NationStates Jolt Archive

This came up in another thread and I wanted to see what people on here have to say about it.

It's been my experience over the years that many, if not most women go "on point" when they see a man who wears what appears to be expensive clothes. The man may or may not be relatively well to-do. What seems to matter is that he has the appearance of being so. It would be pretty easy to get very cynical about this.

Does this mean that most women are interested primarily in wealth and material possessions? Or is this just an abberation? Inquiring minds want to know! :D

People are. Women are people.

This came up in another thread and I wanted to see what people on here have to say about it.

It's been my experience over the years that many, if not most women go "on point" when they see a man who wears what appears to be expensive clothes. The man may or may not be relatively well to-do. What seems to matter is that he has the appearance of being so. It would be pretty easy to get very cynical about this.

Does this mean that most women are interested primarily in wealth and material possessions? Or is this just an abberation? Inquiring minds want to know! :DI've never noticed that trend, and I've been a female for nearly a quarter of a century. I have, however, heard this myth of female fixation on wealth from pretty much everywhere. It's one of those things people tell me about women that doesn't seem to actually be true of most real women. For example, I hear that women are obsessed with shoes, but I've only ever met one woman who was obsessed with shoes. I hear that women are obsessed with what car a guy drives, but I've never met a single woman who actually cared that much about a guy's car. Mostly they just care if it goes, and if it's got a seatbelt for them (and sometimes, not even that much).

I think your experience basically just tells you about yourself: you aparently surround yourself with women who are fixated on male wealth. Whether you do so consciously, unconsciously, intentionally, or unintentionally is up to you to decide.

EDIT TO SPECIFY: That is to say, I've never noticed a particular trend unique to women in this regard. Obviously people in general are attracted to wealth and shiney things, but I don't see any special tendency in this that women possess more than any other demographic.

Women are people.
Wow! Reeeely???? :eek:

People are. Women are people.
I think that's about as solid an answer to this question as anyone will come up with.

People are. Women are people.
Yeah, that option's missing from the poll. They're no more obsessive than anybody else.

I've never noticed that trend, and I've been a female for nearly a quarter of a century. I think your experience basically just tells you about yourself: you aparently surround yourself with women who are fixated on male wealth. Whether you do so consciously, unconsciously, intentionally, or unintentionally is up to you to decide.
Not so! Had that been the case, I would never have been able to marry! :D

:rolleyes: Why are some people so fixated on gross generalisations of men and women?

I think that's about as solid an answer to this question as anyone will come up with.
Perhaps so, but I was expecting just a bit more discussion! :p

:rolleyes: Why are some people so fixated on gross generalisations of men and women?
Because some people cannot let go of the playground fixation on boy-versus-girls. If they admit the possibility that women are individual human beings with individual motivations, then they might have to actually SPEAK with women rather than simply informing women about the stereotypes that Womankind must conform to.

:rolleyes: Why are some people so fixated on gross generalisations of men and women?
[ looks frantically all around ] WHERE? WHO?

Because some people cannot let go of the playground fixation on boy-versus-girls. If they admit the possibility that women are individual human beings with individual motivations, then they might have to actually SPEAK with women rather than simply informing women about the stereotypes that Womankind must conform to.
I surely hope you're not including me in this! Tsk!

[ looks frantically all around ] WHERE? WHO?
Asking "why are women so fixated on the trappings of wealth?" assumes that women are fixated on the trappings of wealth.

:rolleyes: Why are some people so fixated on gross generalisations of men and women?

You would say that you male chauvinist pig.

You would say that you male chauvinist pig.
I'm female. Come on, you could at least get the right stereotype. :p

I think the issue might be a conflation of 'appearance of wealth' and a more asthetic appeal. Is it wealth or simply grooming? One giving a rats ass about ones presentation? Thus indicating that they actually care about themselves and by extension those they associate with.

It is a societal tick that we associate that with wealth, but the impulse is that someone with such trappings that we would tag as the appearance of wealth might just be one who takes care of thier things.

