Men, Love and Physical Attraction towards Women
27 May 2012, 8:36 am
all_white wrote:
rabbittss wrote:
For the record, I really prefer it if girls leave their hair alone apart from brushing it,
Most men say that, but I think what they really mean is straightened, not brushed. It's just they don't realise that's what they mean, because they don't understand female hair.
I have wavy hair and am no longer willing to waste hours of my time and fry my hair to death by torturing it with straighteners. I once attended a gathering at a neighbour's house and decided to wear my hair down for once, and to make sure it was smooth and detangled I brushed it to death before leaving, only to arrive and be rudely told by my neighbour's husband: "I do think all_white might have bothered to at least brush her hair before she came." Which illustrates my point that when men say "brushed hair" they really mean "straightened hair." When brushed, wavy/curly hair just turns into frizz. But if you don't brush it, it turns into a dreadlock.
I may be wrong of course, but when you say you want a woman who brushes their hair I'm guessing you are probably envisaging flat, shiny, sleek, tidy hair. Wavy or curly hair, when brushed, does NOT look like that. So it would be more accurate to say you want either a woman with naturally straight hair, or a woman with wavy / curly hair who is willing to straighten it to please you and conform to society.
They want you to look pretty and perfect, but they don't want to see any indication that it took any effort.
It's all about being "done, but not too done" in any case, people are a lot pickier and more specific when they're chatting online than with people in real life.
_________________
If your success is defined as being well adjusted to injustice and well adapted to indifference, then we don?t want successful leaders. We want great leaders- who are unbought, unbound, unafraid, and unintimidated to tell the truth.
nick007
Veteran
Joined: 4 May 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,129
Location: was Louisiana but now Vermont in the police state called USA
27 May 2012, 11:11 am
Kurgan wrote:
Sexual attraction needs to be there for a man to fall in love with a woman.
It's the opposite way for me; I become attracted to the woman after I fall for her. Looks are not important to me in a partner. I care about more important things like personality. I think women who dress like that to attract guys are extremely shallow like Kellie Pickler
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5Ri8GY57SI&ob=av2e[/youtube]
_________________
"I don't have an anger problem, I have an idiot problem!"
"Hear all, trust nothing"
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Ru ... cquisition
27 May 2012, 11:28 am
all_white wrote:
rabbittss wrote:
For the record, I really prefer it if girls leave their hair alone apart from brushing it,
Most men say that, but I think what they really mean is straightened, not brushed. It's just they don't realise that's what they mean, because they don't understand female hair.
I have wavy hair and am no longer willing to waste hours of my time and fry my hair to death by torturing it with straighteners. I once attended a gathering at a neighbour's house and decided to wear my hair down for once, and to make sure it was smooth and detangled I brushed it to death before leaving, only to arrive and be rudely told by my neighbour's husband: "I do think all_white might have bothered to at least brush her hair before she came." Which illustrates my point that when men say "brushed hair" they really mean "straightened hair." When brushed, wavy/curly hair just turns into frizz. But if you don't brush it, it turns into a dreadlock.
I may be wrong of course, but when you say you want a woman who brushes their hair I'm guessing you are probably envisaging flat, shiny, sleek, tidy hair. Wavy or curly hair, when brushed, does NOT look like that. So it would be more accurate to say you want either a woman with naturally straight hair, or a woman with wavy / curly hair who is willing to straighten it to please you and conform to society.
no, I don't mean straightened. The BPD girl I kind of fooled around with for a while, has wonderfully wavy hair straight out of the shower, but she spent a huge amount of time straightening it.. and then it just looks meh.
Kjas
Veteran
Joined: 26 Feb 2012
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,059
Location: the place I'm from doesn't exist anymore
27 May 2012, 11:54 am
Kurgan wrote:
ValentineWiggin wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
To get a degree of fitness like a female pop star, jog for two hours a week for six months with a moderately healthy diet (as long as you burn more calories than you consume, there's no need for eg. protein supplements) if you're already within your ideal body fat range.
What planet do you live on?
Earth. I've even met girls who don't workout at all who look like models because they eat healthy.
If you are referring to those girls who are skin and bone with little to no muscle like the current supposed "ideal", then you're probably right but it would still take more cardio than that for most.
If however, you are referring to a girl who actually has a decent amount of muscle like a dancer would, then I can tell you first hand that it isn't too much different from a guys in terms of time spent and effort. The difference is that the workouts would be core, strength or flexibility related.
_________________
Diagnostic Tools and Resources for Women with AS: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt211004.html
27 May 2012, 12:12 pm
Kjas wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
ValentineWiggin wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
To get a degree of fitness like a female pop star, jog for two hours a week for six months with a moderately healthy diet (as long as you burn more calories than you consume, there's no need for eg. protein supplements) if you're already within your ideal body fat range.
What planet do you live on?
Earth. I've even met girls who don't workout at all who look like models because they eat healthy.
If you are referring to those girls who are skin and bone with little to no muscle like the current supposed "ideal", then you're probably right but it would still take more cardio than that for most.
If however, you are referring to a girl who actually has a decent amount of muscle like a dancer would, then I can tell you first hand that it isn't too much different from a guys in terms of time spent and effort. The difference is that the workouts would be core, strength or flexibility related.
Ideal fat range for a woman is 23—32% for women and 15—22% for men.
I'm well aware of the fact that a girl can build a nice body by deadlifts, squats and bench press with far more time to spare than yoga. However, even a female professional athlete typically has no more than 4–5 lbs more worth of muscle than a regular woman. A Playboy bunny or actress has no more muscle than a regular woman, but may benefit from said exercises to keep her muscle mass while cutting down to 20% body fat. This may actually double the speed of her weight loss, without any muscle loss.
27 May 2012, 12:29 pm
Kjas wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
ValentineWiggin wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
To get a degree of fitness like a female pop star, jog for two hours a week for six months with a moderately healthy diet (as long as you burn more calories than you consume, there's no need for eg. protein supplements) if you're already within your ideal body fat range.
What planet do you live on?
Earth. I've even met girls who don't workout at all who look like models because they eat healthy.
If you are referring to those girls who are skin and bone with little to no muscle like the current supposed "ideal", then you're probably right but it would still take more cardio than that for most.
If however, you are referring to a girl who actually has a decent amount of muscle like a dancer would, then I can tell you first hand that it isn't too much different from a guys in terms of time spent and effort. The difference is that the workouts would be core, strength or flexibility related.
Which are the same workouts men should be doing, except instead most men spend hours upon hours benchpressing and curling, instead of doing Olympic lifts and powerlifting. But here, some sexy female Olympic lifters that do "manly" exercise.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ng1rkNXyh0g[/youtube]
Lydia Valentin
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKcpoV3REXY[/youtube]
They look quite feminine. I think Lydia is so hot, btw. I love how female Olympic lifters end up with huge thighs, too. ANYWAY...
Yeah, point is, women shouldn't do just magical "core flexibility" exercises, as lifting heavy stuff over your head requires a damned high amount of core flexibility anyway. I have heard of even female figure skaters doing Olympic lifts/squats/etc. I've not met too many personally, but as a guy who figure skates, I do them, and I know one other male figure skater who does. But yes, I feel women much of the time sorta spin their wheels and waste their time with "core flexibility" stuff. It's not entirely useless, but it'd be much more beneficial for people who don't have like...severe handicaps, to just squat and deadlift over doing a billion weird ab twisting exercises.
ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw
27 May 2012, 1:08 pm
Kurgan wrote:
ValentineWiggin wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
Sexual attraction needs to be there for a man to fall in love with a woman. Clothes that are attractive are clothes that highlight your best features.
Sexual attraction needn't be primary-
it can occur after romantic feelings have developed.
That's likely MORE often how sexual relationships begin:
we very often become attractive physically to those attracted to us mentally/emotionally.
Sexual attraction is the primary difference between friendship and relationships.
Not for all people,
and what I said has nothing to do with what you said.
I said sexual attraction needn't PRECEDE romantic feelings.
Sometimes it follows a romantic feelings > sexual attraction path.
_________________
"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."
ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw
27 May 2012, 1:12 pm
Kurgan wrote:
Earth. I've even met girls who don't workout at all who look like models because they eat healthy.
And you're under the impression their physiology is representative of the entire female sex because...?
_________________
"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."
27 May 2012, 1:28 pm
I am a very visual person, not just sexually but generally being interested in visually complex and/or 3D things. I will definitely say that finding a woman's body (including her face) beautiful goes a long way to creating attraction, in addition to her personality, the way her mind works, etc.
However, high heels do nothing for me, and almost no clothing can either make a beautiful woman ugly, or a not so beautiful woman pretty. For me it's all about the bone structure, where the curves are, etc. It seems a lot of the time nowadays, people seem to care more about attributes that are culturally associated with beauty than beauty itself, possibly because of the style of entertainment people are exposed to growing up.
27 May 2012, 1:37 pm
ValentineWiggin wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
Earth. I've even met girls who don't workout at all who look like models because they eat healthy.
And you're under the impression their physiology is representative of the entire female sex because...?
Because thermodynamics are termodynamics. The very definition of a Kcal is the enegy needed to heat one kilogram of water by one degree celcius.
27 May 2012, 1:39 pm
Kurgan wrote:
ValentineWiggin wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
Earth. I've even met girls who don't workout at all who look like models because they eat healthy.
And you're under the impression their physiology is representative of the entire female sex because...?
Because thermodynamics are termodynamics. The very definition of a Kcal is the enegy needed to heat one kilogram of water by one degree celcius.
Yeah, let's just ignore metabolic differences. Inconvenient fact, toss it.
27 May 2012, 1:46 pm
edgewaters wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
ValentineWiggin wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
Earth. I've even met girls who don't workout at all who look like models because they eat healthy.
And you're under the impression their physiology is representative of the entire female sex because...?
Because thermodynamics are termodynamics. The very definition of a Kcal is the enegy needed to heat one kilogram of water by one degree celcius.
Yeah, let's just ignore metabolic differences. Inconvenient fact, toss it.
