Yuku free message boards

My Recent Posts · (09/16/09

Sherezada wrote:
Ok, let me try to put it in terms of "apples to apples". If a single man and a single woman own 1 billion dollars, who do you think will have more women / men after them, and why?

If they are of equal levels of physical attractiveness then the woman will have more men after her. For many reasons. More women than men will marry below their own level of attractiveness for money, being one of the stronger reasons. This is not only in most women's nature to begin with but it is also very socially acceptable - at least where I'm from.

My Recent Posts · (09/16/09

AJ,

What you say doesn't make sense to me. If more women than men will marry below their own level of attractiveness for money, then the man would probably have more women after him.

My Recent Posts · (09/16/09

Sherezada wrote:
AJ,

What you say doesn't make sense to me. If more women than men will marry below their own level of attractiveness for money, then the man would probably have more women after him.

Sorry running on little sleep this week. Meant to say that the "billionaire man" will have more opportunities with gold-digging women than an equally attractive "billionaire woman."

My Recent Posts · (09/17/09

More women than men will marry below their own level of attractiveness for money, being one of the stronger reasons. This is not only in most women's nature to begin with but it is also very socially acceptable - at least where I'm from.

If they (male or female) are just after money, what does appearance have to do with it?
You think it is the nature of most women to marry below their own level of attractiveness for money? Ouch.

Women are, by far, less shallow when it comes down to appearance. That doesn't mean we aren't attracted to good-looking men. But most mature women (not after a man's $$) look for more than just a handsome face or killer body.

It was mentioned earlier that pretty women have leverage. That leverage doesn't come from within themselves, it is given to them by society. An attractive girl/woman is always treated differently than an average looking girl/woman. In our society it is, by default, expected that an attractive girl will excel. And most oft they do, not always because they have a particular talent or intellect, but simply because it is still a "man's world" and pretty gets you a get out of jail free card. "Can you type?" asks male CEO looking at pretty face and nice legs. "A little," says grinning blond with exposed cleavage, "I have a Blackberry." "We can work on that, you're hired."

A good looking guy can get the girls, but they are required to meet certain qualifications that pretty girls aren't. A pretty girl/woman is never required to have a special skill or talent to be fawned over. A good looking guy who goes out for the football team and fails has just been lowered on the old totem pole. A pretty girl who fails a cheerleader try-out will just date the quarterback and be Homecoming queen. But this is high school/college stuff. Girls tend to get over the 'wow, he's cute' phase...men have a problem doing that. They seem to hold on to the idea that women are still looking for the star quarterback because they themselves are still looking for the cutesy cheerleader. And (trust me on this) a mature woman is not looking to marry a guy whose claim to fame is throwing a football and puking off the deck. Unless, of course he is getting paid $20 mil a year to do so and the deck is on a house in The Hamptons ... but if that's the case - it is likely the woman was a cutesy cheerleader (or is ex-Playboy model the trend now?).

My Recent Posts · (09/17/09

Cloudwalker wrote:

More women than men will marry below their own level of attractiveness for money, being one of the stronger reasons. This is not only in most women's nature to begin with but it is also very socially acceptable - at least where I'm from.
If they (male or female) are just after money, what does appearance have to do with it?

In total numbers it will matter, because the man has possible opportunity both with women who find him physically attractive and women who don't find him physically attractive. Whereas only the hardest of the hard core male gold-diggers would be with a woman who they find physically revolting (and I would estimate hard core male gold-diggers are few and far between).

Cloudwalker wrote:

More women than men will marry below their own level of attractiveness for money, being one of the stronger reasons. This is not only in most women's nature to begin with but it is also very socially acceptable - at least where I'm from.
You think it is the nature of most women to marry below their own level of attractiveness for money? Ouch.

