Any mercy fucks? 
I did not say that men did not also face such issues. My point was far from who faces the worst dating issues. It was in that the reasons that Aeshines gives for why women choose the attributes they do, are not carved in granite regarding the whole "women want to be dominated’ thing.
But yes, your points regarding what men, and young boys go through in the lovely world of dating are valid ones. I didn’t suggest otherwise.
Oh, no—I don’t think the requirements for men are nearly as stringent. Think of all the old geezers or non-hot guys who have no problem getting the chicks. They exude something that attracts women, but it sure as hell ain’t good looks.
There are not the same amount of magazines and ads and products geared towards preying on women’s insecurities about their looks. It’s not even in the same ballpark.
Because they have that other thing that men are expected to be:
RICH
Obviously it’s not universal, but let’s not kid ourselves over why these less than handsome guys have no shortage of chicks.
Yes, but RICH ain’t looks. We’re talking about looks, not other factors.
Not that I know for sure, but I suspect that a fat, ugly, old rich chick has a little more trouble bagging a hot young guy. Not that she can’t get a guy—the term “gigilo” exists for a reason—but I think it’s not quite as common.
There’s no way that you can convince me that looks are emphasized as much for men as they are for women. Not to say that there is no emphasis, just not nearly as much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanvasShoes
I enjoy reading books by men about men, and why they are what they are. But you have to remember, this sort of 'scientific" study, whether about men, women, or cat and dog owners must be taken with a grain of salt. All statistics can be skewed to the benefit of the auther.
No, I’ve not read THAT book, but I’ve read many other ones from that side, and others. I’ve been studying psychology and human relations, both formally and on my own, since I was in High School, about coughcough25yearscoughcough ago.
It isn’t my dispute of his facts that’s trite. It’s your author’s in trying to fit women AND men for that matter, into a neat little package and blaming it all on millenia old genetic and societal codes of behaviour.
And once AGAIN, your arguments about why women choose certain attributes in men, and vice versa is not related in ANY way to the subject of the OP. And THAT is what I was rying to get back to.
Quote:
You’re somewhat young aren’t you? I know you already know this, but there are approximately 3 billion females in the world. It’s physically impossible for you to know “most” women.
Generalizations don’t have power. To use them, especially without knowing firsthand of the remotest possibility that it’s true, is scientifically speaking, Folly.
Picking up a book, however good and “hard scientific fact” it is (and please do tell me, which you have not yet, how the author scientifically “proved” his theories regarding why men and women choose who they do), unless he’s got some way of dissecting the brain and extracting the actual motivations of men and women regarding their romantic choices, it’s not "hard scientific fact as to their reasons.
All he DOES have are statistics and polls. And even then, he had would have had to interview his study groups to find out their motivations behind their choices of mate. It’s possible he did that, you’re right, I didn’t read the book. But if so, you haven’t shared THAT information here.
If he’s got interviews from 9million women who’ve said “yes, I chose a tall, rich, musclebound man because I need to be dominated, I can’t possibly take care of my pretty little self”. Then I’ll change my mind.
Quote:
As to your last sentence, do you mean the percentage of wealth women overall have compared to the wealth (say just in America) that men have control of?
? So? Not to be snarky, but I didn’t bring that up to suggest that it WAS a factor in how men choose women. But to support the men’s side of a sucky new factor in the dating realm, that of since women are able to take care of themselves, that leaves one more thing men can’t use to “prove” themselves with. In other words, with the need to provide for and take care of a woman out of the way, he’s being chosen for himself, not in what he can provide.
And if there’s not much “himself” to him, well he’s going to have a harder time finding a relationship. Which IS, remember, what the OP was about. A subset of men who call themselves nice guys, but by their very actions, attitudes and words, are anything but.
Quote:
But, once again, this really has no bearing on the Nice Guy’s problems. A person being the 'dominant one" does not equal that he isn’t a nice guy. Further, and more importantly, that is just biological/societal tendency, reasonable intelligent couples work these things out with communication and compromise.
