This is Part 3 of an ongoing series concerning sexual attraction. Part 1 can be found here, and part 2 here.
Subjective Considerations
In the last post on this subject, Elspeth sought clarification about the objectivity of attraction factors versus their subjectivity. I’ve attempted to cover such subjects before, but not to great success. So here is an attempt to try again.
My original argument was that the LAMPS factors are objective factors, in that each women’s evaluation of a man’s sexual attractiveness is controlled by them. However, a better way of describing them is that they are universal. They apply to all women, regardless of individual characteristics. In that sense it is objective. However, past that point there is a lot of subjectivity involved.
As a general rule, the PSALM model is the arrangement from the most to the least important attributes: Power, Status, Athleticism, Looks and Money. However, even there you will find some variation. Some women are much more focused on a man’s appearance, while others don’t really care much at all. So while generalizations are possible, they are not perfect. Subjectivity matters here.
Furthermore, inside the individual factors subjectivity can play a significant role. Looks and Athleticism are the most subjective of the 5 sets of attributes. Some women prefer men with dark hair, some with light hair. Eye color preferences vary. As do other features. However, there are still certain general masculine features in the Looks category which are almost universally preferred. This is especially the case with facial features. Height is an interesting twist to this. The general preference is for a taller man, however the exact height preferred can differ between women. The ideal range, from what I can tell, seems to be around 6’0 to 6’4. Athleticism also has some variation- some women prefer a man with a swimmer build, others prefer the lean look of a runner, while yet others prefer the bulk of a weight lifter. Yet even in this the overall preference is still towards the ideal of each particular build.
Status and Money are the most objective of the LAMPS factors. Here it is pretty safe to say that the more, the merrier. More money and a greater status are always more attractive. Status might leave more room for subjectivity, in that some positions might be seen as higher status than others for some women. But overall there tends to be a lot of conformity here.
Power is hard to analyze here. There are a lot of subjective factors when personality is concerned, yet certain things (confidence, assurance, dominance) seem to be universally attractive. I’d be curious of folks’ thoughts on this.
Our Ideals Are Not Necessarily Ideal
The Daily Mail, not normally a news source of mine, had an interesting article recently. Essentially, a survey was conducted which asked questions related to sex and attraction. An interesting result of this was that when women were asked to name the ideal female “beauty”, they gave Cameron Diaz (presumably when she was younger). Men, on the other hand, listed Kate Upton. When men were asked to give the ideal male physique, they gave Hugh Jackman, while women listed Ryan Gosling.
What I found interesting about the choice of Diaz was the mention in the article of her “slim, boyish shape.” I’ve heard a few women I know, and attractive women at that, mention that they wish they were possessed of a thinner and taller profile or body shape. I am kind of curious why women would prefer this. While I have a few ideas of my own, I would like to hear what my readers think.
As for the men, I think I understand why men picked Hugh Jackman over Ryan Gosling. Since men are primarily driven by physical appearance, they selected a high-status man who seemed to best fit the peak masculine physical look. However, as the PSALM model points out, both Power and Status are of greater significance to a man’s sexual attractiveness than his Athleticism or Looks. Which makes me wonder if Gosling is considered higher Status right now. Or perhaps, if not necessarily purely higher status, if he is considerable more desirable by women right now. Which ties into my next point.
A Short-Cut To Status
Pre-selection is a feature of female behavior wherein women find men more attractive in relation to how many other women find that man attractive. The greater the number of women who seem to be attracted to a man, the more attractive he will tend to be in female eyes. This behavior is tied to Status and is a “short-cut”, women use it to quickly and easily gauge a man’s position in the overall market.
It is a behavior that gets quite a lot of play in Game circles, as it can be truly potent in driving attraction. While I’m not really interested in their particular “trade”, the behavior has an impact in the Marriage Marketplace just as it does in the Sexual Marketplace. As more than a few Christians have attested to before in this particular section of the internet, if a man in church manages to “invoke” this female behavior it can almost completely shut out other men.
In his latest post Rollo quotes from an earlier piece by Heartiste explaining an “experiment” which relied on this phenomenon:
Basically, the guy had a few friends follow him around the mall, one guy filming him and the other two guys (I can’t tell if any of his hired guns were women) acting as his “groupies” or entourage. He goes around identifying himself as “Thomas Elliot” when people, mostly women, ask him his name. Eventually, he begins to pile up admiring and gawking female attention, which only snowballs into more female attention. Apparently, not one of these starstruck chicks thought to question if Thomas Elliot was a real celebrity. That’s the power of preselection and fame; so powerful, it can disengage a woman’s neural logic circuitry.
[For those who want the link to the original post, go to Rollo’s post- as a general rule I don’t linke to Heartiste.]
Rollo then comments on how pre-selection plays the dominant role in the insanity which we know as “teen idols”:
Preselection is a very powerful motivator of women’s hypergamous decision making process. Even the perception of fame (or even the potential for it) is a prime motivator and incentive to lock down a man who presents the hypergamous optimal ideal – a guy who satisfies the sexiness her Alpha F—s hypergamous needs require and the long term security of provisioning potential from status-confirmed Beta Bucks.
Whether this “famous” guy actually embodies this ideal is irrelevant to a woman’s Id-centric psyche. When women are younger, tweens and teens, this self-convincing is much easier since girls lack any real world experience to reference with respect to what the guy really represents. A capacity for abstract thinking is something that develops as we mature, but the desire to optimize hypergamy is a limbic, instinctual drive for girls and no amount of reasoning can compete with the fantasy of a pre-fabricated idealized Hypergamy.
They want to believe it.
[DG: I wonder if this might be the female counter-part to men pedestalizing women. Thoughts?]
Thus we have hordes of girls and young women willing to go to behavioral lengths they would never consider with the mundane men they’re familiar with in order to just brush with the possibility of that hypergamous ideal. They will literally climb over one another to realize this.
The thing is, many older women can experience this behavior as well. They tend not to be as extreme about it, but I’ve seen it expressed before. SO it definitely seems to be an innate female behavior. Perhaps experience tempers it, as Rollo implies. Or maybe a woman’s drop in SMV, and her knowledge of his, makes her realize that she doesn’t have a real chance of pulling off this kind of “coup.”
Naturally, many Game practitioners and PUAs try to find ways to capitalize on pre-selection. I’ve heard of some hiring escorts to provide the appearance of female attention. Others will use female family members or co-workers for this purpose. It can be a huge card to play, and frankly any man looking to attract women should keep it in mind. If not for his own use, but to be wary of other men using it.
