What type of girl do you not want?

Page 18 of 20 [ 317 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

meems
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 1 Dec 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,869

06 Sep 2012, 5:14 pm

Whoa wait... the pope isn't a lesbian?

meems
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 1 Dec 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,869

06 Sep 2012, 5:21 pm

Oh but hyperlexian, how will I build a time machine without the magic of psuedoscience?!

puddingmouse
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Apr 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,777
Location: Cottonopolis

06 Sep 2012, 5:45 pm

meems wrote:

I don't think I could date a woman who is anti-abortion. Something about that really bothers me moreso than straight women or any men who are anti-abortion.

I wouldn't date anyone who was anti-abortion.

_________________
Zombies, zombies will tear us apart...again.

TM
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

06 Sep 2012, 6:00 pm

hyperlexian wrote:

TM wrote:

hyperlexian wrote:

true. i think the ultimate evolutionary reasons are not known, but women are driving the height disparity bus for some reason. men are willing to be much more open to a wide variety of women in this way. i wonder if women are actually pickier in other ways in dating? i think it's a question worth asking.

It's a question that has been answered about a million times in the last 30 years. Women are more selective in their partners because the only highly successful reproductive strategy they have had available to them throughout history has been to get a man to stick around to help them raise the kids.

A man on the other hand, has 2 valid strategies available;
1. Stick with the women and play out her reproductive strategy, thus going for a few higher quality offspring.
2. Sire as many children as possible with as many women as possible thus creating a large number of lower quality offspring.

So, women have to be more selective, not only because they in ancient times would have a much higher opportunity cost, 9 months of pregnancy, 3 - 4 years of lactating (thus being unlikely to be fertile) then an additional 5 - 6 years minimum of raising the child. Whereas the opportunity cost for the male is 100 million to 200 million of constantly replenishing sperm.

There was an experiment done, where an attractive female co-ed would walk up to men and ask one out of 3 questions:
1. Would you like to go out on a date with me.
2. Would you like to go back to my place.
3. Would you like to come back to my place and have sex with me.

75% of males answered yes to the 3rd question.
When the experiment was repeated with an attractive male student, asking the same question, 0% of women answered yes to the 3rd question.

For women, their strategy is to have their offspring produced with as high of a quality partner as possible. For a man, they can also go for having their offspring produced with as high a quality partner as possible, but they can also adopt the strategy of producing more offspring with more partners.

As I've recommended to you before, Matt Ridley's "The Red Queen: Sex and the evolution of human nature" is a good starting point for reading up on this, as it is a book which while drawing largely on scholarly sources is not overly technical, nor does it assume knowledge of the topic by the reader. After you've read that, Pinker wrote a book called "How the mind works" which deals with some of the same subject material among other things. Further reading includes the works of A.F Dixon (published by Oxford Biology), add Richard Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" and you should start to get a clearer picture of human mating from both a evolutionary psychology and evolutionary biology.

Once you've read the recommended literature, I'll be happy to recommend some books on the topic of seduction, body language and human communication in order to help you see how the concepts in the scholarly literature translate into human behavior.

For once, don't argue with me, just read the material. This is the one topic which has consumed more of my time than just about any other subject.

Actually I did, but like many other similar projects, it tends to miss the goal. It gets so "stuck" in a certain thought pattern that it doesn't see the forest for the trees. You are free to say or think whatever you want about evolutionary psych, and evolutionary biology, but you are no different than a religious person who rejects the mountain of evidence against the religion upon which their self-image is built. Should I even bother to point out the irony of you telling me to read a book on evolutionary psychology, then going on to tell me ev.psych except the books you like are drivel?

Something as simple as:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 120346.htm refutes Fine's entire 240 page drivelology which makes "50 shades of grey" look high brow.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 221050.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 135107.htm

Fine wrote a decent book, its colored by her cognitive bias and political agenda, and largely ignores neurobiology and biology as a whole, but it makes for a great read to support your world view I'm sure.

Quote:

the study you quoted has been debunked for many reasons, one of them being the fact that it was only performed with college students, and safety was not assured for the individuals studied. when safety concerns are removed (i.e. friends are approaching and not strangers), humans tend to behave differently. since most sexual partners are individuals that a person is previously familiar with, the study only shows that college females are more careful when approached by strangers than college males. nothing more and nothing less. it demonstrates absolutely nothing about pickiness.

