You keep posting the same shit over and over. Why read it 65 times when I disagreed with it the last 64 times?
You’re not going to educate or enlighten me until I agree with you, nor will you get me to jump through the hoops you want. Give it up.
Because, once again, you’re disagreeing with things no one EVER said on this thread.
You’re saying “X is NOT Y, you can’;t convince me otherwise, quit trying to make me agree that X = Y”. When what is idiotic on your part is that NO ONE ever said what you’re so mad about and are so defensive about.
Mad? Defensive?
I think you’re projecting.
I disagree with you. I read what you said, and I disagree with it. Let it go.
CanvasShoes, we do we try? I mean, really?
How many different people have already told her the same thing here (that it’s her inablity to actually respond to what was actually written instead of responding to the stuff she makes up in her head)? She’s just going to pretend we didn’t say anything, or she’s going to point over to the corner and yell, “LOOK!” or she’s going to take another shot at your coding skills, or whatever. But never address what’s pretty obvious to everyone else.
Remember that wring popped in her a day or so ago, and merely stated that she now understood why this thread was so long? “Catsix. That explains it” (or words to that effect). We all know what the score is. Catsix has a long history of this. As you’ve said before, nothing is piercing the void.
I know, I thought maybe, just maybe I could get her to see that we weren’t disagreeing with her, but only trying to get her to see what we DID say as opposed to what she imagined us to be saying.
And yeah, I mean to send wring a smile, she nailed it in one small sentence.
Actually, I was hoping to get past cat’s imaginary arguments and onto a side one related to the OP.
One that a few other posters here touched on before it got buried in the last page. You for one I think.
That of the rights to pit a man for the other traits the man in the OP exhibited. Like whining, clinging, refusal to add anything but his presence to the relationship. No, he’s not an asshole, but these ARE traits which will keep him from getting dates, or second dates. And they have nothing to do with his looks.
I’d dump a tall, goodlooking, rich guy (and have, well minus the tall :D) for whiny clingy dramaqueenness, just as a would a not rich, not goodlooking, not tall one.
Actually, I think she gets a lot more than she lets on. Maybe some of what’s going (especially the most recent stuff) on is a “saving face” issue? I don’t know.
If you are just saying that women work harder on their looks, you won’t get any arguments.
However, you seem to be drawing several false conclusions from this.
Your biggest point seems to be that men are given more “wiggle room” in attractiveness (such as being allowed to get older or gain weight).
But this shows that you are treating men’s appearances as though they are judged by the same standards as women’s appearances, which plainly they are not.
To a much greater extent than a woman, a man’s physical attractiveness is based on inborn characteristics. Height, frame, baldness, facial structure - all are genetic. None can be changed without drastic efforts, if even then.
An attractive man will likely still be attractive if he gets older or gains a little weight, because his inborn characteristics are still there. Incidentally, this is the flaw in your movie star arguments - by selecting a movie star, you are choosing someone who obviously has attractive inborn characteristics. No wonder they are still attractive when they get older.
In contrast, a woman’s attractiveness is based largely on factors such as youth and health, which change over time.
This means that the vast majority of women can be very attractive when they are young, especially if they keep themselves in good shape, but that as their child bearing years fade, they must work harder and harder to be seen as attractive. It also means that there will be more pressure for women to work on their looks, because they can actually make a big difference in their attractiveness.
You can certainly make the argument that men have it easier; that since they can’t change their height, frame, baldness, facial structure, etc, they have less pressure on them to work on their looks.
However, it could also be argued that women have it easier because they can change their looks. I’m sure lots of short, bald, beady eyed guys would do anything to make themselves big, tall, curly haired men with eyes that women lose themselves in, even if they knew these things would fade as they aged. But those things can’t be changed.
I don’t think either sex can be said to have it better as a group.
That is what I’m saying. I’m not saying that men have it easier in all things (they have it much tougher because they are judged more for their aggressiveness, competitiveness, income, etc.). In fact, perhaps in some ways, when you add up all factors (not just physical ones), men have it harder. I don’t know.
