Are Men Really Suckers For A Pretty Face?

[WhenWillILove]

And it's all Sandra Bullock's fault! He's not at fault at all! She should have known better.

[WhenWillILove]

Lots of pretty faces. Few with substance underneath those faces.

 

But the average and ugly looking ones have more substance?

Wow, do you discriminate or what!

[WhenWillILove]

Oh, really, an objective scale? Seems like you're making quite a lot of subjective remarks on how humanity should be.

 

Oh, please. The Earth never had a perfect person, therefore, what do we know what's perfect? This thread should honestly be closed because you're starting to give these bizarre, bogus comments.....

[LDRohnos]

But the average and ugly looking ones have more substance?

Wow, do you discriminate or what!

 

There are few "ugly" and "average" ones with substance as well. I equally discriminate I guess!

[Lonewing]

And it's all Sandra Bullock's fault! He's not at fault at all! She should have known better.

 

Maybe she went after him as a project, or maybe she fell for him hard because he came on strong - and he can be really sweet. Eitherway, thoguht, he man has a track record and exubes the character of a man who does not get tied down to traditional relaitonships. In otherwords, yes, it's Sandra's fault for allowing herself to Fall for that. Yes, he looks like the perfect bad boy - and he IS a bad boy!

 

Remember, this is just a discussion of Man to Woman, so we're not looking at the reasons why she might have been upset with him. We're simply looking at what she did not provide that might have led to him straying from her. One part is his internal personality. The second part is what she left unfulfilled within him. This latter part can be controlled, the former, well, not so much. In otherwords, Sandra was up against impossible odds.

 

Oh, really, an objective scale? Seems like you're making quite a lot of subjective remarks on how humanity should be.

 

Oh, please. The Earth never had a perfect person, therefore, what do we know what's perfect? This thread should honestly be closed because you're starting to give these bizarre, bogus comments.....

 

They're only bogus because you disagree with them...

 

Here's a link to the Article - it's a very well written piece..."The Enigma of Beauty," January 2000, National Geographic. it's worth finding a copy for the pictures that accompany it.

link removed

 

A couple quotes:

 

At its worst, beauty discriminates. Studies suggest attractive people make more money, get called on more often in class, receive lighter court sentences, and are perceived as friendlier. We do judge a book by its cover.

 

We soothe ourselves with clichés. It's only skin-deep, we cluck. It's only in the eye of the beholder. Pretty is as pretty does.

 

In an era of feminist and politically correct values, not to mention the closely held belief that all men and women are created equal, the fact that all men and women are not—and that some are more beautiful than others—disturbs, confuses, even angers.

 

For better or worse, beauty matters. How much it matters can test our values. With luck, the more we live and embrace the wide sweep of the world, the more generous our definition becomes.

 

I am standing behind a one-way mirror watching a six-month-old baby make a choice. The baby is shown a series of photographs of faces that have been rated for attractiveness by a panel of college students. A slide is flashed; a clock ticks as the baby stares at the picture. The baby looks away; the clock stops. Then it's on to the next slide.

 

After more than a decade of studies like these, Judith Langlois, professor of psychology at the University of Texas in Austin, is convinced that this baby, like others she has tested, will spend more time looking at the attractive faces than the unattractive ones.

 

What's an attractive face? It's a symmetrical face. Most important, it's an averaged face, says Langlois. Averaged, that is, in terms of position and size of all the facial features. As the slides flash in front of the baby, I see what she means. Some faces are more pleasing to look at than others. It's a question of harmony and the placement of features. The pictures of the young girl with wide-set eyes and a small nose is easier on the eye that the one of the young girl with close-set eyes and a broad nose. Extremes are off-putting and generally not attractive, Langlois says.

 

The idea that even babies can judge appearance makes perfect sense to Don Symons, an anthropologist at the University of California at Santa Barbara.

 

"Beauty is not whimsical. Beauty has meaning. Beauty is functional," he says. Beauty, his argument goes, is not so much in the eye as in the brain circuitry of the beholder.

 

In studies by psychologists such as Victor Johnston at New Mexico State University and David Perrett at St. Andrews University in Scotland, men consistently showed a preference for women with larger eyes, fuller lips, and a smaller nose and chin. Studies by psychologist Devendra Singh at the University of Texas show a preference for the classic hourglass-shaped body with a waist-hip ratio of seven to ten.

 

From what I've read, there's more objectivity present in this subject than not.

[WhenWillILove]

So then this objective scale you speak of is solely based on looks, huh? I was referring to a comment you wrote earlier about this objective scale we are all being measured on and how most of us aren't the best. So now, after giving me this article, this objective scale is really the beauty scale.

[Lonewing]

I'm willing to bet that your previous girlfriends at a certain point in time thought you were boring, or were bored with the same old routines, or wanted to hang out with their friends instead of you so they could another type of excitement. Not saying you're boring...But I'm not saying you're a bunch of roller coasters either.

 

In the context of this thread, we're discussing what a woman is to a man. What a man is to a woman is, like I said, another thread together that would be as long or longer than this one, hence why I keep that idea separate from this discussion. Your title is not "are women suckers for badboys?" - that's another thread - even though it is entirely the same subject!!

 

Oh! These poor cheaters! Why can't anybody for once sympathize with them? Ugh. While I don't think every cheater is a bad person, there are some cheaters that honestly, don't deserve second chances. Life isn't one big Disney Land Park that gives you an adrenaline rush with each rise and drop of a roller coaster.

 

Of course not. However, when needs are not met, Relationships stop. When the man needs that emotional physical high of active sex three times a week and only gets it once a week, even if he trains himself to be happy with once a week, his physical allotment is still there! If a woman does not do those things that are her Jobs in a relaitonship, he finds someone else - EVEN IF they're under the umbrella of "marriage!" And I know you'll agree with me that if a man does not do those things which are HIS jobs, SHE'LL leave him! [again, that's a different thread!]

 

Now here's why "less attractive" [physicaly] women are more successful with long term relationships: they have had to consider other people in order to get those things they want in life. They've learned how to manage the exchange of give and take. They're sharing, outwardly interested in their partner as much as themselves, and know how to act with mreo than one person in mind. Considerate, throughful, expressive - and yes, because their relationships are longer and they get closer to their partners, they learn to be demons in the sack! Through their experiences, they've developed more SUBSTANCE!

 

As we men emotionally mature, and in essence learn about the frailties of the vain, we learn to pass them up and ignore them altogether. Like you said, it's all about the rollercoaster ride - and we learn the best ride is not the shiny one!

 

And you're giving cheating an excuse.

 

Cheating happens for a reason.

 

A husband cheats on his wife because of a younger woman? Damn it, wife, grow younger! A man cheats on his woman because she is struggling to find employment, damn it, woman, find a job! A husband cheats on his wife because she's gained 20 lbs post pregnancy, damn it, wife, it's your fault for being pregnant in the first place!

 

Some of these things can be controlled and some of them cannot. But they are all sensical reasons for cheating - from a natural science point of view.

A younger woman, for instance, is a vitality issue - she has the fitness of youth.

An employed woman provides greater financial secutiry - she has the fitness of emplyment.

A fit woman has the appearance of greater activity - she has the fitness of atheleticism.

 

It's not really Rocket Science here...

 

Now as men get older, we learn to appreicate less these physical features and apprecaite more the perfection of imperfection - but this does not preclude the desire to be with that fantastic model - that "dream" doesn't go away. It goes back to the old question for any married man: "If you had one night and your wife would never find out, would you have sex with Angelina Jolie, circa 2000?" Note I put a time reference on her, because there is a reality here that is catching up with even her. Her prime was around 2000 - prekids, preaging. The point of the matter is, that part within us that says "yes" to opportunity does not disappear - it becomes surpressed, but it does not disappear.

 

Our modern Answer to the problem of cheating has been to embrace Casual Relations, Open Relationships and Polyamory. I would not be surprised at all to see Polygamy being the next great marriage movement in this country, once Same Sex marriages get full approval. And why not? A girl should be able to have a husband AND a wife, should she not??

 

quote]Wow. Good luck being on ENA.

 

I hold my own. You get my honest unabashed unabridged opinion. I prefer not to sugarcoat.

[Lonewing]

So then this objective scale you speak of is solely based on looks, huh? I was referring to a comment you wrote earlier about this objective scale we are all being measured on and how most of us aren't the best. So now, after giving me this article, this objective scale is really the beauty scale.

 

Well, you were asking "Are Men Really Suckers For A Pretty Face?" and I'm simply providing you with something of substance to back up the affirmative assertion. Yes, it is a Beauty Scale. But the article is good - you'll like it - it covers your assertions rather well right alongside my own. For instance, it covers cultural variation outside of Western Culture as well.

[WhenWillILove]

All of these opinions of yours seem harsh- meaning, you either fit this or you don't. Black or white. No grays.