I'm willing to wager that as loaded as a person is, if he (just for the sake of discussion) hadn't shaved in three months, wore ragged clothes, and drove a car that you had to get out the passenger side the amount of 'trim' (to be crass) wouldn't increase that much.

But if someone is poor but takes their time to look nice-that's a person who cares about himself and might actually care about someone close to him-like a girlfriend/wife.

So it's not wealth that they are responding to-that is a leap being made by the third party observer, perhaps out of sour grapes. It is the degree to which one appears to attend.

For example, I hear that women are obsessed with shoes, but I've only ever met one woman who was obsessed with shoes.

I think the thing of it is, that women are generally more interested in shoes than men. Therefore men get the idea they are obsessed with them.

Anyway, most men only have four or five pairs of shoes, and if left to their own devices would wear workboots/sneakers all the time (metrosexuals notwithstanding). A lot of women have dozens of pairs, and put the majority of them in the rotation. That's where the obsession thing comes from.

(I am speaking in generalities here of course, no doubt there are plenty of men with dozens of pairs of shoes, and women who would just wear workboots/sneakers).

I hear that women are obsessed with what car a guy drives, but I've never met a single woman who actually cared that much about a guy's car. Mostly they just care if it goes, and if it's got a seatbelt for them (and sometimes, not even that much).

That's very true. But now you have let the secret out, you've just sunk the entire car industry.

Perhaps so, but I was expecting just a bit more discussion! :p

You made (yet another) generalisation. What's there to discuss?

Asking "why are women so fixated on the trappings of wealth?" assumes that women are fixated on the trappings of wealth.
But they are! They also are interested in commitment (but never sex), shoes (but only silly ones with uncomfortable heels), the color pink (or maybe something else in a pastel), fairies, unicorns, cuddling, and long walks on the beach after candle-lit dinners.

People are. Women are people.
Yes, but men are fixated on wealth because it attracts women :D

what fass said

getting past the part where not all women are golddiggers looking to milk a man for his money....


certain women go for a man with the trappings of wealth (whether or not they are wealthy) because the man is obviously into the trappings of wealth as much as they are. no sense dating men who dont share your values eh?

certain women with the "trappings of beauty and glamor" are in fact trying to take a shortcut in life and sell themselves for the life they cant be bothered to build on their own. so they go for rich older men.

certain women are already rich and want a man who fits into their lives. these "trappings of wealth" men are either rich themselves or they at least know how to play the part.

most average women are looking for men who share their values, who they can love and who they can build a life with. they dont expect him to start out rich and well dressed.

I'm female. Come on, you could at least get the right stereotype. :p

Damn, I was counting on you being male because most people on the internet are. See? You can't even conform to that stereotype. :p

But they are! They also are interested in commitment (but never sex), shoes (but only silly ones with uncomfortable heels), the color pink (or maybe something else in a pastel), fairies, unicorns, cuddling, and long walks on the beach after candle-lit dinners.
Are we talking about women or giggly preppie freshman girls?

I think the thing of it is, that women are generally more interested in shoes than men. Therefore men get the idea they are obsessed with them.

Anyway, most men only have four or five pairs of shoes, and if left to their own devices would wear workboots/sneakers all the time (metrosexuals notwithstanding). A lot of women have dozens of pairs, and put the majority of them in the rotation. That's where the obsession thing comes from.

(I am speaking in generalities here of course, no doubt there are plenty of men with dozens of pairs of shoes, and women who would just wear workboots/sneakers).

I don't know that this is true, in my experience. I haven't noticed a dramatic difference between the number of shoes owned by females and the number owned by males. In my experience, its far more dependent on hobbies and occupation; people who need to "dress up" more often tend to have more shoes, and this includes people who need to dress more formally for work. People who are athletic or very active will tend to wear out their shoes faster, and thus will spend more time buying shoes. Economic status also matters, since obviously the people who have money will spend more of it than the people who haven't got any to spare.

And then there are the people who just really care about their feet. My father, for example, will spend WEEKS researching a new pair of shoes before he will buy them. He will visit countless stores, try on countless pairs, sometimes returning to try the same pair on several days later. He never owns more than three or four pairs of shoes at the same time, so when a new pair is purchased it is a MASSIVE EVENT.