Eh…not as much as you think. We all only get one skeleton. We all get a certain type of metabolism. We have “good bone structure,” or we don’t. We tend to gain weight, or we don’t.
Women can do more to disguise mediocre bone structure, but then again they have to, all their lives, just to measure up.
Yes.
Yes.
And more importantly, they are not expected to as much. If a man gets a pot belly and crow’s feet, well, not so big of a deal. A woman gains weight and gets wrinkles, she’s “gone to pot.” Different set of expectations.
In a way, that’s probably true, for a while. But they have to work at it, always work at it, and moreover, they’re expected to, just to stay afloat and avoid being told that they’re “going to pot.” There isn’t that same pressure to keep working at it with men. And they aren’t judged as harshly when they don’t.
And I’m sure that a lot of knock-kneed, receding-chinned, bad-postured, flat-chested/big hipped girls with lank mousy hair wished that they were tall and willowy with glossy long hair, perfect profiles and an hourglass figure. Plastic surgery can fix some of that for them, but then again, it can for men too. (All except for the height thing, which I concede is more of an issue for men.)
When you factor in all issues (not just strictly physical ones), I wouldn’t be surprised if that were so.
A side note: There’s a thread going on right now in GD about why women starve themselves to get super-thin. It’s these kinds of issues constantly cropping up that make it pretty hard for me to believe that, when it comes to looks, there isn’t more of a problem on the female side.
No, if I understand her right, what she’s saying is that “yes, men are ALSO judged by their looks, but not as harshly”. And you guys are right about the fashion thing, men aren’t really judged all that much on that.
As an illustration of “wiggle room” take Sean Connery for one. Dashing and handsome as J. Bond, but now that he’s older? Very little hair? He’s really not lost much in the way of looks. Whereas a woman with thinning grey hair, getting a gut, getting crows feet would pretty much kill her looks dead as a doornail.
And even when the changes don’t make as “hot” a picture as Sean Connery’s, more “decay” so to speak is possible without it detracting from the man’s perceived attraction.
Okay…and how is this different from women? Sorry, not being snarky, I am trying to understand your point. And bear with me, I entered into this part of the thread late
Men can likewise improve their looks by proper 'maintenance" so to speak. Otherwise, I agree with the basic premise of what you say here.
You’re arguing apples and oranges.
Frame, height, facial structure. These are things that neither sex can change. A man’s facial structure, for whatever reason, seems to adapt better to aging than does a woman’s. As for the other maintenance, as I said above, men are just as able to take advantage of the gym, skin treatments, hair drugs, and so on.
No, not as a group, and not across the boards on all subjects. But on the subject of looks, women are, by society, the media and frequently men, more judged on their looks than are men.
I don’t think you can separate the pressure from the ability to change. The pressure is enabled by the ability to change.
If women could not change their bodies to make them, for example, thinner, then the pressure to make themselves thinner could not exist. This also explains why females are subject to the eating disorders you mention.
If men could get bigger and taller by dieting, I’m sure lots of them would do it. And in a world where this was possible, there would probably be some who thought they were never big and tall enough, and starved themselves.
This is one of the ways that the ability to change one’s body in the way one wants can be a bad thing. But I do think there are good things about such an ability as well.
Interesting point.
Well, they can’t get taller of course, but they certainly can get BIGGER by dieting and proper exercise. If a particular man honestly thinks that it is his lack of muscles that is narrowing his dating pool, he’s got every opportunity and ability to change that.
Skinny is as “simple and easy” to fix as it’s “simple and easy” to fix being too fat. Tongue in cheek and heavy sarcasm of course. Both require a great deal of discipline and know how.
People have preferences for who they have preferences for, it’s not something that they do ON PURPOSE in order to somehow insult and “shit on” those who don’t match those preferences.