Sure. This is really less of a dig than it might first appear. Women are more into men as performance objects and men are more into women as sexual objects. This is why women can, much more easily than a man can, overlook physical attractiveness for performance gains in a partner. I see these as two sides of the same coin and saying that women are less "shallow" than men is very misleading. Sure most men sexual objectify women but most women objectify men as vehicles of performance. Men's objectification of women (i.e. sex) is less complicated than women's objectification of men (ie performance capacity in a million different varieties) but they are both equally objectifying. You virtually never hear mention of this 'performance objectification' women make of men, in open society but the 'sexual objectification' men make of women is taught as universal truth starting in nursery schools.

There is also the socio-biological stuff, women are less visual than men, women overwhelmingly marry up, etc.

In all I think we agree on this much more than we disagree.

Peace,
AJ

My Recent Posts · (09/17/09

Cloudwalker wrote:
If they (male or female) are just after money, what does appearance have to do with it?

Men are not after money from women. They want pulchritudinous sexual partners and accoutrements for their egos.

Women are, by far, less shallow when it comes down to appearance.

Undoubtedly.

It was mentioned earlier that pretty women have leverage. That leverage doesn't come from within themselves, it is given to them by society.

How do you know how much of it is attributable to society and how much to genetics?

My Recent Posts · (09/17/09

BlackEsoterica wrote:

Women are, by far, less shallow when it comes down to appearance.

Undoubtedly.

In effect sure but I think it is important to realize that this effective state of being "less shallow" has more to do with being shallow in other areas than anything to do with an overall position of ethical superiority.

Peace,
AJ

PS - I seriously used pulchritudinous in a love letter once as a school boy

My Recent Posts · (09/17/09

AJ,

and I would estimate hard core male gold-diggers are few and far between

You are so wrong on this. There are plenty of them.

In all I think we agree on this much more than we disagree.

I know you were talking to Cloudy, but I don't agree with you on most of it. It's b.s.

My Recent Posts · (09/17/09

Sherezada wrote:
AJ,

and I would estimate hard core male gold-diggers are few and far between

You are so wrong on this. There are plenty of them.

One, when all other things are equal, men care more about physical attractiveness of a partner than women. Two, in certain areas of the world you may have somewhat of a point - in positions of grinding poverty or extremes of class and wealth coming into contact with each other sure there are gigolos who will sleep with women who repulse them in order get some greenbacks. Three, we are probably not even remotely close to having the same definition of what a gold-digger is. My definition is something along the lines of "a person who selects and sustains a primary romantic relationship based overwhelmingly on the wealth/power of the other." I would guess your definition includes short term "prostitute" type exchanges. Fourth, I'm coming from a middle class to affluent US perspective and I'm telling you there are not "plenty of them" where I come from.

Sherezada wrote:

In all I think we agree on this much more than we disagree.

I know you were talking to Cloudy, but I don't agree with you on most of it. It's b.s.

If you actually want to discuss this you might want to be a bit more specific. Otherwise, whatever. What else is new AJ and Sher disagree.

Peace,
AJ

My Recent Posts · (09/17/09

I think this is exactly right:

Sure. This is really less of a dig than it might first appear. Women are more into men as performance objects and men are more into women as sexual objects. This is why women can, much more easily than a man can, overlook physical attractiveness for performance gains in a partner. I see these as two sides of the same coin and saying that women are less "shallow" than men is very misleading. Sure most men sexual objectify women but most women objectify men as vehicles of performance. Men's objectification of women (i.e. sex) is less complicated than women's objectification of men (ie performance capacity in a million different varieties) but they are both equally objectifying. You virtually never hear mention this 'performance objectification' women make of men in open society but the 'sexual objectification' men make of women is taught as universal truth starting in nursey schools.

"Performance objectification" is a good term. Men are objects which are valued for accomplishment. In this society, which measures accomplishment primarily by wealth, that usually means making money, the more the better. Accomplishing things that do not involve money is much less reliable, and accomplishing things that actually contradict money as a priority is a sure way to an unpleasant outcome in the mating game.

My Recent Posts · (09/18/09

Abominable Juggernaut wrote:
PS - I seriously used pulchritudinous in a love letter once as a school boy

How romantic. If the girl didn't put out after that she must've been insanely stuck up and prudish.

My Recent Posts · (09/18/09

Abominable Juggernaut wrote:

BlackEsoterica wrote:

Women are, by far, less shallow when it comes down to appearance.

