|
|
|
|
|
| why does success not work the same for both genders?
Posted: 8/26/2008 3:09:11 PM | Men and women are not the same creatures. They're wired differently. They have different natural attraction triggers.
Looks are naturally more important than success to men in terms of what they are attracted to in a mate. It's biology. To attempt to change that is unrealistic. | |
|
| |
| why does success not work the same for both genders?
Posted: 8/26/2008 5:15:35 PM | If you're average looking and successful, here's the best thing for you to do:
Find a guy and spoil him (the same way successful men spoil their trophy wives/girlfriends). That'll keep him around. Sure, he probably won't love you, but you'll have a longterm relationship - even marriage. Love is rarely attained for most people anyway, so don't sweat it. You'll also have to accept the fact that he will probably cheat on you at least a few times. I've had at least three girlfriends in my life who implied in a myriad ways that they or their parents have money. They did so in order to try to keep me (as this was during a time when I was a student and had nothing) beacause they knew I was struggling and that my mind was always focused on obtaining money. If I stay with them, I get what I want - money. Trying to obtain financial success was an obsession for me. Sometimes I think I should have taken them up on the 'offer', so to speak, but then I wouldn't have discovered my full potential and what I can do for myself. As life would have it, I happened to strike gold on my own. However, if I had failed on my own, honestly, I'd have no problems being the 'boy toy' and living off the fruits of a chick's labor. In the old days men would consider this 'unmanly' because the man was supposed to be the breadwinner. Those days are gone or at least that type of thinking isn't applicable to me personally.
If you're unattractive, your financial success is not going to translate into success in dating. Whereas women are able to sleep with and have kids with men who they are completely unattracted to because of his wealth, it's a different ballpark for men. Women can fake it in bed nightly, men having to get it up for a woman that they're physically disgusted by every night just isn't going to work for very long.
Men want physical beauty. Intelligence is a bonus but average intelligence in a woman is more than sufficient for most men.
Women want strength, status, fame, power in their male partners. All that bulls*it about romance and personality is utter horsesh*t as you and every woman on here knows. But if you want to play that game of denial, don't be surprised that your life is less than fulfilled. You just can't beat reality.
I think that you and every other woman on here already knows everything I posted above. Not quite sure why people ask questions they already know the answers to. | |
|
| why does success not work the same for both genders?
Posted: 8/26/2008 5:30:16 PM |
But - and this is the thing - success does not work both ways. Gold-medal winning female athletes are not looked upon by male athletes with any more desire than those who flunked out in the first round. It is sometimes even considered a defect, as if there is something downright unfeminine about all that striving, fist pumping and incontinent sweating.
To be fair, have you had a hard look at a lot of the Olympian women athletes? Some of us like girls that still look like girls, and when the Eastern European "women" are setting the bar, everybody has to follow ;-).
But you mean "real life", don'cha? Like why don't men chase women VPs and such?
Well, a lot of guys measure their John Thomas, in absence of any personal achievements and accomplishments, by how shiny their car is, by how big their portfolio is, and how much money they make.
And if power- chickie is taking the hattrick, well, that means SHE has got a bigger John Thomas. And some guys, that shifts them into hard core homophobia, not to mention skewering about a millenia of hard wiring of "man must provide for his woman". A guy's gonna get past that, he must have some real character to back it up ;-).
Sorry, darlin', ya got a tough row of rocks to hoe before you'll turn up a good potato...
Cowboy | |
|
| why does success not work the same for both genders?
Posted: 8/26/2008 5:39:29 PM | Men and women don't value the same things equally. I'm not ashamed to say I love a man with skills. Can beat me at chess? Oooh, lala. Is an athletic powerhouse? Bring it on. Does it guarantee a match? Absolutely not, but it does make him more attractive than he was before. Women in general tend to have a bevy of traits that make a man more attractive or less attractive. Can money make an attractive man more attractive? Yes. Can money make an unattractive man attractive? For me no, but if money is a strong attraction point for you then yes.
Men appreciate success, but not at the loss of the things they find important. A beautiful woman that is independent, successful and financially stable is not going to complain about men being intimidated by independent, successful and financially stable women. An unattractive woman that is independent, successful and financial stable is going to complain about it. Many men are simple. Painfully so. This doesn't make them evil, this just makes them hard to "get" sometimes. | |
|
| why does success not work the same for both genders?
Posted: 8/26/2008 6:06:38 PM | | It's fame, not accomplishments. Furthermore too often success is measured by money. In this case it is his celebrity and the possibility of being seen with him as his anointed lover. It's kind of like bagging big game. | |
|
| why does success not work the same for both genders?
Posted: 8/26/2008 6:44:34 PM | | Um while success and medals are cool and all a guy still have to be attracted physically. While every guy is diff in personal taste many of the women who compete are just not attractive. Not to say female athletes are not desirable as I saw many who I thought were hot, but a medal does not always make them more so. Guys care more about physical and not about the abstract amount of success. Men don't go after women because they are successful, they go after them because they are attracted physically, which is much diff from the common women who like their men to be successful and expect it. | |
|
| why does success not work the same for both genders?
Posted: 8/26/2008 7:31:11 PM |
Lots of studies have shown that marriages where the woman makes the same or more than the man are more likely to fail.
I assume by 'fail' you mean 'in divorce'.
It's really no big conspiracy why marriages with large economic disparities stay together better. If I had no skills to speak of, couldn't make money easily, and was married to a successful person who was keeping my lifestyle reasonable, I'd do or say anything to keep that marriage together.
A marriage failing and a relationship failing are two different things. One can exist without the other. | |
|
| why does success not work the same for both genders?
Posted: 8/26/2008 8:39:23 PM |
Getting a guy and keeping one are two different things.
I think you missed my point on purpose. A woman always has many choices. A man rarely does. Men must achieve to even have a single choice; women do not have to achieve because beauty is sufficient. | |
|
| why does success not work the same for both genders?
Posted: 8/26/2008 8:45:12 PM |
Men and women don't value the same things equally. I'm not ashamed to say I love a man with skills. Can beat me at chess? Oooh, lala. Is an athletic powerhouse? Bring it on. Does it guarantee a match? Absolutely not, but it does make him more attractive than he was before. Women in general tend to have a bevy of traits that make a man more attractive or less attractive. Can money make an attractive man more attractive? Yes. Can money make an unattractive man attractive? For me no, but if money is a strong attraction point for you then yes.
Women value disparity. Men tend to seek equality. End result? Lots of single people. | |
|
| why does success not work the same for both genders?
Posted: 8/26/2008 8:52:58 PM |
Male success is only a requirement because women won't date unsuccessful men.
Can you call up the girl I used to date and ask her why she dumped me and started dating some loser who can't even hold my dirty jockstrap when it comes to success? | |
|
| why does success not work the same for both genders?
Posted: 8/26/2008 8:53:27 PM | It has nothing to do with success.
It has a lot to with the personality traits and characteristics that successful female atheletes tend to have. There may be a statistical correlation between success and losing attractiveness- there is no causative link however. | |
|
| why does success not work the same for both genders?
Posted: 8/26/2008 10:45:50 PM |
Women value disparity. Men tend to seek equality. End result? Lots of single people.
Hmm, never thought of it that way. I'm seeking a connection and someone I feel comfortable around, but that does tend to come in the "ethically similar, superficially dissimilar" package. Food for thought, thanks. | |
|
| why does success not work the same for both genders?
Posted: 8/26/2008 11:44:50 PM | I think most men wonder why a lot of women are attracted to famous men even when often some are old and washed up. Has every woman who slept with Gene Simmons (or Rod Stewart or Mick Jaeger or... it goes on and on) really thought that SHE would be the one he would marry? Or were they just hoping to be impregnated? How are these guys so attractive that tens of thousands of women are standing in line to be the next one night stand?
I've seen twenty something women dressed like porn stars when I've attended concerts of some of the musicians I listenened to as I grew up. I have a sneaking suspicion that if someone checked these girl's I-pods they would find music a lot more current and trendy. Were these girls hoping to catch the eye of somebody famous?
Many men are impressed by successful women and would make complete jackasses of themselves to stay in relationships with these women but as far as material for one night fantasies go, these women are on a level playing field with any other girl with simular physical attributes. If Madonna were to walk into my local pickup bar she would definately get some guys' attention, but probably after the prettier girls were already taken. | |
|
| why does success not work the same for both genders?
Posted: 8/27/2008 4:28:29 AM | Aurora, that's just a bunch of BS that you guys have convinced yourself of. If women have many choices, what are so many of them STILL doing here after years of trying to meet someone? When I was getting "dating" emails here, I was getting about 95% of them from kids in their 20's and men in their 60's. If you call those "choices," then sure, I had a ton of them. They weren't even anything close to what I wanted, so in my opinion, I didn't have any choices. Seeing as how I have enough kids to raise, and I have a dad, thankyouverymuch, neither of those options was going to work for me. So "beauty" wasn't "sufficient" for me to get anyone anywhere near close to my own age.
And no, I didn't miss your point on purpose, I said that "getting" someone and "keeping" someone are two different things, and that's exactly what I meant. I mean, if we are talking about walking into any given bar and getting laid with just anyone, sure, women probably have more choices if that's what they are looking for, but if you are talking about a relationship, you probably have as good a chance as I do. Because to have a relationship, you need the cooperation of the other person, and that's extremely hard to find. Until very recently, I hadn't met anyone (no matter what they or their profiles said) who was actually looking for a relationship. It's actually taken me 41 years to find him and I plan on keeping him, and vice versa! | |
|
| why does success not work the same for both genders?
