the original question in this thread, according to the book that by and large coined the term "sex rank" would be something like this:

A large disparity in sex rank on either side of a relationship is likely to create tension and possibly even seriously disrupt the relationship. So whether the man or the woman has a higher sex rank is of little importance, what is important is that the the disparity does not grow too large.

Anybody want to argue that?

Of course stuff happens, like accidents, illness etc. But you know what? That kind of thing has been known to disrupt relationships too.

Side note, I don't have a dog in this fight, but the thread is lively and I enjoy the conversation.

I'm a romantic, I still believe in love and holy unions and stuff like that.


----------



## treyvion

Created2Write said:


> I'd be so focused on his beautiful face and amazing body and his glorious accent, I wouldn't care or notice if he sucked in the sack.


I just see a dude. Hey but we all have our preferences!


----------



## Dad&Hubby

Faithful Wife said:


> I can't even count how many men I've approached based purely on physical attraction. Far too many. Or not enough, who knows, how do we measure?


Based on your posts about you and your Hubster...I'd say Just the right amount :smthumbup:


----------



## anotherguy

Disenchanted said:


> Perfect example. The question you posed in your little story asks whether whales, or fish or whatever, are good (subjective) at attacking a boat.


see.. that is were you lose me.

Its not 'whatever'. The question is broken and based on a bad premise. So yes.. the question is about attacking boats - but is grounded in the 'fact' that its being done by a fish.

and yeah - I'd argue the 'disparity' thing too.. as it is based on the concept that you can reduce the compatability of a couple down to a single thing. I'm not buying it.

But.. I am totally gassed out. (or is that just a gas bag?).. enough from the resident windbag if that is what I appear to be to some. Sorry!

All in fun folks... really...:smthumbup:


----------



## Disenchanted

anotherguy said:


> see.. that is were you lose me.
> 
> Its not 'whatever'. The question is broken and based on a bad premise. So yes.. the question is about attacking boats - but is grounded in the 'fact' that its being done by a fish.
> 
> and yeah - I'd argue the 'disparity' thing too.. as it is based on the concept that you can reduce the compatability of a couple down to a single thing. I'm not buying it.
> 
> But.. I am totally gassed out. (or is that just a gas bag?).. enough from the resident windbag if that is what I appear to be to some. Sorry!
> 
> All in fun folks... really...:smthumbup:


Okay, sorry for continuing after you've "gassed out" (and yes it is all in fun for me too).

Where in this thread does your analogy meet up with this assertion that Melville defined Moby D!ck as a fish? The term "sex rank" is fairly well understood and has not been misused nor misrepresented. While you (and others) may not like the concept of "sex rank", that does nothing to change it's definition.

It could just be called "attractiveness" but there is much more to it then physical appearance. That is the whole concept. 

So let's just skip the whole part of Melville calling Moby D!ck a fish, cause he didn't and neither did Athol Kay say that _all_ young women want _all_ old men.

If I start a thread called "Let's discuss the contents of Married Man Sex Life Primer" I wonder how many people would join and say "That book sucks" and never have any interest in discussing the actual contents of the book.

Judging by this thread, a lot.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

anotherguy said:


> enough from the resident windbag if that is what I appear to be to some. Sorry!


You can't have my crown without a fight buddy!


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Disenchanted said:


> Perfect example. The question you posed in your little story asks whether whales, or fish or whatever, are good (subjective) at attacking a boat.
> 
> So your answer doesn't address the question, it answers in an objective manner that is no answer at all.
> 
> 
> A correct answer to the original question in this thread, according to the book that by and large coined the term "sex rank" would be something like this:
> 
> A large disparity in sex rank on either side of a relationship is likely to create tension and possibly even seriously disrupt the relationship. So whether the man or the woman has a higher sex rank is of little importance, what is important is that the the disparity does not grow too large.
> 
> Anybody want to argue that?
> 
> Of course stuff happens, like accidents, illness etc. But you know what? That kind of thing has been known to disrupt relationships too.
> 
> Side note, I don't have a dog in this fight, but the thread is lively and I enjoy the conversation.
> 
> I'm a romantic, I still believe in love and holy unions and stuff like that.


I guess I just don't put any weight in a term made up to sell a fabricated concept to men. Is this really something relationships should be based off of? That you're a 10 and I'm a 7 so I should worry about it? Should I wake up everyday, hop in the shower and think hmmmm, what should I wear/do/drive to up my sex rank today? It all sounds exhausting and weird. I'd prefer to find someone that I am attracted to, who is attracted to me and we grow old together.....not keeping score on each others wrinkles.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Disenchanted said: "If I start a thread called "Let's discuss the contents of Married Man Sex Life Primer" I wonder how many people would join and say "That book sucks" and never have any interest in discussing the actual contents of the book."


I have already been in this type of discussion. I have tried to discuss the contents of the book. I bought the book, paid full price, read the whole thing, and have read the blog and have participated on their forum. The problem is that it is the same as discussing the bible. If one party "believes it completely" and the other doesn't, what kind of discussion can ensue? It just devolves into throwing insults.

I'd love to intelligently discuss the contents of this book and explain my thoughts behind it. Who would listen? Not the proponents of the book, they don't seem capable of really listening to ANY opposition. And no one else would listen because they simply weren't interested in the topic (can't blame them).


----------



## Disenchanted

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I guess I just don't put any weight in a term made up to sell a fabricated concept to men. Is this really something relationships should be based off of? That you're a 10 and I'm a 7 so I should worry about it? Should I wake up everyday, hop in the shower and think hmmmm, what should I wear/do/drive to up my sex rank today? It all sounds exhausting and weird. I'd prefer to find someone that I am attracted to, who is attracted to me and we grow old together.....not keeping score on each others wrinkles.


It's just one way of saying to a guy (and why it's being so torn apart is beyond me) this:

If you are in good shape, healthy and get married and then let yourself go to total sh!t don't be surprised if your wife loses attraction for you.

Although it's so much more complicated then just looks etc, you'd have to read the book to understand the concept.

Not saying it's profound. It's isn't Heidegger or Kierkegaard or anything, but it makes sense in an abstract way.

It's not really any different then what you just said.

There is a problem though when attraction is lost on one side and the other side wants desperately to try to get it back.


----------



## Disenchanted

Faithful Wife said:


> Disenchanted said: "If I start a thread called "Let's discuss the contents of Married Man Sex Life Primer" I wonder how many people would join and say "That book sucks" and never have any interest in discussing the actual contents of the book."
> 
> 
> I have already been in this type of discussion. I have tried to discuss the contents of the book. I bought the book, paid full price, read the whole thing, and have read the blog and have participated on their forum. The problem is that it is the same as discussing the bible. If one party "believes it completely" and the other doesn't, what kind of discussion can ensue? It just devolves into throwing insults.
> 
> I'd love to intelligently discuss the contents of this book and explain my thoughts behind it. Who would listen? Not the proponents of the book, they don't seem capable of really listening to ANY opposition. And no one else would listen because they simply weren't interested in the topic (can't blame them).


Just for the record I'm not a proponent of the book.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Just for the record, I have read it and understand it entirely, and don't need it mansplained to me anymore. Just because I have opposition to it, most men assume they understand "why" I have said opposition without actually trying to understand where I'm coming from at all. Whether you realize it or not, you are in that camp right now on this thread.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Disenchanted said:


> It could just be called "attractiveness" but there is much more to it then physical appearance. That is the whole concept.
> 
> So let's just skip the whole part of Melville calling Moby D!ck a fish, cause he didn't and neither did Athol Kay say that _all_ young women want _all_ old men.


No, the whole concept of sex rank regarding womens attractiveness is solely based on appearance and nothing more. Men on the other hand (according to MMSL) have a plethora of things at their disposal to increase their "sex" rank. It isn't "sex" rank as none of those things make them more sexually appealing. They make them appealing as a husband though. 

He should change the term to "Things shallow men can do to attract the like minded". His current assertion that it makes a man sexy though is laughable. It's about water reaching it's own level. If a billionaire wants a 20 year old supermodel, he will find that 20 year old supermodel who wants a billionaire.


----------



## Disenchanted

Therealbrighteyes said:


> No, the whole concept of sex rank regarding women is solely based on appearance and nothing more. Men on the other hand have a plethora of things at their disposal to increase their "sex" rank. So then, it isn't sex rank as none of those things make them more SEXUALLY appealing. They make them appealing as a husband though. He should change the term to "Things shallow men can do to attract the like minded" and then I'd agree with it.


Wrong, sex rank is effected in many ways according to the author.

Being a willing sexual partner, for example, can massively improve a woman's sex rank with her man.


----------



## Disenchanted

Faithful Wife said:


> Just for the record, I have read it and understand it entirely, and don't need it mansplained to me anymore. Just because I have opposition to it, most men assume they understand "why" I have said opposition without actually trying to understand where I'm coming from at all. Whether you realize it or not, you are in that camp right now on this thread.


