Tell me men...What is the truth?

[Willie Lumplump]

he has got the balls to make a fool out of himself, to show some humanity in exposing himself. he writes about things that happen to him, and how he wonders how it all fits in the big scheme of things. yeah He can't spell, doesn't quote scientist, but he does talk about REAL things, instead of platitudes. we laugh at him, make fun of him
and STILL he gets up every day with a smile on his face HOW IS THAT FOR A MEANINGFUL CONVERSATION!!!!

I must say, I agree completely.

[Mallory]

on second thought, I am quite frankly getting tired of male bashing, whining women.
Mallory your male-phobic, stereotypical platitudes of a man leads me to believe that you never get out the door.
Are you describing your father, your brother or your uncle in your diatribe?

Repeated descent into ad hominem is just bad form (my opinion).

Logicians call personalizing an argument an ad hominem fallacy, or attacking the person, not the argument.

It remains my hope that 'most' men desire more than simple sexual conquest in terms of relationship objectives - as I noted earlier, if or when a male operates primarily or foremost from that objective it (IMO) reduces attractiveness or eliminates it altogether. How you got to your restatement here is beyond me.

Mallory

[Willie Lumplump]

what about the tall unsuccessful and short successful ones?....don't want to leave anyone out.

In my considerable experience, tall and unsuccessful doesn't cut it. Don't know about short and successful.

[Mallory]

My very limited point here was to reflect that in spite of these characteristics operating as influencing factors the vast majority of adult humans manage to partner up with some frequency over the course of their life. If these features truly inhibited connecting then only the 'tall/handsome/successful' model would be successful and everyone else would be celibate.

Mallory

[Braggi]

In my considerable experience, tall and unsuccessful doesn't cut it. Don't know about short and successful.

This thread is supposed to be about what attracts a man to a woman. This side topic is about what piques the interest of a lady when a man makes overtures.

Willie, I find your statement untrue in my experience. I'm 52. Since I was about 35 I noticed most men in my age group carry around a large bulge in front. The percentage of rotund men has increased dramatically as I have gotten older. I find it unattractive and I think most women agree. So, a slender, or at least proportionate waist line in a mature gentleman is more important to women than height or "success." That statement is based on my experience and many discussions with dozens of women, not my opinion.

I'm 5'10" which puts me squarely in the "average" category of height. I have no discretionary income to speak of. I'm married to a "successful" woman by most people's standards. She's the primary breadwinner in my family. I'm much more the homemaker than the breadwinner kind of guy.

We're polyamorous to some degree, so I've remained in the "dating scene" despite being married. Let's just say I have the interest of a great many ladies, and should I lack for a date on a given evening I would have little problem filling that social gap.

So, I'm not tall, not "successful," Hel, I'm not even single, yet I have no problem finding a date. If I were to become single, I doubt I would remain that way for long.

Women want a man who is fit. All other arguments about appearance pale in comparison. I recently went to a party where the shortest man there was escorted by a tall, elegant, beautiful, intelligent young lady who looked real happy with her man. He is healthy and fit but neither tall nor rich.

Women want to be treated well, with respect, with gratitude for their gifts. They want to be nurtured. They'd rather have a nice dinner prepared for them at home than be taken to an expensive restaurant. A man who can cook is an asset. They want a man who's affectionate but who stops short of pawing them or smothering them, especially in public.

This one's important: They want to have a conversation without it devolving into a "who's right" contest. Everyone wants to be right, but men seem to have it more than women. Argument isn't sexy. My wife says, "... you can be right or you can be intimate." Choose intimacy if presented with the choice.

OK, enough preaching. In short, tall and successful are side issues. Fit, healthy and nurturing are far more important.

-Jeff

[ThePhiant]

that things are beyond you is clear,
when you start repeating generalizations ad nauseum about men, you are in fact encouraging men to use stereotypes about bitchy women.
if you continue to hide behind platitudes, you will never be able to see a men (the dog) or a woman (the god) as a real person.
your life in camera is all but a fantorgasm, and NO ONE will be able to live up to your fata morgana
life is a personal experience.
that is what makes this BB so interesting

Repeated descent into ad hominem is just bad form (my opinion).