Yes…and that’s what the OP was about really when you get right down to it. A subset of men, and again, we are NOT talking about genuine nice guys, we’re talking about Self-Proclaimed Nice Guys, will not learn how to communicate, learn, or behave themselves in a decent way.
Quote:
In other words, that it, the tendency for a man to be dominant, and a woman to want some dominance exists, does NOT then equal that those necessarily have to define the relationship.
Yes, we agree: it’s a tendency and not a necessity.
…
No, but when a person says “women do X” or “gays do Y” the absolute is implied. It’s a fault in the way in which you’re using the language, not in that the reader isn’t “cognitive” enough to understand the difference between absolute and a tendency. If you hang around the dope, or any other board for very long, you’ll find yourself getting called on the carpet for using the phrases “Y group of people are X” a LOT.
It’s also a fault if you take a trait and arbitrarily declare “well, I didn’t say all, but MOST do”. No, I’m sorry, you (collective you) can NOT possibly know what lies insides the minds of “most” other people. So when you’re talking about a person’s motivation to do a certain thing, whether it’s women desiring a tall man, or a man desiring big boobs, it’s incorrect to assign a motivation to that choice when there is no real scientific way to determine those motivations.
It’s not the tendencies I’m arguing against. Of course a lot of men AND women desire attractive mates. I’m arguing against your insistance upon assigning absolute motivations for these tendencies to these people with no hard scientific way to prove it.
That others besides you use the language incorrectly is WAY offtopic. yes, women do that, so do a lot of men. Most people I KNOW, do that everyday as part of their day to day casual conversations, it really has no bearing on what we’re talking about.
Quote:
Of course they can. Lots of men do. Please note, as I said to Matt that in my above statement I said “a LOT of men” not men. On the flip side, there are a lot of men who do very well at the EQ side. To say “they can’t” is to further a stereotype against your own sex.
You’re just basically saying the same things as what you’ve said in other posts. And to save room and space not to be snarky, I have to say “asked and answered”.
Again, a motivation for this tendency can NOT be arbitrarily assigned, since science has NOT yet found a way to read minds.
Women choose men who are not stupid, NOT because of the so called “dominance reasons” but because she doesn’t want to spend her relationship explaining things to some moron and being bored out of her freaking mind. Because wants to have a reasonably interesting partner who can add some fun to the relationship and be on the same, or higher footing than she is. Also, I can’t speak for any, or even “most” women, but IME, intelligent men are WAY better in bed.
Once again, that these types of dynamics go on in relationships, in NO way “proves” this dominance theory. Are many women attracted to more intelligent partners? Of course. Are many men attracted to “ditzy” women? Conceded. Again, what I’m arguing is motive. You’re, motivated by the book you just read, are insisting that it’s all due to women’s desire to be dominated, and men’s desire to dominate. I’m here to say, again, that there is yet, NO scientific way to read people’s minds and determine their true motivations.
My original post was written trying to explain that to you. That is, that yes, people have tendencies to choose certain physical attributes. But, there’s no way presently to use “hard science” to say why.
That is why I posted that reasons for women choose men are more logically to be due to their OWN insecurities (thanks to MTV and so on), than it is to some desire to be dominated. And that saying that women are prey to the societal and media induced insecurities in no way says that men don’t suffer similar ones.
Quote:
Oh, and BTW? Where you say above that how you know that “most” women are a certain way because of your experiences and those of your male friend etc? I’m nearly 46, since the age of 20 I have worked in male dominated fields. Which means I’ve been up close and personal with a TON of men, in all their glory and humanity. I don’t think they fall into either a stereo type or even a label of “most” about anything, and neither do women.
ummmm HUH? <reading my paragraph again> Nope, don’t see anywhere where I thought any of my coworkers’ actions were “distasteful”. On the contrary, I found them to be a lot of fun to work with. And, for the record, every bit as gossipy, worried about their relationships, kids, dogs, life in general as women. I think you’re reading WAAAAAY too much into what I’m saying. Either that, or you’re not really understanding it.
