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.
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.
It is the case that our biases are overwhelming, and thus we need to attempt to have neutral, relatively objective studies to determine criteria.That Guy wrote: ↑5 months agoI'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.
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:Afro_Vacancy wrote: ↑5 months agoIt 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.
I just want to see the claim demonstrated, to a reasonable extent.Admin wrote: ↑5 months agoNot 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.Admin wrote: ↑5 months agoNot 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.
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.
Arjen would not take her as a girlfriend.justin wrote: ↑1 week agoHe'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.
Scary, because probably true.
Scary, because probably true 2.0.
Lol!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest