Generalisation. Generalisation. Gross generalisation. And since "taste" is an individual assessment that would also be a generalisation. Sincerity: once you can fake that you've got it made. So it's simply about "getting sex"? It would seem not.
If a woman actually tried to draw such conclusions based on whether guys own dogs vs. cats, then she's a nut who is basically trying to read tea leaves.
Since he opened by saying that this is what women tend to do, it seemed pretty clear that he was aware that he was generalizing.
Lol. "Tend" means that it's a likely characteristic, but not a certainty. If 60% of people prefer blue hats, it is accurate to say "people tend to prefer blue hats". It should be understand by anyone who knows English that "people tend to prefer blue hats" does not mean all people prefer blue hats.
Yes, it is. Some women actually like posers. Some women go for workaholics because they like having a lot of stuff and not having to deal with their men. There are even women who date unemployed, uneducated losers. If you are going to make a determination as to the direction in which male behavior is going to be biased over the next century, though, generalizations are necessary. Yes, and it is the individual assessment of billions of women worldwide that a trip to the local Burger King does not indicate that their date has a cultured, developed sense of taste. You lose. This is why there are complete assholes in the world: there are women in the world who are lacking in perception. If you don't know how to pick your men, you will probably get this impression. If you are a heterosexual woman or a gay man (like myself), that is on your head. There are a lot of phony bastards out there, and they see you as nothing but a conquest. When they are through using and exploiting you, they will throw you away like a used hankie because they are complete shitheads.
Posers? Where did they come into my replies? I know women who are rabidly right-wing, women who despise children and animals, women who hate dogs and adore cats... And forget about what the individual wants? Clever. I have news for you: treat ANY woman (or human) as a "generalised person" and you're on a loser before you open your mouth. Ah I see you have no actual idea as to what I was talking about. You conflate Not Burger King = good taste. What about wines? Clothing? Choice of art? Choice of reading... Burger King (or not) has fuck all to do with taste. And males who lack brains. It's a fair swap. My mistake, you seemed to be implying that getting more sex was the "goal"... OTOH I know plenty of women who also take that view. Comme ci comme ça.
I know what tend means. The problem is that if you go by generalisations and "tendencies" you lose sight of the individual. Forget about "tendencies" and find out about the individual. People are not tendencies or generalisations.
Oh poor thing. It's not my fault you were conceived without that genital ridge that becomes the male sex organs, though. Don't take it out on me. Why don't you come and get me, penis-less? Want me to tell you where I live? *exposes canine teeth and snarls*
Yes, and I know more men who prefer dicks over tits than vice versa. If we are speaking in generalities, though, it is perfectly acceptable to make the statement, "men are attracted to beautiful women." The statement is true simply because it is tacitly accepted that this statement is a generalization. And I have some news for you: if you expect a man to have tastes and interests that are identical to yours, you will be dating second-rate bums and manipulative assholes until the day you die, and you will die believing that there is something inherently wrong with men. Odds are high that, if you are really that self-centered and narcissistic, you will never accept the reality that you were getting nothing but exactly what you deserved. Odds are high that you arrogantly stuck your nose up at every decent, caring male who crossed your path. That would be your own fault, not the fault of 50% of the human population. I have run into one woman right after the other who has been left bitter and hateful toward men because they made a series of very stupid choices in regard to the opposite sex. They take absolutely no responsibility for their own misery, and I consider them to be losers. Almost invariably, they adamently consider themselves to be intellectually superior to the entire human race. Idiots.
See my earlier comments on the "utility" of generalisations. I have no interest in a man's tastes or interests usually... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I guess you're assuming something here, although I'm not entirely sure what. Yeah blah blah. But for your information (although it would seem you prefer generalisation and assumption over actual facts) I am intellectually superior to most of the human race. But that's a bye-the-bye. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
So I assumed correctly that you were simply an unpleasant, arrogant person. This discussion was not one of particulars, and you were aware of this when you made your first response to me. In addressing me, you did not have beneficial or kindly intentions. In short, you are a cunt.
Nah, you've assumed something about my orientation and/ or gender. And there's nothing "simply" about me. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I was pointing out that the phrase "Take my advice, guys. I know what I'm talking about." coupled with NOTHING BUT generalisations was in and of itself short-sighted arrogance. In addressing YOUR POINTS I was showing that you either didn't know or (more probably) didn't actually care that you're incorrect. In short, you're a fuck wit. As you yourself stated:"it is perfectly acceptable to make the statement, "men are attracted to beautiful women."" So it's okay for me to say "it's okay if you're a beautiful woman 'cos generally ANY guy will go for you"? Balls. People should be taken on an individual person-by-person basis and fuck generalisations, most especially if you're intending to get anywhere (sexually or otherwise) with them.
You can't select for everything. You've got to pick what is most important and select for that: In men, by contrast, good looks appear to count for little, with handsome men being no more successful than others in terms of numbers of children. This means there has been little pressure for men’s appearance to evolve. “For women, looks are much less important in a man than his ability to look after her when she is pregnant and nursing, periods when women are vulnerable to predators. Historically this has meant rich men tend to have more wives and many children. So the pressure is on men to be successful.” If men were selected for attractiveness, would so many of us go bald yet have hairs growing our of our ears and noses? Men are selected for their success. As the saying goes: A man is what he does, a woman is how she looks... Now we have empirical proof.
Women do not need providers to survive, but the societal paradigm is that women have a choice to elect to either work or not-work and focus on child raising (and, traditionally, domestic matters). If the man you are with is an inadequate provider, it limits the freedom of this choice. I know many smart and powerful woman who, after child birth, did not want to return to their 9 a.m. - ???? lives as bankers (or lawyers). They preferred to focus on their children. If your man buses tables for a living in between his daydreams of winning the lottery, that's much less likely to seem like a fulfilling option.
