Mismatches in couples

[That Guy]

Given you are exaggerating

Except I'm not.

Guys on forums like HairLossTalk and stuff often have this extremely specific standard, and most of them actually think that all that's standing between him and Aphrodite is his hair, or lack thereof.

[Arjen]

Except I'm not.

Guys on forums like HairLossTalk and stuff often have this extremely specific standard, and most of them actually think that all that's standing between him and Aphrodite is his hair, or lack thereof.

Hehe, I see. At least there it's easy to pinpoint the problem.

[Afro_Vacancy]

there is no way around that men‘s tastes are wider and more lenient, yes.

Has that been demonstrated?

[That Guy]

Has that been demonstrated?

I'm sorry but, you're trolling right? This is demonstrated on a daily basis. Not every observation requires some peer-reviewed, scientific study to reach a conclusion because the conclusion is so obvious.

I mean, the OP of this thread shows a conventionally attractive man paired with a woman most would say is less attractive than he is. How many men do you not see who are with skinny women, fat women, exceedingly short women, etc.? How are sex symbols like Hugh Jackman dating and marrying considerably older, unattractive women? Pornography encompasses every possible variation of the female body with its own fetishized terminology: Fat women, hairy women, short hair, long hair, every race or ethnicity possible; you name it, and they all will amount to millions of views, upvotes, and positive comments.

Look at how paintings, supermodels, etc. have all changed through time, but the picture of the attractive man has remained exactly the same since antiquity?

Check out any sort of survey on men that women find attractive. Ask your female friends to name an actor they think is hot, and see how many of the same exact names pop up. Ask men and you'll get everything from Mae Whitman to Michelle Pfeiffer.

[Afro_Vacancy]

I'm sorry but, you're trolling right? This is demonstrated on a daily basis. Not every observation requires some peer-reviewed, scientific study to reach a conclusion because the conclusion is so obvious.

I mean, the OP of this thread shows a conventionally attractive man paired with a woman most would say is less attractive than he is. How many men do you not see who are with skinny women, fat women, exceedingly short women, etc.? How are sex symbols like Hugh Jackman dating and marrying considerably older, unattractive women? Pornography encompasses every possible variation of the female body with its own fetishized terminology: Fat women, hairy women, short hair, long hair, every race or ethnicity possible; you name it, and they all will amount to millions of views, upvotes, and positive comments.

Look at how paintings, supermodels, etc. have all changed through time, but the picture of the attractive man has remained exactly the same since antiquity?

Check out any sort of survey on men that women find attractive. Ask your female friends to name an actor they think is hot, and see how many of the same exact names pop up. Ask men and you'll get everything from Mae Whitman to Michelle Pfeiffer.

It is the case that our biases are overwhelming, and thus we need to attempt to have neutral, relatively objective studies to determine criteria.

The picture in the OP is irrelevant as it's one photo. You mention that pornography encompasses a wide variety of female forms, that's true, and it also encompasses a wide variety of male forms as well. There was an article posted on the issue a while back where someone reviewed google searches, a lot of women actually do search for shorter men, for example. More here:
https://www.vox.com/conversations/2017/ ... ybody-lies

We even know from our own community that women often have differing tastes, as pas and hairblues used to give differing conclusions on men.

[Admin]

It is the case that our biases are overwhelming, and thus we need to attempt to have neutral, relatively objective studies to determine criteria.

The picture in the OP is irrelevant as it's one photo. You mention that pornography encompasses a wide variety of female forms, that's true, and it also encompasses a wide variety of male forms as well. There was an article posted on the issue a while back where someone reviewed google searches, a lot of women actually do search for shorter men, for example. More here:
https://www.vox.com/conversations/2017/ ... ybody-lies

We even know from our own community that women often have differing tastes, as pas and hairblues used to give differing conclusions on men.

Not nearly to the same extent though, the two are not even in the same category. I'm going to strawman your argument to hammer my point here but here's what I see happen here:

It is obvious and largely common sense that the vast majority of men's tastes in women are more diverse and more forgiving. That Guy cited the wide range of categories already

You then point out that there is a minority of females out there who also have preferences that stray from the norm that we could often categorize as rare fetishes.

Examples: BBC (not the channel), bald guys, fat guys, short guys, etc.

And then your conclusion here is basically (again, I know I'm strawmanning): it's the same, women do it too.

