The war on men

[mongers]

Ok, derspiess and Drakken, I gotta ask this, considering your high standards. I saw your pictures and you are fat and ugly. What do you do? Fuck ugly too? Or just go for the very insecure? Honest question.

You fags might not be able to comprehend this bit, but chicks don't seem to value looks as much and men and homosexuals.   

Ok but they need to go for something, right? I mean, it's not that they do not pay attention to obesity and ugliness, and instead go for unsuccessful assholes, right?

No, they go for social and economic traits. Basically good provider and good father. All things being equal they will go for the guy looking like brad pitt rather than the guy looking like me.

Yes, which is what Marty failed to comprehend in my post he rubbished.

Except that it isn't that simple. Lots of people have different preferences as well as an inability to actually garner the attention of someone that looks like Brad Pitt.  While it can be fun to create your own simple narrative and hypothesis based on your anecdotal life experience - don't expect it to be particularly instructive for the rest of us.

So you take issue with the notion that a good proportion of women rank as Viking said "No, they go for social and economic traits." ? 

[garbon]

Can you clarify what you mean by that?

[Malthus]

These threads always go the same way.

Each poster generalizes from their own personal experiences and handpicked anecdotes, with occasional nods to pop-psych constructs along the way to justify their particular generalization.  They then accuse their opponent of doing exactly what I just described, apparently unaware that they are doing the exact same thing themselves but from the opposite POV.  What is completely missing from all sides is any set of aggregate facts or data.  Not surprisingly, the process reveals some things about the life experiences, mental processes and personal concerns of the poster, but little else of value.

Otherwise known as a "conversation". 

[Malthus]

In all seriousness, can we get a round of applause for DGuller?  One of the most consistently funny posters we have.  I think his forum rep as a debater leads people to his miss or misinterpret his good one-liners, which are uncommonly frequent.

He's definitely one of my favourite posters here

[mongers]

Can you clarify what you mean by that?

You should leave the Yi gambit to the expert.

[merithyn]

In all seriousness, can we get a round of applause for DGuller?  One of the most consistently funny posters we have.  I think his forum rep as a debater leads people to his miss or misinterpret his good one-liners, which are uncommonly frequent.

He's definitely one of my favourite posters here

Agreed.

[merithyn]

But this thread got my thinking. I'm at the age where I really don't want to get married (maybe not to the degree of Drakken ), and I've only ever dated one girl where the thought even crossed my mind (before I quickly and mercilessly chased it away) and I honestly can't say if I would marry a "slut". That kind of makes me sad. I mean I've dated girls that could be construed as sluts, even got in fight over a girl, but it was never serious in any way.

I never imagined getting married again after my first husband. Just wasn't on my radar, and I was pretty much determined to stay that way. When I met Max, the situation required a marriage certificate, so we went that route. I've never been sorry.

Until you're there, you just can't know what you'll do, how, or why. It may be that you settle down with a lovely girl who, like you, is pretty ambivalent to marriage but feels committed to you. It may be that you find a girl that you want more than anything to make a formal, public committment to. Who knows? I find it's best to worry about those kinds of things when it comes up rather than before it's even on the horizon.

[merithyn]

I find it funny, on how every time you and I disagree ultimately on something gender-related, in the end you use psycho-babbling as a thinly-veiled ad hominem attack to rob yourself.

I may be wrong, but I think it is a generally accepted opinion on Languish that you are a loser asshole with huuuuuuuge issues when it comes to relationships with women. So merri could be subconsciously tapping into that.

FYP 

[garbon]

Can you clarify what you mean by that?

You should leave the Yi gambit to the expert.

Well your sentence was rather garbled.

Anyway, I'm guessing you/Viking are saying that most women go for socio-economic traits. I'd say that certainly plays a factor but only because they don't have the luxury of just picking whomever they want. As Meri already pointed out - they tend to make less / have to take time off to raise children, so, of course, for many women socio-economic traits are going to rise up.  Then Viking went on to say that all being equal women then go to looks.