And as to the “haven’t I noticed how men talk about women?”. Yes, of course. And as I stated above ad nauseum. Yes, of COURSE I recognize that men have the tenency to enjoy women. Sooo? Again, how does this prove motivation FOR that tendency? They enjoy looking at and liking “hot” women, because it’s pleasurable. It’s pleasurable becaues of the pleasure centers of the brain. It leads to thoughts of sex, etc and so on.
This isn’t a tendency. THIS is hardwired, can be scientifically measured biological response to a stiumulus. However, once again, if and until a human’s mind can be read, there is NO way to state that it’s “hard science” that these people are being aroused because they fall into some theory of “dominance”.
Asked and answered above.
Quote:
Based on many of your posts, it seems that you yourself have faced way too many frustrating rejections by the opposite sex.
Okay, we’re arguing at cross purposes. YOU think that it’s because your actions of what you call " dominance" are what attracts the women.
I’m saying that it’s not “dominance”, but we both agree that the tenencies to be attracted to a certain type of person exist. A person’s motivation cannot be scientifically measured, not until we can read minds anyway. But, what I’ve been arguing to you, as have others, is this:
The tendency of people (and this is not just women who are attracted to this, otherwise, explain the same problems that gay people experience in their relationships). It is human nature to want what seems hard to obtain. If something is easily gotten, some weird (and I’m NOT agtreeing, just explaining) part of our brain says “well, that was too easy, it must not be very good”. Now, we both agree that this is a STUPID way to think, but it happens unconsciously all the same.
Second, you (and other genuine nice guys) didn’t even consider all the other reasons you “couldn’t” find someone during those days. Let me stop for a little story.
My best friend and former boyfriend of 7 years (another story, nother time) went into the marines right out of high school. He came home after 4 years and went right to college, where he took a full credit load and a half. We were good friends for about 2 and a half years before we started dating, and dated for about 7 and a half years. We’re still really good friends.
He was one of the genuinely nice guys NOT a SPNG, in HS, but he was always the big brother, never the boyfriend. When we went out, I saw lots of girls react VERY positively to his great personality. He’s geeky, but a lot of fun.
These girls looked like they would have gladly taken him off of my hands, a girl KNOWS that look that another girl gives a man. His mom was also witness to women looking at him, flirting with him and all but throwing themselves into his lap.
My bestfriend? “Oh noooo, she was just being that nice because she was our waitress” (yeah, RIiiiiigggght, she had 7 tables, BOY she spend a lot of time at ours :D). He, to this day, does not believe it when a point out a likely target. “nooo, she’s not looking at me”.
Other shy GNG (genuine nice guys) who are friends of mine have a similar stance.
Sooo? is it that these GNG’s really aren’t attractive to women? Or is it that their attitudes of “no girls notice me” etc are self-fulfilling prophesies?
Another factor. SPNG who say they can’t “get” women, when what they really mean is that they can’t “get” the supermodel. Most of us don’t get to “bag” the super good looking.
Yet another factor. Time. I mean helloooo?? For instance in my best friend’s case. Guys, if you’re spending 90% of your time studying, in class, work study and so on. You’re out of commission. Really. You don’t have time OR energy for a relationship. Be logical, how much time is left after an 18 credit semester where you’re also working 3 part time jobs? (if your college experience is anything like mine).
And lastly, one which you didn’t adress, and back to the OP which addresses SPNGs, (though for obvious reasons since you’re already married) take a no as a no, and NOT as a negative comment on your manhood or worth.
Do NOT assign evil motives to the woman for turning you down such as “all women always date assholes”. And as Guinestasia has said at least twice. A person can NOT help who they’re attracted to, a woman who isn’t attracted to you is reacting to her inner hormones, desires for fulfillng her lifestyles, how well she meshes, a whole host of factors that have nothing to do with you, OR that she’s looking to be dragged off by her hair to some neanderthal’s cave.
