HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,723
- 113
I don't see where it says women place a higher value on men other than the OKCupid study (which doesn't say that). Fair enough on point A though.
If Mort Divine ruled the world
- Thread starter Zephyrus
- Start date
Dak
mentat
The bell curve on that graph as well as studies 1-3 in that link. To summerize the reality of the situation: "Cishet" men tend to message anything higher than a 3-4. Women message 8-10s.
The Ozzman
Melted by feels
Being on those sites you can gain the empirical evidence anyway. Most dudes women rank as '8-10' don't even need those sites tbh. I got messaged by sub 5s all the time and they probably thought I was at least an 8 or whatever.
Last edited:
no country for old wainds
Active Member
- Nov 23, 2002
- 26,826
- 9,684
- 113
a woman's attraction to a prospective mate is also inextricably bound up in how said male approaches them, in my experience. a lot of dudes seem to cling to this rationalisation that they're being rejected/called a creep solely based on looks, but in actuality a 6 who approaches a woman in a confident, witty, experienced-seeming way is generally gonna do better than, say, an 8 who's overly aggressive or leery or awkward etc. or to put it another way, you can change your so-called attractiveness rating pretty significantly by how you chat a girl up - if you're a 6/10 guy and an 8/10 girl thinks you're being a creep, you're probably being a fucking creep. i'm not saying the same would apply for a 1 and 10, just adding to hbb's point that looks are hardly the only factor. and obviously, there's a major correlation between being less good looking and being less good at approaching women anyway as a lot of it boils down to experience of success and higher self-esteem etc, which is another reason people mistake the latter for the former.
HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,723
- 113
As I said, the bell curve from the OKCupid study can't easily be used to indicate that women put higher emphasis on attractiveness than men. The researchers show that men selectively and strongly message the most attractively-rated women, whereas how women actually send messages actually follows something closer to a normal bell curve.
I don't see a numbered list of studies in the blog post you listed. If you're referring to three named studies regarding sex differences and attractiveness ( (1) Hadjistavropoulos et al (1994) ; (2) Weiderman and Dubois (1998) ; (3) Sprecher (1989) ), then the first one I can't even find on PubMed, though the blogger only seems to state that it shows that women lie/downplay the extent to which they care about physical attractiveness. That does not imply that they care about it more than men. The second seems to be more of the same, though the title and abstract clearly indicate it is about short-term relationships only. The third also states in its abstract that men and women value attractiveness similarly, but that women under-estimate the extent to which they value it.
Yeah, something like the top 10% of men on Tinder get like 90% of female attention iirc. If you're over 6 feet tall, white, athletic, and have a nice enough face, you can get get all the vagina you want. If you simply have a vagina, you can get all the penis you want. For some odd reason, this makes men very upset that women don't have the same low standard that men have. If Chad has sex with 100 women, then Stacy HAS to have sex with me or it's not fair, reeeeeeeee.
You'd think they'd just learn to become gay and have all the sex they can handle.
Anecdotal of course, but yeah, I know a few guys in my graduate program that I'm fairly sure are below even me on most attractiveness scales (shorter, skinnier and/or chubby, worse posture, etc) that have very attractive girlfriends. They're also extremely charismatic though. Maybe in 10 years r9k/TRP will prove them wrong and they'll get married, cheated on by Tyrone, divorced, lose custody of their kids and all their money, and be forced to subsist on hentai for the rest of their lives, but I doubt it tbh.
Worst case scenario, it's something that describes middle/upper-class Western women. There's virtually nothing stopping men from dating and marrying foreign women, which is something that's taken off over the last few decades.
Einherjar86
Active Member
The author isn't arguing that we need to return to a pre-modern mode of existence in order to pursue egalitarian practices.
Is that what you actually think the author is saying, or do you feel that the piece implies an ultimatum: either accept the inequality that accompanies post-industrial modernity, or embrace primitive ways of life?
Dak
mentat
The author is arguing that it's possible to be egalitarian by pointing to a real-life caricature of egalitarianism. It's this sort of lack of reflection or introspection that drives the laughter of the right at the left. In not so by gone times one would make the argument that egalitarianism means everyone is equally poor, and this would be handwaved. Now we have a real life example and it's held up as a laudable example of social organization.
Yeah, something like the top 10% of men on Tinder get like 90% of female attention iirc. If you're over 6 feet tall, white, athletic, and have a nice enough face, you can get get all the vagina you want. If you simply have a vagina, you can get all the penis you want. For some odd reason, this makes men very upset that women don't have the same low standard that men have. If Chad has sex with 100 women, then Stacy HAS to have sex with me or it's not fair, reeeeeeeee.
This might be the point you're assuming is underlying all comments on female mating proclivities, but that isn't my point. This thread exists to bust on the dominant media/academic/SJW narratives - one of which is that men have a corner on [fill in the blank negative thing]. In this case, it's the notion from feminists that men are uniquely "shallow" when it comes to mate selection.