So per your combined analysis I'm getting women first look at money and then secondarily consider attractiveness while men look at the "psychological" aspects of a woman.  I don't think that narrative is useful or accurate.

[Valmy]

As Meri already pointed out - they tend to make less / have to take time off to raise children, so, of course, for many women socio-economic traits are going to rise up.

I seriously doubt humans are this rational and calculating when they are picking mates.

[garbon]

As Meri already pointed out - they tend to make less / have to take time off to raise children, so, of course, for many women socio-economic traits are going to rise up.

I seriously doubt humans are this rational and calculating when they are picking mates.

Of course they aren't - we'll just binge on our credit cards instead.

But yeah I agree I don't think people are that calculating when choosing partners but if there are some people like that, there's an easy explanation.

[merithyn]

As Meri already pointed out - they tend to make less / have to take time off to raise children, so, of course, for many women socio-economic traits are going to rise up.

I seriously doubt humans are this rational and calculating when they are picking mates.

I don't know. I know plenty of women who have turned down dates with men they felt weren't "settled" enough in their finances. Not necessarily that they weren't big wage earners, but that their potential didn't seem to be that high. At the same time, I've known women who've gone for the "artist" knowing full well that the guys would not likely ever be the primary wage earners.

I have no idea what the national trends are, though. Legbiter? You got anything on that?

[mongers]

Can you clarify what you mean by that?

You should leave the Yi gambit to the expert.

Well your sentence was rather garbled.

Anyway, I'm guessing you/Viking are saying that most women go for socio-economic traits. I'd say that certainly plays a factor but only because they don't have the luxury of just picking whomever they want. As Meri already pointed out - they tend to make less / have to take time off to raise children, so, of course, for many women socio-economic traits are going to rise up.  Then Viking went on to say that all being equal women then go to looks.

So per your combined analysis I'm getting women first look at money and then secondarily consider attractiveness while men look at the "psychological" aspects of a woman.  I don't think that narrative is useful or accurate.

I'm bored playing your game, if you re-read my original post you'd notice I specifically included these qualifiers "tendency" and "tends", you do know what role a qualifier plays in a statement ?

So instead, you and Marti come out with bitchy responses ignoring the shades of grey in my post and treat it as some black and white statement. Do you really want to be judged by the company you keep ?
Because I'm about to permanently chuck you in the 'whiny-arsed, bitchy internet troll' category and henceforth ignore your posts directed at me

If however you wished to be treated as an adult poster, then if you refrain from the personal attacks, I'm more than happy to converse with you, as I regard you as an interesting poster who has a lot to contribute here, it's your choice, ie interact with or bitch at.

[derspiess]

We are still talking about derspiess and Drakken, though. 

I'd go easy on the ugly accusations-- I've seen pics of you as well.

[garbon]

I'm bored playing your game, if you re-read my original post you'd notice I specifically included these qualifiers "tendency" and "tends", you do know what role a qualifier plays in a statement ?

So instead, you and Marti come out with bitchy responses ignoring the shades of grey in my post and treat it as some black and white statement. Do you really want to be judged by the company you keep ?
Because I'm about to permanently chuck you in the 'whiny-arsed, bitchy internet troll' category and henceforth ignore your posts directed at me

If however you wished to be treated as an adult poster, then if you refrain from the personal attacks, I'm more than happy to converse with you, as I regard you as an interesting poster who has a lot to contribute here, it's your choice, ie interact with or bitch at.

If you are going to fall back on your qualifiers then what was the point of your or Viking's posts? I suppose you can hedge any narrative enough to make it seem viable but what is the point?  My point is that the simplistic narrative that comes from you too isn't illuminating and has little actual value.  Do you disagree?

Also, kind of odd that you'd lecture me about personal attacks (that I didn't make) while attacking me.