What I am curious about is how, or if, this could be ethically used by Christians within the confines of a church. Assuming that you cannot, or should not use it, what steps might be taken to counter-act its effects? Or is that even really possible? From what I’ve seen, the only thing that can surmount a man with pre-selection is another man with an even greater perception of pre-selection. I invite my readers to chime in with their thoughts on this subject, and all the others broached in this post.
Donal Graeme 
Deti, that sucks, but I’m going to say that being a 26 yo virgin also sucks. I may get to stay a virgin forever. I bear the weight of society’s errors. I was basically born to be sent to the convent.
Women think that younger men are more attractive. Why? Because older men look old. Before I came to the manosphere, I nurtured a false hope that I could marry a younger guy. There are actually more single men who are younger, so odds are that there are some alphas and greater betas in there. There was one guy I really liked, but I’ve had to face up to the fact that I’m too old. Women act like they’re into older guys, because it saves face.
“I’m not interested in these boys . I want someone who’s mature. My ideal age is like 36.”
Now, a carousel-riding secular woman can get married. To do so, she might even go to church. Meanwhile, nice girls don’t get a lot of interest. Maybe it’s because we aren’t competitive and experienced daters. Maybe it’s because we’re too accepting of the sluts (because we’re raised well) and it comes back to bite us in the ass when they invent stories about us.
I never thought I would say this, but there was a group of Muslim girls at this coffee shop, about young to mid twenties. They were talking about the men they were engaged to. I have to say, since middle school, I haven’t run into women like this. They had this girlish optimism. They ordered PSLs, and were like, “You should get one of these! This is the BEST PSL!” There wasn’t any negging going on between them. They were planning sleepovers, etc. Finally, one of them said to me, “I’m really sorry that we’re being so loud!” I was like, “Nope! You’re fine!”
I liked being around them. This is what I was like when I was in high school. I had that sort of easily-entertained blind optimism and sweetness and energy. You take someone like that and send them out into the world. We go out there kind to people, thinking the best of everyone, and in return, we essentially get our birthrights stolen. Slutty girls marry our guys and benefit off of our virginity. They take that energy from us, and get to call themselves “virgin.” They get their cake and eat it too. Meanwhile, we’re told that we don’t need to marry. We’re told that we’re selfish for wanting to marry; maybe that’s not “God’s plan.” Go work a job!
Not only that, but we don’t get approached for dates. Hardly anyone says, “hey, do you want to go out for coffee?” I have to say, the guys around these parts are probably different, but there is no value given to a woman’s virginity. In fact, the guys who go to church are mean ! They don’t treat you like you’re a woman. They have this strangely vindictive attitude. It’s like they loathe your presence. They all want a young blonde, even the losers, and they don’t care how many men she’s slept with. Anyone else, they want to make a fool out of, so that they can feel like a big guy. I think most Christian men, honestly, haven’t dated as much, so they overestimate their value. They all have these fantasies of being “the man,” but because they’re mostly waiting for marriage, it comes off as this weird irate snippiness.
Basically, if Christian guys dropped the whole “player virgin” act, they would be way more attractive. It’s so nerdy when I’m in church, and I want to say “hi” to someone, and instead of making eye-contact, he takes out his smartphone. It’s like… stop talking to your mom. Basic common sense, if a cute girl says “hi,” I don’t care if you’re marrying her or not, at least acknowledge her. Don’t be like, “Well… I guess you’re obsessed with me , so HA!” You can never have too many women saying, “hi” to you, okay?
The key is to be humble but don’t an be an overbearing omega clinger.
In terms of virginity, if you’re a virgin, you’re not going to care about a guy’s N-count. In fact, for me, I’d feel more comfortable sleeping with a guy who doesn’t know what he’s doing, as long as he doesn’t pretend like he does and act like he’s such and awesome player virgin. The idea of being naked in front of a guy makes me feel insecure, honestly. I don’t want to feel like the guy I’m with is judging me. I want to feel like we’re in the same boat. I also don’t want to feel like a 13 yo prostitute, going from virgin to pornstar overnight. I want to ease into sex gradually. It kind of freaks me out. I basically want someone who I’m similar to. Most virgins I know want virgins.
Another reason I want a virgin is that I want to feel like my contribution to staying pure is very highly appreciated. I can’t think of anything worse than being naked in front of a guy for the first time, and he’s seeing whatever physical imperfections I have, and then he’s all like, “you don’t know what you’re doing!” Or something. I’d be like, “waow, this was soooo worth it.” I’d probably be traumatized. The secular culture says this is because I value virginity too much. There are so many articles bashing the like 800 people in the United States who are pure that it baffles me.
What makes Cumberbatch so attractive is that he reminds you of Lucifer and a three year old at the same time. He has like a baby face and a playfulness, but at the same time, there’s something forebodingly sinister about him. That voice, tho. Like he might just being doing something out of childish naievety, or it might all be a part of his master plan. He’s both naughty and nice. He’s both precious and masculine. He’s both innocent and diabolical. He’s a classic imp, and he carries that persona into real life, as well.
Jackman was not docked for his age or his wife. I am a huge fan of his and I didn’t know he was 15 years younger than his wife. What are the chances that the survey voters knew? Slim.
Gosling is younger, and whether it’s men or women assessing, all things being equal, younger is hotter. Why the push to deny that reality?
Sooooo…..what is the point of the Christian Manosphere? What is the point of trying to ethically employ “game” techniques and Red Pill theories? Are they trying to attract the reformed “sluts” and keep them once they have them”? Are they trying to find the unicorn 1% devout virgin? Are they trying to get their marriages to reformed sluts who aren’t happy back on track?
Being that I’m not a manosphere reader, as I’ve said, I only read here mostly and skim a few others, all Christian/Catholic. It seems these men are virgins and want virgins, no compromise. It was specifically to this that my comments above were directed. All the others are related but different to this very specific group of unicorns as they are referred to. What is the point of “game” technique for this very small group? To attract many women in the hopes of finding the one among many? To learn to be alpha so that when/if you marry you can keep her interested?
Also, there seems to be a small gathering of unicorns here. If that which is being looked for is so elusive, wouldn’t it make sense to somehow try to get to know each other outside these blogs? I mean if the female unicorns aren’t tied to their careers, there’s nothing to keep them from moving to where a male unicorn actually exists, provided there aren’t other extenuating circumstances. Please no one answer this personal question. It’s just rhetorical. It may have even already been considered and tried for all I know.
There seems to be a lot of blame on the feminist movement and on women not living their marriages according to the Bible. The blame is certainly warranted. However, what about some of these old-fashioned sentiments that seemed to be accepted as common knowledge before everything went to hell-
Men only marry nice girls…but on the flip side it’s ok to visit the town harlot and not be labeled a slut. It’s just what men do. They’ll date ’em, they don’t marry ’em. Hmmm…..sounds just like what women today are doing. Wonder where they got the idea?