Logicians call personalizing an argument an ad hominem fallacy, or attacking the person, not the argument.

It remains my hope that 'most' men desire more than simple sexual conquest in terms of relationship objectives - as I noted earlier, if or when a male operates primarily or foremost from that objective it (IMO) reduces attractiveness or eliminates it altogether. How you got to your restatement here is beyond me.

Mallory

[Mallory]

I want to take a moment to acknowledge the men and women who have posted here with thoughtful, positive insight into the women they find attractive.

I would also like to say that fitness in men is what some women might look for but like height or success it isn't the criteria guiding every woman. I happen to like men with character and a really excellent sense of humor, really good eyes and hands - one of the men I'm grooving on right now is very damaged, he is 'in literal terms' fighting with death on a daily basis so my 'grooving' isn't about the relative state of his body it is about his really excellent BEING.

Mallory

[Willie Lumplump]

My very limited point here was to reflect that in spite of these characteristics operating as influencing factors the vast majority of adult humans manage to partner up with some frequency over the course of their life. If these features truly inhibited connecting then only the 'tall/handsome/successful' model would be successful and everyone else would be celibate. Mallory

Whether your overall point is right or wrong, this particular argument is fallaceous. It's argument from false dichotomy.

[mykil]

Wow; I think I am the only one here at this point that still believes we are all equals, man haters, woman bashers, its just as well you would be a woman lover or a man lover, a male chauvinist or a love to be pussy whip dude that loves to get spanked by his woman. We are all equals and each of us have our own agenda’s in our eyes as far as how it is going to get done! Saying that we all don’t have a few issues is an understatement! LMAO! I go for cute, I can’t get past the blonde blue thing or the really long dark haired ponytails, or… god I really have it bad!!!! I am of course a natural voyeur!

This brings me to an important question to me that I have wanted to ask for a while! I was going to post to Ms. Wacco, but I think it’s a more of a general embarrassment to ask One individual at any given point, and since everyone appears to be here, here is the question on my mind!

I was reading the woman seeking men the other day on Craig’s and came across an add by a woman that wanted a man without any fetishes. I was kind laid back by this and thought about all the friggin fetishes I have acquired over the years!

So is it a bad thing to have fetishes? Now before you answer with any man or woman bashing remember that men and women both have these fetishes. When I latch on to a new fetish it is almost like putting another notch on my belt and I am pleased with them, they make me extremely happy having so many. I can worship a woman’s feet massage them for hours on end, or spank a woman’s cute little tush. From one extreme to the other! LOL! This should be for some entertaining enlightenment to me and I can’t wait to hear what kind of psychological mumbo jumbo everyone will come up with! Peace.

[ThePhiant]

that is why you are looking for someone and Jeff is not
LOL

Real intimacy is conceding a point when you are wrong, not denying reality when you are right for the sake of getting along.

[ThePhiant]

one of the men I'm grooving on right now is very damaged, he is 'in literal terms' fighting with death on a daily basis so my 'grooving' isn't about the relative state of his body it is about his really excellent BEING.

Mallory

so now you want to play the sympathy card.
in your profile you state: more open to relating than dating - quite frankly I don't have much discretionary time.
this combined with your desire to pigeon hole all men, leads me to believe that you are only capable of having a relationship with men from a safe distance.

ad interem, how is your relationship with your father?

[Willie Lumplump]

Real intimacy is conceding a point when you are wrong, not denying reality when you are right for the sake of getting along.

I dunno. I think we have to ask "denying reality to whom?" Sometimes I think I know what's really going on but just keep quiet about it. That seems to lubricate a relationship. I heard recently about a study indicating that the best predictor of marital happiness is the frequency with which the man lets the woman have her way. I can believe it.

[Willie Lumplump]

Whether your overall point is right or wrong, this particular argument is fallaceous. It's argument from false dichotomy.

What I meant to say was the "fallacy of the excluded middle."

[Mallory]

so now you want to play the sympathy card.
in your profile you state: more open to relating than dating - quite frankly I don't have much discretionary time.
this combined with your desire to pigeon hole all men, leads me to believe that you are only capable of having a relationship with men from a safe distance.

ad interem, how is your relationship with your father?

My father has been deceased 20 years, my husband has been deceased 15 years so I suppose they are both at a 'safe' distance given your descriptive choices. Your desire to 'pigeonhole' my desires or my capabilities speaks solely to your issues, not mine. As to sympathy - we are all dying and we are not all fit and not all of us equate fitness to attractiveness - quite frankly I am attracted to this man's naked spirit whose exposure is certainly driven by his precarious health. If you are moved to sympathy by my descriptive that is your emotion or your feeling - I don't own it nor have responsibility for it. Your emotions and feelings emerge from your cognitive process.

[Braggi]

Yes, the pendulum has swung. Women used to be taught that being agreeable was the key to a happy relationship, now men are supposed to play the Stepford Wife.

I think women have been supporting men's fragile egos for so long it's overdue that men give in now and then. I have a sister-in-law who has to conform to her husband's desires so consistently she barely has a life outside of her husband's shadow. It's really not cool because she's such a beautiful being and she's really stunted by her role as supportive wife (although her whole family thing is really beautiful too).

Generally speaking it's pretty easy for me to go along with my wife's desires because our values are very well aligned. What makes her happy is usually what makes me happy. I have to give up what I would consider a personal pleasure now and then because it's something she wouldn't want to do, but these are usually small sacrifices.

I love pleasing my wife and I love being generous and the self satisfaction that comes along with it. And you know what they say down South: "If mama ain't happy, ain't nobody happy."

I'm not sure if it's "the pendulum swing" we're witnessing or if balance in society is being restored, but I think it's a change for the better.

-Jeff

[Mallory]

Believers in evolutionary psychology maintain that feminism sets itself in opposition to millions of years of anthropoid evolution, and is thus futile and inhumane to men. Allegations made by believers include references to putative differences in math skills between men and women, a supposedly irresistible but entirely non-visually stimulated female attraction toward powerful and/or arrogant males, and the existence of a genetically preordained male right to multiple female sexual partners.

sound familiar?

https://faultline.org/index.php/site...ed_study_says/

Enjoy!

Mallory :D

[Mallory]

Um... how do you explain all the evolutionary psychologists who also happen to be feminists?

'Belief' in evolutionary psychology is as irrelevant as whether one believes or not in evolutionary biology, plate tectonics or mathematics.

Hi Clancy,

Actually I thought it was a rather humorous new study with some interesting features that reminded me of recent discussions here.

Maybe I read something different in the article than you did.

[Willie Lumplump]

Believers in evolutionary psychology maintain that feminism sets itself in opposition to millions of years of anthropoid evolution, and is thus futile and inhumane to men. Allegations made by believers include references to putative differences in math skills between men and women, a supposedly irresistible but entirely non-visually stimulated female attraction toward powerful and/or arrogant males, and the existence of a genetically preordained male right to multiple female sexual partners.

sound familiar?

https://faultline.org/index.php/site...ed_study_says/

The website that you cite is run by a blogger and self-described "nature and science writer," Chris Clarke. Clarke claims to have summarized a paper published in a German scientific journal. In fact, most of the words that you used in your post are those of either Clarke or the author of the paper (perhaps an English-language abstract?), I'm not sure which. Whatever the case, by quoting without proper creditation, you leave yourself open to charges of plagiarism. Not a serious crime in a community bulletin board, but something to keep in mind for the future.

On to the subject of Clarke himself: Who is he? What are his academic credentials? What qualifies him to speak on the subject of evolutionary psychology? If he's a "nature and science writer," what has he written? I could discover the answers to none of these questions in my brief googling of his name.