Maybe you can point to the part that says all young women are attracted to old men.

Cause that's news to me.


----------



## anotherguy

Disenchanted said:


> So let's just skip the whole part of Melville calling Moby D!ck a fish, cause he didn't...


but yes..he did... he goes into great detail about it and dismisses Linnaeus as a 'humbug'. (To be fair he is sortof using 'fish' as a colloquial term too). He tries to do his own taxonomy based on size and phrenology that is ....entertaining... if innacurate. 

sorry man.. you brought Melville up, I didnt! Unfortunately there are a few glaring things (wrong assumptions) in Moby D!ck that are ripe for the picking if you want to use it to draw alalogies to 'sex rank'.. simply because it is mistaken. ;-)

by : (continued) - The Literature Page

The link doesnt work because it filters out 'D1ck'. Laugh.

here is an excerpt.._*Moby D!ck, Chapter 32.. 'Cetology'...*_

"But it is a ponderous task; no ordinary letter-sorter in the Post-Office is equal to it. To grope down into the bottom of the sea after them; to have one's hands among the unspeakable foundations, ribs, and very pelvis of the world; this is a fearful thing. What am I that I should essay to hook the nose of this leviathan! The awful tauntings in Job might well appal me. "Will he the (leviathan) make a covenant with thee? Behold the hope of him is vain! But I have swam through libraries and sailed through oceans; I have had to do with whales with these visible hands; I am in earnest; and I will try. There are some preliminaries to settle.

First: The uncertain, unsettled condition of this science of Cetology is in the very vestibule attested by the fact, that in some quarters it still remains a moot point whether a whale be a fish. In his System of Nature, A.D. 1776, Linnaeus declares, "I hereby separate the whales from the fish." But of my own knowledge, I know that down to the year 1850, sharks and shad, alewives and herring, against Linnaeus's express edict, were still found dividing the possession of the same seas with the Leviathan.

The grounds upon which Linnaeus would fain have banished the whales from the waters, he states as follows: "On account of their warm bilocular heart, their lungs, their movable eyelids, their hollow ears, penem intrantem feminam mammis lactantem," and finally, "ex lege naturae jure meritoque." I submitted all this to my friends Simeon Macey and Charley Coffin, of Nantucket, both messmates of mine in a certain voyage, and they united in the opinion that the reasons set forth were altogether insufficient. Charley profanely hinted they were humbug.

Be it known that, waiving all argument, I take the good old fashioned ground that the whale is a fish, and call upon holy Jonah to back me. This fundamental thing settled, the next point is, in what internal respect does the whale differ from other fish. Above, Linnaeus has given you those items. But in brief, they are these: lungs and warm blood; whereas, all other fish are lungless and cold blooded."


_*Exit...stage left...*_


----------



## Faithful Wife

See what you did there? You asked for actual discussion about the contents of the book, I talked about my thoughts on that...and you had to come back and try to shut me down on some totally unrelated point. You don't actually want good discussion, you just want to defend MMSL. Same thing I always encounter.


----------



## Disenchanted

Faithful Wife said:


> See what you did there? You asked for actual discussion about the contents of the book, I talked about my thoughts on that...and you had to come back and try to shut me down on some totally unrelated point. You don't actually want good discussion, you just want to defend MMSL. Same thing I always encounter.


Untrue. I am going back to your point of discussion for the entirety of this thread.

All you have wanted to know is where the research is that substantiates the claim that young women want old men.

Nobody ever said that as far as I know.


----------



## Disenchanted

anotherguy said:


> but yes


I didn't mean the book, I meant the the subject we are making it analogous to.

If Melville wrote Moby D!ck as a fish (it is fiction after all) you would have no academic right to refuse it. 

You can call it fiction, which it is regardless, but you can't honestly tell the author his concept is inaccurate, especially when it is a subjective topic.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Except the point in the earlier parts of this thread weren't necessarily about the contents...you brought up thinking it was odd no one would really want to discuss the contents just now in these recent posts, I told you I have tried to the discuss the contents, I do, I would...you take it back to a non-content related item.

Then you try to paint me as if you know "all I want to know" and know all of my motivations and reasons.

Go on telling yourself you are actually open to a content discussion. You aren't, which is obvi. But you get to believe in whatever fairies you want.


----------



## Disenchanted

Ok so maybe we're making headway. Do we agree that nowhere in the contents of the book it asserts that all young women prefer old men?

If we agree I'm happy to move on to the next book subject matter you wish.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Can't explain logic to an MMSL-lovin' man.

Ever.


----------



## Faithful Wife

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/ladies-lounge/119426-how-game-your-man.html


----------



## Disenchanted

I see your point, though it doesn't leave much opportunity for response. 

I agree with you though! Those MMSL pushers are fairly dogmatic.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Disenchanted said:


> It's just one way of saying to a guy (and why it's being so torn apart is beyond me) this:
> 
> If you are in good shape, healthy and get married and then let yourself go to total sh!t don't be surprised if your wife loses attraction for you.
> 
> Although it's so much more complicated then just looks etc, you'd have to read the book to understand the concept.
> 
> Not saying it's profound. It's isn't Heidegger or Kierkegaard or anything, but it makes sense in an abstract way.
> 
> It's not really any different then what you just said.
> 
> There is a problem though when attraction is lost on one side and the other side wants desperately to try to get it back.


I have read the book. I understand his concept. I don't agree with it. If he really was saying try to look your best to maintain attraction, I would agree with that but that's not what he is saying. He is saying that a man can look however provided he meets other criteria and women will find him wildly sexy but the same can never be applied to women because only looks matter on women, the only reason men stay with their wives is because men fell in love with them when the wives were younger/kids/pair bonding and if you leave your husband you will be competing with 20 year old for that middle age man, etc.
Athol fails to see the difference between wildly sexy want to do you sexy and wildly sexy because now I won't have to waitress anymore sexy. I loved the book. I find delusion fascinating.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I guess I just don't put any weight in a term made up to sell a fabricated concept to men. Is this really something relationships should be based off of? That you're a 10 and I'm a 7 so I should worry about it? Should I wake up everyday, hop in the shower and think hmmmm, what should I wear/do/drive to up my sex rank today? It all sounds exhausting and weird. I'd prefer to find someone that I am attracted to, who is attracted to me and we grow old together.....not keeping score on each others wrinkles.


The concept existed long before anyone wrote a book. Guys have been relating female attractiveness to numbers forever.

Its not about score or any sort of competition. Its good and easy to say you prefer someone you're attracted to who is attracted to you... but things change as we age, is he still doing the things that attracted you in the first place? Are you doing those things for him?

This is where the concept can be helpful in marriage. If one spouse is still putting effort into their attractiveness, and the other is not, the former is likely to lose interest and even develop some resentment. The former is maintaining their appeal, the other is losing it.

MMSL was written for the men who have lost it, and sex rank is a means of explaining to men (most of whom have at some point referred to a hot woman as a 9 or 10 since puberty) exactly what they may have lost. Its specifically aimed at men whose wives would say something like "He's a great guy, I'm lucky to have him, but he just doesn't get me going anymore." This can be because he now has a beer gut; because he defers to her lead all the time; because he's a lazy slob... or a myriad of things that may affect her level of interest.

Most of the book can be boiled down to "be the best you that you can be." The rest relates common things that attract or repulse women in general... such as asking for sex.

Other than its snappy juvenile language, which is just crude entertainment, I have a hard time understanding what's so controversial. Women who better maintain their rank are just as likely to become discontent with men who don't, as the men are with women who don't. When this is why a marriage begins to dissolve... its really sad... because the guy often thinks he's being a great husband and the wife often can't (or won't?) put her finger on exactly why her interest has waned.

The premise being that sex rank should stay in sync as we age together.


----------



## Disenchanted

Therealbrighteyes said:


> He is saying that a man can look however provided he meets other criteria and women will find him wildly sexy but the same can never be applied to women, because only looks matter on women,


Interesting, my main takeaway from the book was get my fat ass to the gym and increase my attractiveness as quickly as possible.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Disenchanted said:


> Wrong, sex rank is effected in many ways according to the author.
> 
> Being a willing sexual partner, for example, can massively improve a woman's sex rank with her man.


So looks and screwing for women then. Not personality, humor, intelligence, etc. Just how she looks on the outside and how she makes him feel in his penis zone. I stand by my point. The delusional thoughts of a man wanting this to be true and hoping if he spreads his message it will happen.


----------



## Disenchanted

Therealbrighteyes said:


> The delusional thoughts.....