Men having mid-life crises and leaving said nice girl for a younger model. Wouldn’t the man’s freedom to have sex with the bad girls but to marry the nice girl to keep his social standing in the community affect his happiness with his wife in the same way it’s being said here; that women who sleep around aren’t happy with their average Christian husband because they’ve had the hotter guys before they were married?
Nice-girl wives silently accepting that their husband’s Saturday nights out with the boys probably involve strip clubs or cheating, but she’s expected to turn a blind eye to this (and to his stack of girly magazines in the basement) in order to keep her social standing because to be a divorced woman is a shame.
The radical feminist movement was born out of this kind of double standard among other things so I really think there’s plenty of blame to go around for both sexes. Honorable men/woman are trying to live or find marriage like it was meant to be and are caught in the middle of all this mess. It’s also contributing to a lot of misinterpretation of the Scriptures about woman’s role and confusing and muddying up the waters for Christians who are trying to find their way. The devil is having a field day.
Tru:
Yeah, women prefer men around their own age. When they’re younger up to around 35 or so, women prefer a man within three years older (+3). Then at around 40 it starts reversing and women prefer a man two to three years younger (-3).
As for the rest of your post, suffice it to say our experiences are very different. First, a virgin woman is the absolute pinnacle of marriage material. She’s immensely valuable. IF she is even average looking, she’s hugely, tremendously valuable. So you’ll forgive my skepticism at your claims that virgin women are denigrated and looked down upon.
I also don’t buy that “nice girls” don’t get a lot of interest, if by “nice” we mean genuinely kind, good natured, sincere, and forthright. Sorry. I just don’t believe that. In my experience, a few genuinely “nice girls” who don’t’ get a lot of interest experience that because they won’t put out. It’s not because they’re not savvy daters or because they accept sluts. It’s because they won’t put out.
The remaining, the 95% or so of the remainder, don’t get interest because they’re bitches, or come across as bitches, or have reputations for nuking and turning away the church men who dare to talk to them.
Christian men, in my experience, do not overestimate their value. They’ve spent years, decades, hearing about how they are the lowest form of life there is from everyone around them, including the women they attend church with. They hear nothing but denigration of their sexuality, their habits, their preferences, their looks, and their very existences. Their female peers are good, pure, holy, kind and normal; while they, according to their church elders and everyone else, are evil, base, profane, lecherous and mentally ill. Their sexuality is especially targeted. They are called diseased and sick for having normal sexual urges and tastes. They are accused of criminal behavior for asking women out on dates. I have absolutely no idea where you’re going with your claim that Christian men overestimate their value.
Gosling is younger, and whether it’s men or women assessing, all things being equal, younger is hotter. Why the push to deny that reality?
Because it isn’t what is generally observed, nor consistent with what surveys have indicated. Surveys have indicated that women prefer men within a close age band (not “older” as in +10 or more years, but +/- 3 years or so) until they are in the mid 40s and older, at which point they seem to prefer “younger” men in their early and mid-40s. Not men in their 20s. Men, in the same surveys, all reported preferring women in their early 20s, regardless of the age of the men reporting. So, no, what you are claiming isn’t “reality” for all women — it depends on the woman’s age. The women here who are in their 20s would prefer men in their 20s — that is consistent with the surveys. The older women, not so much, until they reach the 40s, at which point, their interest in men becomes age capped at the early 40s level. For men, again, it doesn’t change, so, no, it’s quite different for men and women.
@C —
Sooooo…..what is the point of the Christian Manosphere? What is the point of trying to ethically employ “game” techniques and Red Pill theories? Are they trying to attract the reformed “sluts” and keep them once they have them”? Are they trying to find the unicorn 1% devout virgin? Are they trying to get their marriages to reformed sluts who aren’t happy back on track?
Different guys are going to have different preferences. Some guys will prefer a virgin, sacrificing other areas (perhaps hotness), whereas other guys will prefer hot over virgin, provided they have assurances sufficient to them that the woman in question is indeed reformed. It varies by the guy, I think.
What is the point of “game” technique for this very small group? To attract many women in the hopes of finding the one among many? To learn to be alpha so that when/if you marry you can keep her interested?
To attract the kind of women they want to attract. A man who is chaste and a virgin may still want to attract a very physically attractive woman — that may be a deal-breaker for him. Well, it’s very hard to attract a very physically attractive woman without some kind of self-improvement along the LAMPS/PSALM lines. Not “pick up” technique, but the self-improvement aspects of game which are centered on confidence and skill at social interaction. This doesn’t only attract the sluts — virgins like this, too, as well as the large number of women who are somewhere in between virgins and sluts in any given church.
Also, there seems to be a small gathering of unicorns here. If that which is being looked for is so elusive, wouldn’t it make sense to somehow try to get to know each other outside these blogs? I mean if the female unicorns aren’t tied to their careers, there’s nothing to keep them from moving to where a male unicorn actually exists, provided there aren’t other extenuating circumstances.
People *have* met through these blogs, actually. But, the key issue is that chemistry can’t be determined other than face to face, and so, like any online interaction, it needs to be taken to offline as soon as possible to make the chemistry/interaction test to see if what looks good “on paper” or
“in text” or “on phone” or “in image” actually feels right in person. That also assumes that people are even attracted based on all of that even prior to deciding to meet. Not easy to do if people are very geographically separated. But, yes, it has happened and will continue to happen.
Men only marry nice girls…but on the flip side it’s ok to visit the town harlot and not be labeled a slut. It’s just what men do. They’ll date ‘em, they don’t marry ‘em. Hmmm…..sounds just like what women today are doing. Wonder where they got the idea?
No question, but the difference is that women, other than some outliers, genuinely don’t care that much about a man’s sexual history (provided he isn’t on the cad level), whereas men always will care about a woman’s sexual history more (even the enlightened snowflake men do), due to the cuckolding risk which men bear. A woman might get left by a man, but she will never be duped into raising another woman’s child — that’s a risk she isn’t ever running, and it’s why the double standard exists (i.e., why men care more about it than vice versa).
Men having mid-life crises and leaving said nice girl for a younger model. Wouldn’t the man’s freedom to have sex with the bad girls but to marry the nice girl to keep his social standing in the community affect his happiness with his wife in the same way it’s being said here; that women who sleep around aren’t happy with their average Christian husband because they’ve had the hotter guys before they were married?