If that is what you (I’m talking of SPNG’s not regular men) believe about women, that they’re so pathetic and stupid that they really WANT to be beaten and/or abused, why would you want one?
:smack:
Not OR, NOT, NOT that’s she’s looking to be dragged off. 
Arrgh, I’m sorry I missed these two comments of yours. (whew, we’ve GOT to shorten these posts, but you’re converse/arguments are that interesting :D).
Quote:
And what the women themselves tell you when they do reject you is NOT what you want to hear, or believe. So, you went looking for answers that made more sense to you, and gave you more of a sense of comfort in why this was happening to you.
I’m sorry, you’re right I did not include where I get my information. I too read a lot of books on human beings, both formally at the university (as an instructor I get “free” classes yay). So, I get my information from psy texts, human relation texts, research for reports and so on. And, I forgot to mention, I mod a 'lonely hearts" board online.
Every single woman who has had this experience, (and in 5 years of modding this group, there have been more than I can count.), has said exactly what I sate above. That the SPNG doesn’t believe that it’s merely that “IT” wasn’t there for her, but asssigns evil motives, that of “yeah, all women only want assholes” to her reasons for rejecting him.
Quote:
Instead, listen to some of the people here, and in other places in real life. They have been out in the trenches, they know the realities of the dating world. Not some clinical book.
To do ONLY one or the other are equally wrong. Based on this statement of yours as I quote above, you seem to think that when I say “try this” that I mean “try this and ONLY this”. Things in the dating world are ANYTHING but black and white.
And back to the OP, that of SPNGs, this is a huge part of their problem. They ARE trying to make it black and white.
At any rate, I agree. Of COURSE we need to get to the psychological reasons, that’s what the OP is all about. SPNGs are only clinging to outward appearances. “I got rejected”. They, the SPNG then decides that the experience is so painful that blame must be assigned somewhere, so he assigns it to the woman. And not only assigns the blame to her, but makes it the MOST EVIL, horrible, meanspirited blame possible.
It’s not enough that “well, she’s a meanie for rejecting me”. No, in order for him to feel better about himself, he must demonize her. Your and your author’s theories of “dominance” really just makes the problem worse.
A SPNG who is already physically lacking, is NEVER going to be able to obtain “dominance”. He can however obtain genuine niceness (dropping the whole “women only date assholes” attitude), genuine confidence (and Roland did a really good job of describing true confidence), and traits and qualities to bring TO a relationship.
And to do that, he needs to get to the psychological reasons that apply to HIM, the SPNG, (remember, we’re NOT talking about the average guy, or GNGs). Such as, but not limited to, the anger and bitterness with which he currently views women and their motives. Which really, is what I already said, that of “believe what the woman tells you without assigning evil motives to her reasons” and so on.
Quote:
CanvasShoes said:
Noooo, to quote Guin did you even READ the thread? It is NOT about “men”. It’s about Nice Guys [tradmark]. As has been described, disclaimered and explained NUMEROUS times here.
Cite please? For the part where we’re expecting MEN to turn themselves into exactly what a woman wants.
And also, cite please for all the women supposedly posting in this thread about how they’re finding “so many so-called nice guys”.
At any rate, SPNGs are NOT the ones already on a woman’s date searching radar. There the ones that come up UNSOLICITED, as you out, and then get all snarky with the “that’s right, women like you only date assholes” crap.
The OP was about EXACTLY that. And the OP already conceded that it wasn’t his shy behaviour that cut him out of a second date, it was the spending most of the date whining about how evil women are and all his problems with them.
The OP is NOT about how shy, ordinary, not quite rich, geeky, genuinely nice guys or so on, and whether they need to change their behaviour. It’s about a SPECIFIC SUBSET of men, not “men” but this SPECIFIC type of man, who treat women horribly and believe and let it be WELL-known how they think about women with statements and a mentality of “all woman (who don’t want to date me) only want to date assholes”.