Why the inflammatory hostile language?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> The concept existed long before anyone wrote a book. Guys have been relating female attractiveness to numbers forever.
> 
> Its not about score or any sort of competition. Its good and easy to say you prefer someone you're attracted to who is attracted to you... but things change as we age, is he still doing the things that attracted you in the first place? Are you doing those things for him?
> 
> This is where the concept can be helpful in marriage. If one spouse is still putting effort into their attractiveness, and the other is not, the former is likely to lose interest and even develop some resentment. The former is maintaining their appeal, the other is losing it.
> 
> MMSL was written for the men who have lost it, and sex rank is a means of explaining to men (most of whom have at some point referred to a hot woman as a 9 or 10 since puberty) exactly what they may have lost. Its specifically aimed at men whose wives would say something like "He's a great guy, I'm lucky to have him, but he just doesn't get me going anymore." This can be because he now has a beer gut; because he defers to her lead all the time; because he's a lazy slob... or a myriad of things that may affect her level of interest.
> 
> Most of the book can be boiled down to "be the best you that you can be." The rest relates common things that attract or repulse women in general... such as asking for sex.
> 
> Other than its snappy juvenile language, which is just crude entertainment, I have a hard time understanding what's so controversial. Women who better maintain their rank are just as likely to become discontent with men who don't, as the men are with women who don't. When this is why a marriage begins to dissolve... its really sad... because the guy often thinks he's being a great husband and the wife often can't (or won't?) put her finger on exactly why her interest has waned.
> 
> The premise being that sex rank should stay in sync as we age together.


Interesting and if that's what the book was about I would have put stock in it. Instead, a great deal of the focus was about how men are sexual dynamos that young women cannot keep their hands off of and their aging wives should feel lucky to have them. There were parts of the book I did appreciate though. You take the good with the bad I suppose.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Disenchanted said:


> Why the inflammatory hostile language?


I didn't think that was hostile. To me, it is delusional. What should I used instead?


----------



## Disenchanted

Hitting The Wall | Chateau Heartiste

This should be even more fun


----------



## coffee4me

Disenchanted said:


> Hitting The Wall | Chateau Heartiste
> 
> This should be even more fun


:rofl::rofl::rofl:


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Disenchanted said:


> Hitting The Wall | Chateau Heartiste
> 
> This should be even more fun


Yeah, you're under the impression this is all new or that I've never heard of Roissey, Roosh, Dalrock, Spearhead, etc. Their blogs are fiction. 

Hey French Fry, can we link things from Manboobz?


----------



## WyshIknew

I know what my average sex rank is.


----------



## Disenchanted

I'm not under any impression, I'm just pouring as much gasoline onto this fire as I can.

It's a lot of fun.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Fifteen pages and this Energizer Bunny is still going.

But based on its fuzzy logic and its trajectory I can see exactly where this is going to land.
Whether implied or explicitly stated ,it's going to end something like this:

_Men loose atttractiveness or " sex rank " as they age._
_Women gain attractiveness, or "sex rank" as they age._
lol,
A bit Orwellian but that's just the nature of it.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Disenchanted said:


> I'm not under any impression, I'm just pouring as much gasoline onto this fire as I can.
> 
> It's a lot of fun.


No dog in the fight but your arms must positively ache from all that stirring you are doing.


----------



## Disenchanted

Therealbrighteyes said:


> No dog in the fight but your arms must positively ache from all that stirring you are doing.


Nah, I ran the MAP, my arms can go all day long.


----------



## coffee4me

Caribbean Man said:


> Fifteen pages and this Energizer Bunny is still going.
> 
> But based on its trajectory I can see where this is going to land.
> It's going to end something like this:
> 
> *Men loose atttractiveness or " sex rank " as they age.
> Women gain attractiveness, or "sex rank" as they age.*
> 
> A bit Orwellian but that's just the nature of it.


You are a wise man CM!


----------



## Created2Write

See, I don't think that it's true that Hemsworth will inevitably get hotter as he ages. Bruce Willis didn't. And, sorry, Mel Gibson didn't get hotter as he aged. He was one sizzling hot guy when he was young, and oh so much better looking. Better actor? Oh, definitely. More fame? For sure. Better looking? Hell no. He wasn't bad looking, still isn't really, but he didn't get hotter. Neither did Harrison Ford. 

Maybe I need to define what I'm basing all of this on: are they fvckable? Would I be able to crawl into bed and do them? Would I _want_ to? Would I _enjoy_ it? Sean Connery, young, middle aged, old, not my type at any point in time so I'd say no regardless of his age. Young Bruce Willis? Oh hell yeah. (And by young I mean under 40) Late 90's to current Bruce Willis? Nope. Young Mel Gibson? Oh yeah. But his prime was most definitely in his younger years. And Harrison Ford was never really fvckable to me, but then I'm picky. 

Point being, men do not inevitably get sexier as they age. Many, if not most, get worse.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Caribbean Man said:


> Fifteen pages and this Energizer Bunny is still going.
> 
> But based on its trajectory I can see where this is going to land.
> It's going to end something like this:
> 
> Men loose atttractiveness or " sex rank " as they age.
> Women _gain_ attractiveness, or "sex rank" as they age.
> 
> A bit Orwellian but that's just the nature of it.


Actually, it's more like BOTH sexes lose some physical attractiveness as they age. That's what women here have said from the beginning.


----------



## Created2Write

Therealbrighteyes said:


> No, the whole concept of sex rank regarding womens attractiveness is solely based on appearance and nothing more. Men on the other hand (according to MMSL) have a plethora of things at their disposal to increase their "sex" rank. It isn't "sex" rank as none of those things make them more sexually appealing. They make them appealing as a husband though.
> 
> He should change the term to* "Things shallow men can do to attract the like minded". *His current assertion that it makes a man sexy though is laughable. It's about water reaching it's own level. If a billionaire wants a 20 year old supermodel, he will find that 20 year old supermodel who wants a billionaire.



Haha! Love it!


----------



## Disenchanted

LOLOlollolozzz


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Disenchanted said:


> LOLOlollolozzz


The dude has needed a pump for the better part of 30 years. They aren't with him because of his sex appeal. Stir, stir, stir.


----------



## Disenchanted

Therealbrighteyes said:


> The dude has needed a pump for the better part of 30 years. They aren't with him because of his sex appeal. Stir, stir, stir.


There aren't enough words in the English language that you could spit at me that say more than that one picture.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I have read the book. I understand his concept. I don't agree with it. If he really was saying try to look your best to maintain attraction, I would agree with that but that's not what he is saying. *He is saying that a man can look however provided he meets other criteria and women will find him wildly sexy* but the same can never be applied to women, because only looks matter on women, the only reason men stay with their wives is because they have pair bonded, etc. Athol fails to see the difference between wildly sexy want to do you sexy and wildly sexy because now I won't have to waitress anymore sexy. I loved the book. I find delusion fascinating.


That's not what he said. One of the first things he says is to hit the gym. A guy can't look "however". What he says, is that a man has more ways beyond physical attractiveness to increase his sex rank than women have. Even then, he says its marginal - that most will probably top out a rank higher. Women too can up their rank with non-physical qualities, but to substantially less affect than men. He has status? Attraction win. She has status? Attraction meh.

He doesn't say that the only reason men stay with their wives is pair bonding either. Its that the pair bond is stronger than small differences in sex rank. Pair bonding in fact won't generally stop either party from leaving if their ranks have become too far apart. In other words, regardless of bond, there comes a point where one party is dissatisfied and no longer attracted to the other, and begins to feel like they could do better... or they resent the effort they put into keeping attractive while their partner just lets themselves go. The mismatch eventually becomes intolerable.

Athol's ultimate point is that large mismatches in sex rank tend to be bad for a relationship, and tells married men some of the ways they may be able to restore attraction.


----------



## Created2Write

Disenchanted said:


> There aren't enough words in the English language that you could spit at me that say more than that one picture.


You honestly think those women _want_ to sleep with him? That they would _enjoy_ it? That, given the choice between a guy like Chris Hemsworth and him, they'd choose the old guy?


----------



## Disenchanted

Created2Write said:


> You honestly think those women _want_ to sleep with him? That they would _enjoy_ it? That, given the choice between a guy like Chris Hemsworth and him, they'd choose the old guy?


I don't think he cares. At least not about the opinion of a bunch of middle aged women on an internet board.

ETA I would bet a bunch of money that he's been with more women since he turned 50 then Helmsworth ever will be in his entire life. 

And hotter (younger) women.


----------



## thunderstruck

Created2Write said:


> See, I don't think that it's true that Hemsworth will inevitably get hotter as he ages. Bruce Willis didn't. And, sorry, Mel Gibson didn't get hotter as he aged. He was one sizzling hot guy when he was young, and oh so much better looking. Better actor? Oh, definitely. More fame? For sure. Better looking? Hell no. He wasn't bad looking, still isn't really, but he didn't get hotter. Neither did Harrison Ford.
> 
> Maybe I need to define what I'm basing all of this on: are they fvckable? Would I be able to crawl into bed and do them? Would I _want_ to? Would I _enjoy_ it? Sean Connery, young, middle aged, old, not my type at any point in time so I'd say no regardless of his age. Young Bruce Willis? Oh hell yeah. (And by young I mean under 40) Late 90's to current Bruce Willis? Nope. Young Mel Gibson? Oh yeah. But his prime was most definitely in his younger years. And Harrison Ford was never really fvckable to me, but then I'm picky.
> 
> Point being, men do not inevitably get sxier as they age. Many, if not most, get worse.


Val Kilmer is going to be really pizzed when he reads this.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Created2Write said:


> See, I don't think that it's true that Hemsworth will inevitably get hotter as he ages.


Hemsworth was better looking years ago when he was on home and away IMO, I preferred his body then.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Disenchanted said:


> There aren't enough words in the English language that you could spit at me that say more than that one picture.


You do realize those women are employed?


----------



## Caribbean Man

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Actually, it's more like BOTH sexes lose some physical attractiveness as they age. That's what women here have said from the beginning.


Actually I don't tink it works quite like that either.
That's why I posted last evening:

"_ Funny thing about this thread is that everything in it is subjective and relative._"

The problem with this entire discussion is that we are all attempting to discuss the concept of an expiry date on sexual attractiveness of either gender without even understanding exactly what causes sexual attraction in the first place, and that it is very subjective.

It's like two people arguing about high performance motor oils without knowing what makes an oil synthetic ,when they perform best , what is viscosity , is laminar flow , emulsification and oxidization.


----------



## Created2Write

Reasons my husband finds me sexually irresistible: I take care of my body, I'm smart, I'm funny(well, he thinks so!), I work hard, I'm always looking to do better at my job, I run after my passions with everything I have, if I set my mind to something I get it done, I love sex and am very adventurous in the bedroom(or the kitchen, or the bathroom, or the car, or in the store parking lot...), I'm honest, I'm caring...

I could go on. Point being, yeah, my looks are a good part of his sexual attraction to me. But, just as importantly(if not more so), I'm someone he can respect as an individual, as a whole person. I'm not just some number system that he uses to evaluate if I have a higher sex rank today than I did yesterday, or if I can still compete with his exes. 

The more I see men talk about sex rank and game, the more I'm glad I'm with my husband.


----------



## Created2Write

Disenchanted said:


> I don't think he cares. At least not about the opinion of a bunch of middle aged women on an internet board.
> 
> ETA I would bet a bunch of money that he's been with more women since he turned 50 then Helmsworth ever will be in his entire life.
> 
> And hotter (younger) women.


I wasn't talking about _him_, I was taking about the women.  If you think those women would choose him over a sexy, young, athletic hunk like Hemsworth(NOT Helmsworth, btw) if money weren't involved, then you're fooling yourself.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

thunderstruck said:


> Val Kilmer is going to be really pizzed when he reads this.


Why? He looks terrible now. I mean shockingly how the hell could that happen terrible. Aging is one thing but the dude looks like he's been on the bottom of the ocean for 10 years.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Caribbean Man said:


> Actually I don't tink it works quite like that either.
> That's why I posted last evening:
> 
> "_ Funny thing about this thread is that everything in it is subjective and relative._"
> 
> The problem with this entire discussion is that we are all attempting to discuss the concept of an expiry date on sexual attractiveness of either gender without even understanding exactly what causes sexual attraction in the first place, and that it is very subjective.
> 
> It's like two people arguing about high performance motor oils without knowing what makes an oil synthetic ,when they perform best , what is viscosity , is laminar flow , emulsification and oxidization.


Well said. What I find sexy you might not. What you find sexy I might not. It is subjective indeed.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Therealbrighteyes said:


> The dude has needed a pump for the better part of 30 years. They aren't with him because of his sex appeal. Stir, stir, stir.


Exactly.
So the logical question is why are they with him?

And you would say obviously, the dude's got paper.

So then those beautiful women who could get _any man_ they desire , still choose to have sex with an old man, and be seen publicly with him, who has to use a pump to achieve an erection.

What does that say about the entire concept of sexual attractiveness?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

FrenchFry said:


> Abso-freaking-lutely.


Ta-duh!

Pickup Artist: Marrying a woman over 25 is like paying double for nearly expired milk | man boobz


----------



## TiggyBlue

Caribbean Man said:


> Exactly.
> So the logical question is why are they with him?
> 
> And you would say obviously, the dude's got paper.
> 
> So then those beautiful women who could get _any man_ they desire , still choose to have sex with an old man, and be seen publicly with him, who has to use a pump to achieve an erection.
> 
> What does that say about the entire concept of sexual attractiveness?


They don't choose to be with him, playboy bunnies (even some of the girlfriends') don't even touch him, they were hired for a job, to portray what you see in that picture. 
Those twins he was 'dating' said that themselves.


----------



## Faithful Wife

CM said: "So then those beautiful women who could get any man they desire , still choose to have sex with an old man, and be seen publicly with him, who has to use a pump to achieve an erection.

What does that say about the entire concept of sexual attractiveness?"


It says NOTHING about attractiveness. Haven't you heard some of these bunnies shown in the picture come out later with their expose's about how they literally had to take drugs and be drunk to be able to have sex with him because he is a gross old man to them? Seriously.

All it says is that women are brilliant at faking attraction.


----------



## Disenchanted

Created2Write said:


> I wasn't talking about _him_, I was taking about the women.  If you think those women would choose him over a sexy, young, athletic hunk like Hemsworth(NOT Helmsworth, btw) if money weren't involved, then you're fooling yourself.


So you are admitting that wealth trumps looks?

(of course that is not even close to why those women are with him)


----------



## coffee4me

Per Athol:


> Take for example a much older man than woman. Say a couple meets when he is age 40 and she is age 25. She cute and bubbly,* he’s in shape and has some cash and game*. They marry. The 40-year-old husband though, had to be able to be competitive *with age 25-30 men **(her normal age cohort of interest*) in order to win her attention. So he’s had to bring some serious skill* and likely just straight up resources *to the table. In fact she probably wasn’t immediately interested in him, but he won her attention. She’s probably said, “I didn’t think I would go for an older guy, but….” and then fill in the blanks about why wonderful Mr. X is the exception to the rule.
> 
> However, Mr.X is always going to have to remain competitive with men 10-15 years younger than him, to maintain her interest in him. So when he is 55-years-old and she is 40-years-old, he’s still having to act like his competition is 40 to 45-year-old men. Which as time passes, is somewhat of a risk. *If Mr. X at age 55 has a major reversal of fortune in either finances or health, he’s quite likely going to have trouble maintaining his wife’s attraction.* He must always be on top of his game.


She's attracted to his wallet.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Caribbean Man said:


> Exactly.
> So the logical question is why are they with him?
> 
> And you would say obviously, the dude's got paper.
> 
> So then those beautiful women who could get _any man_ they desire , still choose to have sex with an old man, and be seen publicly with him, who has to use a pump to achieve an erection.
> 
> What does that say about the entire concept of sexual attractiveness?


They are with him because they are unknown before him and known after him. They get television shows, movie careers, etc. Is this really being questioned?


----------



## Disenchanted

Faithful Wife said:


> All it says is that women are brilliant at faking attraction.


From the man's point of view, who cares.


----------



## Faithful Wife

"So you are admitting that wealth trumps looks?"

Not speaking for her but, no. What is happening is that human beings will use each other to meet their own goals and these women want to be famous. Period.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Disenchanted said:


> So you are admitting that wealth trumps looks?
> 
> (of course that is not even close to why those women are with him)


For some I'm sure it does, for some women sex is a job/income, they will with some for money and others for pleasure.


----------



## Disenchanted

Faithful Wife said:


> these women want to be famous. Period.


Agreed.

Power trumps wealth and looks.

Just like Athol Kay says.

Absolutely this man can make any woman in the world famous, which makes him one of the most desirable man alive, especially to very beautiful women in their prime.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Disenchanted said: "From the man's point of view, who cares." (that a woman would only be faking attraction for a man)


This is part of why my husband is a Sex God. He knows he deserves to be desired and to be with a woman who is truly hot for him. He does care. And he is hot. And nothing less than a woman who completely sexually desires him would be good enough. AND she has to be hot on top of that.

You don't care?

I really understand more about you now.


----------



## Caribbean Man

lol,
Three different answers.
Which is the correct one?


----------



## Disenchanted

Let me just say, as a man. I would much rather have Hugh Hefner's life then Chris Helmsworth's.


----------



## Disenchanted

Faithful Wife said:


> I really understand more about you now.


That and $5 will buy you a cup of coffee.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> "So you are admitting that wealth trumps looks?"
> 
> Not speaking for her but, no. What is happening is that human beings will use each other to meet their own goals and these women want to be famous. Period.


Well that's the point Faithful!

People will have sex with anybody or anything once they can personally benefit from it..

The same rule applies to older men dating younger women and 
" cougars " dating younger men.

Human beings are very complex.