Not in the same way, because men are not hypergamous. The male temptation isn’t to constantly upgrade, the male temptation is endless variety. So, the issue isn’t whether the man will want to upgrade from his wife, because he bedded hotter women beforehand, but rather that he will never be capable of being satisfied with monogamy. That is a real risk for men who can pull off non-monogamy on a substantial level over an extended period, and women would be rightly skeptical of marrying such a man (if he even wants to marry — most of these guys today can’t be bothered marrying because they don’t take a huge social hit for their behavior, and by not getting married they are even freer to engage in their non-monogamy). So, it’s an issue, but not the same as the issue is for women. For women, the issue is that she may never be able to marry a man as attractive as her ex-lovers, and therefore will always be pining for them, and may crater her marriage because this pining utterly takes over at some point and makes her not want to be married to the inferior male any longer. So both are problems, but they are different problems.
And, by the way, the typical midlife crisis man is not the guy who successfully deployed non-monogamy on a grand scale prior to marriage. He’s typically an insecure beta who did *not* get that prior to marrying, but always wanted it, and now is trying one last chance to parley his money and success into getting it — which is all pretty pathetic, as almost everyone knows. The female version of this — the cougar phenomenon — is of course not pathetic at all, but liberating, empowering, and frankly, so sexy and refreshing!
Spot the difference, since you seem interested in double standards?
Mrs. C:
For most in the Christomanosphere, the idea is to relearn and recapture masculinity, essentially. Most men need to learn the specific “attractive/masculine” skill set after having never learned it because of emasculation from church or a poor or absent father figure. Most Christian men in their 20s to middle aged have suffered heavy influence from the church and church related protestant ministries on how they should relate to and date women. For example, Focus on the Family, Family Life, etc. Or, they had no one other than women and feminized men from whom to learn about intersexual relations.
Intersexual relations underwent a massive sea change and shift starting in the late 70s and on through the mid 90s where it went from dating to full on hookup. During that time, women had all sorts of instruction and coaching, where men had none. A lot of moms, including Christian mothers, were also divorcing their husbands during this time. So the products of those broken marriages are adult men today, a few of whom are here. Christian women have embraced hookup full on – there are very, very few Christian women who are still virgins.
The point of learning Game techniques for Christian men is, quite simply, that they work in this broken mess. A Christian man who doesn’t learn something specific to how to attract women is not going to be able to get or keep the interest of ANY woman, Christian or no. Christian women are women, after all, and they want to date and have sex with good looking, sexy, attractive men just like their nonChristian counterparts. Just read Tru’s statements – the Christian men she knows are wimpy, unattractive, don’t know how to interact with girls, don’t have any idea what they’re doing in talking to people, etc. She’s a Christian VIRGIN, and she is lamenting male unattractiveness. Do you fault her for that? If you do, why? If not, why not?
“Men having mid-life crises and leaving said nice girl for a younger model.”
Strawman. Moreover, it’s rare, and is a favorite boogeyman that women love to raise. There are very, very, VERY few men who even can do this, much less the ones who even want to.
“ Wouldn’t the man’s freedom to have sex with the bad girls but to marry the nice girl to keep his social standing in the community affect his happiness with his wife in the same way it’s being said here; that women who sleep around aren’t happy with their average Christian husband because they’ve had the hotter guys before they were married?”
No, because men don’t experience premarital sex the same way that women do; and premarital sex doesn’t affect men in the same way it affects women. Premarital sex and extramarital sex do not ruin a man for marriage the same way they ruin a woman for marriage. If a man is able to obtain a lot of premarital sex, he’s simply going to be less likely to marry in the first place. It might also make him jaded and cynical about women’s ability to commit, or about their value, but again, that would just cause him to refuse marriage in the first place.
A man can be sexually attracted to a wide variety of women. A woman is and can be sexually attracted to a narrow swath of men. A man might marry a “nice girl” but will still be sexually attracted to her. Men don’t marry women they don’t want to have sex with. Sex is the primary reason men marry. A man WILL NOT MARRY if he will not get to have sex with his bride.
By contrast, a woman will readily marry a man she’s quite a bit less sexually attracted to than the men she used to sleep with, IF that man has other features she wants, most notably financial stability. Access to a man’s resources gives her options – options to work, to care for children, to use those resources for her benefit and those of her kids, or to retire from remunerative employment altogether. She need only be willing to have sex with him purely as an exchange – to gain access to his resources. This isn’t in any way unheard of.
“Nice-girl wives silently accepting that their husband’s Saturday nights out with the boys probably involve strip clubs or cheating, but she’s expected to turn a blind eye to this (and to his stack of girly magazines in the basement) in order to keep her social standing because to be a divorced woman is a shame.”
More strawmen. With all due respect, Mrs. C., you don’t have even the slightest idea what you’re talking about. Most husbands’ Saturday nights out with the boys occur once or twice a year, and usually involve a beer or three after 18 holes of golf or a fraternity reunion at the local campus. It’s ridiculous to think that the average husband wastes money in strip clubs. (Have you ever seen the average male “gentleman’s club” attendee? I have. Trust me. They’re not family men.) Most husbands can’t even attract their wives, much less some other woman. Most men don’t cheat. Most of them CAN’T cheat, because they would have no idea how to attract a woman. If you think that a man going out with his “boys” is cheating, you really have NO idea what’s going on out there.
Most men are to blame for not working on their attractiveness and for putting up with crap from the women in their lives.
Meh. If he wants to cheat he will cheat. Until he gets caught or gets her pregnant or whatever.
Mrs. C:
Tru is describing male unattractiveness. She’s describing Christian male ineptitude, ignorance and haplessness when it comes to social interaction. I believe her. She’s right about that.
This Christian male social retardation is a direct result of societywide failures. It’s parents falling down on the job. It’s fathers who THEMSELVES never learned how to be attractive. It’s fathers who either cannot or will not stand up to the women in their lives and tell them to STFD and STFU. It’s mothers who divorced the fathers of their children. It’s mothers trying to teach sons how to deal with women (“Just be nice, just be yourself”). It’s women trying to make men out of boys, when only men can do that.
It’s churches reinforcing women’s viewpoints and desires, elevating women while denigrating and tearing down men. It’s churches demonizing and criminalizing the male sexual experience. It’s churches demonizing and criminalizing men for wanting sex. It’s churches emasculating men by refusing to follow the plain teachings of scripture in that women are to submit to their husbands. It’s churches excusing, defending and praising women for having premarital sex and for divorcing their husbands. It’s churches looking the other way when their young women have sex; but crashing down upon their young men for doing – or wanting – the same thing.
“If he wants to cheat he will cheat.”
Nope. He has to be ABLE to cheat. To do that he has to be able to attract a woman.
Most men cannot do that because they aren’t attractive enough. Most men were barely attractive enough to get and hold the attention of their wives. Hell, many married men can’t sustain even their own wives’ attraction. Many men can’t even keep their own wives interested.