Posted: 8/27/2008 5:15:28 AM |
Can you call up the girl I used to date and ask her why she dumped me and started dating some loser who can't even hold my dirty jockstrap when it comes to success?
Perhaps with his lesser success comes a lesser propensity for referring to his soiled undergarments. | |
|
| why does success not work the same for both genders?
Posted: 8/27/2008 6:34:12 AM | I can't speak about the relevance to life in general. I'm sceptical that many parallels can be drawn between the olympics and anything.
When I watch the olympics or any women's sporting event , there is always the recognition that the winner is pretty good-for a woman.
Don't go off on me. I know female athletes give as much in commitment and effort as men. But in measuring the "best", men always win.
The women's 100m winner was more than 1/2 second slower than the slowest mens semifinalist.
Putting it crudely, a man's response to a gold medalist isn't "nice time!" but rather "nice t*ts!".
Which are generally in short supply among well conditioned women. (' ') | |
|
| why does success not work the same for both genders?
Posted: 8/27/2008 9:21:27 AM | Asheel, I don't disagree with your statement that the "best" athlete is male, but all those women--ALL of them, even the losers--are better athletes than YOU, an average male, and THAT is what irks me. That men don't accept that many women are better faster stronger more successful than THEM. So what you are saying is, even though these women could kick your azz at any sport, you look at her tits. And THAT irks me.
It's like the 40-yr-old men in the stands at Rockies [baseball] games, saying--and actually thinking its true that--"I could pitch bettter than THAT guy!" No, you couldn't. Ever. | |
|
| why does success not work the same for both genders?
Posted: 8/27/2008 9:53:27 AM | Asheel, I don't disagree with your statement that the "best" athlete is male, but all those women--ALL of them, even the losers--are better athletes than YOU, an average male, and THAT is what irks me. That men don't accept that many women are better faster stronger more successful than THEM. So what you are saying is, even though these women could kick your azz at any sport, you look at her tits. And THAT irks me.
How do you know that "ALL" those althetes are better than average males and better at "ANY" sport? If ALL those average males trained as much as those female athletes, I would suspect a decent number of them would eclipse those female athletes.
I would be curious to see the results of a WNBA team in a face off against an above average highschool basketball team. When I was in highschool I watched Jamaal Magloire play b-ball (he's now a multimillionaire NBA player) in the flesh at my highschool (suffice it to say, they slaughtered our b-ball team that year) , and I have to tell you, he and all his teammates would probably put any WNBA team to shame. Let me add, that I love watching college basketball and even good highschool basketball on tv, yet I've never been able to sit through a minute of WNBA. It's pathetic and boring. They just don't play at the same skill level.
Again, you're dealing with a biological reality. Yes, a girl may be able to kick my ass at a sport. So what? I'd rather look at her tits because that's what I'm attracted to. It's my hardwiring and I make no apologies for it. I'm a man. There may be some females that would be able to knock me out in a boxing match, but I'd still prefer not to punch women in the face even for sport. I'd rather go up against another man.
You're talking about exceptions. The average man has and will always be able to physically dominate the average female.
Higher testosterone and greater bone mass and desnsity -> greater muscle mass -> less body fat and different distribution of it -> superior athletic and physical abilities, not to mention the average differences in spatial abilities between the sexes. | |
|
| why does success not work the same for both genders?
Posted: 8/27/2008 11:47:45 AM | This topic of female athletes and how they stack up against men is always a difficult one:
CassaGo mentioned:
Asheel, I don't disagree with your statement that the "best" athlete is male, but all those women--ALL of them, even the losers--are better athletes than YOU, an average male, and THAT is what irks me. That men don't accept that many women are better faster stronger more successful than THEM. So what you are saying is, even though these women could kick your azz at any sport, you look at her tits. And THAT irks me.
It's like the 40-yr-old men in the stands at Rockies [baseball] games, saying--and actually thinking its true that--"I could pitch bettter than THAT guy!" No, you couldn't. Ever.
GapeMan, she was referring to Olympic female athletes, both medal-winners and not, being able to beat the average non-professional athlete male at a sport. I don't think her claim is far-fetched in the slightest, those women have trained to top-notch physical performance. As such, they should be able to run/swim rings around the average male, that wouldn't even rank as an amateur level in the chosen sport.
I get passed by in the lap-swimming pool all the time, because I can't kick for sh%t, so despite my upper body doing most of my work, it does not compare to a trained person using their entire body in unison, male or female. I gladly doff my hat to either gender when it comes to that sport.