You might ask the same questions of me, since I'm challenging your post. I have a Ph.D. in a biological science from U.C. Berkeley, and though evolutionary biology hasn't been the main focus of my research, I'm now writing a manuscript that does relate directly to that subject. In any case, I grasp the basic concepts of sociobiology, which includes evolutionary psychology. I've also read works by Dr. Helen Fisher, an anthropologist specializing in the evolutionary basis of the love relationship between men and women.

Everything I know about the subject of evolutionary psychology leads me to believe that Chris Clarke, whoever he may be, is full of s---, at least regarding the subject that we're talking about here. Before you credulously accept the word of an unknown blogger who presents neither academic credentials nor a publication list that would facilitate a check on his qualifications, I'd suggest that you think twice. The world is full of scam artists, pretenders, and puffery. Skepticism is always appropriate.

["Mad" Miles]

JHFC!

Clancy, Willie,

It's a JOKE!

Which you, Clancy, acknowledged, but by criticizing and dismissing it as "sarcastic satire" made yourself the butt of! Come on, the lion joke didn't make you laugh?

And Willie, really, are you so humor-impaired to have actually taken it seriously? Enough to write a short refutation!? Are you really sure the "Luz-R" gene is unsubstantiated!?

I really am laughing my ass off at this very moment!

Not particularly "Mad" Miles



P.S. Mallory, good work, I've enjoyed and appreciated your posts. Although sometimes, even quite often, I wonder why you bother? Perhaps that speaks something about you that should be researched?

[ThePhiant]

My father has been deceased 20 years, my husband has been deceased 15 years so I suppose they are both at a 'safe' distance given your descriptive choices.

one of the men I'm grooving on right now is very damaged, he is 'in literal terms' fighting with death on a daily basis so my 'grooving' isn't about the relative state of his body it is about his really excellent BEING.

Repeated descent into ad hominem is just bad form (my opinion).
Logicians call personalizing an argument an ad hominem fallacy,

mallory it is clear from the above quotes that you don't follow your own opinions, nor did you answer my question
I suppose your anger at men and fear of abandonment brought you to the place where you are at.
it's never too late to get in touch with your feelings!
Love
LuLu

[Mallory]

Not particularly "Mad" Miles



P.S. Mallory, good work, I've enjoyed and appreciated your posts. Although sometimes, even quite often, I wonder why you bother? Perhaps that speaks something about you that should be researched?

Hi Miles,

Thank you :) Timing is always a curious phenomenon to me - on the surface, my intersection with this message thread appears quite random but, of course, it can't be or I simply wouldn't have expended the effort in continued response so, of course, I must be working on something here through which this thread became a mirror opportunity. So, you are correct.

Mallory

[Willie Lumplump]

JHFC!

Clancy, Willie,

It's a JOKE!

In that case, I'd be interested in knowing how far back the joke started. I suppose only Mallory could tell me that.

Maybe my sense of humor has been so dimmed by creationism, intelligent design, astrology, extrasensory perception, synchronicity, homeopathy, crystal healing, astral travel, scientology, spirit guides, and new ageism that I'm no longer able to distinguish between a fool playing the part of a rationalist and a rationalist playing the part of a fool. Maybe I am over the hill, after all.

["Mad" Miles]

I'd bet a thousand dollars that Miles or Mallory didn't know it was a satire, and I'm really disappointed to see such intellectual dishonesty.

Clancy,

I'll take your $1,000.00, happy to have it! Now just what would constitute proof of humor awareness in your book? So far as I know there is no video surveillance tape of me as I read it. So there is no catching me in the act of laughing as I read it. Doesn't my reply of "gratitude" to Mallory serve as circumstantial evidence?

As for intellectual dishonesty, well, tell me, what is Truth? If you can successfully answer that one you'll have bested generations of philosophers, the current one still struggling with that basic, and surprisingly complex (as evidenced by much stumbling about without any defined terms and other forms of inchoate and confused discussion on this board, particularly recently, but pretty much off and on all the time) question.

Willie,

Don't be so hard on yourself, there are plenty of others on this board willing to do it for you! And if it is any consolation, I too have found myself in a similar situation.

Sometimes my credulousness vies with my gullibility to keep me from seeing the joke. Wylie of Stiff Dead Cat had me ordering the "Dicken's Cider" from the special bottle kept behind the bar and never advertised at Ace In The Hole a couple of summers ago. It took me an embarrassing length of time to figure that one out and realize who was the butt of that prank!

The "Luz-R" study bears rereading, because it is such a brilliant combination of subtle combined with blatant absurdity, satire and actually pretty good natured humor. It doesn't just send up Neandertal Male thinking, it also rips on the dry humorless sincerity of pseudoscience masked as science, and science itself. That's why it's so funny!

Thanks again Mallory!

"Mad" Miles

["Mad" Miles]

Clancy,

Dude, If you're not aware of the form of humor that involves deepening a joke by appearing to take seriously what is evidently not serious, well then, you're both more humor-impaired than you first appeared and not very funny, or fun!, to boot. Or is that butt?

The form of humor that I just mentioned, happens to be my favorite. Sometimes it gets me in trouble because the receivers really think I'm serious, but I take the risk.

Because either I'm appreciated for my subtle sense of the absurd. Or I'm laughed at by those who are too simple to get my sophisticated joking.

In the latter case I've accomplished two other tasks, spotting the humor-limited and getting to be the fool while laughing inside at the foolishness of those laughing at me.

In other words, my favored form of humor is fool-proof!

BwaaaahhhaaaahhhhaaaaaahhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaA!

Oh wait, maybe it's also your favored form? Hence your reasoned and seemingly sincere recent responses? Willie's? Everyone's? Maybe we're all just too clever, by half!!! (Ya gotta love the Brits.)

"M"M

[Mallory]

Okay, I will fess up to 2 items...

First, I was unable to figure out how to link the entire Luz-R quote like I would have done on my blog and inadvertantly this allowed some to think I wrote any part of the Luz-R (which I didn't and NEVER meant to suggest that I did).

Second, the Luz-R was floating around my f-list on LJ to the guffaws and chuckles of my friends before I posted the link to it here - my hope was to 'leaven' the discussion here a bit... I too thought the humorous quality of it was easy to pinpoint. My tells for this would be the absence of directing the post toward any person as a response to anything and the "enjoy" tag I placed with it.

my bad

Mallory

[Braggi]

Okay, I will fess up to 2 items...
my bad
Mallory

So naughty! Mallory needs a spanking!

-Jeff

[decterlove]

Seriously, doesn't ANYBODY Know any totally hot babes that can keep a straight face through an onslaught of BRAND NEW POLISH JOKES???

geez....I just checked this thread after a week or two of absence and everybody is SOOOOOOOOOOOOO SERIOUS ABOUT THE SUBJECT!

Shows ya just how far we've all actually come in resolving all this gender crap over the last 30 years.

And not once has anybody even mentioned Dr. Warren Farrell.

Oh well, why men are the way they are, and why it is the way it is.....

later folks! Did Lorrie ever get back? The question was SOOOOOOO LOADED from the get go!

[Willie Lumplump]

First, I was unable to figure out how to link the entire Luz-R quote like I would have done on my blog and inadvertantly this allowed some to think I wrote any part of the Luz-R (which I didn't and NEVER meant to suggest that I did).Mallory

What's to figure out? You put quotation marks around the words you're quoting and then put the name of the person you're quoting at the end. That's pretty much the format you're already using in waccobb, isn't it?

[Barry]

What's to figure out? You put quotation marks around the words you're quoting and then put the name of the person you're quoting at the end. That's pretty much the format you're already using in waccobb, isn't it?

Well, no. You put a "[ quote]" before the quote and a "[ /quote]" (note the backslash) at the end (without the space following the "[" ).

I've been fixing your quotes for a while now, Willie! No worries...

I will be doing a video demo of quoting in the next week or three.

[Braggi]

I've been fixing your quotes for a while now, Willie! No worries...

The Ghost in the machine.

-Jeff