What men don't know: Women AREN'T men. Our perspective is different from yours. And, not all women are the same!

submitted by missdaisycan from self.whatever

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 14 insightful - 3 fun14 insightful - 2 fun15 insightful - 3 fun -  (9 children)

All well and good, but research has consistently shown that what matters is attractiveness (You can start by reading the works of Elaine Hatfield) . People just don't admit it, women especially, due to the cultural mythos that a bunch of "other things" are responsible instead. This vagina-whacking self masturbatory post is just more Karen little princess thinking that, of course, ends with digs at men who resent the fact women consistently get special treatment for their wittle stubbed toes.

[–]missdaisycan[S] 5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 4 fun -  (8 children)

LOL. Bite me. Tell me where I'm wrong in presenting my opinion!

[–][deleted] 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Uh, the fact it's all based on a gigantic cultural mythos that pretends we aren't just animals? Every single time people have run dating simulations or interactions, done more than just ask people their opinion, they consistently find the overwhelming factor is attractiveness.

As it turns out, everyone kind of goes for the most attractive person they can. But in iterations of pairing-off, people consequently end up paired with people more like themselves in attractiveness. This originally lead old researchers in the 1940s to erroneously conclude there was "assortative mating" going on, people choosing those like themselves, but that has long since been debunked (by hatfield for one). In other words, all your "advice" is kind of pointless. There's only one deciding factor: Be as attractive as you can be, and you'll have far more chances than if you aren't. Personality, opinions, etc, literally do not even factor in. People claim they do, but that isn't what studies on reality and what people DO actually shows.

[–]Grateful 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

Uh, the fact it's all based on a gigantic cultural mythos that pretends we aren't just animals? Every single time people have run dating simulations or interactions, done more than just ask people their opinion, they consistently find the overwhelming factor is attractiveness.

I can't argue with these sentences, however doesn't this basically agree with what the OP wrote? What the OP listed are things are attractive to some people. Voice, scent, posture, clothes, hairstyle, being "comfortable" with oneself (aka confidence), ethics/morals are things people find attractive about others. Would a man find a woman attractive if she has an annoying voice, she smells bad, slouches excessively, wears ugly clothes, has an unattractive hairstyle, an annoying personality and bad morals?

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

That would be if, in fact, they loaded into the factor of "attractiveness". Slouching might, but so-called "confidence" does not. It's of course one of the first things people looked at and one of the common things tested, but either attractiveness is considered synonymous with confidence or it's irrelevant (again, actual testing, not people's opinions). Posture will not make a 5 as attractive as a 7 no matter how different their postures are. Same goes with voice, you cannot radically alter your voice as it's genetically determined by the muscles and shape of your vocal chords. The same goes for "personality", because people consistently (one of the findings of Elaine Hatfield & co) find more attractive people having better personalities.

Naturally, externalities like bad hair or clothing do factor in, but little. Think of it like putting polish on a turd or a diamond. All this can do is bring out what naturally is already attractive, it generally can't and doesn't improve what's already there. Meaning the advice, such as it is, where it is applicable, would rarely have any significant effect except on the most slovenly. If you'd want my advice, there are two most significant factors people can control: 1. Don't be fat, 2. Exercise a lot.

[–]Grateful 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

In general, I agree but confidence is really important and shouldnt be dismissed.

I think people are like Christmas trees. Clothes, hairstyle, grooming, odors, posture etc are the ornaments, and they make the tree look better. If you have a Charlie Brown Christmas tree, there's only so much you can do with it, however some decorations will help.

Basically, we all get dealt a hand in life but we still play the cards and the game. Height is something we cant change, but "clothes make the man" and they make the woman too.

Don't be fat and exercise a lot is good advice for anyone, even from a general health point of view.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Well, no, again this is the problem with our perceptions. Quite literally the more attractive you are the more positively and confident you are perceived to be, irrespective of your own self assessment or anything you do or say. Again something found with many many tests of interactions and dating simulations where people rank one another, comparing married people and friends, asking people to rank one another personality while others rank attractiveness, etc.

I cannot say this enough: "What is beautiful is good". Positive personality attributes are given to attractive people, negative ones to ugly ones. A "Confident" ugly person is actually perceived as worse than one who isn't, they're seen as pushy or aggressive or creepy. It's all been studied before. The absolute least favorably viewed people in dating simulation studies are the ugly ones that are assertive.

[–]cybitch 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

This is called the halo effect. It works for all situations in life, not just dating. People with better bone structure are granted a bunch of other positive traits based on it, whether there's a reason to or not. I'm guessing it's probably because when we evolved, before modern medicine, physical health could make or break you in a lot of ways. In modern days, medicine can compensate, so that now you don't need to be born with great health in order to do well by society, however our subconscious minds failed to keep up with the progress.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Might want to reply that to Grateful as well. Sadly, unless they fixed this when I wasn't looking, your message to me won't notify the participants in the thread.

[–]cybitch 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

IMO, confidence is not something that precedes positive interactions with others, but a result of them. Attractiveness has been proven to play a crucial role in getting good grades, getting job interviews, just generally getting what you want. This applies even in situations where there is no confidence, like when people only have photos to go on, or in experiments where people are asking others for help of some kind and try to appear sympathetic, rather than confident.

This is called the halo effect. It works for all situations in life, not just dating. People with better bone structure are granted a bunch of other positive traits based on it, whether there's a reason to or not. I'm guessing it's probably because when we evolved, before modern medicine, physical health could make or break you in a lot of ways. In modern days, medicine can compensate, so that now you don't need to be born with great health in order to do well by society, however our subconscious minds failed to keep up with the progress.