And this is the cognitive bias I'm getting kind of sick of battling out these days. People whip it out I think mostly to feel superior and somehow assert that they see a side of reality that you don't, that they're more nuanced than you or something.

I guess my main problem with this strategy is that it doesn't contribute much value to the discussion and it's often used as a kind of diversion at best and a power play at worst. Again, I see it as taking the error as a general rule to invalidate the actual general.

I think what we should be focusing on (and that's my personal opinion) is the evolutionary psychology aspect to explain such disparities, and the science on that is barely coming in, and some of the new knowledge it brings us can be damn useful.

For example, a very recent evolutionary psychology study disproved the idea that women were more attracted to masculine men during ovulation and more attracted to more feminine men during the rest of their cycle. This came as a big relief for me, my girlfriend coming off the pill soon.

On a side note, I have a really hard time trusting a news outlet like Vox, as I'm following them on Facebook (always keep an eye on both sides) and a lot of their latest articles were based on imaginary issues, they were trying to manufacture outrage about people using the word "guys" if I remember correctly. And the vast majority of people in their comment section was like "is this what passes for journalism these days?".

It's like a lot of people fail to focus their attention on what truly matters, and yes sometimes that means overlooking overanalyzing issues that are just painfully obvious, like the fact that men have way wider and more forgiving tastes in women than the reverse.

[Afro_Vacancy]

Not nearly to the same extent though, the two are not even in the same category. I'm going to strawman your argument to hammer my point here but here's what I see happen here:

It is obvious and largely common sense that the vast majority of men's tastes in women are more diverse and more forgiving. That Guy cited the wide range of categories already

You then point out that there is a minority of females out there who also have preferences that stray from the norm that we could often categorize as rare fetishes.

Examples: BBC (not the channel), bald guys, fat guys, short guys, etc.

And then your conclusion here is basically (again, I know I'm strawmanning): it's the same, women do it too.

And this is the cognitive bias I'm getting kind of sick of battling out these days. People whip it out I think mostly to feel superior and somehow assert that they see a side of reality that you don't, that they're more nuanced than you or something.

I guess my main problem with this strategy is that it doesn't contribute much value to the discussion and it's often used as a kind of diversion at best and a power play at worst. Again, I see it as taking the error as a general rule to invalidate the actual general.

I think what we should be focusing on (and that's my personal opinion) is the evolutionary psychology aspect to explain such disparities, and the science on that is barely coming in, and some of the new knowledge it brings us can be damn useful.

For example, a very recent evolutionary psychology study disproved the idea that women were more attracted to masculine men during ovulation and more attracted to more feminine men during the rest of their cycle. This came as a big relief for me, my girlfriend coming off the pill soon.

On a side note, I have a really hard time trusting a news outlet like Vox, as I'm following them on Facebook (always keep an eye on both sides) and a lot of their latest articles were based on imaginary issues, they were trying to manufacture outrage about people using the word "guys" if I remember correctly. And the vast majority of people in their comment section was like "is this what passes for journalism these days?".

It's like a lot of people fail to focus their attention on what truly matters, and yes sometimes that means overlooking overanalyzing issues that are just painfully obvious, like the fact that men have way wider and more forgiving tastes in women than the reverse.

I just want to see the claim demonstrated, to a reasonable extent.

Saying that it's common sense or that it reflects one or two individual's personal experiences doesn't go very far, as we know (in this case, yes, "know") that personal viewpoints and assessments can be biased.

We have some men here saying that women tend to have uniform tastes. Similarly, if you talk to women they'll tell you that women tend to have varying tastes. So going by what people say or what people guess is simply not very convincing.

My own model: In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I assume that men and women are similar.

[Hairblues]

Not nearly to the same extent though, the two are not even in the same category. I'm going to strawman your argument to hammer my point here but here's what I see happen here:

It is obvious and largely common sense that the vast majority of men's tastes in women are more diverse and more forgiving. That Guy cited the wide range of categories already

You then point out that there is a minority of females out there who also have preferences that stray from the norm that we could often categorize as rare fetishes.

Examples: BBC (not the channel), bald guys, fat guys, short guys, etc.

And then your conclusion here is basically (again, I know I'm strawmanning): it's the same, women do it too.

And this is the cognitive bias I'm getting kind of sick of battling out these days. People whip it out I think mostly to feel superior and somehow assert that they see a side of reality that you don't, that they're more nuanced than you or something.

