MichelleRM78 wrote:
Darkword wrote:
HopeGrows
Darkword wrote:
You know I think its a bit silly that women are considered less shallow because they are attracted (on the primal level) to three things(Money,status/power, and looks) as opposed to one (again, primal level). When women are attracted to the first two more or less out of selfishness (or love of potential offspring, if you want to get evolutionary about it, which is a really a form of vanity). Not that it matters or anything.
@Darkword, I'm going to take you to task for stereotyping. I guess I missed the chapter in the "How to be a Woman" handbook that says women are supposed to be attracted to men based on money, power, and looks. The most important attributes I look for in a man are intelligence, sense of humor, and character (as in being a nice, honest, decent guy). I've fallen for all different physical types of men, men who do lots of different kinds of work. I don't think I've ever fallen for someone who would be described as "powerful" in the conventional sense of the word (but that word conjures up images of rainmakers and guys in dimly lit back rooms making some kind of big deals). My definition of a man who is truly powerful is someone who is unafraid to face their own problems, and to ask himself what he can do to be a better partner. A man who has that kind of power would have me at "hello."
Yea, I missed this one too. I have fallen for men that make more money than me and men that have made less. Looks-- pretty average. It's all about sense of humor and intelligence for me. As for status/power-- I actually find that quite UN-attractive. I go for the down-to-earth guys that don't spend their time looking for their next conquest.
To be clear, I don't believe that modern women or men think at least directly like that. (note emphasis on primal) Time and culture alters individuals. At some point, when I have time, I'll link some articles that support the point I was trying to make into this post. In the mean time here's some info from a documentary I watched about the nature of human relationships. (if I can remember the name of it I'll link that as well, it was on the discovery channel)
An arousal test (measured via saliva excretion) that proved women are more or less attracted to expensive cars was the first exp. There was additionally a 1-10 attractiveness test conducted on a man's photo with a large amount of random women. The first group was shown a picture which listed his income at 35,000 and he was usually rated a 5-6. Whereas when his picture was listed with an income of 100,000+ he was regularly rated 8-10 by another group.
The differences between male and female flirtation and perception of such further support this, but I feel silly going into the details here, therefore I won't. More or less its the reason men tend to believe women are responding to them more positively then they actually are because the women have more things they need to infer. (Profession G means X, E clothes indicate Y, tone and confidence indicate W or T or C, is said person genuine ETC.)
Its the same as people who say looks don't factor in, when the reality is they just don't factor it in consciously. There is almost always a sort of bar set.
On a side note upon closely reading your post, I gotta clarify I didn't mean like political status. I meant social status, a byproduct of personality. I did factor in personality.
I seriously doubt we're going to see eye to eye on this.
_________________
I am autism.
16 Apr 2010, 10:30 am