However there are other sports where the simple size difference between men and women ranks so largely in man's favor that their novice-level athleticism is enough to best a woman with superior training. I'm a tall, spry, lanky **stard - if we're playing ANY sport where a reach advantage is helpful, I've got them hands down not because I'm necessarily better, but simply because i can reach farther / lift more per stride...
Best example I can offer is martial arts. I'm a 1st degree black belt in karate at the moment, and train with men and women of lower, same, and higher ranks. I have to spar with everyone equally, but it's always a mental exercise when I'm sparring the women - some like to go hard, most like to go soft, so I constantly have to adjust how hard I attack and how vigorously I need to defend. I've had women kick me in the eye in a split second before I've known what's what if I underestimate them, but if I'm ready and centered, even higher-ranked women that dominate other women in their class still have a hard time winning against me simply due to the size difference. In a fight with two people with equal training and comparable physical abilities, the bigger one with the longer reach is usually going to win. It sucks, but it's true. If we were to trade blow for blow, I'd still be standing at the end of the day simply because I have more muscle and bigger, harder bones, hence my body is capable of taking more impact than hers.
Fortunately we only do point sparring where we're not allowed to go all out, so it levels the playing field somewhat because speed, not striking power, becomes the dominant factor, hence women could theoretically compete against the men, but in my style they're kept separate (mostly due to most of the women's RELUCTANCE to even attempt sparring the men).
At the end of the day, what does all this have to do with diminished female attraction? In my case, not much. If she's hot (physically-attractive) and can kick my a$$, I think STILL she's hot, maybe even more so depending on her attitude. If she's ugly and can kick my butt,/superior athlete I still think she's a dog and that's the end of that.
In closing, here's a wonderful example of the current status quo for female athletes and attractiveness:
1) Venus/Serena Williams, two of the most dominant world-class female athletes in recent history, get modest endorsements and public attention
2) Anna Kournikova, an international-level athlete that can't win a major title to save her life but looks damn fine in a bikini, makes a FORTUNE in publicity and endorsements (plus music videos).
You do the math and find the dependent variable there as far as male attention is concerned...   | |
|
| why does success not work the same for both genders?
Posted: 8/27/2008 12:14:01 PM | In closing, here's a wonderful example of the current status quo for female athletes and attractiveness:
1) Venus/Serena Williams, two of the most dominant world-class female athletes in recent history, get modest endorsements and public attention
2) Anna Kournikova, an international-level athlete that can't win a major title to save her life but looks damn fine in a bikini, makes a FORTUNE in publicity and endorsements (plus music videos).
Exactly. The reverse is true for males. Tiger Woods is an average looking guy who is the best at a sport nobody really cared about before his entrance into it. He's the highest paid athlete in the world and married to bombshell blonde European model.
His physical prowess garners power, status, and recognition - and tons of women at his feet. | |
|
| why does success not work the same for both genders?
Posted: 8/27/2008 12:45:18 PM | Men are inherently stronger, quicker, and faster than women. Some of us get over it, some of us don't. For some perspective: Compare the woman's Gold medal winning 100 M time against the 2008 Wyoming Boy's High School State Champion.
Thank goodness we're different. Ladies just remeber there is attractive fitness and then there is "fitness" that makes us wonder whether or not we'd be short an apendage come morning. | |
|
| why does success not work the same for both genders?
Posted: 8/27/2008 1:28:22 PM | Tiger Woods (the golfer, not the poster, although.... ) is NOT "average looking", in my opinion. He's cuter than average--and has a great body, much better than average. If that is average where YOU live, I'm moving.
FYP:
"Most men are inherently stronger, quicker, and faster than most women."
Now compare *your* 100m time to the winning woman's time. Or even the losing woman's time, for that matter. Reality bites, doesn't it?
"Ladies just remeber there is attractive fitness and then there is "fitness" that makes us wonder whether or not we'd be short an apendage [sic] come morning. "
Hey--thanks for the cautionary note! | |
|
| |
| why does success not work the same for both genders?
Posted: 8/27/2008 2:59:06 PM |
Now compare *your* 100m time to the winning woman's time. Or even the losing woman's time, for that matter. Reality bites, doesn't it?
My 100m sucks. Even my 11 year old, shit, my 9 year old could beat me... not in the first 20 metres, but at least they'd finish the whole 100...
But on a note of comparison, the Canadian National Women's hockey team, multiple gold medal winners in the Olympics and other world class tournaments, have trouble against a AAA Midget hockey teams (15-16 year old boys). That's who they train against. The women's team would likely stand little chance against even the worst Junior A team in Canada.
And, I'm not knockin' them at all. I love watching them play and I'm proud of their accomplishments, but if they played men's rules with body checking at all... well....
... besides that, some of them are really good looking and I'd gladly jump their bones given the opportunity....
 | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