What in the world makes anyone think these men would even BE CAPABLE of cheating? Why else does anyone think we have a 50% overall divorce rate, a 38% divorce rate among professing Christians; and a 25% divorce rate among Roman Catholics? It’s not men driving those stats, folks.
Women prefer Ryan Gosling over Hugh Jackman not because he’s younger, but because he feeds her hypergamy more:
They’re both celebrities with high status, with aesthetically pleasing physiques, probably rich, but there is one difference namely — The Notebook. Ryan Gosling is a supposedly “alpha male” who is also emotionally available for the woman he loves given their impression of him from the film. In other words, he [seems to] have it all.
What is the fantasy? Have it all (PSALMS) but then also be emotionally sensitive, in tune with his emotions, and whatever other stuff there is to go along with the typical romantic film.
This is no different from say Edward Cullen or whoever the main characters/protagonists are in the Twlight series and other movies like that. Sexually attractive AND emotionally available…. for her and her only of course.
@ Elspeth
The question isn’t what such serious minded women do, but what fraction of women, (or specifically Christian women), are so serious minded. I would posit that it’s a miniscule fraction.
Nova and Deti, thank you for your thoughtful replies.
Deti, I realize the Saturday nights out with the boys is not a common theme these days. I was referring to the old fashioned idea of the man’s man having a nice wife at home but also having no problem hanging out with the looser women when he’s out with the boys. I didn’t mean all husbands did this but that it was more generally acceptable if a husband would.
I have some more thoughts about the Catholic idea of women being the gatekeepers of purity….and would like the male point of view with this idea as well. I have busy evening tonight but will see if I can come back later.
For the record, Hugh Jackman for me. It all comes down to their facial features. I prefer the more rough masculine face to the boyish good looks of Gosling. I am always instinctively repulsed by the boyish looking man or a man with less maturity than myself. Hence, why I don’t understand cougars either.
Deti, many (not all, perhaps) are actually able to cheat – maybe not with the woman of their dreams, but they can get one. Besides, I don’t think men who cheat actually give a fig about their wives, so why would they care about keeping their attraction?
Mrs. C:
“I realize the Saturday nights out with the boys is not a common theme these days. I was referring to the old fashioned idea of the man’s man having a nice wife at home but also having no problem hanging out with the looser women when he’s out with the boys. I didn’t mean all husbands did this but that it was more generally acceptable if a husband would.”
What do you mean, “hanging out with the looser women”?
I can speak to this as a man married 18 years. When married men go out with their male friends (most of whom are themselves married), they are not going on the prowl, looking to meet women for sex. They are going out to drink beer, talk and have a good time without their wives monitoring their conversation. They are going away from women so they can be men without the feminizing influence of a lot of women around. When I was younger and single, yes, sometimes I went out with the purpose of meeting women. When I got married, I stopped doing that. That’s the experience of most married men, I think.
Yes, in years past and even today, there are married men who cheat. A few have mistresses. A few do so discreetly, a few do so openly. A few things about that. First, it’s a minority of men – probably 12 to 15%. Second, men don’t cheat because they’re looking to replace the wife; they’re doing so because they want endless sexual variety. So husband cheating does threaten the marriage, but not in the same way wife cheating does.
Third, a man who’s likely to cheat usually fits a particular profile – he’s done it before; he rates high on dark triad traits of psychopathy, Machiavellianism and narcissism; and he’s physically attractive to a larger segment of women than the average man. (For example: A man who looks like Hugh Jackman can cheat on his wife more easily than a man who looks like Mark Zuckerberg or Rush Limbaugh.) Fourth, he has to have the resources and wherewithal to cheat. Most men don’t cheat; and they don’t because they can’t. Simple reality here.
I really have absolutely NO idea where you are getting this notion that there are hordes and legions of married men going out to bars and public houses for the express purpose of leering at, stalking and trying to pick up “loose” women. In case you haven’t heard, we have men being falsely accused of rape all over the place. Just talking to the wrong woman can get a man KILLED. So, you’re really in left field on this.
Maeve,
You probably shouldn’t engage Deti in this line of conversation. For a bunch of reasons but mainly because he is commited to a particular narrative and line of thought.
“ many (not all, perhaps) are actually able to cheat – maybe not with the woman of their dreams, but they can get one.”
First, the woman a married man cheats with doesn’t have to be “the woman of their dreams”. She just has to be minimally physically attractive to him, and willing. For most men, even getting ONE woman who meets those criteria is a herculean task. It was difficult enough for most men even to get that ONE woman.
Respectfully, I believe you’re projecting when you suggest that it’s no big deal for “many” men to get a woman willing to cheat with them. This is because it’s very easy for women to get men sexually interested in them. It’s like building the Pyramids at Giza for the average man to get EVEN ONE woman sexually interested in him. It’s damn nigh impossible for most men to get more than one woman sexually interested in them simultaneously.
“Besides, I don’t think men who cheat actually give a fig about their wives, so why would they care about keeping their attraction?”
Some men who cheat do care about their wives; perhaps some don’t care. And some men do care about “keeping” their wives’ attraction, because they continue sleeping with their wives and with their mistresses. Those guys are not obeying scripture, but are optimizing their sexual strategies. They get sex with an attractive wife who also does all other wifely things; and sex with a mistress who plays the role of courtesan/consort. (Just as women who go for Alpha f*x, Beta Bux are not obeying scripture but are optimizing their own sexual strategies.)
Some men don’t care about keeping their wives’ attraction, but care only about preserving the marriage. There are lots of reasons for this. (1) Conserving assets. (2) Parenting the kids. (3) Avoiding taking a social status hit in divorce. Pertinent to this last point,in years past, when growing up among the more affluent members in the little town I came up in, it was an open secret that a couple of prominent local married men had longtime mistresses. These men maintained longterm relationships with these women. Those men did so as discreetly as possible and it was never, ever talked about. Some did so even with the tacit knowledge (if not permission) of the wives, who didn’t want to be bothered with sex anyway. For the wives, they figured that as long as they kept access to their husbands’ resources and continued to hold the honored position of “Mrs.”, they got—and kept—what they wanted. The wives seemed to be saying “I don’t care if you sleep with your mistress as long as you don’t broadcast it all over town, you don’t shame me, and you don’t put the kids and me in the poorhouse.” And all seemed to be OK with that.
Just as you’re committed to your narrative and line of thought, Elspeth.
“Tru is describing male unattractiveness. She’s describing Christian male ineptitude, ignorance and haplessness when it comes to social interaction. I believe her. She’s right about that.”