----------



## Disenchanted

Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Disenchanted said:


> *Absolutely this man can make any woman in the world famous, which makes him one of the most desirable man alive, especially to very beautiful women in their prime.*


Quoted for truth.


----------



## Faithful Wife

CM said: "People will have sex with anybody or anything once they can personally benefit from it.."


Correction...SOME people will. Those women with Hugh will, that says nothing about the average woman doing it. It also says nothing about attraction.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Disenchanted said:


> Let me just say, as a man. I would much rather have Hugh Hefner's life then Chris Helmsworth's.


Go into a brothel and you can


----------



## Disenchanted

TiggyBlue said:


> Go into a brothel and you can


Bullsh!t. This guy gets catered to by the most beautiful women in the world all day and night everywhere he goes.

Pure bliss.


----------



## TiggyBlue

All this says is if you have enough money you can buy sex with hot women (which you can), I fail to see what this has to do with attraction at all. If you go into burger king you can buy all the burger's you want, tells you nothing about the person serving you.


----------



## treyvion

Caribbean Man said:


> Exactly.
> So the logical question is why are they with him?
> 
> And you would say obviously, the dude's got paper.
> 
> So then those beautiful women who could get _any man_ they desire , still choose to have sex with an old man, and be seen publicly with him, who has to use a pump to achieve an erection.
> 
> What does that say about the entire concept of sexual attractiveness?


Part of it is his IMAGE. IMAGE isn't all about physical attributes. He represents a fun and carefree lifestyle. I'm sure those young ladies feel estatic to be associated with him, and have no problem pleasuring him if it is required. I'm sure that image has a huge level of magnetism to someone predisposed to it.


----------



## treyvion

FrenchFry said:


> So...a high end brothel then?


Alot of "situations" are basically "high end" brothels...


----------



## TiggyBlue

Disenchanted said:


> Bullsh!t. This guy gets catered to by the most beautiful women in the world all day and night everywhere he goes.
> 
> Pure bliss.


Yes he does, he PAYS them to.
Playboy bunnies/girlfriends are HIRED, they have wages (most don't sleep with him).
That's came from a couple of Hefner's girlfriends, they got the money they wanted and now are out doing their own thing.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> CM said: "People will have sex with anybody or anything once they can personally benefit from it.."
> 
> 
> Correction...SOME people will. Those women with Hugh will, that says nothing about the average woman doing it. It also says nothing about attraction.


Sorry.

It's just the way of the world my dear.

There are guys I know , very young guys who are fit and look good.
They have sex with relatively older, wealthy women , who are rich. These women put them up in condos and purchase cars etc for them to drive.
I call them " sugar mommas ."
Funny thing is that these guys , the ones I know scorn these women, but they do it for the lifestyle.
They love being on the c*cktail circuits , getting invites to exclusive parties of the rich and famous etc.


----------



## Disenchanted

And on the flip side this woman could bed any man she wanted to.

Rosie Huntington-Whiteley has 'same effect on men as cocaine' | Mail Online


----------



## Disenchanted

TiggyBlue said:


> (most don't sleep with him).


Lol one in a million is quite a few when we're talking about 10 trillion


----------



## treyvion

TiggyBlue said:


> Yes he does, he PAYS them to.
> Playboy bunnies are HIRED, they have wages (most don't sleep with him).
> That's came from a couple of Hefner's girlfriends, they got the money they wanted and now are out doing their own thing.


Unfortunately for 1000's of years, a males image as his would be an actual aphrodisiac to a woman predisposed to an image of success and power like his. They would be happy to have sex with him. His life experience, influence, wealth are hugely attractive to these. It may even make them more wet than a more physically attractive guy who has nothing going on for himself.


----------



## Faithful Wife

CM said: "Sorry.

It's just the way of the world my dear."


My dear, I don't understand what you are getting at. Yes people use each other and sometimes use sex to get what they want.

What does that have to do with attraction? You are just circling around the same sentence, but it has nothing to do with attraction.


----------



## Caribbean Man

treyvion said:


> Part of it is his IMAGE. IMAGE isn't all about physical attributes. He represents a fun and carefree lifestyle. I'm sure those young ladies feel estatic to be associated with him, and have no problem pleasuring him if it is required. I'm sure that image has a huge level of magnetism to someone predisposed to it.


Yesssss!

It's the lifestyle.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Disenchanted said:


> Lol one in a million is quite a few when we're talking about 10 trillion


Then do what he does, hire women to hang around/sleep with you.
See, you totally can have his lifestyle


----------



## treyvion

Disenchanted said:


> And on the flip side this woman could bed any man she wanted to.
> 
> Rosie Huntington-Whiteley has 'same effect on men as cocaine' | Mail Online


Not any, but many. I'm sure there are some who would turn her down.

I see a female, who feels good about herself, but is very skinny in the lower body.


----------



## treyvion

Caribbean Man said:


> Yesssss!
> 
> It's the lifestyle.


And thats part of attractiveness... Oh well. This equation is getting huge.


----------



## TiggyBlue

treyvion said:


> Unfortunately for 1000's of years, a males image as his would be an actual aphrodisiac to a woman predisposed to an image of success and power like his. They would be happy to have sex with him. His life experience, influence, wealth are hugely attractive to these. It may even make them more wet than a more physically attractive guy who has nothing going on for himself.


So why does he need to hire them to be there?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Disenchanted said:


> Agreed.
> 
> Power trumps wealth and looks.
> 
> Just like Athol Kay says.
> 
> Absolutely this man can make any woman in the world famous, which makes him one of the most desirable man alive, especially to very beautiful women in their prime.


So the end game in marriage is to have a paid for spouse? If power trumps all, why work out? Why not get an advanced degree and do something with your life? Since women don't care about looks, shouldn't men focus on how much power they can acquire?


----------



## Disenchanted

From a man's perspective, in the vain for MMSLP, what is important is how to get a beautiful young woman in her prime in to bed (that's the underlying idea).

It's quite obvious that talking to a bunch of middle aged women about it doesn't do the trick.

Who cares how Hugh gets them into bed (for this discussion). It's that he does that matters.

And it sure as hell ain't what all y'all are saying is attractive.

We'd do better to ask the beauties he's bedding. But then, we can just look.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> CM said: "Sorry.
> 
> It's just the way of the world my dear."
> 
> 
> My dear, I don't understand what you are getting at. Yes people use each other and sometimes use sex to get what they want.
> 
> What does that have to do with attraction? You are just circling around the same sentence, but it has nothing to do with attraction.



Then how do you define attraction and what causes it?
What makes a person you've never met sexually attractive in your eyes?
Are all people attracted to the same things?
Or do some fall under the bell curve?

These are actually rhetorical questions.


----------



## treyvion

TiggyBlue said:


> So why does he need to pay them to be there?


Believe it or not, someone in his position have people wanting to get close to him. He doesnt' have to pay them anything.

Those in that picture were likely part of his staff.


----------



## Disenchanted

Therealbrighteyes said:


> So the end game in marriage is to have a paid for spouse? If power trumps all, why work out? Why not get an advanced degree and do something with your life? Since women don't care about looks, shouldn't men focus on how much power they can acquire?


Yes they should. But that is a very tough game.


----------



## treyvion

Disenchanted said:


> Yes they should. But that is a very tough game.


Do it for yourself. The women will come.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

TiggyBlue said:


> All this says is if you have enough money you can buy sex with hot women (which you can), I fail to see what this has to do with attraction at all. If you go into burger king you can buy all the burger's you want, tells you nothing about the person serving you.


I don't think he knows the difference. I sometimes shop at Nordstroms and when I am there, people kiss my ass and tell me how amazing I look. They also work on commission.


----------



## Disenchanted

treyvion said:


> Believe it or not, someone in his position have people wanting to get close to him. He doesnt' have to pay them anything.
> 
> Those in that picture were likely part of his staff.


You kidding me (Not you Tryvion) but seriously. This man can make any woman famous that he wants to.

Tabloid stories aside, he is surrounded by beautiful women constantly (for whatever reason) which automatically creates a competitive environment for any women wanting to get his attention.

There is no way in the world that this wrinkled up old geezer does not have multiple women competing for his attention at all times.


----------



## Disenchanted

treyvion said:


> Do it for yourself. The women will come.


I'm more interested in power then I am in women anyway.


----------



## treyvion

Disenchanted said:


> You kidding me (Not you Tryvion) but seriously. This man can make any woman famous that he wants to.
> 
> Tabloid stories aside, he is surrounded by beautiful women constantly (for whatever reason) which automatically creates a competitive environment for any women wanting to get his attention.
> 
> There is no way in the world that this wrinkled up old geezer does not have multiple women competing for his attention at all times.


I agree with this.


----------



## Faithful Wife

CM said: "Then how do you define attraction and what causes it?"

Why would we ever start with people who are straight up using each other in a discussion about defining attraction? I don't get why you would go there in an attraction discussion at all. Using other people is a human trait and it goes so far beyond just sex and money. 