Again, for the thick headed:
The OP is NOT about how shy, ordinary, not quite rich, geeky, genuinely nice guys or so on type men, and whether they need to change their behaviour, they don’t. It’s about a SPECIFIC SUBSET of men who berate and demonize all women when they are turned down for a date
bangs head on table CanvasShoes, I can’t tell where your quotes begin, or end.
Well I already said it’s not exactly scientific, but still, if there is a bias from sampling only those who are using online sites for dating, I don’t see why the bias would apply more to the women than to the men. It’s still true that more women than men are concerned with height. If the bias were toward “shallowness” in on-line dating sites, that bias would apply to both men and women, so it still wouldn’t cause only the numbers to jump for women. Besides, it’s consistent with my own pesonal experience of what men and women talk about. I’m not sure why you’re so adamant about wanting to disprove this. It’s not like we’re trying to be insulting to women; I’m sure you could find plenty of things that men are more concerned about, probably weight, for one. Age, for another.
Understood. I just don’t think your alternate explanation that women want taller men just because they’re afraid they themselves are too tall and gangly-looking is correct either. I think you are getting defensive at what you perceive as an insult to women, and thinking, “Nuh-uh - women don’t want to be dominated; I am woman, hear me roar!” and that kind of thing, and then going 180% the other way and inventing an implausable reason for women to be attracted to tall men. Just because there might be a component in there as to why we are attracted to whatever traits we are attracted to doesn’t mean that’s the entirety of our mind set. There can be a biological reason why one’s sexual attraction is the way it is that might relate to submission without it necessarily meaning that they want to be someone’s slave or something. I mean, a lot of men are attracted to women with large breasts, but it doesn’t mean they’re afraid their children will go hungry if they marry a small-breasted woman. It’s more complicated than that. But that doesn’t mean I have to invent some alternate theory for it - it still relates back to providing milk for the baby.
I’m sorry. I had a hard time myself. I think next time, I’ll break such a long post up into smaller ones…
contritely hangs head, promises to do better 
Not at ALL. Why on earth would it be an insult to women to suggest that they don’t want to be dominated? No, again, sorry if I didn’t make it clear, I’m arguing against the idea that EITHER sex does this for some theoretical “dominance desire” motivation.
As an aside, I kinda LIKE being dominated, in the right way (just a little bit), place (kitchen table?), and time (hurry up!!!, the FedEX guy is getting out of his truck and the boss is due back any minute). And don’t feel insulted if someone should suggest that. BUT that is JUST ME, I can’t speak for women as a whole on that.
SOME women are attracted to tall men. And SOME women (please, once again, note in my other post I didn’t make a blanket statement, but said many women. As to the reasons? Really, it’s not that aeshines said it was a dominance theory. It was that he lit upon ONE TRUE REASON this happens. My point is "no, women are people, and like everyone else, there REASON’S for their attractions to a certain trait are as varied as they are as individuals.
If he had come in and said “Most Black men are attracted to blondes because they’re a status symbol”. I’d disagree just as strenuously. It’s the sweeping generalization, and the suggestion that he and the author somehow read others’ minds and just know their motivations for who they’re attracted to.
That’s EXACTLY what I’m trying to get across!! That there is not just ONE TRUE reason (in aeshines case this “dominance” theory), that holds true for all or even “most” of one sex or the other.
I’m not saying that certain tendencies to be attracted to certain traits aren’t there, nor that they aren’t pretty widespread (large breasts, tall men). What I’m saying is that it can’t just arbitrarily be attributed to ONE reason.
Be that the dominance theory, or the shortage of chocolate in the world.
(What??? there’s ALWAYS too little chocolate, especially dark chocolate :D)
Well, here’s a quick one if you want it: because for a variety of reasons, many women who use dating sites get a lot more responses than they can handle, I can see it being plausible for them to start adding additional “requirements” to their advertisements to cut down on the flow.
Also, it strikes me that dating sites have a weird interaction with the mainstream notion that the woman displays and the man approaches; the pattern still holds, as I noted, but she has the ability to, in that display, turn around and demand certain things of the men that approach.