No, I’m describing Guypurgamy. That’s exactly what I’m describing. Guypergamy. The hierarchy of what guys like is youth > beauty >virginity (or more acurately in Xtian circles, youth> blondness> beauty > virginity… bcuz blonde = good person). So, I’m used as leverage to get younger and prettier, but nobody cares if she is/ was a slut. They all say they’re sorry for their pasts, btw, and then tell me I’m
“lucky” that didn’t have to go through all that mindblowing sex.
Yes, we have very different perspective. You’re probably older than I am. You probably weren’t reared in an Evangelical environment. I probably know what I’m talking about.
I will say this again, there is no reason for a virgin to want an experienced man. We prefer virgin men. We’ll settle for a repentant manwhore, if we have to, but I’d really cringe to do this. Other virgins I know have expressed similar sentiments.
A man is most physically attractive in his lower to mid twenties. In his thirties, he can still be pretty hot. The window is bigger for men than women, but I’ll still take a younger greater beta/ latent alpha over an older greater alpha. Young men also have more sexual energy, whereas older guys have the attitude of “been there, done that.” The fellows on romance novels always look young. Women keep saying they prefer young… why is there a question here? Of course we do! The young guys won’t have us. Why would they?
I also disagree with you about women being genuine getting all the guys. That’s good advice for a liar, but for a woman like me who’s very open and honest, I need learn the slut tricks, like telling guys what they want to hear and flattering them. People knock dating, because, “You only see one side of a person!” Hey, that’s not dating’s fault. That’s what people want.
Think of it this way: when a man remembers “the woman he married” to rationalize the new info about her screwing the football team, he’ll remember this lovely, bubbly, sweet person. That’s the real her! No, that was all lies. She lied about her adventures around the world, being a mean cook, her closeness to her family, having a little dog, orgasms, not being suicidal, everything. He got nothing.
My thoughts exactly (I have some differences of opinion in the other parts of that comment, though). The Christian Manosphere should be about how to spot a unicorn. That’s really what it’s about. Myself, and I believe Donal have concluded that church hopping is the way to go. I’d also like to see the manosphere used as a Mexican version of an online dating service, but it’s just another venue. It’s another place with church politics, therefore, another church to hop. I mean, look at it… it’s probably a good half women, if not more.
It is a good illustration of what goes on at a church. We sit around like this. Deti, this is your virgin supply and demand. Look how in demand I am. 😛 This is real life. I’m a real life person in a real life scenario. For all of the people who helped pimp me… I mean, for the like two of you who helped pimp me… thank you.
When I had a blog, just a couple guys left just a couple comments. I think I went around and on different blogs and was like, “HEY!” I got decent traffic. Especially right after Dalrock blocked me (thanks there, Dalrock, for your support of the virgin population), but a pretty decent set of orbiters. They hardly ever commented! Hey, it’s nerve-racking when you’re online and someone else is online and you can’t see each other… Obviously, I got a blog for… strictly… academic reasons, but yeah. Well, I’m not getting on OKCupid, because they went from betas to omegas nearly overnight! I don’t want to be axe-murdered by “Frodozilla” for denying a date to play ski-ball.
Ski-ball ‘n’ Tuna Tacos. Singles’ Polka at the Eagle Lounge. Hook it up .
Elspeth:
By referring to my comments as “narrative’, you’re suggesting my commentary is premised at least in part on inaccuracies, distortions, or outright falsehoods. By all means, please point out said inaccuracies, distortions and falsehoods. I’ve carefully examined what I’m saying, and I’m not seeing anything inaccurate, distorted or false. So please, if you think I’m being steered wrong, do let me know.
Dear Long Line of Quality Guys Pursuing Me,
I implore you gracefully to please w8 ur turn. Form a nice line, boyz. Don’t resort to violence now, I h8 it when boyz fight 4 me. 😦 Be nice. Calm down. Just calm down. I will hypergamize all your steak dinners in due time. The winner will be announced once everyone’s gotten a turn. The losers have to be in my massive and unjust friendzone. I mean, runners-up, I men runners-up.
The real test isn’t jackman vs that other dude based on their roles/ movie characters but based on the two of them working the same bar or other venue. Reckon that would come down to which man projects power better… Which normally goes to the older man
I dated a model in Hawaii. She turned down more then 1 a list actor, pro surfer and pro bowl NFL dudes. She claimed the actors had no personal presence. Ie the guy who became famous doing actions movies was weak sauce in real life. On the other hand she the athletes did.
So….. My theory on this is what women say they want counts for very little because this is based on the illusions hollywood produced about each man.
LOL the more I read female commentators the more I realize doing so is a waste of time and effort.
Sfcton, maybe it is. No one’s forcing you to be here. I don’t know why you comment here.
My comment was more about concern for Maeve than any attempt to criticize your commentary.
That said,I don’t think your comments are fulll of falsehoods. Rather, I note that you summarily dismiss the experiences of anyone who doesn’t line up with what you have to say by calling them outliers.
LOL
“The end result is that men are indeed better off GTOW and eschewing marriage. The cost of entry is too great for marriage, the goods are extremely damaged, and the institution of marriage is too dangerous (for men). As time passes, women will find fewer and fewer men willing to play this dirty game, and the quality of those men who do play will fall to extremely low levels.”
This!!!!!!!!!!!!
I’m still rather busy, but I’ve seen that people are starting to get off topic here. If folks could please stick to the topics of the post, it would be much appreciated.
trugingstar
When I had a blog, just a couple guys left just a couple of comments
I was one of those!
Anyway, here’s something you should know, truginstar, and maybe you do know, and you were just exaggerating. Men don’t care much about hair color (or eye color), so your comment about blondes is way off. We guys may prefer certain colors. For instance, I’m partial to a woman with fair skin, dark hair, and dark eyes, but a pretty, blue-eyed, tanned blonde is just as good.
I can’t say for sure, but I think women actually have stricter criteria when it comes to what they’ll accept in a man than do men in what they’ll accept in a woman. This is not to say all women agree on what’s attractive (although some things are pretty universal like height and perhaps certain facial features), but women in general seem to have less flexibility about the hair or eye color thing than men do I think.
It’s usually hit or miss with me. I think ginger-liking guys are really into gingers, and average guys like them the least. I do notice that a lot of Christian guys seem prefer blondes, even more than the average guy, but I think you’re basically right. I could never go with a blonde blonde guy. I like dark hair and dark eyes, but every once and a while, I’ll compromise. For the most part, I know what I like. I like smart. I like glasses. I like a nice butt. I don’t care about height, unless it’s awkward. Yep, that’s what I like.
I think it’s because women can tie their looks together using makeup, hair, and clothing, to go for a particular style. Guys just throw on a t-shirt. So, their looks kind of have to be a match. There’s a correlation: I would have ugly babies with a pale guy. I’m also not attracted to blonde hair (unless the rest of the guy is hawt). Just not attracted to it, not because babies. I can subconsciously tell what’s a bad idea.