Undoubtedly.

In effect sure but I think it is important to realize that this effective state of being "less shallow" has more to do with being shallow in other areas than anything to do with an overall position of ethical superiority.

I certainly wouldn't disagree that women tend to have their own shallow tendencies apart from those of men. If men and women are shallow in different ways, it could be than one type is more shallow or more pernicious than the other. In other words, there isn't anything to suggest by the mere fact of different forms of shallowness along sexual lines that both are equally shallow. Maybe they are, but maybe not.

My Recent Posts · (09/18/09

BlackEsoterica wrote:

Abominable Juggernaut wrote:

BlackEsoterica wrote:

Women are, by far, less shallow when it comes down to appearance.

Undoubtedly.

In effect sure but I think it is important to realize that this effective state of being "less shallow" has more to do with being shallow in other areas than anything to do with an overall position of ethical superiority.

I certainly wouldn't disagree that women tend to have their own shallow tendencies apart from those of men. If men and women are shallow in different ways, it could be than one type is more shallow or more pernicious than the other. In other words, there isn't anything to suggest by the mere fact of different forms of shallowness along sexual lines that both are equally shallow. Maybe they are, but maybe not.

I'm not above conceding that I could be wrong but my suspicion is that women are just as shallow as men but this fact is obscured by social forces. Partly it's the male code of "performance objectification" to worship women and seek their approval so women get a pass. But men are supposed to be strong no matter what so they can take being attacked. Partly women have a tradition of being viewed as being naturally ethically superior. And for sure the popular media loves to showcase the "dumb white ogre" which has become a staging point for male criticism and justification of scorn.

It's not that men don't have their problems (they are too violent, etc) but I think modern women get a pass even to the point where critiquing them is socially outlawed altogether. Its not that women have been critiqued incorrectly or too harshly, its that it is socially taboo to critique them at all. And anyone who does is socially scorned, belittled, and attacked.

Peace,
AJ

My Recent Posts · (09/18/09

BlackEsoterica wrote:

Abominable Juggernaut wrote:
PS - I seriously used pulchritudinous in a love letter once as a school boy

How romantic. If the girl didn't put out after that she must've been insanely stuck up and prudish.

Ahhh, I got a bit of lovin and then she cut me loose but she was the prom queen so she had mad options.

My Recent Posts · (09/21/09

Sure most men sexual objectify women but most women objectify men as vehicles of performance.

What's wrong with that? Isn't that what's expected? Or have the caveman guidelines only changed for men?
Men want to procreate as often as possible and the women they are procreating with want the men to perform. Tit-for-tat, right?
Oh wait, I forgot, if a woman expects a man to take care of her she is old-fashioned or a gold digger. If a man views a woman as just a sex object he's just being a man. *raspberries*

How do you know how much of it is attributable to society and how much to genetics?

Genetics doesn't play a part in it because no female child is born with a guarantee that she will be attractive by societies standards, but at a very young age pretty children are treated differently by society.

My Recent Posts · (09/21/09

Cloudwalker wrote:

Sure most men sexual objectify women but most women objectify men as vehicles of performance.
What's wrong with that? Isn't that what's expected? Or have the caveman guidelines only changed for men?
Men want to procreate as often as possible and the women they are procreating with want the men to perform. Tit-for-tat, right?
Oh wait, I forgot, if a woman expects a man to take care of her she is old-fashioned or a gold digger. If a man views a woman as just a sex object he's just being a man. *raspberries*

I hear what you are saying. And as long as you recognize that it is a two way street you're alright in my book.

The prevailing winds these days is far too often "man guilty ogre, woman innocent victim, end of story."