Why are you on this line of thinking at all?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

TiggyBlue said:


> Then do what he does, hire women to hang around/sleep with you.
> See, you totally can have his lifestyle


All his money is going to his ex-wife.


----------



## Disenchanted

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I don't think he knows the difference. I sometimes shop at Nordstroms and when I am there, people kiss my ass and tell me how amazing I look. They also work on commission.


Would you like me to put this into context between your opinion and the opinion of the ladies in the photograph?

I too shop at Nordstrom.


----------



## TiggyBlue

treyvion said:


> Believe it or not, someone in his position have people wanting to get close to him. He doesnt' have to pay them anything.
> 
> Those in that picture were likely part of his staff.


and you know this how? 
I put more credit to what bunnies/girlfriends who actually have been/lived there than someone who is buying his image.


----------



## Disenchanted

Therealbrighteyes said:


> So the end game in marriage is to have a paid for spouse?


No, but I'm starting to think that the end game is to have a paid for ex-spouse. 

At least that's the endgame for the payee.


----------



## Caribbean Man

treyvion said:


> And thats part of attractiveness... Oh well. This equation is getting huge.


Always happens when you use elementary math in an attempt to solve a differential algebraic equation .


----------



## Faithful Wife

Hugh Hefner's Playboy mansion more like a squalid prison say former Playmates | Mail Online

If you'd take the time to actually read this, you'll see the truth.

(oopss....french fry just posted the same one)


----------



## anotherguy

Disenchanted said:


> Bullsh!t. This guy gets catered to by the most beautiful women in the world all day and night everywhere he goes.
> Pure bliss.


This thread still cooking?

I'm not so naive as to look at someone elses highlight reels and assume their life can be describes as 'pure bliss'. Not saying you are naive, btw.

There are endless studies that show rich and powerful people are no happier than the rest of us. Not even a little bit. They simply have different problems.. sometimes the exact same problems. Also - if you live in a rich neighborhood - your suicide rate goes up.

Don’t Envy the Super-Rich, They Are Miserable - The Wealth Report - WSJ

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/09/suicide-rate-rich-neighborhoods_n_2102777.html

from a philosophical perspective - I believe way too many people suffer from envy... and the harder they try to 'attain' happiness, the faster it receeds. Happiness starts on your own back yard, so to speak. This is also devestating that once someone (for example) hits the lottery and finds out its not 'pure bliss' - it can be really bad.

A Treasury of Terribly Sad Stories of Lotto Winners - Jen Doll - The Atlantic Wire

Most Recent Celebrity Bankruptcy List

Might be a mind numbingly and excruciatingly hollow platitude - but I really believe it. Being happy with what you have. I consider myself very happy and satisfied with my life (thank goodness) and a big part of it is that I dont feel the need for a bigger house or a different wife or better sex or fewer (or more) kids or a better job, etc. That probably sounds insufferable. I would kill for a shorter commute... but on balance?

I know its easy to say "Suuuuuuuurrrr. Tell you what. I'll hit the lottery and take my chances." I almost feel the same way sometimes... but time and time again... Power, Wealth, whatever... its not going to make you happy. It isnt.

"if I ever go looking for my heart's desire again, I won't look any further than my own backyard; because if it isn't there, I never really lost it to begin with." - Dorothy, from Wizzard of Oz

_*(steps down of soap box)*_


----------



## Disenchanted

Are you familiar with the Mail Online?

Just curious.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Disenchanted said:


> Yes they should. But that is a very tough game.


So excuses then? My husband managed to do it all while being physically sexy. Man up!


----------



## Disenchanted

anotherguy said:


> Power, Wealth, whatever... its not going to make you happy. It isnt.
> 
> _*(steps down of soap box)*_


I couldn't agree with you more.

However, being surrounded by beauty can make you happy.

Ask Plato.


----------



## TiggyBlue

FrenchFry said:


> *http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1342643/Hugh-Hefners-Playboy-mansion-like-squalid-prison-say-Playmates.html*
> 
> (in case you wanted articles or sources or something)


lol so this a another one, on big brother the twins he had around pretty much said the same thing, they had curfew's/ only certain amount of clothes they were allowed to wear ect.


----------



## Disenchanted

Therealbrighteyes said:


> So excuses then? My husband managed to do it all while being physically sexy. Man up!


Are you judging me through an anonymous internet forum?

You don't know much of anything about me.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

treyvion said:


> Do it for yourself. The women will come.


Better yet, build something Field of Dreams style with "Free Shoes" signs all over the place. That ought to get some responses.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> CM said: "Then how do you define attraction and what causes it?"
> 
> Why would we ever start with people who are straight up using each other in a discussion about defining attraction? I don't get why you would go there in an attraction discussion at all. Using other people is a human trait and it goes so far beyond just sex and money.
> 
> Why are you on this line of thinking at all?


Ok.
Here's what, the average person doesn't even know why they are attracted to what they're attracted to.
They know what they're attracted to, but can't say, or don't understand why.

Agree?


----------



## treyvion

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Better yet, build something Field of Dreams style with "Free Shoes" signs all over the place. That ought to get some responses.


And free money.


----------



## Faithful Wife

No, CM I don't agree. You seem to think very lowly of people's self-awareness. I tend to think people have higher self-awareness, especially in the area of attraction. I think it is beyond arrogance to go around assuming people don't know why they like what they like. Some may not, but I don't assume it that way.

The MMSL book is one that claims that "women don't know what they want" and then proceeds to try to teach it to men. For the few women who really do not know what they want, they actually deserve goodwill from others, not contempt and then "instructions on how to bag her" since she is not self-aware.


----------



## Caribbean Man

anotherguy said:


> This thread still cooking?
> 
> I'm not so naive as to look at someone elses highlight reels and assume their life can be describes as 'pure bliss'. Not saying you are naive, btw.
> 
> There are endless studies that show rich and powerful people are no happier than the rest of us. Not even a little bit. They simply have different problems.. sometimes the exact same problems. Also - if you live in a rich neighborhood - your suicide rate goes up.
> 
> Don’t Envy the Super-Rich, They Are Miserable - The Wealth Report - WSJ
> 
> Suicide Rates Higher For Americans Living Among Wealthy Neighbors: Study
> 
> from a philosophical perspective - I believe way too many people suffer from envy... and the harder they try to 'attain' happiness, the faster it receeds from them. Happiness starts on your own back yard, so to speak. This is also devestating that once someone (for example) hits the lottery and finds out its not 'pure bliss' - it can be really bad.
> 
> A Treasury of Terribly Sad Stories of Lotto Winners - Jen Doll - The Atlantic Wire
> 
> Most Recent Celebrity Bankruptcy List
> 
> Might be a mind numbingly and excruciatingly hollow platitude - but I really believe it. Being happy with what you have. I consider myself very happy and satisfied with my life (thank goodness) and a big part of it is that I dont feel the need for a bigger house or a different wife or better sex or fewer (or more) kids or a better job, etc. That probably sounds insufferable. I would kill for a shorter commute... but on balance?
> 
> I know its easy to say "Suuuuuuuurrrr. Tell you what. I'll hit the lottery and take my chances." I almost feel the same way sometimes... but time and time again... Power, Wealth, whatever... its not going to make you happy. It isnt.
> 
> "if I ever go looking for my heart's desire again, I won't look any further than my own backyard; because if it isn't there, I never really lost it to begin with." - Dorothy, from Wizzard of Oz
> 
> _*(steps down of soap box)*_


:iagree:

I agree fully with this.

But give the average working class Joe / Jane a choice between happiness and Tremendous wealth and power,either or. Can't have both, which one do you think they would choose?

It's just the way of the world.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Faithful Wife said:


> No, CM I don't agree. You seem to think very lowly of people's self-awareness. I tend to think people have higher self-awareness, especially in the area of attraction. I think it is beyond arrogance to go around assuming people don't know why they like what they like. Some may not, but I don't assume it that way.
> 
> The MMSL book is one that claims that "women don't know what they want" and then proceeds to try to teach it to men. For the few women who really do not know what they want, they actually deserve goodwill from others, not contempt and then "instructions on how to bag her" since she is not self-aware.


I agree with you about MMSL although that certainly isn't the first book to claim men know what women want and women don't.


----------



## anotherguy

Disenchanted said:


> I couldn't agree with you more.
> 
> However, being surrounded by beauty can make you happy.
> 
> Ask Plato.



Nice! :smthumbup:

Plato's definition - the classical greek defintition of beauty... kalos..κάλλος, was very different from playboy bunnies though. 

To them - beauty was about being yourself - and not struggling to be something you are not. Silicone boobs would not be considered beautiful - it would be the antithesis of 'beauty' as they described it. 

Good point though - about surrounding yourself with beauty. I agree with that completely. 