On the other side of the coin, dark women like the pale blonde guys, and they have beautiful kids with them. It really does go light-dark. It really does work that way.
I dunno Hank… I think it depends on the woman, or rather, how much importance she places on a man’s looks, and possibly how selective she knows she can (or can’t) afford to be. I’ve known some women who are very picky about what they will go for, looks-wise. They tend to be the super hot women who know they are hot enough to be so picky without having to worry about going without a man because of it. Then there are those of us that never have considered ourselves to be hot enough to be that picky about it, so we just aren’t that picky about the specifics of a man’s looks. We have our preferences, certainly. But like you, can be attracted to a variety of looks.
Like me ~ I prefer a swimmer / gymnast types of build, but have been attracted to some other types just as much. My favorite eye color is blue, but I like all other eye colors too. My favorite haircut is the cut that actor Taylor Lautner wears – messy with a bit of gel, but really like lots of other styles, and like them in every hair color too. I prefer no facial hair (it’s so sharp and prickly… ouch!) but have still been attracted to some men that have it. My height preference is around 4 – 6 inches taller than me, but have been interested in men ranging from my own height (5’4″) to a whopping 6’8.5″ tall.
Before anyone says that what I described here isn’t typical of women, I have known plenty who are flexible in the looks of men that they like. Not all, of course. But enough that it’s not an “outlier” thing.
It’s pretty random for women. I think a darker look is pretty important to me. The darker the better, up to a point. Super black is the same as super blonde to me… too much. But then, I’m weird in that height doesn’t matter to me. Looks are important. Game’s I’m guessing only 30-50% of it. It’s prolly like 10% of it for guys.
@ Novaseeker
With regards to “preferring” younger men… When I said that women think younger men are typically hotter than older men, I wasn’t talking about us necessarily wanting to marry younger men. Just that most women typically think that younger men are better looking than their older counterparts, regardless of our desire to marry them or not. The statistics about women preferring men within just a few years of our own age is more in regards to the age range that we prefer to marry from. So with regards to Ryan Gosling and Hugh Jackman… they have the same physique, but Ryan still has his youthful hotness about him that Hugh (while still very hot for his age) doesn’t have anymore. So naturally, more women will think Ryan is a bit hotter (aka, better looking). That doesn’t mean all these women want to marry Ryan over Hugh though. (Since a man’s looks don’t matter to a woman -to the same degree- that a woman’s looks matter to a man when it comes to choosing someone to marry, we can think one man is better looking than another while wanting to marry him less than we want to marry the other man.)
I also have another theory. So, I’m only really attracted to a few guys ever. Not “meets all my checklist criteria” but “gives me a high.” (Sorry, I use too many quotation marks and I should feel bad.) It only happens to me every once and a while. I feel like the dumber the woman, the more men she’s attracted to. Like, she could get a high from any guy carrying a guitar and playing Smoke on the Water. So, dumb women have more sex because everyone’s just so dang foxy. On the other hand, I only like a guy every once in a while. I don’t think most of these “players” could break my heart. Even most of the good ones. I don’t even think most celebrities are attractive. Now Benedict is a legit smart guy, and he has a very quirky persona. I like that. But Hollywood needs to up their game. I want every celebrity to be like Benedict, starting now.
You know, that’s why a lot of girls like anime. The fictional characters are interesting. Look at L from Death Note. There’s a ton more, but I’m a nerd and should stop.
On the other hand, Bollywood curates men who are smoking hot. They’re mostly young and generally 8+ (Shahid Kapoor ^_^ ). Hollywood actors are about as exciting as plain vanilla ice cream. They’re both intellectually inept and physically boring. The only thing they have going for them is “we’re actors!” So?
“I was referring to the old fashioned idea of the man’s man having a nice wife at home but also having no problem hanging out with the looser women when he’s out with the boys.”
I don’t think that was a real thing for the most part. It’s a 20th century icon, the stag party thing. I think the reality was much closer to what you see in Amish or Hutterite or Mennonite communities. Marital fidelity is a male value, primarily. It comes from patriarchy.
“Ie the guy who became famous doing actions movies was weak sauce in real life.”
I saw Hugh Jackman on a late night talk show and he was weak. About as far from the Wolverine character as you can get.
@ Patrick
Right, I see what you mean: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRnREzAS0y0
I don’t think one can separate “beauty” from “relationships”. Or if you do, you get a sort of faux beauty, such as how my dog is beautiful.
When a woman looks at a man she sees the “traits” she finds attractive in relationships. Strong jaw means strong personality. Power, she sees confidence and success. Likewise, when man looks at a woman much of her beauty is personal and represents who she is and her ability to not only have kids bu raise the well: weight, caked-on makeup, dress, hair length, flowing movement, etc. Much of the “hard” beauty is indeed real and objective, but it is always tainted by the rest and cannot be separated.
This is why I don’t think you can talk about intelligently about beauty without understanding the breeding market, and also the marriage/dating market. With no children and no family stability, beauty itself and beauty standards begins to change.
This is why, IMO, beauty is so argued over today and why so much disagreement follows n this thread. Many “traditional” women here feel they are more thinking in their attraction matrix, and I believe this to be true. I see this in men often as well; a “kind” woman gains a few points in a fem-centric culture.
Feminine But Not Feminist,
We have our preferences, certainly. But like you, can be attracted to a variety of looks.
Maybe for some women like yourself, Feminine But Not Feminist, that holds true. I’m not even necessarily saying you’re an outlier. You may be in the majority of women in that regard for all I know, but in this conversation alone, a woman has already said, “I could never go with a blonde blonde guy.” In my 35 years, I don’t recall EVER hearing a man say anything remotely similar. Sure, we all have our hair and eye color preferences, but I can’t think of a single man who’s said it would be a deal-breaker if those particular kinds of preferences weren’t met.
I feel like the dumber the woman, the more men she’s attracted to. Like, she could get a high from any guy carrying a guitar and playing Smoke on the Water. So, dumb women have more sex because everyone’s just so dang foxy.
Before I attended college (back in the early middle ages) I thought such things as well. Then I met very highly intelligent women (I went to a very selective college, as it turned out) who behaved in quite amazingly slutty ways, and who were focused on their sexuality/appearance/hotness as much as their intellect — and it worked for them. It was immoral and animalistic, of course, but it didn’t detract from their intelligence or intellectual image at all. I think this is mostly a lie that people of above average and higher intelligence tell themselves about life — which can be hard to disabuse unless you find yourself in a larger group of very highly intelligent people, and then you can see the diversity of behaviors, including some of the behaviors that many intelligent people associate mostly with “the muggles”.