Einherjar86
Active Member
HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,723
- 113
Next time you should post links to these dominant media/academic/SJW narratives instead of a comic about the laments of being a fat ugly man and making an unsubstantiated argument that women are actually more shallow than men. I don't deny that those kinds of feminists exist to an extent, but they're basically just the female mirror-image of r9k and whatnot, fat ugly women with probably ten cats and twenty Harry Potter bumper stickers on their Volvos.
Not to sound like some male feminist pearl-clutcher, of course. Somewhat on the subject, I do wonder if the reason that men are superior to women in so many facets of life is due to the ease of finding sexual satisfaction as a woman. Like, I don't see any sensible feminist explanation for why men completely and utterly dominate at chess. I see two simple and likely explanations. The first is that the most intelligent men are much more intelligent than the most intelligent women, particularly in the kinds of intelligence that dominate memorization, pattern detection, and foresight. On the other hand, maybe many more extremely-intelligent women have an easy time finding a sexual and/or romantic partner and therefore never have an opportunity or desire to autistically dedicate themselves to a single task. I bet there are a lot of successful nerds out there that would have not been nearly as successful if they had their dicks sucked in high school. Of course, female empathy/collectivism could play a role as well, platonic friendship more prevalent and similarly taking away autism time, while men are more solitary (though I don't know if that applies to adolescence as strongly as it does in middle-age).
CiG
Room with a View
I've seen plenty of feminists claim that the reason men dominate in chess compared to women is because women are discouraged from those kinds of activities at an early age. They use the same excuse to explain why gaming communities are male-dominated also.
I'm reminded of this whole shitstorm from a couple of years ago. Short's responses were pretty funny.
I'm reminded of this whole shitstorm from a couple of years ago. Short's responses were pretty funny.
HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,723
- 113
Yeah, lol. I can accept that internet harassment is a thing and that announcing yourself as a woman makes you a target, so maybe in the world of vidya I could understand it, but not something very personal and face-to-face like chess. Though one quote from that article
I can kind of accept this as a third argument (though it wouldn't seem to account for the total discrepancy), men are simply more competitive/aggressive than women, but wonder if she sees the sexist implications in it.
I can kind of accept this as a third argument (though it wouldn't seem to account for the total discrepancy), men are simply more competitive/aggressive than women, but wonder if she sees the sexist implications in it.
CiG
Room with a View
Well, facts show that men experience more online harassment than women but of course since men are more competitive by nature it doesn't become a big thing, and they don't take online harassment as seriously as women. Also, men are just better at banter.
It does make sense to me that men, who are naturally more aggressive and competitive due to testosterone combined with the way IQ distributes among men vs. women, would dominate chess.
It does make sense to me that men, who are naturally more aggressive and competitive due to testosterone combined with the way IQ distributes among men vs. women, would dominate chess.
Einherjar86
Active Member
CiG
Room with a View
CiG
Room with a View
Einherjar86
Active Member
CiG
Room with a View
Many things, personal experience in things like athletics competitions that I used to do in elementary school. It certainly wasn't a sausage fest, plenty of competitive girls were involved albeit in different activities compared to the boys, generally speaking. I didn't see any discouragement on behalf of my gym teachers towards the ladies, they just seemed to prefer certain kinds of competitions.
I've noticed something and it has held true for me: women both do better in and gravitate towards cooperative team-based competition as opposed to men who seem to like solo competition or hierarchical team-based competition where you either lead or fall in line.
It also seems to be the case that the more gender egalitarian the society is, the more the biological differences between men and women exhibit themselves, much to the dismay of certain people it would seem who were hoping for more parity.
The degree to which people want women to be like men almost seems like an admission that women are inferior or something. Why is it just assumed that women should be doing as good as men in something like chess? What is this assumption actually based on?
I've noticed something and it has held true for me: women both do better in and gravitate towards cooperative team-based competition as opposed to men who seem to like solo competition or hierarchical team-based competition where you either lead or fall in line.
It also seems to be the case that the more gender egalitarian the society is, the more the biological differences between men and women exhibit themselves, much to the dismay of certain people it would seem who were hoping for more parity.
The degree to which people want women to be like men almost seems like an admission that women are inferior or something. Why is it just assumed that women should be doing as good as men in something like chess? What is this assumption actually based on?
Dak
mentat
The comic was making fun of this #metoo bullshit including "sexual harrassment", and I specifically noted that. I could see a fat ugly man taking it the other way, but I wouldn't know.
Those bushman, if you will, are the perfect example of the outcomes of a culture consumed with equality. I literally couldn't make up a more ridiculous society in this regard. Down to foregoing easier and more enjoyable means of acquiring food, because someone might get more of something than someone else. So they remain dirt poor, and really are relying on the charity of those around them in terms of non-aggression to even remain in that existence. This is precisely what should be expected from such a culture, but arguments to this effect have been handwaved as caricatures of socialism or whatever. Yet here, we have the living caricature, and instead of recognizing this is a walking argument against the envyeconomics of socialism and "equality", it's embraced as a great example of how we could choose to live....somehow....but like, not in the dirt and stuff. That is laughable.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Similar threads