When I bake bread at home and the house smells like warm bread in the oven.. that is one thing I find beautiful. Same with the kids laughing or us sleeping late on a weekend morning (which never happens!). Freshly mown grass and picking a tomato or a cucumber out of the garden. All these things.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> Bruce Willis didn't. And, sorry, Mel Gibson didn't get hotter as he aged. He was one sizzling hot guy when he was young, and oh so much better looking. Better actor? Oh, definitely. More fame? For sure. Better looking? Hell no. He wasn't bad looking, still isn't really, but he didn't get hotter. Neither did Harrison Ford.
> 
> Maybe I need to define what I'm basing all of this on: are they fvckable? Would I be able to crawl into bed and do them? Would I _want_ to? Would I _enjoy_ it? Sean Connery, young, middle aged, old, not my type at any point in time so I'd say no regardless of his age. Young Bruce Willis? Oh hell yeah. (And by young I mean under 40) Late 90's to current Bruce Willis? Nope. Young Mel Gibson? Oh yeah. But his prime was most definitely in his younger years. And Harrison Ford was never really fvckable to me, but then I'm picky.
> 
> Point being, men do not inevitably get sexier as they age. Many, if not most, get worse.


I should be more careful with my terms. I used "hotter" too loosely and you must have assumed I was saying they became better looking. My apologies. I've admitted that I was better looking when I was younger. Yet I get FAR more sexual interest from women today. This is what I intended to convey. If you have another explanation, I'm all ears.

Before we continue, its necessary to differentiate the total appeal of a man from his "fvckability" as you call it. Do you agree that women are generally looking for more from a man than that, even right off the bat - that eminently fvckable or not, most of you want more details before actually committing to fvcking him? (I'm fairly certain you agree - no sex without love after all) And that women tend to have more of these "detail" requirements than men?

I was much more "fvckable" in my 20s. However, I'm a much more appealing overall mate today in my 30s. Go figure, I get a lot more action now than I did then. Why do you think that is?

Ha... it just occurred to me that this could be the one subject on this forum where I've ever seen women separate sex from everything else. lol

If you're just out for a ONS, you'd take the younger version. But you know what? Women aren't generally out for ONSs, so its largely a moot point. I tried to post a poll that directly addressed this point. It was closed after... someone... called it a "bait and slap". The early results: 10 to 1 in favor of seeking relationships, not sex. So why focus on that which is really barely more than hypothetical, and which doesn't actually induce you to have sex with a man? Can we stay in the real world where the majority of women don't tend to fvck a guy based on looks alone no matter how good looking he is? (yourself included) In the same fashion, you might want to fvck the hot pool guy and not want anything else from him, but most women would never ACTUALLY do it. Surely you of all people agree with this. YOU wouldn't do it.

All of those men may have been superior physical specimens in their younger years, but I'd bet each and every one of them became a more desirable partner with age by reason of increasing non-physical value to women and marginal physical losses. I suspect because a woman's attraction tends to do with a whole hell of a lot more than looks... while a guy's is... less so.

I believe both sexes lose physical appeal as we age even if we keep in shape. However, I believe that woman's physical appeal declines more rapidly than that man's - else there would be a host of female sex symbols of late age to go along with Harrison Ford, Daniel Craig, Vin Diesel, Russell Crowe, Mel Gibson... the list literally goes on and on and on of leading men of late age widely considered sex symbols (even though their age gap to you, 20+ years, may be a bridge too far). Russell Crowe for example, is 49. What woman 49 or older has the same appeal to men that Russell Crowe has to women? The cracks in a man's face are often thought distinguishing. Women hide theirs to convey youth. Yet even with this effort, where are the female sex symbols of middle/late age? There are very very few.

Next, notice the ages of the women cast alongside all of these men. Why do you this this is if it is not for the reasons I've layed out?


----------



## Disenchanted

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I agree with you about MMSL although that certainly isn't the first book to claim men know what women want and women don't.


I won't pretend to know what women want, but I don't have tons of experience in what _they don't want_.

What women _don't want_ is usually exactly what they say they _do want_.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> No, CM I don't agree. You seem to think very lowly of people's self-awareness. I tend to think people have higher self-awareness, especially in the area of attraction. I think it is beyond arrogance to go around assuming people don't know why they like what they like. Some may not, but I don't assume it that way.


So then why is there so much unhappiness, broken marriages ,sexless marriages, broken families , domestic violence , fatherless children ,cheating, divorce , betrayal etc , marriages and personal relationships?

This seems to be the norm in every single strata , rich, middle class and poor in society.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Wow CM, really? You want to blame the entire world full of possible relationship problems and issues on lack of self-awareness of our own attraction? If only it were that simple.


----------



## Disenchanted

anotherguy said:


> Nice! :smthumbup:
> 
> Plato's definition - the classical greek defintition of beauty... kalos..κάλλος, was very different from playboy bunnies though.
> 
> To them - beauty was about being yourself - and not struggling to be something you are not. Silicone boobs would not be considered beautiful - it would be the antithesis of 'beauty' as they described it.
> 
> Good point though - about surrounding yourself with beauty. I agree with that completely.
> 
> When I bake bread at home and the house smells like warm bread in the oven.. that is one thing I find beautiful. Same with the kids laughing or us sleeping late on a weekend morning (which never happens!)


Plato actually considered truth to be synonymous with beauty.

But whatever, if I had girls running around all day long that looked like that I reckon I'd be pretty happy.


----------



## Faithful Wife

If men just want to be with a hot babe, and all that matters is she is hot, it doesn't matter if she actually WANTS and DESIRES him and is attracted to him....then why is it that we always hear men defending porn use because "they just wanted to see a woman who was actually enthusiastic about sex"? The theme here being "my wife doesn't actually desire me, so I am forced to just watch a woman pretending to desire me".


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> Wow CM, really? You want to blame the entire world full of possible relationship problems and issues on lack of self-awareness of our own attraction? If only it were that simple.


It_ is_ that simple.

Reread Anotherguy's second to last post.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Sorry, disagree. You can divorce and not be in love with someone you are incredibly attracted to.


----------



## Caribbean Man

anotherguy said:


> Nice! :smthumbup:
> 
> Plato's definition - the classical greek defintition of beauty... kalos..κάλλος, was very different from playboy bunnies though.
> 
> To them - beauty was about being yourself - and not struggling to be something you are not. Silicone boobs would not be considered beautiful - it would be the antithesis of 'beauty' as they described it.
> 
> Good point though - about surrounding yourself with beauty. I agree with that completely.
> 
> *When I bake bread at home and the house smells like warm bread in the oven.. that is one thing I find beautiful. Same with the kids laughing or us sleeping late on a weekend morning (which never happens!). Freshly mown grass and picking a tomato or a cucumber out of the garden. All these things.*


And that's ^^^the secret of life!


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> Sorry, disagree. You can divorce and not be in love with someone you are incredibly attracted to.



Well then you ae agreeing with my initial point.
Attraction is a very complex subjective matter and does not necessarily have anything to do with love or any such moral or ideological underpinning values.. 
Hence Hefner's harem of evergreen beauties


----------



## Faithful Wife

I never said attraction was about love. But NOTHING ANYWHERE shows that bunnies are "attracted" to Hugh either. It just shows they want to be famous.

And round and round and round....


----------



## anotherguy

Caribbean Man said:


> :iagree:
> 
> I agree fully with this.
> 
> But give the average working class Joe / Jane a choice between happiness and Tremendous wealth and power,either or. Can't have both, which one do you think they would choose?
> 
> It's just the way of the world.


I think its important to note that the 'unhappy poor people' is a very real thing! I am NOT saying to simply suck it up and 'be happy' or that wanting to be rich is bad.

Once people are able to feel like they can acquire the basic necessities of life... THEN they can begin being free. Problem is - figuring out what are the basic necessities for you. Pretty Thoreauvian thinking actually - and something I agree with.


----------



## samyeagar

If womens attraction to and sexual desire for men is primarily looks based, then why do so many celebrities, athletes, rock stars have throngs of women falling all over them, when objectively better looking men may be working in the same building they are, or is the bagger at her grocery store, and they don't even notice?

I think part of it can best be described as a herd mentality, that a mans attractiveness goes up the more women are attracted to him, and it also seems to confirm that money, power, social status does play a large part in the attractiveness. Also, I think that celeb desire is partly based on a woman fantasy she creates either based off the mans role in a movie, or interviews he has done, basically, se creates a fantasy around him based on her own desires.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Disenchanted said:


> I won't pretend to know what women want, but I don't have tons of experience in what _they don't want_.
> 
> What women _don't want_ is usually exactly what they say they _do want_.


In what way? Are we talking in the sack? Looks? What are we talking about here? I ask because my tastes (sexually) have changed so me today is very different than say me 3 years ago. Somebody looking from the outside in could say I didn't know what I wanted.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Oh us poor women, when will we learn that anything we need to know, a man must explain to us?