Peace,
AJ

Author	Comment
Abominable Juggernaut		#201	[-]
Posts: 793 (09/16/09 21:30:16) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Sherezada wrote: Ok, let me try to put it in terms of "apples to apples". If a single man and a single woman own 1 billion dollars, who do you think will have more women / men after them, and why? If they are of equal levels of physical attractiveness then the woman will have more men after her. For many reasons. More women than men will marry below their own level of attractiveness for money, being one of the stronger reasons. This is not only in most women's nature to begin with but it is also very socially acceptable - at least where I'm from. Quote: "Judge a man by his questions rather than his answers." - Voltaire Links: Lifehacker.com \| Stronglifts.com \| The Simple Dollar \| TED \| Slick Deals \| The Straight Dope \| Dark Roasted Blend \| The Art of Manliness \| Roissy in DC \| Forums: The Star Chamber \| KIR \| Usual Suspects \| GENIUS FORUMS \|
Sherezada		#202	[-]
Posts: 2437 (09/16/09 22:25:14) Persian princess Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	AJ, What you say doesn't make sense to me. If more women than men will marry below their own level of attractiveness for money, then the man would probably have more women after him. Caminante, no hay camino; se hace camino al andar.
Abominable Juggernaut		#203	[-]
Posts: 793 (09/16/09 22:35:29) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Sherezada wrote: AJ, What you say doesn't make sense to me. If more women than men will marry below their own level of attractiveness for money, then the man would probably have more women after him. Sorry running on little sleep this week. Meant to say that the "billionaire man" will have more opportunities with gold-digging women than an equally attractive "billionaire woman." Quote: "Judge a man by his questions rather than his answers." - Voltaire Links: Lifehacker.com \| Stronglifts.com \| The Simple Dollar \| TED \| Slick Deals \| The Straight Dope \| Dark Roasted Blend \| The Art of Manliness \| Roissy in DC \| Forums: The Star Chamber \| KIR \| Usual Suspects \| GENIUS FORUMS \|
Cloudwalker		#204	[-]
Posts: 2941 (09/17/09 11:45:56) `Fickle First-Mate` Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	More women than men will marry below their own level of attractiveness for money, being one of the stronger reasons. This is not only in most women's nature to begin with but it is also very socially acceptable - at least where I'm from. If they (male or female) are just after money, what does appearance have to do with it? You think it is the nature of most women to marry below their own level of attractiveness for money? Ouch. Women are, by far, less shallow when it comes down to appearance. That doesn't mean we aren't attracted to good-looking men. But most mature women (not after a man's $$) look for more than just a handsome face or killer body. It was mentioned earlier that pretty women have leverage. That leverage doesn't come from within themselves, it is given to them by society. An attractive girl/woman is always treated differently than an average looking girl/woman. In our society it is, by default, expected that an attractive girl will excel. And most oft they do, not always because they have a particular talent or intellect, but simply because it is still a "man's world" and pretty gets you a get out of jail free card. "Can you type?" asks male CEO looking at pretty face and nice legs. "A little," says grinning blond with exposed cleavage, "I have a Blackberry." "We can work on that, you're hired." A good looking guy can get the girls, but they are required to meet certain qualifications that pretty girls aren't. A pretty girl/woman is never required to have a special skill or talent to be fawned over. A good looking guy who goes out for the football team and fails has just been lowered on the old totem pole. A pretty girl who fails a cheerleader try-out will just date the quarterback and be Homecoming queen. But this is high school/college stuff. Girls tend to get over the 'wow, he's cute' phase...men have a problem doing that. They seem to hold on to the idea that women are still looking for the star quarterback because they themselves are still looking for the cutesy cheerleader. And (trust me on this) a mature woman is not looking to marry a guy whose claim to fame is throwing a football and puking off the deck. Unless, of course he is getting paid $20 mil a year to do so and the deck is on a house in The Hamptons ... but if that's the case - it is likely the woman was a cutesy cheerleader (or is ex-Playboy model the trend now?). In times of change learners inherit the earth; while the learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists. E. Hoffer
Abominable Juggernaut		#205	[-]
