PJKino Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 You always hear that women dont care about looks nearly as much as Men but i see no evidence of that..In fact id argue women are more strict on appereance then Men and find less guys attractive as a whole then vice versa.. In my social circle it was always the same guy or two the women all chased after even if they were just getting used for sex while guys like me got ignored.. Being aorund women a lot i always hear them gush over hot celebrities or hot men in general..ive heard some talk badly about a guys appereance one of their friends are dating,this stuff that looks arent that important to women nearly as much as Men is a huge myth imo..a lot of womens life is about vanity for themselves other Women and Men.. Agree? Disagree? 1 Link to post Share on other sites
ThaWholigan Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 They care about looks equally as much in my observations, but on different things. Women are very much attuned to the details in my experience. Like if your muscular appearance is proportionate. Or if your shoes and belt match. Or how you walk and express yourself. Men can be like this, but less so. If they like a girl, they might not care about the details, they just like her. Her body might look good, her dress is nice etc. Simple usually. Link to post Share on other sites
mysteryscape Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 My esperience -- looks to women are much less about purely physical appearance than about attitude, aura, personality, intelligence, whatever is attractive to the woman. If she is into athletes, an athletic body will make a guy look good, but if she is into brainy guys -- some women are -- that aura is far more important than muscles. I remember one woman I knew who married a guy she met on a group camping/backpacking trip. She wondered why she had to go half way around the world to meet her future husband. I told her there were a lot of good looking men with great bodies at the club we both worked out at. Her response: "Big deal." She was quite a looker herself. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
dasein Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 Most men won't whore themselves for money, fame or power like women do, so it makes men seem more into looks. Women are actually more into looks than men IME. Link to post Share on other sites
zengirl Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 I think it's changing, but basically women were socialized for a long time to not rely heavily on looks in relationships, whereas men were not. Women were also socialized to rely more heavily on status/security/finances, which is why that trends differently. Socialization is changing, but it's a slow iceberg to move. Unfortunately, it's changing in the wrong direction, with more emphasis on male looks and the same emphasis on female looks, and that's not helping anyone, really. But it is change. But, yes, women care about looks - some more than others, as with men. I do agree that women are more likely to include aura and assess looks differently then men, as TW points out. Link to post Share on other sites
LoveEachOther Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 (edited) looks are like 70% of the equation for men, and 30% "can I get along with her". we don't really expect more. women "date up". they look for someone who they can live off of - er, "support" them. someone who's funny - (when's the last time you heard a funny girl?) someone who's confident - they're not confident, so they hope that guys are straight forward after reading their hints (which is a cowardly tool of avoiding rejection; being able to deny interest if she's not liked back). someone who's popular - popular guys get lots of attention. and attention for women is like sex for men. they are always seeking validation. basically, they want everything they're not; hence, "opposites attract". inb4 im called a misogynist for stating the blunt truth. Edited July 16, 2012 by LoveEachOther typo Link to post Share on other sites
space center Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 My esperience -- looks to women are much less about purely physical appearance than about attitude, aura, personality, intelligence, whatever is attractive to the woman. If she is into athletes, an athletic body will make a guy look good, but if she is into brainy guys -- some women are -- that aura is far more important than muscles. I remember one woman I knew who married a guy she met on a group camping/backpacking trip. She wondered why she had to go half way around the world to meet her future husband. I told her there were a lot of good looking men with great bodies at the club we both worked out at. Her response: "Big deal." She was quite a looker herself. even worse. i've actually been told i have a poor aura. whatever that means. Link to post Share on other sites
MrCastle Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 even worse. i've actually been told i have a poor aura. whatever that means. It means they think you're unattractive. Link to post Share on other sites
mysteryscape Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 I'd guess that "aura" has to do with lack of "confidence" or even "swag." Do you come across as a loser? I'm not saying you are one, but you may come across that way. Or at least as not a winner. If someone actually told you about your aura, it's too bad you didn't ask for specifics, painful as that might be. You should try to work on "aura" it would probably do a world of good for you. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
carhill Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 Agree? Disagree? I have two anecdotes, the first being the often vociferous and occasionally embarrassing comments my exW and her female friends would make in my presence about physical aspects of some guy, generally a celebrity, they were lusting after. The second is, relative to appearance, amongst those who provided explanations, was that they could not abide my baldness as being attractive and, generally, second being my less than obvious means of support, meaning that I didn't have a definable career and job. To those women I interfaced with, a full head of hair and a quantifiable career were prerequisite for further consideration. So, the conclusion formed from these and other interactions is that there are definitely some women for whom physical and quantifiable aspects of a man are essential for further consideration as a potential dating or mating object. Link to post Share on other sites
Bob_Funk Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 Because women refuse to be honest about their shallowness, and it's a travesty. I hate to think how many guys miss out on their prime years due to focussing on their "game" rather than maximizing their looks and to some degree social status. I include social status not because it will make you more attractive, but because it's a basic requirement to get girls in your looks league. Girls are extremely uptight and cliquish and will rarely accept overtures from a stranger, unless that stranger is much more handsome than they are pretty. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
seachangeoflove Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 In my social circle it was always the same girl or two the men all chased after even if they were just getting used for money while girls like me got ignored.. Agree. Disagree? works both ways Link to post Share on other sites