I would like to believe love surpasses this fine line.

Oh, and again, what's bashing attractive ones?

 

"Now here's why "less attractive" [physicaly] women are more successful with long term relationships: they have had to consider other people in order to get those things they want in life. They've learned how to manage the exchange of give and take. They're sharing, outwardly interested in their partner as much as themselves, and know how to act with mreo than one person in mind. Considerate, throughful, expressive - and yes, because their relationships are longer and they get closer to their partners, they learn to be demons in the sack! Through their experiences, they've developed more SUBSTANCE!?"

 

Oh really? Have you taken a poll? Statistical data? Not to brag here, but I'm a hot one. I won't start posting pictures here but the tiny little pic you see next to my name, that's me.

Asides from my looks, I've got many interests and a unique personality (haha, don't we all?). I am considerate at times, I am thoughtful at times, and I am expressive at times with my boyfriend. Am I those 3 things all the time? No. Is any person those 3 things all the time? Hell no. People are imperfect. Even 'unattractive' females can be b-tches, they can be moody, thought-less, inconsiderate, etc. That's part of human nature.

Now, what would make an 'unattractive' woman be of 'substance' is this:

A hot one, given she's in her prime, knows that even if this man leaves, there'll be another waiting. She's got options, many options.

An 'unattractive' one knows there ain't a line of men waiting for her and she'll have to do with whatever she gets. Basically, she can't be too picky. So, to assuage her insecurities, she becomes more complacent to her man's needs than let's say a hot one does.

 

Do I, as a 'hot one' think this way at times? Yes....but not all the time. And even 'unattractive' ones tend to have their days.

 

And as far as demons in the sack is concerned, oh come on! Sex is so subjective!

[Lonewing]

Once we establish the black and white endpoints, we can then establish the grays in between. It's easiest to answer the question first with as little deviation from black nad white - so make it a Yes/No. Then you can move towards the Why, which integrates more and more gray into the discussion...

 

The things we'd like to believe about Love are curious. I believe it's a desire for there to be more than there is - for there to be something deeper, more complicated. We humans are quite good at complicating simple things!!

 

My Theory on the Development of Substance is merely that - my hypothesis. It hasn't been tested yet - but there is sound reasoning behind it.

 

My substance here are those things which make a woman desireable to a man in the context of interrelations. Sharing, caring, consideration - I have no doubt you have these senses too.

 

Let us consider a case where you have an only child and you have a child from a large family. Which kid is likely to know more about what it means to share, what it means to not get what you want, and what it means to give up what you want so that another may be happy, and to be happy because they're happy? Which child will take longer as an adult to learn how to share peronsal living space? These are the qualities of my Substance.

 

You are indeed a hot one. I doubt you will ever know the plight of not being attractive, unless G-d forbid you have an accident. You already know the answer to this thread by your own personal experience - I doubt you have EVER had a shortage of potential suitors and companions on hand. EVERYBODY wanted to be your partner on the next school project.

 

What gives the unattractive woman more substance is the fact that she has to work harder to get the things she desires - which means she's developed skills you've never even had to consider. You don't have to approach the boys; they come to you. Of course, it doesn't mean you get the best selection, but you get more selection. She does not. And when she gets a man who has learned a wider appreciation for humanity [taught through rejection, nonetheless!], she has a greater appreciation because she knows what's it's like to struggle to find that person. So she has a greater emotionla investment in the outcome.

 

I've heard hot girls say things like "well, guess who can get some Any Time She Wants!" when they're confronted with disagreements. in short, there's no reason for these girls to get emotioanlly invested in their relationships - they don't need their partners, becasue htye have many parnters, and they've moved towards the spectrum of wanting the 31 Flavors lifestyle.

 

In some ways, beauty is almost a disability in and of itself. Your disability, for instance, and I'm presuming this, is the ability to walk up to that guy who does not approach you and ask him out.

 

oh yeah...Sex is hardly not subjective!! You're either getting it or you're not. And if you're getting it, you're either getting those acts you desire or you're not. And you're either active or passive, as is your partner. Skill in indefinatley imporved with practice - and the longer you're with one partner, the more you learn about what pleases your partner and what pleases you and what he does that pleases you.

 

The best sex is Often, Active-Active and leaves not a single desired act unsatisfied. Otherwise it's like screwing a sack of potatoes. Ugh...No thanks!! Only thing worse than no sex is lazy bad sex!!

[WhenWillILove]

See above.