I'm guessing that your studies didn't take a swing into logic and the concept of changing premises of a study or an argument. It doesn't show anything about pickiness? It showed that men are willing to go have sex with a person they do not know, regardless of risk, whereas women are not. The difference in risk taking behavior doesn't strike you as "pickiness"?

Quote:

one study that used speed dating showed that when roles are reversed and women are hopping from table to table and men are sitting still and making selections, men become just as picky as women supposedly are. so it's not too accurate to attribute pickiness to anything other than our current social dating constructs.

"I think I should point out that it wasn't a complete reversal of the usual gender behavior: female rotators were only moderately less selective than male sitters, while male rotators were significantly less selective than female sitters. Sitters of both genders were equally selective."

Did you actually read the study?

Quote:

but ultimately, if you actually support ev-psych and its silly conclusions and are approaching this discussion from that corner, there isn't any point in having this discussion. there is a chasm between the science and social science that i study and the pseudoscientific conclusions of ev-psych.

I could say the same thing about almost every source you have ever quoted on the topic of gender being from a confirmed feminist. I could point out that quoting sources to you, is pointless because you disregard anything that conflicts with your innate psychological bias and rigid world view.

http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v11/n ... n2754.html
http://www.jneurosci.org/content/32/7/2241
http://www.google.no/books?hl=en&lr=&id ... edir_esc=y

http://www.amsreview.org/articles/putrevu10-2001.pdf

However, I'm willing to bet money on the fact that you'll judge Mrs Cordelia Fine as more worthy as a source than every single source I've quoted with this post. As I've said and others have said about you, what you do is to cite your sources, then disregard every source that contradicts yours, then declare yourself the winner.

Can we have an ignore function on this board so I don't get tangled into these pointless discussions with you?

My premise is simple, when we observe gender differences in every other part of our body, is it reasonable to argue that they do not exist in the brain? We know men are more likely to be sociopaths, women more likely to be borderline. Autism/Asperger affects 4 times as many men as women.

BlueMax
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Aug 2007
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,285

06 Sep 2012, 6:06 pm

puddingmouse wrote:

meems wrote:

I don't think I could date a woman who is anti-abortion. Something about that really bothers me moreso than straight women or any men who are anti-abortion.

I wouldn't date anyone who was anti-abortion.

And I'll only date someone who IS.

[Edit: had to run with my message unfinished.] I'm all for contraception and birth control... even the "morning after" pill... but too many people think abortion is just another birth control method. I'm sorry - that's just not the case because things get very different very quickly. I won't go into that any further.
Let's just say my opinions were very different ~20+ years ago when I didn't want the responsibility of parenthood. "Get rid of it - I don't want it!" would have been my thoughts. I know more now. But I'd better stop... this has gone too far off-topic already.

I think the girls have come in here to break up the guy party... we WERE having a good discussion about female traits we don't like. I think some people want to put a stop to that in order to protect self-interests.

Last edited by BlueMax on 06 Sep 2012, 9:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.

puddingmouse
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Apr 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,777
Location: Cottonopolis

06 Sep 2012, 6:14 pm

BlueMax wrote:

puddingmouse wrote:

meems wrote:

I don't think I could date a woman who is anti-abortion. Something about that really bothers me moreso than straight women or any men who are anti-abortion.

I wouldn't date anyone who was anti-abortion.

And I'll only date someone who IS. I'm all for contraception and birth control... killing off the ones that accidentally get through

It's more like I don't want to be with someone who thinks that women shouldn't have the ultimate say in what happens to their bodies, rather than being generally pro-abortion.

_________________
Zombies, zombies will tear us apart...again.

Evy7
Sea Gull

Joined: 20 Apr 2012
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 244

06 Sep 2012, 6:22 pm

I'm for aborotion and I think it's good(only when the egg is not developed a brain and all that though), too many young girls having kids they can't take care of, but abortion is a last resort. I think contraceptive and protection is a must if you want to avoid doing that.

XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

06 Sep 2012, 6:48 pm

Quote:

have you read Sex at Dawn or Delusions of Gender? those are the books i would recommend for any person who wants to understand the fallacies behind attributing innate gender differences to aspects of evolution or even aspects of current human behaviour. ev-psych is largely sexist unscientific drivel, and you can gain a better understanding of that from reading these books.

the study you quoted has been debunked for many reasons, one of them being the fact that it was only performed with college students, and safety was not assured for the individuals studied. when safety concerns are removed (i.e. friends are approaching and not strangers), humans tend to behave differently. since most sexual partners are individuals that a person is previously familiar with, the study only shows that college females are more careful when approached by strangers than college males. nothing more and nothing less. it demonstrates absolutely nothing about pickiness.

one study that used speed dating showed that when roles are reversed and women are hopping from table to table and men are sitting still and making selections, men become just as picky as women supposedly are. so it's not too accurate to attribute pickiness to anything other than our current social dating constructs.

but ultimately, if you actually support ev-psych and its silly conclusions and are approaching this discussion from that corner, there isn't any point in having this discussion. there is a chasm between the science and social science that i study and the pseudoscientific conclusions of ev-psych.

"Evolutionary psychology" isn't nearly as much of a problem as the "social scientists" who continuously butcher it.

Any (real) scientist that studies non-human "animal behavior" understands the inherent difficulties in both interpreting and assigning "significance" to any given "behavior" an animal may display. The only "objective" thing to do is record statistics. Once you get into "interpretation," particularly when you're trying to compare it with humans, you're officially on the same level as literature professors, philosophers, and poets. Of course, that's when we get wonks who insist that they're "subjective interpretations" are somehow more valid then other people's "subjective interpretations."

There's no such thing as a widely scientifically accepted explanation for human behaviors, and that includes "mating behavior." Primatologists can't even agree on chimpanzee behavior.

More often than not, "evolutionary psychology" is invoked to support a particular person's socio-political agenda as opposed to evincing an actual understanding of how primates, or any other creature, ACTUALLY behave. Personally, I prefer to read the raw data from researchers who have spent years in the field than second-hand speculation from "evolutionary psychologists."

YMMV.

_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)

meems
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 1 Dec 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,869

06 Sep 2012, 6:50 pm

I don't know if I could ever be with someone who thinks that I shouldn't be left to my own to make decisions about my reproductive organs. Well, maybe if he would get snipped. I'm not losing my life to a pregnancy that can't lead to a child in the first place because it violates someone's moral code.

Honestly though, if a person would rather I die as well as the fetus rather than just the fetus, I don't think that could possibly be someone I could have a healthy relationship with.

I'm literally pro-abortion for myself because I am pro-life in the sense that I don't want to die. I'm very very careful but it's either give up sex with the opposite gender entirely, or deal with living with the small risk of birth control failing.

ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw

06 Sep 2012, 7:02 pm

TM wrote:

There was an experiment done, where an attractive female co-ed would walk up to men and ask one out of 3 questions:
1. Would you like to go out on a date with me.
2. Would you like to go back to my place.
3. Would you like to come back to my place and have sex with me.

75% of males answered yes to the 3rd question.
When the experiment was repeated with an attractive male student, asking the same question, 0% of women answered yes to the 3rd question.

That experiment's been refuted on a number of levels several times-over. The primary reason it's flawed is because it simply doesn't eliminate other variables. It presumes a differing reproductive strategy between the sexes, and in so-doing ignores the fact that in humans and our cousins sex is not only had for reproductive purposes. The primary indictment that I've seen is that men are simply far more likely to get off with a casual sexual encounter than are women. So heterosexual women aren't opposed to sex with attractive strangers because of some fictional parental fitness test which all potential sex partners must pass, they're just not attracted to the unfulfilling nature of casual hookups in our society general for women. We're presuming unconscious, reproduction-based drives are at work, as opposed to conscious opportunity cost assessment on the part of women. This different perception of men being pleasure-takers and women being pleasure-givers was borne out when the experiment was repeated with homosexual women- a statistically-significant majority of them agreed to sex with a near-stranger of their sexual preference, as compared to heterosexual women.

TM wrote:

For women, their strategy is to have their offspring produced with as high of a quality partner as possible. For a man, they can also go for having their offspring produced with as high a quality partner as possible, but they can also adopt the strategy of producing more offspring with more partners.

Actually, cuckoldry- having children via several males to ensure a varied group of offspring, and maintaining enough paternity uncertainty in each mate that he will continue to contribute resources- is the analogue of male "mate guarding" (thought to be the cause of the patriarchy we see in humans today). In other words, both men and women employ quality AND quantity-based strategies.

Of course, none of the current understanding of human evolutionary history involve a helpless woman totally at the mercy of her environment were it not for a big strong male. Were that the case, it's doubtful we'd have survived. The notion of total dependence on a man for protection and resources is an extremely modern idea.

_________________
"Such is the Frailty
of the human Heart, that very few Men, who have no Property, have any Judgment of their own.
They talk and vote as they are directed by Some Man of Property, who has attached their Minds
to his Interest."

IrishTusk
Sea Gull

Joined: 3 Sep 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 239
Location: Leven, Fife

06 Sep 2012, 7:20 pm

A girl with a Beard, Mushtash and Adams apple. Safe to say am never going to Thailand

_________________
Your Aspie score: 56 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 144 of 200
You are very likely neurotypical

XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

06 Sep 2012, 7:21 pm

Quote:

Also worth noting, the entire idea of "fitness" is hardly an objectively measurably quality, especially among humans who have the most complex social organization of any primate species.

Quote:

Interestingly, a group of researchers conducted paternity tests on all of the offspring of a certain chimpanzee group. The results: females are not exclusively "attracted" to the alpha male. :wink:

Females only mate exclusively with "alphas" when the "alphas" physically prevent them from mating with anyone else. In some species, the alpha/beta structure isn't even an issue.

Quote:

Of course, none of the current understanding of human evolutionary history involve a helpless woman totally at the mercy of her environment were it not for a big strong male. Were that the case, it's doubtful we'd have survived. The notion of total dependence on a man for protection and resources is an extremely modern idea.

Yeah, I don't know of too many other female primates who are "completely helpless" sans males.

ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw

06 Sep 2012, 8:15 pm

IrishTusk wrote:

A girl with a Beard, Mushtash and Adams apple. Safe to say am never going to Thailand

AspieOtaku
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,051
Location: San Jose

06 Sep 2012, 8:22 pm

A girl who doesnt like the things I like is arrogent, abusive manipulative and controlling. A girl who isnt intelligent or who is intelligent but arrogent and ignorant. A girl who hates all men and blames all her problems on me.A girl who belittles me and cheats on me and tells me I am worthless and a pushover. A girl who is an overly possesive icequeen is prejudice and has no desire for affection.That is the kind of girl I do NOT want.

_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList

TrainofLove
Velociraptor

Joined: 31 Jul 2012
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 416
Location: New Zealand

09 Sep 2012, 2:30 am

Zur-Darkstar wrote:

Material Girl--All about big house, fancy shoes, fancy car, jewelry, etc.

Superwoman--six figure career, 2 kids, hour at the gym each day, still finds time to coach softball and chair the PTA, too much energy for me.

Welfare mom--obviously

Bible-Thumper--Has to talk about God every other sentence for fear that she'll be damned to hell; you all know the people I'm talking about.

Runway Model--Obsessed with appearance and body image, spends a ridiculous amount of time working out and eats nothing but rice cakes and fitness water

Captain Planet--Believes everything written about global warming, sees mankind as a scourge of the earth, criticizes you when you throw anything recyclable away, wants to blow up dams to save endangered worms, etc.

I agree with everything except the first one.

Also, they are not allowed to be fat, slightly overweight, or ugly.

ALguy1957
Raven
Raven

Joined: 6 Sep 2012
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 105
Location: Alabama USA

10 Sep 2012, 4:07 am

As far as what I DON'T want - I don't have too many demands, but here is mine:
Other than the obvious things like lying & cheating, bad temper, etc.

1. No SMOKERS (or alcoholics and drug abusers) that is my #1 turn-off

2. I don't want kids, so I avoid those raising pre-school or school-age kids or grandkids. But I don't mind someone with an adult kid or two still at home (or almost adult). I did take a chance on a woman with a 13 yr old rather mature son, and it was OK, but she had a temper too.

3. I shy away from those that are into expensive jewelry, fancy clothing, lots of makeup, strong perfumes, lipstick, etc, The "shop-aholic" types or those obsessed with going out to show herself off.

4. The old-fashioned types that expect the man to pay for everything and make all the money
and shower them with gifts, dining out, etc. (Like they are still living in the 1940s or 50s) And don't want intimacy until married or with a guy a long time.

5. Overly religious types. Anyone expecting me to share it with them or be passionate about it.
I am non-religious myself. If anyone has a problem with that, then it's a no-go.

And that's about it. Not too much to ask for I hope. But I noticed more aspie women seem to be a better match for me than NTs after finding some of them on DH and viewing their profiles.

Page 18 of 20 [ 317 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 Next

Jump to:

What type of girl do you not want? Post Reply New Topic

What type of girl do you not want?