If a particular man wants a wider pool of women from which to choose, and he knows that those he admires prefer a more buff man, or if there is A particular woman that he wants to attract, then he’s got two choices. Either buff himself up, or accept that his dating pool will be held to those women who don’t have that as part of their preferences.
If it is more important to him to “not be forced to change himself” then he needs to graciously accept being turned down when he doesn’t match someone else’s needs, it’s NOT personal.
Lastly, it’s seriously doubtful that matching a woman’s physical preferences is a magic entry key to her heart, mind and soul (not to mention her bed), so likewise, if you pump yourself up, and get all the looks and money wise things you think you need to have to “get” a woman, don’t be all angry if the one you want doesn’t feel “IT” for you.
This just proves my point: that a man’s physical attractiveness is based on inborn characteristics to a much greater extent than a woman’s, while a woman’s physical attractiveness is based to a larger extent on more ephemeral qualities like youth.
Of course I am. Because men and women are judged by apples and oranges.
I think the problem you are having is that you are insisting that they are judged by the same things.
Women are judged largely on weight, wrinkles, fitness, and the youthful look of their face, but men are judged largely on height, frame, facial structure, and baldness. Apples and oranges, but that is the way it is.
Since men can’t very well change most of the things that are important for their physical attractiveness, they get the benefit of less pressure, but also the dilemma of having no effective way to improve their looks.
Women, though, can change their attractiveness far more easily, and as such are under much more pressure to do exactly that.
I was refering to their frame. A small-framed man is not going to look like Arnold Schwarzenegger.
I agree.
I don’t think anyone is disputing this. I think we’re trying to say that, overall, the pressure (and expectations) are greater for females. I don’t get the impression that you are exactly disagreeing with that.
And, as I mentioned before, men have more pressure and expectations put upon them in other (non-phsyical) ways (success, income, etc.) and that’s also the way it is.
I think that CanvasShoes is saying that there is a way to improve their looks, at least somewhat. They can stay trim, avoid a pot belly, but there is a little less pressure to do so. They can get hair plugs or use Rogaine, but the fashion of shaved-head men means that there is a little less pressure to do so. They can get plastic surgery to get rid of wrinkles and reshape their face (for instance, Michael Douglas got a chin implant, which effectively changed the appearance of his bone structure), but in fact there is at least a little less pressure to do so.
Right, but not in the ways that matter most.
Height, frame, facial structure, and baldness. The most important physical characteristics for men, and none can be changed without drastic measures. Rogaine has a horrible success rate, and only certain people look good bald. Chin implants would count as a drastic (and bizarre) measure.
In contrast, women have many methods of changing their weight, fitness, and youthful look, which are the biggest factors in their attractiveness. Excercise, diet, cosmetics, etc.
Both can change aspects of their appearance.
The difference is that women can change the things that matter most for their attractiveness, while men can’t. That leaves men without options for looking better, but puts women under more pressure.
True, only so much can be done with that, but working out can do something, and yet I think the pressure isn’t tremendous (though it’s certainly there) to be muscle men.
You think facial structure isn’t important for women? Are you kidding?
A weak chin or a big nose doesn’t look very good on a woman. In fact, a big nose on a man looks a helluva lot better on a man (or at least has a chance to) than it does on a woman, Barbra Streisand notwithstanding.
A weak chin can be hidden behind a beard with a man, but not so with a woman. Only a chin implant will do.
Squinty little eyes can be improved only so much through eye makeup on a woman, but squinty little eyes on a man aren’t all that bad (depending on certain factors, of course). Pocked-marked skin doesn’t seem to be a huge problem for some men (Tommy Lee Jones) but it’s pretty bad for women (though dermabrasion can help).
Shave the head, or use some hair restoration product, or just wear a hairpiece. Not saying that it is no problem, but it isn’t as if a man can’t do anything. Also, some men flat-out do look good bald. Does any woman with crappy, thinning hair look good? Can she shave her head bald and get the same positive reaction that many men get? I don’t think so.
