I fear that no woman will truly like me and any woman I date will only be settling for me.

[boltnrun]

7 minutes ago, Tinydance said:

Oh, I see. I thought he meant "casually going out" as in dating. I think I misunderstood...

I thought so too.

[WaywardKiwi]

15 hours ago, ProfessorSunflower said:

It's not just about temptation. Its about them liking me less than I do them.

Why don't you just date women who are not your perfect ideal of sexual attraction? Then you will be even. 

[ProfessorSunflower]

15 hours ago, Batya33 said:

But it's not nice to act in an insecure way -subject others to insecurities.  It's not nice to act in a passive way.  I don't think healthy relationships involving marriage or a marital like commitment involve the sort of grass is greener analysis you're pressing here.  People make choices to be with their partner.  The marriage vows presume there will be temptation. We're human. Being tempted doesn't mean you're settling.  

I love that my husband keeps me on my toes in a number of ways and he treats me with respect and with love.  He's super sharp, well read, up on current events and old TV series lol.  He motivates me to continue to be well read and up on current events.  He's not dangerous or risky.  Who wants that in a healthy relationship? 

But I'm more risk averse than him and he shows me how to stretch my comfort zone.  

Have I ever met people who have more exciting and interesting personalities? I'm sure if I thought about it, yes! It means nothing as far as my love and commitment to my husband.  It doesn't ever make me think I "settled".  Why would it?  You're connecting the dots and making assumptions in a way that makes no sense.  Why -you seem like a smart guy -are you sure you're up for being vulnerable in a healthy loving relationship?

(As far as the lottery I said I would keep working -that might mean purely volunteer or perhaps doing something a bit different that wasn't as stressful as what I do now, although I do love it mostly)

Why would I want to be vulnerable? Vulnerability is very unattractive.

As I said earlier, the studies and examples I read indicate women are unhappy in such relationships. They report being unsatisfied in the weeks surrounding ovulation and feeling they're in a sexual coma not in spite but because of their partner's good traits. That doesn't sound happy to me.

[ProfessorSunflower]

15 hours ago, dias said:

This applies to you too, you wouldn't date the girl next door if you could date Megan Fox. Life is unfair, take it with God.

 

Yes

I wouldn't want to date Megan Fox. I never thought she was good-looking and can't imagine I'd have anything in common with her at all. I know many women in my personal life who I'd be more interested in dating than Megan Fox.

[Tinydance]

1 hour ago, ProfessorSunflower said:

Why would I want to be vulnerable? Vulnerability is very unattractive.

As I said earlier, the studies and examples I read indicate women are unhappy in such relationships. They report being unsatisfied in the weeks surrounding ovulation and feeling they're in a sexual coma not in spite but because of their partner's good traits. That doesn't sound happy to me.

Are you actually for real with saying all this or you're playing some kind of prank? Who cares about a study about ovulation! Ovulation only happens once a month and lasts between 12 - 24 hours maximum. A lot of women don't even feel it happening.

Weeks surrounding ovulation? That's basically saying that women are unhappy all the time. Weeks surrounding ovulation would be the first two and the next two weeks of a month because ovulation usually occurs on day 14 of the menstrual cycle, so in the middle of the month you might say. For someone who has done so much research you still don't seem to have grasped how the female menstrual cycle actually works. So I think it might be best if you don't comment on it.

[Tinydance]

1 hour ago, ProfessorSunflower said:

I wouldn't want to date Megan Fox. I never thought she was good-looking and can't imagine I'd have anything in common with her at all. I know many women in my personal life who I'd be more interested in dating than Megan Fox.

I'm pretty sure Megan Fox was just a metaphor for any hot actress. 

[Wiseman2]

1 hour ago, ProfessorSunflower said:

 They report being unsatisfied in the weeks surrounding ovulation and feeling they're in a sexual coma.

As long as you're regurgitating all this faux "research", you'll never find a GF.

What is your point, exactly? That you don't have chiseled abs so women won't ovulate around you?

You need to take some basic biology courses. According to your theories,the human race would have died out millions of years ago.

Your logic is so convoluted that neither the premises nor conclusions make sense.

[Batya33]

2 hours ago, ProfessorSunflower said:

Why would I want to be vulnerable? Vulnerability is very unattractive.

As I said earlier, the studies and examples I read indicate women are unhappy in such relationships. They report being unsatisfied in the weeks surrounding ovulation and feeling they're in a sexual coma not in spite but because of their partner's good traits. That doesn't sound happy to me.

Vulnerability is essential in all close relationships including committed romantic relationships.  Not as important for casually dating someone like as in doing activities together, or if it's a sexual arrangement. 

My husband was the person who saved my life when I developed a life threatening condition a week or so after giving birth.  I was extremely vulnerable. 

I stood in front of our religious officiant and took our marriage vows in front of our family and friends - I told him as part of the marriage vows I wanted to be with him till death do us part and trusted him to love and cherish me too. 

He had to feel ok breaking down in front of me when each of his parents passed away and when they were so very sick.  And when he asked me to get back together, not knowing at all what I would say.  Talk about vulnerability.  You have to be ready to have that level of trust -develop it -to be able to basically believe that person will have your back physically and emotionally.  If you're not willing to do that you're not that close and if you're not that close the relationship likely won't be a fulfilling one.

[boltnrun]

3 hours ago, Wiseman2 said:

As long as you're regurgitating all this faux "research", you'll never find a GF.

What is your point, exactly? That you don't have chiseled abs so women won't ovulate around you?

You need to take some basic biology courses. According to your theories,the human race would have died out millions of years ago.

Your logic is so convoluted that neither the premises nor conclusions make sense.

His point seems to be to "prove" his theory is correct by citing so-called studies and watching Hollywood films.

OP, you don't have to justify choosing not to date. You don't trust women to truly want to be with you, so don't date any of them. Problem solved.

[reinventmyself]

I keep thinking of my oldest son, handsome in his own right (I am his mom, so naturally biased) For years he felt he had to have the prettiest girl on his arm.  He was successful at attracting these women and his previous two relationships were model worthy.  Along with this there was also high intensity drama and a sense of entitlement from these young women.

I am careful not to make generalizations here, but the point I want to make is a good number of beautiful people often lean on that and don't cultivate other aspects of themselves.  The doors can open for them based on their looks.  But if they aren't cultivating their character and bettering themselves in other ways, pretty gets ugly fairly quickly.

My sons previous girlfriend was handed jobs in the fashion industry.  She basically skated through and when that ran it's course, her attorney uncle gave her a job as the receptionist of the high end law firm. Why?  Not because of her mad office skills, but of her first impression when people arrived. She as much as admitted to it.

Emotionally, she was demanding hot mess.  She insisted her little sister uninvited her to her wedding because she was so pretty she'd outshine the bride.  (can you imagine?) Could it have been that she made ugly scenes where ever she went to steal the attention??

After this messy 3 yr relationship ended, I had a chat with my son.  Nothing wrong with his desire with attractive ladies . . But he needed to dig a little deeper and pay attention to what was going on inside of them.   He's currently dating a lovely young woman, who is grounded and confident and drama free.  I'd like to think he learned his lesson.

One of my best friends is attractive and rather narcissistic.  We've been friends since we were 21.  She had a way with men and knew how to work them to shamelessly get what she wanted. Not limited to men I suppose.  She just knows how to work people in general.  Now . .40 years later and as nature would have it, looks fade and she's floundering.  Her looks no longer open doors, mature men run away from her and her demands and to be perfectly honest, she brings nothing to the table.  At this point in our lives men are looking for an equal partner as opposed to being young and the idea that young men are attracted to arm candy they could show off and take care of.

[spinstermanquee]

9 hours ago, ProfessorSunflower said:

Why would I want to be vulnerable? Vulnerability is very unattractive.

I beg to differ.  Many years ago, part of the reason I fell for my husband was seeing him in tears because he was denied visitation to his daughter via some restraining order false accusation shenanigans.  Observing that someone could love so deeply and have zero concern for how they appeared outwardly, well that is really something.  To love is to be vulnerable... maybe not every minute.  To TRUST is to allow yourself to be vulnerable in front of another.  So at that moment he handed me his trust, which he never took back.  Even to this day... and we are not together any more.

[bluecastle]

12 hours ago, ProfessorSunflower said:

Why would I want to be vulnerable? Vulnerability is very unattractive.

Adding to what's been said, I'd argue a synonym for vulnerable is confident. It takes confidence to be vulnerable, and confidence is pure fire emoji. Therefore so is vulnerability. 

What you're outlining here, about yourself, are human insecurities. Own them and you minimize them—that's vulnerable, that's confident, that's attractive. Continue to inflate them through frosty intellectualization from the sidelines—well, serious question: What's your end game there?   

Your deepest fears, best I can distill, are that you might end up in a relationship with someone who has "settled" for you or who you like more than she likes you. Addressing that from a different angle: You know what? That might just happen at some point or another. Not because you lack a rugby player's caveman charisma or the Ken Doll build of Christian Bale or because of ovulation juju, but because you are a human being and we humans get into messes. The studies you cite? Scrape them to the bone and you have some human beings in human messes. 

Best part? We also get ourselves out of messes, grow from them. Sometimes two people do that and stay together, sometimes they don't. Life. You're young, with so much of it ahead of you, that it seems to me a shame to be this closed off to it because of hypotheticals.

 

 

[reinventmyself]

"Vulnerability is very unattractive"

Saddest statement thus far. 

Humans are beautifully flawed creatures and that's what we can relate to. Someone who's brave enough to show their vulnerabilities is almost guaranteed an opportunity to connect intimately with another. 

People can't relate to perfect.  In humans there is no such thing.

 

 

 

[boltnrun]

Being vulnerable doesn't mean being overly or dramatically emotional. It means allowing someone to be close to you. You trust them with your feelings and are confident that person would not do anything to deliberately hurt you.

I'm sure rugby players love their mothers, their children, their wives and their pets. They aren't he-man stone faced unemotional types. That's just how they are when on the pitch. I've seen tough guy big athletes cooing over their babies or their pet bunnies.

Another stereotype, not surprising. 

I would suggest observing actual human beings instead of reading "studies" or watching Hollywood films.

[WaywardKiwi]

Hey Sunflower,

What is the ideal type for men? Are you only willing to date this exact stereotype? If so, the issue is likely moot because she does not exist. If you are willing to "date down" so some approximation of that ideal, or even worse, date according to your own personal preference, then aren't you equally guilty of the grevious sin you propound? 

Think about it,

T 

[Coily]

OP,

F these studies, F the "Science" and F Christian "Bail;" all these anecdotes are allowing you to wallow in your misery. Misery is a heck of a lot more unattractive than vulnerability and not being ripped Super Alpha 11" Rugby Dude.

I'm a meh looking, bespectacled, out of shape, 5'8" guy; and I have dated 4, yes 4, models. I also ended each of those relationships, because they lacked what I was really looking for in a woman. None of them cheated on me, none were lured off to ovulate with Mr Slab Rock-Groin; these beautiful women lacked the farmer's daughter personality I like. I'm usually a quiet reserved man, but I could make them laugh and I had lived a life full of stories.

I think your genuine problem is you're afraid of living and taking risks. Dating is a huge risk; but you can't calculate, study, and collate an individual woman. You can't catch her in a butterfly net for study, and determine her every move like a lab rat.

Get out and live, you don't have to go on wild reckless adventures; but you have to have passions, hobbies, and stories that can engage. Don't be afraid to be rejected or show you have a vulnerable side, be you, be human; not some cookie cutter buff bum.

[Wiseman2]

[ProfessorSunflower]

23 hours ago, Tinydance said:

Are you actually for real with saying all this or you're playing some kind of prank? Who cares about a study about ovulation! Ovulation only happens once a month and lasts between 12 - 24 hours maximum. A lot of women don't even feel it happening.

Weeks surrounding ovulation? That's basically saying that women are unhappy all the time. Weeks surrounding ovulation would be the first two and the next two weeks of a month because ovulation usually occurs on day 14 of the menstrual cycle, so in the middle of the month you might say. For someone who has done so much research you still don't seem to have grasped how the female menstrual cycle actually works. So I think it might be best if you don't comment on it.

What's the point of commenting here if you're just going to insult me?

I have linked the studies and can do so again. The ovulation isn't the point. It's what women's feelings about their during ovulation mean. 

The study said that women who date men like me feel less attracted to them and mire attracted to conventionally masculine men, whilst those dating masculine men feel more attracted to their partners. This is because women who date men like me are doing so out of a desire for stability. It's like hoe I est strawberries in lieu of ice cream for my health but am still tempted by ice cream.

https://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/haselton/unify_uploads/files.

[ProfessorSunflower]

19 hours ago, boltnrun said:

His point seems to be to "prove" his theory is correct by citing so-called studies and watching Hollywood films.

OP, you don't have to justify choosing not to date. You don't trust women to truly want to be with you, so don't date any of them. Problem solved.

You keep commenting on here and seem to have not read my posts.

1. The studies are peer-reviewed.

2. I also quoted a piece in Psychology Today several times.

3. I included a story about an event that occurred during the production of a film, not within the plot of the film.

[ProfessorSunflower]

11 hours ago, boltnrun said:

Being vulnerable doesn't mean being overly or dramatically emotional. It means allowing someone to be close to you. You trust them with your feelings and are confident that person would not do anything to deliberately hurt you.

I'm sure rugby players love their mothers, their children, their wives and their pets. They aren't he-man stone faced unemotional types. That's just how they are when on the pitch. I've seen tough guy big athletes cooing over their babies or their pet bunnies.

Another stereotype, not surprising. 

I would suggest observing actual human beings instead of reading "studies" or watching Hollywood films.

Once again,

1. The studies are peer-reviewed.

 

2. I also quoted a piece in Psychology Today several times.

 

3. I included a story about an event that occurred during the production of a film, not within the plot of the film.

4. In the original post, I include a story involving two women I know.

If vulnerability is attractive, then why would rugby players be attractive in the first place? Rugby players are attractive because they're strong. Vulnerability and strength are antonyms.

[ProfessorSunflower]

12 hours ago, reinventmyself said:

"Vulnerability is very unattractive"

Saddest statement thus far. 

Humans are beautifully flawed creatures and that's what we can relate to. Someone who's brave enough to show their vulnerabilities is almost guaranteed an opportunity to connect intimately with another. 

People can't relate to perfect.  In humans there is no such thing.

 

 

 

Studies show stoic men are more attractive to women and crying is very much a turn off.

If vulnerability is attractive, why are most male sex symbols muscular? Strength has consistently been shown to be an attractive feature to women. Vulnerability is the antonym to strength.

[Wiseman2]

31 minutes ago, ProfessorSunflower said:

 I also quoted a piece in Psychology Today several times.

Have you seen a neurologist about this type of repetitive behavior? Or odd magical thinking?

It could be something treatable such as a mood or anxiety or psychotic disorder or something manageable such as an autism spectrum disorder.

At any rate, until you take care of yourself you'll be a lonely bitter guy wrapped up in odd illogical thinking. Feeling hostile and arrogant because you can't understand why people can't understand you.

[Tinydance]

1 hour ago, ProfessorSunflower said:

What's the point of commenting here if you're just going to insult me?

I have linked the studies and can do so again. The ovulation isn't the point. It's what women's feelings about their during ovulation mean. 

The study said that women who date men like me feel less attracted to them and mire attracted to conventionally masculine men, whilst those dating masculine men feel more attracted to their partners. This is because women who date men like me are doing so out of a desire for stability. It's like hoe I est strawberries in lieu of ice cream for my health but am still tempted by ice cream.

https://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/haselton/unify_uploads/files.

It's OK, I believe you. Nevermind that I'm actually a woman myself..Buy that's cool, I obviously don't know anything about being a woman.

[WaywardKiwi]

Hey sunflower，

I cant help but notice you won't respond to my posts. I think arguing these grand theories and scientific speculation is largely academic, as what really counts is what is happen in your life, in your relationship. To wit, I am curious what women you have or wish to even pursue, given that you claim she is the pinnacle and ideal of human male attraction. 

T

[Batya33]

Studies said I would have a really hard time finding a mate after age 40 (as a nationally known matchmaker said to me sarcastically a month before my 39th birthday "good luck finding a man in [our major city]" then hung up on me - I met "the one" a few weeks later), that I would have a really hard time getting pregnant, that if I did I was a high risk/geriatric (ouch!) pregnancy, that if I tried to reenter my career after being a stay at home mom for 7(!) years I'd have a really hard time especially since I was 49 when I was looking, oh and don't forget about the divorce "statistics" and the statistics (true!) that if I married a shorter man our child likely would be shorter than average (yup!).

I mean statistics and studies don't hug me back or tell me I'm the "best mom ever" and I'm in menopause but when I wasn't -nope I didn't look at my bespectacled, intellectual, short, quirky partner in crime aka spouse  and think I "settled" for him and wish I was bedding down with whoever else had six pack abs.  So I don't know how about choose the risks over these easily debunked studies and statistics. 

Maybe read the studies that show that most reasonably healthy people can sense negative vibes/energy/Debbie Downer crap a mile away and certainly up close during a first meet or that people who stare at a screen all day or too much rather that being outdoors, reading a real book, dancing like no one is watching, are probably going to have poor vision --and poor inner vision (I made up that study but like you keep dragging up studies betcha I can find one for ya!!)

Choose to live-choose these particular risks you are so scared of -I think it's worth it.  I beat the odds and many of my friends did too.