mysteryscape Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 The comments about women lusting after men with celebrity is revealing. "Celebrity" doesn't necessarily have anything to do with looks, but it will make a man attractive to many women, no doubt about it. I remember reading that the adoration-worthy Lauren Bacall developed a few crushes during her marriage to Humphrey Bogart. Now the first thing to note is that she chased him, and he was certainly a celebrity and very appealing in an unusual way, but a very handsome guy he was not. Second, these crushes were on Leonard Bernstein, the composer; Adlai Stevenson, the presidential candidate; and Frank Sinatra. All a good deal older than Bacall (as was Bogie). Now, Bernstein was certainly good looking, but Stevenson was anything but -- a bald, paunchy egghead, look him up with google if this is all ancient history! Sinatra -- not bad looking, especially in his youth, but his appeal had more to do, IMHO, with his voice and his attitude -- aura, if you like. So, I think this goes with my belief that "looks" to many women is a complicated thing that has much to do with less tangible things than "looks" generally does to a man. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
Radu Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 I think it's changing, but basically women were socialized for a long time to not rely heavily on looks in relationships, whereas men were not. Women were also socialized to rely more heavily on status/security/finances, which is why that trends differently. Socialization is changing, but it's a slow iceberg to move. Unfortunately, it's changing in the wrong direction, with more emphasis on male looks and the same emphasis on female looks, and that's not helping anyone, really. But it is change. But, yes, women care about looks - some more than others, as with men. I do agree that women are more likely to include aura and assess looks differently then men, as TW points out. Yeah, gl with destroying the way society works based on our biological imperatives, see how well it works in the long run. It has been my experience that the younger the woman is, generally the more likely she is to be interested in looks primarily, with a huge emphasis on physical aspects. As they grow older [mature], this morphs into encompassing attitude/confidence/weather or not he has his **** together, which might explain why many women in their early 20's are not interested in LTRs. The same applies to men as well. Link to post Share on other sites
carhill Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 Oh, I should add that my exW and her GF's were 40's-50's during our M and my dating experiences/rejections were primarily with divorced women, mostly single mothers, during my 30's. Most were college educated and white collar. That I owned a blue collar business could have been relevant to part of the issue, but not topical here. Link to post Share on other sites
irc333 Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 Oh, I should add that my exW and her GF's were 40's-50's during our M and my dating experiences/rejections were primarily with divorced women, mostly single mothers, during my 30's. Most were college educated and white collar. That I owned a blue collar business could have been relevant to part of the issue, but not topical here. Believe it or not, there's a 29 year old woman in my area that holds a PhD in Law School, but works as a paralegal. She stated she will NOT date ANY man with no less than a Bachelor's degree (I just barely made the cut, LOL). She even qualified the reason with the fact she thought the man could be a millionaire, but if he had no degree, she'd never get along with him. Link to post Share on other sites
mysteryscape Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 You ask can you change this? And the answer is, hell yes! Not totally, but a great deal, for sure. You need to work on it. A coach would help, I have no idea what you are like. Link to post Share on other sites
Bob_Funk Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 (edited) Believe it or not, there's a 29 year old woman in my area that holds a PhD in Law School, but works as a paralegal. She stated she will NOT date ANY man with no less than a Bachelor's degree (I just barely made the cut, LOL). She even qualified the reason with the fact she thought the man could be a millionaire, but if he had no degree, she'd never get along with him. Lolz. She found out firsthand what a scam the education system is, and she still holds that attitude. Unbelievable. See, I'm the opposite. I get along better with people who didn't go to college. Edited July 16, 2012 by Bob_Funk Link to post Share on other sites
Badsingularity Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 Women are more complex than men when it comes to this topic. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Leopard Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 This is the popular belief because men are more visual than women. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Dafa Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 My esperience -- looks to women are much less about purely physical appearance than about attitude, aura, personality, intelligence, whatever is attractive to the woman. If she is into athletes, an athletic body will make a guy look good, but if she is into brainy guys -- some women are -- that aura is far more important than muscles. (...) A little off-topic but i am tempted to say that i am yet to find a woman who truly values intelligence in a significant way. With intelligence i'm not talking about sense of humour or other kinds of social intelligence, those are related with what people here could call "charm" or "seductive demeanor". I'm talking about intelligence that revolves around academic knowledge, history and culture, etc. This kind of knowledge is required for there to be a debate of complex matters, like politics or phylosophy or even scientific things. In my experience i hear a significant number of women stating "intelligence" as a desirable asset but in the end, i can't help but feel that what they actually want is a guy who is not dumb, not a guy who is smart. My point is: Intelligence as an attractive quality is overrated. Now, to make it clear, an above average non-social intelligence is of course good to have, but i wonder if it is indeed highly valued as some women i know claim... 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Necromancer Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 i once had a girl after me in a party ( friend of a friend). After the party my friend told me that she thought i was so good and fun guy when i barley spoke to her and was always running away from her. (wth?) power of looks Link to post Share on other sites
Badsingularity Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 power of looks No. It was because you were running away from her. Link to post Share on other sites
Badsingularity Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 what bull s. ........lol Link to post Share on other sites
Necromancer Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 No. It was because you were running away from her. To bad she didn't catch up. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts