Women, ladies, girls and females: A little guy question for : Othor Games

» Sun May 13, 2012 5:00 pm

You need to be realy muscular to pull off the bald thing, other wise just have realy short hair,
(im a straight guy, but my opinion still counts right?)

but they both look pretty stab-happy to me.

This made me laugh, a lot.

» Sun May 13, 2012 11:27 pm

You need to be realy muscular to pull off the bald thing, other wise just have realy short hair,
(im a straight guy, but my opinion still counts right?)

This made me laugh, a lot.

Yes, you're opinion counts. And I agree, a muscular body can subtitute the lack of hair.

» Sun May 13, 2012 3:53 pm

Yes, you're opinion counts. And I agree, a muscular body can subtitute the lack of hair.

Some guys get to the point where they acualy look better with their head shaved (see some wrestlers and the main character of Red Faction Guerilla, they'd look pretty dumb with hair)

» Sun May 13, 2012 11:28 am

Some guys get to the point where they acualy look better with their head shaved (see some wrestlers and the main character of Red Faction Guerilla, they'd look pretty dumb with hair)

Yeah, like the above poster mentioned Billy Zane. Also, Vin Diesel, Arnold Vosloo(From the Mummy) and others guys can pull it off.

» Sun May 13, 2012 9:59 pm

Well, media has ingrained in society what is hot and what is not.

I dislike the view that "the media" controls every aspect of your internal preferences. Just got done reading an essay that basically blamed male dominated capitalism and the media advertising for forcing women to smile too much.

It's a little absurd, and is an unfair statement to lump all people in with this one view type because of "the media" or "capitalism".

Call me an idealist, but I think our individual preferences as far as attraction goes are proprietary; which is to say our own. Ultimately the decision is up to us, not anybody else.

Some people just like to believe they have no control I guess. :shrug:

» Sun May 13, 2012 7:30 pm

I've always had naturally cut abs, but small arms and chest. I used to play a lot of tennis, so I've always been fit without thinking about it. Now that I coach, more than I play, my goal is to stay in shape.

To turn it on its head, I'm not overly fussed wether a girl has a ridiculous Nicole Scherzinger (sp?) stomach, I do like a girl that takes care of herself though.

» Sun May 13, 2012 11:30 am

I dislike the view that "the media" controls every aspect of your internal preferences. Just got done reading an essay that basically blamed male dominated capitalism and the media advertising for forcing women to smile too much.

It's a little absurd, and is an unfair statement to lump all people in with this one view type because of "the media" or "capitalism".

Call me an idealist, but I think our individual preferences as far as attraction goes are proprietary; which is to say our own. Ultimately the decision is up to us, not anybody else.

Some people just like to believe they have no control I guess. :shrug:

They say the media control it, but really, all the media is doing is highlighting things we already like. Girls usually like well-built guys. Why? Because it subconsciously gives them the idea that they'd make good protectors. Why do abs get all the hype? Because they are hard to develop and get to a level where they are visible. So are biceps, pecs, and quads, but the definition in abs are more apparent when shown.

Conversely, guys usually like girls with an hourglass figure. Why? Because that figure gives guys the idea that they can easily conceive and give birth. Same goes for big briasts. It gives guys the idea that they'd be able to keep their children well-fed.

Attractiveness was around way before the media was.

» Sun May 13, 2012 12:18 pm

For me personally a guy with no hair just tends to look tougher and maybe a bit meaner (total stereotype I know), so I think the whole smiling thing is even more important - a happy, genuine smile takes that mean image away completely.

» Mon May 14, 2012 1:20 am

Haha, I'm a guy so feel free to ignore my opinion - but both of those guys look like they're trying far too hard, it's unnatural.

Especially the second guy who appears to have spent most of his life developing his pecs and nothing else which looks a little out of proportion to me.

» Sun May 13, 2012 10:49 am

I dislike the view that "the media" controls every aspect of your internal preferences. Just got done reading an essay that basically blamed male dominated capitalism and the media advertising for forcing women to smile too much.

It's a little absurd, and is an unfair statement to lump all people in with this one view type because of "the media" or "capitalism".

Call me an idealist, but I think our individual preferences as far as attraction goes are proprietary; which is to say our own. Ultimately the decision is up to us, not anybody else.

Some people just like to believe they have no control I guess. :shrug:

This is the debate I have almost every day in grad school....psychology vs. sociology. Psychologists (including myself) believe it's the individual who makes choices, forms their own attitudes, etc., while sociologists believe it's only a function of greater society and not under the control of the individual. That said, the media does have a lot of influence on what people think, especially children/young advlts who are in the process of forming ideas about the world, but the media is merely a reflection of what a lot of people feel and think (because they try to appeal to the majority of viewers).