Posts: 793 (09/17/09 12:18:00) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Cloudwalker wrote: More women than men will marry below their own level of attractiveness for money, being one of the stronger reasons. This is not only in most women's nature to begin with but it is also very socially acceptable - at least where I'm from. If they (male or female) are just after money, what does appearance have to do with it? In total numbers it will matter, because the man has possible opportunity both with women who find him physically attractive and women who don't find him physically attractive. Whereas only the hardest of the hard core male gold-diggers would be with a woman who they find physically revolting (and I would estimate hard core male gold-diggers are few and far between). Cloudwalker wrote: More women than men will marry below their own level of attractiveness for money, being one of the stronger reasons. This is not only in most women's nature to begin with but it is also very socially acceptable - at least where I'm from. You think it is the nature of most women to marry below their own level of attractiveness for money? Ouch. Sure. This is really less of a dig than it might first appear. Women are more into men as performance objects and men are more into women as sexual objects. This is why women can, much more easily than a man can, overlook physical attractiveness for performance gains in a partner. I see these as two sides of the same coin and saying that women are less "shallow" than men is very misleading. Sure most men sexual objectify women but most women objectify men as vehicles of performance. Men's objectification of women (i.e. sex) is less complicated than women's objectification of men (ie performance capacity in a million different varieties) but they are both equally objectifying. You virtually never hear mention of this 'performance objectification' women make of men, in open society but the 'sexual objectification' men make of women is taught as universal truth starting in nursery schools. There is also the socio-biological stuff, women are less visual than men, women overwhelmingly marry up, etc. In all I think we agree on this much more than we disagree. Peace, AJ Quote: "Judge a man by his questions rather than his answers." - Voltaire Links: Lifehacker.com \| Stronglifts.com \| The Simple Dollar \| TED \| Slick Deals \| The Straight Dope \| Dark Roasted Blend \| The Art of Manliness \| Roissy in DC \| Forums: The Star Chamber \| KIR \| Usual Suspects \| GENIUS FORUMS \| Last Edited By: Abominable Juggernaut 09/17/09 21:10:52. Edited 3 times.
BlackEsoterica		#206	[-]
Posts: 401 (09/17/09 12:20:47) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Cloudwalker wrote: If they (male or female) are just after money, what does appearance have to do with it? Men are not after money from women. They want pulchritudinous sexual partners and accoutrements for their egos. Women are, by far, less shallow when it comes down to appearance. Undoubtedly. It was mentioned earlier that pretty women have leverage. That leverage doesn't come from within themselves, it is given to them by society. How do you know how much of it is attributable to society and how much to genetics? The taco that can be eaten is not the eternal taco.
Abominable Juggernaut		#207	[-]
Posts: 793 (09/17/09 12:28:06) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	BlackEsoterica wrote: Women are, by far, less shallow when it comes down to appearance. Undoubtedly. In effect sure but I think it is important to realize that this effective state of being "less shallow" has more to do with being shallow in other areas than anything to do with an overall position of ethical superiority. Peace, AJ PS - I seriously used pulchritudinous in a love letter once as a school boy Quote: "Judge a man by his questions rather than his answers." - Voltaire Links: Lifehacker.com \| Stronglifts.com \| The Simple Dollar \| TED \| Slick Deals \| The Straight Dope \| Dark Roasted Blend \| The Art of Manliness \| Roissy in DC \| Forums: The Star Chamber \| KIR \| Usual Suspects \| GENIUS FORUMS \|
Sherezada		#208	[-]
Posts: 2437 (09/17/09 12:32:29) Persian princess Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	AJ, and I would estimate hard core male gold-diggers are few and far between You are so wrong on this. There are plenty of them. In all I think we agree on this much more than we disagree. I know you were talking to Cloudy, but I don't agree with you on most of it. It's b.s. Caminante, no hay camino; se hace camino al andar.
Abominable Juggernaut		#209	[-]