(psst....ladies....just go on letting them think this....they just can't handle the truth that we DO actually know and have made our choices for our own mysterious reasons having to do with witchcraft...BWAH HA HA!)


----------



## Caribbean Man

anotherguy said:


> .
> 
> *Once people are able to feel like they can acquire the basic necessities of life... THEN they can begin being free.  Problem is - figuring out what are the basic necessities for you. Pretty Thoreauvian thinking actually - and something I agree with.*


Yessss.

And therein lies the source of problems and ultimately , unhappiness.
Pandora's box.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Faithful Wife said:


> If men just want to be with a hot babe, and all that matters is she is hot, it doesn't matter if she actually WANTS and DESIRES him and is attracted to him....then why is it that we always hear men defending porn use because "they just wanted to see a woman who was actually enthusiastic about sex"? The theme here being "my wife doesn't actually desire me, so I am forced to just watch a woman pretending to desire me".


Sh!t. Did you really have to drag porn in here? It wasn't contentious enough? :lol:


----------



## Faithful Wife

Sorry, my bad.

It was really just to throw them off the trail. They musn't know that we are collecting skin samples from them in order to....wait, they musn't know....

PORN IS BADDD!!!!!


----------



## Disenchanted

Therealbrighteyes said:


> In what way? Are we talking in the sack? Looks? What are we talking about here? I ask because my tastes (sexually) have changed so me today is very different than say me 3 years ago. Somebody looking from the outside in could say I didn't know what I wanted.


One day "I want kids, a house, a marriage. I want you to be a stable man who provides. No more of this badboy stuff, you need to shape up and take care of me and be responsible".

Man does exactly as is asked of him

10-12 years later "I slept with the neighbor. I wanted a loose cannon, I'm bored with everything I said I wanted and asked for and you did".

And you can see that over and over and over again on this forum, which is what MMSLP was largely based on.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Am I the _ONLY_ person on this thread who understands that this entire " _sexual attractiveness_" or " _sex rank_" concept is really a social construct subject to cultural relativism and the passage of time ?


----------



## anotherguy

Caribbean Man said:


> Yessss.
> And therein lies the source of problems and ultimately , unhappiness...


I admit Ive been pretty lucky with respect to disasters in life - so its not that easy I know. I get it. A child gets killed, disease strikes, some relationship disaster like cheating, financial calamity of some kind... who knows. The dtrama or fractured families. I see people on this board that have had hardships that I simply have no experince with - and it is humbling - I dont pretend to tell people how to live that have their own crucible to live through.

I wonder if I will be tested some day... but I dont think its healthy to think like that. All I can do is deal with this week first - and try and be freaking thankful for it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yes CM, apparently you are the only one who sees things clearly. The rest of us have no idea how anything works.


----------



## anotherguy

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Sh!t. Did you really have to drag porn in here? It wasn't contentious enough? :lol:


:lol: :rofl:


----------



## Disenchanted

I just want to say that as stupid as it is, this thread rocks.

Must be one of the fastest growing threads in the history of TAM.

Here's another can of gasoline.

Beauty is objective.

A Quantifiable, Objective Standard Of Beauty | Chateau Heartiste

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/fashion/09skin.html?_r=2&8dpc&oref=slogin&


----------



## Caribbean Man

FrenchFry said:


> I have a completely different take on why that happens.
> 
> But definitely easier to assume women don't know what they want.



Just as it's easier to assume men don't know what they're talking about, and it goes round and around.
Israel vs. Syria , Iraq vs Iran ,Cats vs. Dogs, Tom & Jerry.

But, in the end, despite what anyone, male or female says, and as Bob Marley once said:

" _He who feels it , knows it_."


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Disenchanted said:


> One day "I want kids, a house, a marriage. I want you to be a stable man who provides. No more of this badboy stuff, you need to shape up and take care of me and be responsible".
> 
> Man does exactly as is asked of him
> 
> 10-12 years later "I slept with the neighbor. I wanted a loose cannon, I'm bored with everything I said I wanted and asked for and you did".
> 
> And you can see that over and over and over again on this forum, which is what MMSLP was largely based on.


How is this a women thing? This is a people thing. How many men in the sex section wanted a virgin wife, got that and now is upset because she isn't Sasha Grey? Or a man in the financial section who wanted a SAHM wife, got that, who is now ticked she doesn't contribute financially? Or guys in the Men's section who wanted to be the center of the world to their wives, got that and now complain she is too clingy? You see that over and over here as well. Does that mean they didn't know what they wanted? Or is it a case of the grass is always greener?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

FrenchFry said:


> This thread pretty much started as wank-bait so I mean why shouldn't you post articles from dudes who think Chris Brown is a good role model and real dudes don't go down on women.
> 
> :smthumbup:


Did you see my contribution from Manboobz? And awesome that you called this thread for exactly what it's purpose was. 

:allhail:


----------



## Holland

The whole topic is immature.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Oh Holland...you just don't UNDERSTAND it. Let these nice men explain it to you or better yet, read MMSL.


----------



## Holland

Faithful Wife said:


> Oh Holland...you just don't UNDERSTAND it. Let these nice men explain it to you or better yet, read MMSL.


Yeah your right FW, I'm just a dumb broad with long hair and big tits


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Holland said:


> Yeah your right FW, I'm just a dumb broad with long hair and big tits


Are you young or have you hit the wall?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Hey at least you have the big tits! You wouldn't be worthy ANYTHING if you didn't! Phew!


----------



## Holland

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Are you young or have you hit the wall?


No I'm just a dumb OLD broad but luckily I do have long hair and big tits to keep my sex rank up because now I'm having sex pretty much daily.


----------



## Faithful Wife

We need a picture to determine if they are big enough. I know the men will ask so I'm trying to beat them to it.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> We need a picture to determine if they are big enough. I know the men will ask so I'm trying to beat them to it.


Errr,no.
I pass on that one.
I don't know if any other guy wants to see.:scratchhead:
But definitely not me. I'm good with my wife's.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Ok I admit it....it is me that wants to see the picture.

Flog me?


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> Ok I admit it....it is me that wants to see the picture.
> 
> Flog me?


Neither.
I don't know how it's done to please you.
I think your husband has mastered the art of doing that.:whip:


----------



## Faithful Wife

Well I asked him first but he said that since I don't understand why I like it, to ask the guys at TAM and MMSL.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> Well I asked him first but he said that since I don't understand why I like it, to ask the guys at TAM and MMSL.


Then your husband knows you even better than you know yourself.
But then my wife as knows me, sometimes better than I know myself.
It's a bye product of interdependence.
Indeed,
He _is_ a sex God !


----------



## always_alone

Don't think this fire is quite big enough yet.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Looks like it's ending just the way I predicted earlier this afternoon in post #227.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Caribbean Man said:


> Looks like it's ending just the way I predicted earlier this afternoon in post #227.


Both are equally ridiculous. A 90 year old Betty White having 20 something year old men want to have sex with her is as absurd as an 80 something year old Hugh Hefner having 20 something year old women want to have sex with him. In both of those cases, those 20 somethings are getting something else out of it because it sure isn't sexual attraction. Both pictures are humorous and that's about it. Not even close to a reflection of reality.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Betty White don't need no money, she hooks them with her charm.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Betty White dispenses advice to men looking for love : On The Shelf

From the article: "Don't kid yourself. Even though her age is 89, you, too, would like a shot at Betty White, stone-cold fox."


----------



## Disenchanted

The best part of this thread, and the most valuable too, is not the words that are being used or the arguments that are being presented.

It's the emotional attachment to the subject matter. It's hilarious to sit back and watch it. Absolutely predictable, like clockwork.

Frikin' hilarious the amount of investment going on in such a ludicrous argument.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Disenchanted said:


> The best part of this thread, and the most valuable too, is not the words that are being used or the arguments that are being presented.
> 
> It's the emotional attachment to the subject matter. It's hilarious to sit back and watch it. Absolutely predictable, like clockwork.
> 
> .


Definitely agree with that.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Disenchanted said:


> The best part of this thread, and the most valuable too, is not the words that are being used or the arguments that are being presented.
> 
> It's the emotional attachment to the subject matter. It's hilarious to sit back and watch it. Absolutely predictable, like clockwork.
> 
> *Frikin' hilarious the amount of investment going on in such a ludicrous argument*.


Priceless ^^^!

Banned Mastercard Priceless Commercial.

" _There are some things money can't buy. But for everything else, there's Mastercard.._"


----------



## Disenchanted

Women over 30 are a pain in the ass.


----------



## Faithful Wife

...oh dear...he said emotional attachment...can he see me?....how did he know I am a mess over here!!....wait, is that a camera??


----------



## Faithful Wife

The funniest part to me is the emotional attachment some men have to the idea that "ok no worries, once I get old like Hugh Heffner, the bunnies will be into me"....and they bring him up as "an example" in every discussion like this.


----------