As for the workout issue, I like a guy who works out to a certain degree, but I think it's when it gets to the point where he's spending several hours a day working out, as if his looks are the most important thing he has going for him, that's a turn-off. It's more than just physical attraction - sense of humor, intellect, personality, etc.

» Sun May 13, 2012 10:35 pm

Huh... I was not moved by either of them. It's not that I am not fond of a gazing at a good-looking guy. They both looked good, in good shape, blah blah blah. But there was nothing particularly outstanding about their looks to make me think "Wow, good looking dude!" There was nothing particularly negative about their looks either. They were both sort of... generically attractive, if you know what I mean.

» Mon May 14, 2012 12:08 am

Psychologists (including myself) believe it's the individual who makes choices, forms their own attitudes, etc., while sociologists believe it's only a function of greater society and not under the control of the individual.

Well, nobody really makes choices, do they? We're all just a bundle of stimuli and reactions. :biggrin:

If you grew up in Manhattan, chances are you're attracted to skinny girls because that's what society tells you is valuable; and if you're not, and you're attracted to fat girls instead, it's just because some biology won out over society.

I like plump girls. They have much better personalities and are, on the whole, much more intelligent than the skinny, pretty ones. If I'm going to spend any significant amount of time with you (1+ hours), I have to be able to talk to you about stuff other than... e.g. cosmetics, TV and Lady GaGa.

There was nothing particularly negative about their looks either. They were both sort of... generically attractive, if you know what I mean.

They are "lower-tier model" attractive: things are technically fairly all right, but there's nothing outstanding or notable about the features.

» Sun May 13, 2012 10:59 am

I like plump girls. They have much better personalities and are, on the whole, much more intelligent than the skinny, pretty ones. If I'm going to spend any significant amount of time with you (1+ hours), I have to be able to talk to you about stuff other than... e.g. cosmetics, TV and Lady GaGa.

That makes no sense whatsoever. A persons weight doesn't dictate their intelligence level/personalities. There are girls that are both fit and fun to be around. There are also girls that are fat, shallow, and boring.

» Mon May 14, 2012 1:17 am

That makes no sense whatsoever. A persons weight doesn't dictate their intelligence level/personalities. There are girls that are both fit and fun to be around. There are also girls that are fat, shallow, and boring.

Well, yeah, there are exceptions, of course. I'm speaking generally. And I'd probably still much prefer a girl with meat on her bones. :smile:

It's just my biology. :shrug:

What I mean is, in societies where "big woman = not as desirable" -- and that's most Western societies, as well as Asian societies generally -- a woman has to develop further talents to snag a catch. So she develops an awesome personality and becomes smart.

You find the contrary is true in places like Africa, South America and Mongolia.

» Sun May 13, 2012 12:39 pm

Well, yeah, there are exceptions, of course. I'm speaking generally. And I'd probably still much prefer a girl with meat on her bones. :smile:

It's just my biology. :shrug:

Well yeah, everyone has their own preferences, nothing wrong with that. It's just that I had no idea how you arrived at the conclusion you did above.

I mean, the stereotype where anyone who spends over an hour in the gym per week is instantly considered a brainless oaf that only cares about how he looks is understandable. There are plenty of guys which actually are like that (and plenty which aren't, mind you...) ~~But the preconceived notion that "she's fat = she's smart" is simply beyond my comprehension.~~

Edit: Explained above. I see where you're coming from. Though instead of developing her talents, she could always jump on a treadmill, but yeah I understand what you mean.

» Mon May 14, 2012 1:05 am

That makes no sense whatsoever. A persons weight doesn't dictate their intelligence level/personalities. There are girls that are both fit and fun to be around. There are also girls that are fat, shallow, and boring.

True...

What is and isn't attractive is so subjective, with many factors thrown in for each individual. I grew up in a sarcastic family, with sharp observant siblings. My close circle of friends is predominantly the same character type (though not all) and my relationships have always skewed toward men who were funny, sarcastic, articulate... not necessarily falling into even the "lower end" of model attractiveness looks wise. :lol:

» Sun May 13, 2012 5:57 pm

But the preconceived notion that "she's fat = she's smart" is simply beyond my comprehension. :tongue:

See above. I added to my reply.