Posts: 793 (09/17/09 14:55:58) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Sherezada wrote: AJ, and I would estimate hard core male gold-diggers are few and far between You are so wrong on this. There are plenty of them. One, when all other things are equal, men care more about physical attractiveness of a partner than women. Two, in certain areas of the world you may have somewhat of a point - in positions of grinding poverty or extremes of class and wealth coming into contact with each other sure there are gigolos who will sleep with women who repulse them in order get some greenbacks. Three, we are probably not even remotely close to having the same definition of what a gold-digger is. My definition is something along the lines of "a person who selects and sustains a primary romantic relationship based overwhelmingly on the wealth/power of the other." I would guess your definition includes short term "prostitute" type exchanges. Fourth, I'm coming from a middle class to affluent US perspective and I'm telling you there are not "plenty of them" where I come from. Sherezada wrote: In all I think we agree on this much more than we disagree. I know you were talking to Cloudy, but I don't agree with you on most of it. It's b.s. If you actually want to discuss this you might want to be a bit more specific. Otherwise, whatever. What else is new AJ and Sher disagree. Peace, AJ Quote: "Judge a man by his questions rather than his answers." - Voltaire Links: Lifehacker.com \| Stronglifts.com \| The Simple Dollar \| TED \| Slick Deals \| The Straight Dope \| Dark Roasted Blend \| The Art of Manliness \| Roissy in DC \| Forums: The Star Chamber \| KIR \| Usual Suspects \| GENIUS FORUMS \| Last Edited By: Abominable Juggernaut 09/17/09 15:02:44. Edited 3 times.
Naturyl		#210	[-]
Posts: 11874 (09/17/09 20:32:26) Ozymandias Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	I think this is exactly right: Sure. This is really less of a dig than it might first appear. Women are more into men as performance objects and men are more into women as sexual objects. This is why women can, much more easily than a man can, overlook physical attractiveness for performance gains in a partner. I see these as two sides of the same coin and saying that women are less "shallow" than men is very misleading. Sure most men sexual objectify women but most women objectify men as vehicles of performance. Men's objectification of women (i.e. sex) is less complicated than women's objectification of men (ie performance capacity in a million different varieties) but they are both equally objectifying. You virtually never hear mention this 'performance objectification' women make of men in open society but the 'sexual objectification' men make of women is taught as universal truth starting in nursey schools. "Performance objectification" is a good term. Men are objects which are valued for accomplishment. In this society, which measures accomplishment primarily by wealth, that usually means making money, the more the better. Accomplishing things that do not involve money is much less reliable, and accomplishing things that actually contradict money as a priority is a sure way to an unpleasant outcome in the mating game. KIR Discussion Forums - Religion, Philosophy, Science, Skepticism, Society, Culture, and Community.
BlackEsoterica		#211	[-]
Posts: 401 (09/18/09 04:56:45) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Abominable Juggernaut wrote: PS - I seriously used pulchritudinous in a love letter once as a school boy How romantic. If the girl didn't put out after that she must've been insanely stuck up and prudish. The taco that can be eaten is not the eternal taco.
BlackEsoterica		#212	[-]
Posts: 401 (09/18/09 05:05:32) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Abominable Juggernaut wrote: BlackEsoterica wrote: Women are, by far, less shallow when it comes down to appearance. Undoubtedly. In effect sure but I think it is important to realize that this effective state of being "less shallow" has more to do with being shallow in other areas than anything to do with an overall position of ethical superiority. I certainly wouldn't disagree that women tend to have their own shallow tendencies apart from those of men. If men and women are shallow in different ways, it could be than one type is more shallow or more pernicious than the other. In other words, there isn't anything to suggest by the mere fact of different forms of shallowness along sexual lines that both are equally shallow. Maybe they are, but maybe not. The taco that can be eaten is not the eternal taco.
Abominable Juggernaut		#213	[-]