Again: Thermodynamics are the same for everyone, just like gravity and Newton's laws are the same for everyone. The differences in genetical composition are how much water you hold, your hormone levels and stuff like that. Nobody's doomed to obesity; it's a choice. If somebody burns 200 calories less than an average person does every day, it's his or her reaponsibility to lower their diet by 200 calories less than the average person.
ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw
27 May 2012, 1:53 pm
Kurgan wrote:
Again: Thermodynamics are the same for everyone, just like gravity and Newton's laws are the same for everyone. The differences in genetical composition are how much water you hold, your hormone levels and stuff like that. Nobody's doomed to obesity; it's a choice. If somebody burns 200 calories less than an average person does every day, it's his or her reaponsibility to lower their diet by 200 calories less than the average person.
So, I consume around 300 calories a day and walk 7.6 miles at a 15% incline in order to not be obese
(I was doing more exercise on fewer calories when I was obese, until I took a weight loss medication for months that altered my metabolism).
Are you declaring that that's what all people should do if that's what it takes?
No one's saying thermodynamics are individual.
The "stuff like that" which you brush off are WHAT DETERMINES people's metabolic rate.
Most people eat an amount I'd rapidly become morbidly obese consuming,
and I eat what would cause them to become emaciated and die.
How does that fit into your narrow-minded worldview?
"Lowering your diet by 200 calories" is all well and good, until you face serious nutritional deficiencies in order to not be a certain size.
How is that healthful?
Maybe it's true that "no one's doomed to obesity" (categorical declarations are laughable, but whatever)
but are you saying people should starve and exercise hours and hours per day if that's what it takes?
I'm interested in how far you think people should go to not be a certain size.
_________________
"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."
Last edited by ValentineWiggin on 27 May 2012, 1:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
27 May 2012, 1:56 pm
Kurgan wrote:
Again: Thermodynamics are the same for everyone, just like gravity and Newton's laws are the same for everyone.
Yes but metabolism is not. It's like saying a dollar is a dollar for everyone and therefore everyone is equally wealthy - ignoring the fact that incomes vary. It's not rational.
Quote:
If somebody burns 200 calories less than an average person does every day, it's his or her reaponsibility to lower their diet by 200 calories less than the average person.
Again, metabolic differences impact how many calories are burned in a day. Your original statement - "met girls who don't workout at all who look like models because they eat healthy" - fails to account for metabolic differences, and you compound the error when someone asks if you think this is representative of all females by saying that you do. Sorry but the science couldn't disagree with you more here.
27 May 2012, 2:01 pm
ValentineWiggin wrote:
[
So, I consume around 300 calories a day and walk 7.6 miles at a 15% incline in order to not be obese.
So, I consume around 300 calories a day and walk 7.6 miles at a 15% incline in order to not be obese.
Then you're doing it wrong. You're more likely to burn muscle mass than fat at that rate. this is called "f-ckarounditis" by many athletes today.
http://www.livestrong.com/article/53867 ... mperature/
Quote:
Are you declaring that that's what all people should do if that's what it takes?
Either that or fat people should at least admit that they're not active enough or eat to much to have a normal weight. Whether you want to be fat or not, it's your choice.
Quote:
"Lowering your diet by 200 calories" is all well and good, until you face serious nutritional deficiencies in order to not be a certain size.
How is that healthful?
How is that healthful?
Read my posts again. If you burn 200 calories less than a regular person a day, then 200 calories less is what you actually need.
27 May 2012, 2:04 pm
ValentineWiggin wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
Again: Thermodynamics are the same for everyone, just like gravity and Newton's laws are the same for everyone. The differences in genetical composition are how much water you hold, your hormone levels and stuff like that. Nobody's doomed to obesity; it's a choice. If somebody burns 200 calories less than an average person does every day, it's his or her reaponsibility to lower their diet by 200 calories less than the average person.
So, I consume around 300 calories a day and walk 7.6 miles at a 15% incline in order to not be obese.
Are you declaring that that's what all people should do if that's what it takes?
No one's saying thermodynamics are individual.
The "stuff like that" which you brush off are WHAT DETERMINES people's metabolic rate.
Most people eat an amount I'd rapidly become morbidly obese consuming,
and I eat what would cause them to become emaciated and die.
How does that fit into your narrow-minded worldview?
"Lowering your diet by 200 calories" is all well and good, until you face serious nutritional deficiencies in order to not be a certain size.
How is that healthful?
Maybe it's true that "no one's doomed to obesity" (categorical declarations are laughable, but whatever)
but are you saying people should starve and exercise hours and hours per day if that's what it takes?
I'm interested in how far you think people should go to not be a certain size.
Yep, someone's gonna get some serious nutritional deficiencies by eating 200 calories less. You can't like, eat something more nutritious while eating less calories afterall. You realize for most people this cutting 200 calories would consist of like...not drinking a bottle of soda?
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Undesired physical contact |
28 Feb 2024, 9:48 pm |
| Random Women |
22 Apr 2024, 12:11 pm |
| Reasons women do not date us! |
15 Apr 2024, 4:05 pm |
| International Women's Day 2024 |
09 Mar 2024, 3:32 pm |