I’m not trying to disprove it; I’m pointing out that it is a cultural issue, and trying to generalise about all women from the behaviours of a particular culture strikes me as weird. I have never seen these patterns that are being claimed as nigh universal among the people I spend a great deal of time with, and I believe this is because I don’t spend time with people who are strongly hooked into the culture that supports those behaviours.
The communities I hang out in are generally populated by people who prefer to choose partners from people they already know, people who don’t conform to mainstream gender stereotypes, and geeky sorts. This strikes me as evidence that the “men are like”/“women are like” stuff is cultural; it’s very strongly associated for me with “mainstream America”, which I only have a nodding acquaintance with.
PS, also please note that I did NOT say that wanting to feel dainty and feminine next to “your” man was the ONLY reason a woman wanted a tall man. In fact my point was the opposite, that of that the dominance theory wasn’t the only reason, that there were many many other reasons.
For me.
I am 5’6" I am a dance instructor. And I like to compete in couples dancing. A 6’ partner is the PERFECT height for turns, spins and lifts for a woman of my height when dancing.
I prefer to be involved romantically with my dance partner, gives both the relationship and the partnership a special something that, for ME is needed. I won’t date men who either won’t, or can’t dance. Sounds pretty dominant on my part doesn’t it? Guess that blows that theory, at least for this one woman.
But, many of my fellow dancers and dance instructors are the same way. It’s likely more of a dance community thing than it is a dating world thing, but there ya go. From what I’ve seen, read, studied and heard from more people than I can remember.:
Who you are attracted to and why is as varied as the individuals themselves.
There are 6 billion people in the world, and while they may exhibit similar tendencies (desire tall men, or large breasts) the reasons BEHIND these tendencies are probably about 6 billion.
Which, back to the OP (remember the OP??:D), is yet another reason it’s wrong for the SPNG to declare that “all women only date assholes”.
It’s also worth noting that in a case where a woman has no height preference at all, she will likely tend to be involved with taller men, for the simple reason that men average somewhat taller than women do. So even if there’s a pattern for a particular woman or women in general, it may not be anything other than statistical likelihood.
(I also know that my husband tends to get cranky about the “men like large breasts” thing because it isn’t his preference. Actually, I know a fair number of men who get really irritated about the male sexuality stereotypes and the pressure to conform to ever-readiness, lack of discrimination, and attraction to only a certain subset of women culturally deemed “hot”.)
Good GOD cat, we all realize that you’re the ultimate self appointed Diva in protecting all that is masculine, but for someone who professes to prefer writing and thinking “logically and analytically” when it comes to men you’re anything but.
Do you think that a man is being “nice” if when rejected for a date, he starts berating and verbally abusing the woman he just asked out?
If you think he is, you need some serious professional help.
If you think that no, he’s not being nice, then BINGO! That’s WHO we’re talking about. Those men, and JUST those men who pretend to be nice, but who aren’t. And not only aren’t, but who are assholes in the bargain.
This may come as a severe shock to you, so sit down. There are some men who aren’t all that nice. And there are EVEN men who screw up and make mistakes and act like assholes.
WOW!!! I know, it’s hard to believe, but there are some. Further, pointing this out, and pitting those men who DO do that is not in ANYWAY targeting all men.
In this pitting, the OP very clearly pointed out the type of person she was talking to. The guy in the OP DID fall under the SPNG category by going on and on about how bad women are, and how they always screw him over and so on (paraphrased).
The way you constantly carry on, you act as if anything with three legs is automatically an angelic saint, free of any fault and immune from being complained about.
Again, no you didn’t. No woman in THIS thread has said any such thing. You’re just not paying attention, as per usual you’re letting your knee jerk need to jump to the defense of any imagined slight to a male, whether deserved or not.
You mean I shouldn’t expect men to be ready to perform whenever the mood strikes me? :smack:
I didn’t say that; I said you acted insulted by the idea of women wanting to be dominated. Actually the exact opposite of what you just said.
Nope, you were clear.