Posts: 793 (09/18/09 08:19:51) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	BlackEsoterica wrote: Abominable Juggernaut wrote: BlackEsoterica wrote: Women are, by far, less shallow when it comes down to appearance. Undoubtedly. In effect sure but I think it is important to realize that this effective state of being "less shallow" has more to do with being shallow in other areas than anything to do with an overall position of ethical superiority. I certainly wouldn't disagree that women tend to have their own shallow tendencies apart from those of men. If men and women are shallow in different ways, it could be than one type is more shallow or more pernicious than the other. In other words, there isn't anything to suggest by the mere fact of different forms of shallowness along sexual lines that both are equally shallow. Maybe they are, but maybe not. I'm not above conceding that I could be wrong but my suspicion is that women are just as shallow as men but this fact is obscured by social forces. Partly it's the male code of "performance objectification" to worship women and seek their approval so women get a pass. But men are supposed to be strong no matter what so they can take being attacked. Partly women have a tradition of being viewed as being naturally ethically superior. And for sure the popular media loves to showcase the "dumb white ogre" which has become a staging point for male criticism and justification of scorn. It's not that men don't have their problems (they are too violent, etc) but I think modern women get a pass even to the point where critiquing them is socially outlawed altogether. Its not that women have been critiqued incorrectly or too harshly, its that it is socially taboo to critique them at all. And anyone who does is socially scorned, belittled, and attacked. Peace, AJ Quote: "Judge a man by his questions rather than his answers." - Voltaire Links: Lifehacker.com \| Stronglifts.com \| The Simple Dollar \| TED \| Slick Deals \| The Straight Dope \| Dark Roasted Blend \| The Art of Manliness \| Roissy in DC \| Forums: The Star Chamber \| KIR \| Usual Suspects \| GENIUS FORUMS \| Last Edited By: Abominable Juggernaut 09/18/09 08:48:10. Edited 1 times.
Abominable Juggernaut		#214	[-]
Posts: 793 (09/18/09 08:22:14) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	BlackEsoterica wrote: Abominable Juggernaut wrote: PS - I seriously used pulchritudinous in a love letter once as a school boy How romantic. If the girl didn't put out after that she must've been insanely stuck up and prudish. Ahhh, I got a bit of lovin and then she cut me loose but she was the prom queen so she had mad options. Quote: "Judge a man by his questions rather than his answers." - Voltaire Links: Lifehacker.com \| Stronglifts.com \| The Simple Dollar \| TED \| Slick Deals \| The Straight Dope \| Dark Roasted Blend \| The Art of Manliness \| Roissy in DC \| Forums: The Star Chamber \| KIR \| Usual Suspects \| GENIUS FORUMS \|
Cloudwalker		#215	[-]
Posts: 2941 (09/21/09 20:45:38) `Fickle First-Mate` Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Sure most men sexual objectify women but most women objectify men as vehicles of performance. What's wrong with that? Isn't that what's expected? Or have the caveman guidelines only changed for men? Men want to procreate as often as possible and the women they are procreating with want the men to perform. Tit-for-tat, right? Oh wait, I forgot, if a woman expects a man to take care of her she is old-fashioned or a gold digger. If a man views a woman as just a sex object he's just being a man. raspberries How do you know how much of it is attributable to society and how much to genetics? Genetics doesn't play a part in it because no female child is born with a guarantee that she will be attractive by societies standards, but at a very young age pretty children are treated differently by society. In times of change learners inherit the earth; while the learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists. E. Hoffer
Abominable Juggernaut		#216	[-]
Posts: 793 (09/21/09 20:55:13) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Cloudwalker wrote: Sure most men sexual objectify women but most women objectify men as vehicles of performance. What's wrong with that? Isn't that what's expected? Or have the caveman guidelines only changed for men? Men want to procreate as often as possible and the women they are procreating with want the men to perform. Tit-for-tat, right? Oh wait, I forgot, if a woman expects a man to take care of her she is old-fashioned or a gold digger. If a man views a woman as just a sex object he's just being a man. raspberries I hear what you are saying. And as long as you recognize that it is a two way street you're alright in my book. The prevailing winds these days is far too often "man guilty ogre, woman innocent victim, end of story." Peace, AJ Quote: "Judge a man by his questions rather than his answers." - Voltaire Links: Lifehacker.com \| Stronglifts.com \| The Simple Dollar \| TED \| Slick Deals \| The Straight Dope \| Dark Roasted Blend \| The Art of Manliness \| Roissy in DC \| Forums: The Star Chamber \| KIR \| Usual Suspects \| GENIUS FORUMS \| Last Edited By: Abominable Juggernaut 09/22/09 08:39:00. Edited 1 times.

Yuku free message boards

Women of Discontent

Quick Reply