====
This is why I don’t think you can talk about intelligently about beauty without understanding the breeding market, and also the marriage/dating market. With no children and no family stability, beauty itself and beauty standards begins to change.
This is an important point.
When marriage and family are out of the picture, it becomes very animal, very feral. The standard isn’t “beauty” or “handsome”, which are sex-based and distinctives for each sex, but the singular standard of “hot”. “Hot” is about sex, period. Sex in a vacuum. As in “is this person a really exciting candidate for sex, regardless of everything else about them””, because the context is strictly sex, or at least a relationship where children and family are well out of the picture (for the time being). It’s animal lust, feral attraction, whatever you want to call it, and when family and children are not in the immediate or close to come picture, this is what dominates, as we see in our culture today. Today, it’s all about hot — *even for people who want to get married*. The reason is that because the dominant relationship paradigm and scripting puts sex before marriage, hot comes before the other characteristics and takes precedence — it’s the necessary component of all contemporary marriages, because marriages generally don’t happen today unless each person finds the other hot enough to sex up first, well before anyone even thinks of anything longer term or marriage like. Because sex predominates and is the gateway, hot is the dominant criteria — instead of sexual attraction being one criterion among many which are critical for mate selection, as is the case in a situation where relationships are supposed to be leading somewhere, as opposed to having sex and then figuring out whether it is worthwhile to see if it goes anywhere based on how good the initial sex was … which is how people do it today.
There are many things that flow from this. One is that sex and sexuality, in general, has become more “gay”. By that, I mean “divorced from reproductive consequences”. Of course, artificial birth control keyed the move in this direction, but the trend is broader and deeper. The tremendous growth of pornography is a related development which deepens the fundamentally “gay” nature of a lot of heterosexual sex, currently. This is not to say that a wedge needs to be driven between sexual pleasure and the rest of sexuality (bonding, pro-creation, intimacy, etc.) — it all falls together. But the point is that today often it doesn’t all fall together — in fact, the feral/pleasure/hot aspects of sex are happening in a vacuum, quite separated from any of the other aspects, precisely because they are happening so early in relationships, before any of that other stuff has time to grow. It’s therefore much closer to the kind of sexuality and sexual encounters that were previously associated with the gay community in that it is focused on intensity of initial sexual attraction, and the quick gratification of that sexual attraction, if mutual, and perhaps an openness (some of the time) to see if anything further develops from that feral, hot evening.
Again, the issue isn’t “anti-sex” vs “pro-sex”. It’s the content and context of that sex which is occurring that is the issue. And it’s quite true that beauty standards (and standards of attraction for both sexes) are one critical thing that becomes impacted when the context of the sex changes. And .. this is a particularly critical point … it becomes impacted for *everyone*, even people who avoid sex in that context, because the ambient culture influences *everyone’s* attraction standards. So, even the folks who are avoiding pre-marital sex are impacted by the change in attraction standards which is socially ambient and itself arises from the widespread practice of early sex in relationships. That is, even the people who are chaste are still impacted by attraction standards which are based on the feral sex culture — because we are all deeply influenced by the culture around us unless we live in bubbles like the Amish or Chasidim do. You can try to buck that, but you’re betting that your spouse is as uninfluenced by the ambient cultural attraction standards as you may think they are, which is a pretty bad bet.
Feminine But Not Feminist
<em So with regards to Ryan Gosling and Hugh Jackman… they have the same physique, but Ryan still has his youthful hotness about him that Hugh (while still very hot for his age) doesn’t have anymore.
I thought about this and considered that you’re probably right, but then I also wondered how the comparison would play out if women were comparing the Hugh Jackman from X-Men (2000) with Ryan Gosling from now. I think a young Gosling would still win over a young Jackman, simply because Gosling has a (slightly?) more handsome face. Their current ages only add to this dynamic.
I think the same thing goes for Diaz and Upton. Diaz was a hottie back in her day like when she was in The Mask and was still in good shape the last time I saw her in something, but even comparing a young Diaz to a young Upton, Upton still wins.
oops…messed up the tag…
This part was Feminine But Not Feminist’s quote:
<em So with regards to Ryan Gosling and Hugh Jackman… they have the same physique, but Ryan still has his youthful hotness about him that Hugh (while still very hot for his age) doesn’t have anymore.
No, I didn’t mess it up. The end tag was in there, but it’s not getting through somehow. Oh, well…
Yeah, I did. Nevermind…
So with regards to Ryan Gosling and Hugh Jackman… they have the same physique, but Ryan still has his youthful hotness about him that Hugh (while still very hot for his age) doesn’t have anymore.
When I said that women think younger men are typically hotter than older men, I wasn’t talking about us necessarily wanting to marry younger men. Just that most women typically think that younger men are better looking than their older counterparts, regardless of our desire to marry them or not.
Interesting. The data comes from the book “Dataclysm” ( http://www.amazon.com/Dataclysm-When-Think-Ones-Looking/dp/0385347375/ref=tmm_hrd_title_0 ), and the charts, which depict “age of persons of the opposite sex who look best” are available here:
women: https://rationalmale.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/chart_men.jpg
men: https://rationalmale.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/chart_women.jpg
I believe that the author of the book used to be the CEO of OKC, and the data comes from there — which means it’s purely appearance/attraction based and not based on other criterion like “whom we want to marry”.
So, yeah. There’s interesting data out there that directly contradicts the idea that most women think younger men are hotter.
“Before I attended college (back in the early middle ages) I thought such things as well. Then I met very highly intelligent women (I went to a very selective college, as it turned out) who behaved in quite amazingly slutty ways, and who were focused on their sexuality/appearance/hotness as much as their intellect — and it worked for them. It was immoral and animalistic, of course, but it didn’t detract from their intelligence or intellectual image at all.”
This is consistent with my experience as well.
This is why I said at the outset of the thread that there really aren’t any differences between Christian women and all other women when it comes to sex and sexual attraction. A Christian woman is still a woman, with the same base urges, wants and desires as any other woman. I have seen not only intelligent women behave this way; but also Christian women as well — feral, base, driven by animalistic sexual impulse.
I couldn’t get the video to load but…..
I have meet more then my share of celebrities and athletes. Most are just regular dudes when the work day is done. In this experiment women are making their choice for the younger dude over Jackman based on what they see in the movies. Each man working a room or event might get widly different polling results as women weigh a man’s confidence, presence etc heavily. In this older men tend to win out.
It never pays to put much stock in what women say vs what they do and they say the craziest things. Like Els saying Jackman marrying a plain chick 15 years ago. I hold Els in high regard ( for some random person on the interwebz) but that hurt to read. Then the lady posters only get more out of bounds from there.