» Mon May 14, 2012 12:28 am

Well, nobody really makes choices, do they? We're all just a bundle of stimuli and reactions. :biggrin:

If you grew up in Manhattan, chances are you're attracted to skinny girls because that's what society tells you is valuable; and if you're not, and you're attracted to fat girls instead, it's just because some biology won out over society.

Ahh yes, the biology vs. psychology debate. IMO, the fact that people often take actions that work against their biological survival suggests that we're not purely biologically driven. We may be "biologically" attracted to certain types of people on a very superficial level at first, but to actually engage in long-term, deeper relationships, there has to be more than physical attraction.

» Sun May 13, 2012 12:28 pm

Ahh yes, the biology vs. psychology debate. IMO, the fact that people often take actions that work against their biological survival suggests that we're not purely biologically driven.

Some examples, if you will.

» Sun May 13, 2012 10:51 am

Some examples, if you will.

Drugs, excessive drinking, excessively speeding on the highway, eating fast food, getting in a relationship with an abusive spouse, etc.

» Sun May 13, 2012 6:24 pm

Drugs, excessive drinking, excessively speeding on the highway, eating fast food, getting in a relationship with an abusive spouse, etc.

... can all be explained by biology.

The drugs and drinking make you happy; your body/brain craves happiness. Excessive speeding is either explained as are the drugs and drink, or by men trying to display themselves as fit for procreation. Your body loves the sugar, fat and other stuff that goes into fast food; also, when you're accustomed to eating that junk from a young age, your body can no longer tell the difference between what really tastes good and what does not. Spousal abuse is a bit more complicated, but there are biological explanations for that situation, too.

Psychology is but a subset of biology. That's what I think, anyway.

» Sun May 13, 2012 8:28 pm

... can all be explained by biology.

The drugs and drinking make you happy; your body/brain craves happiness. Excessive speeding is either explained as are the drugs and drink, or by men trying to display themselves as fit for procreation. Your body loves the sugar, fat and other stuff that goes into fast food; also, when you're accustomed to eating that junk from a young age, your body can no longer tell the difference between what really tastes good and what does not. Spousal abuse is a bit more complicated, but there are biological explanations for that situation, too.

Psychology is but a subset of biology. That's what I think, anyway.

All of that would be true except for the fact that we know better and we have alternatives. Regarding junk food and drugs, there are alternatives that create similar effects in our brains but without the same harmful effects, but some choose the less healthy alternative anyway. Some may have a biologically-based urge to eat junk food but they also know that it is harmful and choose to do it anyway. The key factor here is that we have a choice....we can choose to just go with our biological impulses and not think about consequences, or we can choose to behave differently. If people were merely biologically driven and nothing else, society would be quite a different place IMO.

Edit: And I see both biology and psychology as subsets of the study of life. They're obviously interrelated because you can't have one without the other, but one isn't a subset of the other IMO.

» Sun May 13, 2012 11:28 am

Well, thanks guys. It would appear I won $7. Yay, dream big right? My point of this was because I was suppose to go out this week with her lady friends. She tried to hook me up, but I decided to stay because recently I have been balding at the top of my head. So I decided to cut it real short so it can blend in as a normal low fade and etc with a tape. Now, the male pattern baldness is increasing and I decided to cut it a little bit more.

So I chickened out, I made up an excuse and did not go. So long story short, she asked me why, I explained I would have a hard time "being myself" when I know there's something bothering me. Hard to be confident when an oddly shaped head is more apparent when the hair is short. I told her how most women like guys with hair, and how bald guys are generally considered unnatractive and lowest of the male "Screw chain". She didn't believe me, so we made a bet. I won. SInce most comments here mentioned the baldness issue, it's obvious even a six pack won't help.

Now, some may rant and say that there is someone for everyone, but hey, I'm young. I don't need to wait for a special someone when I am at least trying to make up for the lost chances haha. But I'm not whining, I'll just have to learn to grab my stuff and be a man. Thanks though, I get to buy some food with this money at least :biggrin:

.

Edit: Yes, the picture for the second guy was horrible for the sake of his pose and style. There was a better picture somewhere with him smiling(Girls like smiles, right).

My ex girlfriend would have totally gone for the bald guy for what its worth.

» Sun May 13, 2012 8:43 pm

Hair wins every time, but I don't think either picture was best for this experiment.

» Sun May 13, 2012 2:00 pm

Hair wins every time, but I don't think either picture was best for this experiment.

Well, it just showed two guys. One with hair, and the other without. I did not say what the thread really was for until after people posted. The posts often mentioned the negative attributes of the second guy, most of which was his lack of hair.