It does but listen carefully to John Lennon, he despises them already.

Hands are an indicator of hygiene, work ethic, and mood. Yes, I do check out men's hands. Are they clean? Well groomed? Restless? Tapping impatiently? Absently stroking a chin? Are they expressive? Clumsy? Uncalloused, soft, weak? Strong, nicely veined, well muscled?
I also don't want filthy hands in my sacred places.
My husband has beautiful hands, strong, well groomed, even with his calluses. His hands are quite capable of mixing concrete, using a nail gun, or caressing my shoulder.

In that live recording? Despises whom, the screeching fans or the Beatles?

"But one false statement was made by Barrymore at the inquest. He said that there were no traces upon the ground round the body. He did not observe any. But I did—some little distance off, but fresh and clear."
"Footprints?"
"Handprints."
"A man's or a woman's?"
Dr. Mortimer looked strangely at us for an instant, and his voice sank almost to a whisper as he answered:
"Mr. Holmes, they were the footprints of a hygienic, hard-working, optimistic and clean stud who dresses well, while maintaining a restless urge to explore our great empire. Observe the relentless tapping, the beard hairs and the expressive softness of the fingertips. Strong, nicely muscled with healthy circulation!"
"You deduced all that, good Dr?" said Watson.
"You never know your luck." replied the good Doctor.
"Steady Watson." said Holmes.

:) The audience at that stage, I think, although George does look a bit flustered.

Yeah, if you've watched the Anthology documentaries they talk a lot about how frustrating it was to play in front of an audience like that, whose screaming voices overcome all the music you play, they couldn't even hear themselves playing anything. Basically they say it felt as if it was just a freak show, that they've come on stage only so they could scream at them, not to play music. They said that it was especially awful on the Shea Stadium.

Anyway, we should probably get back on topic...

Oh blogs. Allowing people to write whatever they want since the beginnings of the internets.... :rolleyes: ie That's the daftest 'study' I've ever read. Obviously it's not true or else 80% of guys would be alone...

Take my boyfriend, he's not 'typically' attractive but damn I think he's sixy. He's confident, makes me laugh and cooks like a pro. Those things all do it for me really. It's all about the cooking for me. Bake me a pie and I'm yours.

I have a question for you girls:

Why do you assume your tiny and subtle hints will have any effect? I for one am completely unable to pick up on stuff like that and most guys I know ar as well. Why can't you just be a little straightforward with what you want and make life easier for both genders?

It doesn't really have much to do with math skills. The women simply looked at pictures of guys and rated them with 0-5 stars and only about 20% of the guys got an average rating of 2,5 stars or more. But I would agree with the statement that women seem to have unrealistically high standards for good looks.

What is interesting is to compare it with how men rated women. The women as rated by men graph shows much more similarity with a gaussian bell curve. So men seem to have much more realistic standards for visual attractivness of females. However, men also put much greater emphasis on good looks. The graph shows that some 2/3 of the men are fighting for the attention of 1/6 of the women (the best looking ones).

So in the end it basically boils down to it that women only find about 20% of the men average to good looking, while the men find only about 20% of the women good looking enough to bother pursuing them (based on looks alone). Both genders seem to have equally unrealistic ideas. It's also worth noting that the data was collected from an online dating site where social interaction is rather limited. If you encounter a person in the flesh there's a whole bunch of other factors than just raw good looks that have an effect on how attractive we find people and whether we wish to pursue them romantically.

In high school I had this a female schoolfriend that I considered to be average looking. We never really talked or anything. Then our class went on a skiing trip and we both ended up in the "can't ski" group along with 2 other girls. So we got to talk and two days later I thought she was one of the most attractive girls in class.

OK, I better stop. This thread has been derailed enough as is.

Because girls, just like guys, don't want to be rejected. So if they came right out with 'I think you're hot and want to date you', guys being the idiots they are would just say no. And then she'd be embarrassed and feel horrible.

It's also because women pick up on hints, so they assume men will too. They tend to listen more than men do and remember things that have been said and the underlying context. Men.....don't. They listen to just the words most of the time and don't neccessarily hear what's being 'said'.

Aren't words what's being said?


Yeah, I'm a guy.

oooh we can ask girls questions here? sweet. If your being an agony aunt to a girl whos in a relationship she thinks ain't going anywhere then she compliments how nice you are, how cool you are, is that flirting and giving you hints? im in a wierd situation here lol.

Bingo. No, a lot of the time it's not just the words that are being said. It's how she says things, what words she emphasises, the tone she's using...




In most cases, no. She's probably just grateful that she's found a guy she can be around who's not messing her about like her boyfriend. It doesn't mean she wants to be with you. It means exactly what she said that you're cool and nice.

Acctually I rather much trust the data. The thing here is that as I've indicated at the end of my previous post attraction is a mixture of many elements. The guys that wrote the blog only examined one of these elements, good looks. You say your boyfriend is sixy because he is confident, makes you laugh, and cooks like a pro. You can't really see that in a photo, can you? The only thing a photo shows is how a person looks. So if the result of the study is that 80% of men are bad looking by women's standards that only indicates that raw looks are only a small part of what makes a man attractive to a woman.

I agree to an extent. But since I met my boyfriend on Match.com, seeing his photo and thinking 'he's attractive' must have been in large part due to his appearance?

Which is exactly why I think people should just say what they mean instead of beating around the bush and just complicating things. I realise it's not possible for that to happen, but things would be so much easier.


Oh, so now there's no hidden message?

I'm so confused, I'm just gonna go stare at a wall...

If the wall starts speaking to you...

please PM me her number, will ya?

I know I'm not a woman, but...

Physical attractiveness gets you noticed the easiest. From there, you still need to impress. Intelligence will most likely impress the women who are most worth your time, but you shouldn't be showing off. Act how you always act, and if she finds that enticing, then you might have a small chance. Basically, everything so far is not under your control. You be yourself, and women who are not disgusted either by your appearance, or by their first impression of you will consider you someone they are willing to talk to.

Then you need confidence. It's so easy it's ridiculous. Walk up, look confident, and go for it. How do you build confidence, you say? Lower your standards. Get approval from women who you aren't interested in. That approval translates into more confidence, and you can repeat this process until you have the confidence and experience with women needed to gain the interest of someone truly worthwhile. Who is everything you look for.

If you could just pretend you have confidence, you could skip all that stuff, but it can't be faked. And once you have it, you'll act like it without even knowing it. It's truly amazing.

Okay, here, I'll boil it down for you.

Men like briasts. Women like muscles.

The end.

You think I'm gonna share that hot piece of wall?

Yes, if you saw his picture and thought he was attractive it must have been due to apperance. But I don't see how this example could counter the data the guys in the blog gathered. And by itself it also doesn't negate what I claimed in my previous post. Am I right in assuming that you now find him more attractive than when you first saw his picture?

Yeah, my Norwegian brother, I do. [Now we are married and living in a cabin with a blueish shade of red]

I find him more 'all over' attractive, but not more physically. He looks the same he did a year ago so that's not changed.

Don't get me wrong, I don't neccessarily disagree with what they're saying, since the reality is that very few people end up with a partner that most people think is drop dead gorgeous. And thank god for that because then I'd be sadly single.

This sounds like something I need to try. Thanks for sharing.

Edit:


Me too.

Oh wait, I already am.

"MR Holmes!" "Do control yourself, your hands are wandering!" exclaimed Dr Mortimer.
"Sorry old chap, thought you were the good Doctor Watson..." murmmered Holmes.
"Pass the salt, please," interrupted Dr Watson. "and for crying out loud, no shennanigans at the dinner table!"