I guess my main problem with this strategy is that it doesn't contribute much value to the discussion and it's often used as a kind of diversion at best and a power play at worst. Again, I see it as taking the error as a general rule to invalidate the actual general.

I think what we should be focusing on (and that's my personal opinion) is the evolutionary psychology aspect to explain such disparities, and the science on that is barely coming in, and some of the new knowledge it brings us can be damn useful.

For example, a very recent evolutionary psychology study disproved the idea that women were more attracted to masculine men during ovulation and more attracted to more feminine men during the rest of their cycle. This came as a big relief for me, my girlfriend coming off the pill soon.

On a side note, I have a really hard time trusting a news outlet like Vox, as I'm following them on Facebook (always keep an eye on both sides) and a lot of their latest articles were based on imaginary issues, they were trying to manufacture outrage about people using the word "guys" if I remember correctly. And the vast majority of people in their comment section was like "is this what passes for journalism these days?".

It's like a lot of people fail to focus their attention on what truly matters, and yes sometimes that means overlooking overanalyzing issues that are just painfully obvious, like the fact that men have way wider and more forgiving tastes in women than the reverse.

I think both men and women go for a variety of face types unless ugly.

Women have no beef with a broken or big nose on a man and men have no issue with a weak chin on a woman. Teeth is an equal variable.

What I think (young) women don’t ideally want is fat, short or bald. Of course this is generalized.

I don’t think (young) men want fat or bald women either. (Granted not many bald woman walking around but if so I doubt they would want them unless a wig etc)

So what is the main difference? That Men can’t be short?
Like I said men (especially young) wouldn’t want a bald women either.

I do see fat men with thin women.
I don’t see fat women with slim men UNKESS they got fat after relationship started. Or the man is ugly/unattractive in other ways as well.

This isn’t science based sorry I don’t even know how to prove this with science.

Will more men randomly fuck less attractive women then women will??? YES because biology. That’s not really a taste level though. That’s just a biological imperative men have. Men in general rarely turn down sex unless it’s Horrible. That doesn’t mean the woman is to their taste.

[Arjen]

He has a new girlfriend:

Still dating down though.

[justin]

He isn't that good looking in my opinion. Looks like a good match

[Arjen]

He isn't that good looking in my opinion. Looks like a good match

What would you rate the two?

[justin]

What would you rate the two?

He's like a 7 to me. I think he's just "cute" because he's very short and feminine/teenish. Girls who are highly attracted to him are probably bisexual.

His ex is worse than him in the face, you were right. But even then she's a 6 at worst.

The new one, is probably an 8 from what I can see. Definitely an upgrade. Beautiful eyes and cute smile. With that 2nd pic alone, she would be bombarded by dudes on any dating app and I'm sure she'd be able to date literally anyone she picks, as long as she's not fat. Even if she's overweight, plenty of guys would give her a chance.

[JasonStatham]

He's like a 7 to me. I think he's just "cute" because he's very short and feminine/teenish. Girls who are highly attracted to him are probably bisexual.

His ex is worse than him in the face, you were right. But even then she's a 6 at worst.

The new one, is probably an 8 from what I can see. Definitely an upgrade. Beautiful eyes and cute smile. With that 2nd pic alone, she would be bombarded by dudes on any dating app and I'm sure she'd be able to date literally anyone she picks, as long as she's not fat.

Arjen would not take her as a girlfriend.

[Arjen]

With that 2nd pic alone, she would be bombarded by dudes on any dating app and I'm sure she'd be able to date literally anyone she picks, as long as she's not fat. Even if she's overweight, plenty of guys would give her a chance.

Scary, because probably true.

Added in 23 seconds:

Arjen would not take her as a girlfriend.

Scary, because probably true 2.0.

[justin]

Arjen would not take her as a girlfriend.

Lol!

I would probably date both, and I'm very picky. Sometimes I find myself stuck on OKCupid with 10 matches not wanting to message any of them because they all look just okay to me. Only last week I had two average looking girls (my friends agreed that they're not ugly) throw themselves at me and I passed. But anything above is an instant fucking YES. Maybe if I was famous and had a lot of options I would aim a little higher, probably not. The last girl I dated was a 7/10 at worst though.

I don't think most guys fully realize how much power females have in the online dating scene nowadays. While I have it easy with 5/10's, I find that the more attractive a girl is, the less likely she is to be engaged in the conversation.