Not so, as I said further in that part of the post you quoted, even "not so good looking men’ apply here. That they still look okay enough to attract women.
No, as I said in my first post to you above, women are judged MORE on looks, and more harshly on looks. While IMHO, men are just as “judged” by society, but judged more on things they do, (making money, having power, being well known, that sort of thing), than how they look.
You men WHEN they are both being judged for looks, not bringing any other factors such as I state above into it right? Then yes, I see what you’re saying, but disagree still. It’s not as if our frames, or height, or facial structure can be changed anymore than yours can. The things that can be changed, can be changed in both sexes.
So, if a man and a woman are both of roughly equivelant (for their frame, height and facial structure), age and state of “decay” so to speak, the man will be PERCEIVED as being much “better looking” than the woman, by both men and women, despite the small difference in their actual appearance (both similar heights, frames, facial structures), a pot belly and greying and balding hair will be judged much less harshly on a man, even if it seriously detracts from his former looks.
Take William Shatner, he was SOO hot as a young Captain Kirk, now? He looks pretty unattractive. But, it’s excused more, overlooked somehow, accepted, where it isn’t in say…Florence Henderson, even though really, she’s held up better than he has.
They have just as many ways and opportunities to change their looks as do women. I don’t understand where you’re seeing their limitations, other than the height thing.
No, Ahnold is what? 6 feet tall? But he CAN look like a well muscled shorter man. He can be the best he can be. And he also has all of the plastic surgery “youthening” opportunities open to him, just like a women. Including hair replacement.
So, there is a small amount of things he “can’t” change. Same with a woman, there are some things she can’t change about herself either. I don’t think that the fact that height, frame and facial structure are his crosses to bear, means that she’s got more opportunities to change things than he does to look better than he does.
Pity that looks matter in people choosing each other, but they do, and I guess that’s ALL of our crosses to bear. Wouldn’t it be great if we could just MAKE ourselves love a person just based on who we supposedly should love?
Yes, yes I know.
What I am saying is that the things that can be changed are a bigger factor in female attractiveness, while the things that can’t be changed are a bigger factor in male attractiveness.
When I say “bigger factor” I don’t mean “only factor”, and when I say “smaller factor” I don’t mean “not a factor at all.”
My theory is that one of the reasons there is so much pressure on women is that the biggest factors for their attractiveness are things they can change (and which they know other women will be working on), while one reason there is less pressure on men is that the biggest factors for their attractiveness are things they cannot change (and they know other men can’t change either).
Height and frame are the only things that absolutely nothing can be done about (though elevator shoes can help). The rest can be changed, though it might be considered too much effort for some men. But that doesn’t mean that it can’t be changed.
And getting back to the bone structure/big nose/receding chin thing: There are, I think, a wider variety of features that can be considered “handsome” on a man. Sam Waterson, with his too-close-together-eyes and big honker of a nose, is still an attractive man. That big of a nose on a woman would have to go. Strange, craggy, goofy features can sometimes look “masculine” and therefore “attractive” on a man (Peter Coyote and James Coburn are two “ugly/handsome” men I can think of off the top of my head). The same leeway isn’t usually applied to a woman.
okay. yes. NOW it makes sense.
Yeah hence all of the derogatory insults that can be made against women.
Cow, bag face, Olive Oil (there’s only ONE true proper size for a woman to be, and she never knows what it is until the guy who isn’t pleased with her, for not meeting his exacting standards tells her so.
Usually by yelling it out of a car window so as to make his buddies crack up as he goes by.
Not that that is any more fair to men. For one thing, like the OP said, how’re they supposed to know? Seems kind of cruel to never know why you’re constantly being turned down. At least with a woman, she gets some hints from the outspoken critics of the world. If a woman, or if many women, turn him down, he generally doesn’t get to know why, unless he ASKS, like the man in the OP did, and she’s brave enough to tell him.