That's very true. But now you have let the secret out, you've just sunk the entire car industry.
Nah. Whether men know it or not, the vast majority of things that are supposedly about attracting women are actually about homosocial interaction. In other words, they've got nothing to do with impressing chicks, and everything to do with impressing other men and making those men BELIEVE that you can attract lots of chicks. The car industry capitalizes on this marvelously.

You made (yet another) generalisation. What's there to discuss?
Go away.

http://img353.imageshack.us/img353/7814/smileytroutsmack8gs.gif (http://imageshack.us)

IMHO, yes. I'm only speaking from my experience, but it's made your point more than obvious, Eut. Men seek jobs because we like women. Women seek men because they like money.

There's a lot of women out there who couldn't care less, but from what I've seen and heard, there's a whole lot more who do.

I think the thing of it is, that women are generally more interested in shoes than men. Therefore men get the idea they are obsessed with them.
Seriously. Where does this whole shoe idea come from? I don't know a single woman who would place shoes as a higher priority than relationships in their lives. I don't know a single woman who would place shoes as a priority over anything much. I don't know a single woman with a "fixation" on shoes.

Maybe I'm just lucky.

Are we talking about women or giggly preppie freshman girls?
Duh, all females. What, are you implying there is something odd about suggesting that 51% of human beings share identical motivations, hobbies, interests, desires, turn ons, and turn offs?

That's crazy talk.

Damn, I was counting on you being male because most people on the internet are. See? You can't even conform to that stereotype. :p
Well, now you've learnt your lesson, right? ;)

I voted "yes", but only because I'm still bitter being single. :gundge: :p

Well, now you've learnt your lesson, right? ;)

Well, changing my deeply rooted prejudices and stereotypes would take an awful lot of effort; frankly it'd be easier for all concerned if you could pretend to be a man instead.

Seriously. Where does this whole shoe idea come from? I don't know a single woman who would place shoes as a higher priority than relationships in their lives. I don't know a single woman who would place shoes as a priority over anything much. I don't know a single woman with a "fixation" on shoes.

Maybe I'm just lucky.
You must be. I know lots of women that have many, many more shoes than any guy I know. Of course, they also have at least twice as many clothes as most of the men I know. There's no exceptions to the shoes, but there's at least one guy I know who has more clothes than any of the women.
But if we're talking overwhelming majority, I have to say it's an easy "yes, they like fashion things more than men, and have more of them".

Maybe I'm just lucky.

You are. I know several.

Duh, all females. What, are you implying there is something odd about suggesting that 51% of human beings share identical motivations, hobbies, interests, desires, turn ons, and turn offs?

That's crazy talk.
You're right, don't know what I was thinking.

I should go out and wash my motorized personification of my penis and rate the merits of athletes with my friends while I assert that I certainly don't have 'feelings' that don't involve "I feel like putting my dick in that."

You do have to admit it is easier...in theory if not practice...

Joking aside, since you can't even say "All women like men" I've never understood how people can ask why women as a whole like anything. Clearly it's a case by case situation. Do they not notice that they don't like all the same things other dudes do?

This came up in another thread and I wanted to see what people on here have to say about it.

It's been my experience over the years that many, if not most women go "on point" when they see a man who wears what appears to be expensive clothes. The man may or may not be relatively well to-do. What seems to matter is that he has the appearance of being so. It would be pretty easy to get very cynical about this.

Does this mean that most women are interested primarily in wealth and material possessions? Or is this just an abberation? Inquiring minds want to know! :D

I'd say its more the appearance of success. Would make sense from an evolutionary standpoint.

Once upon a time, waering mammoth fur and carrying around a dead animal would have been a sign of success, as survival was everyones main task.
Now we control our surroundings (more or less), so its a bit more of a grey area.

You must be. I know lots of women that have many, many more shoes than any guy I know. Of course, they also have at least twice as many clothes as most of the men I know. There's no exceptions to the shoes, but there's at least one guy I know who has more clothes than any of the women.
But if we're talking overwhelming majority, I have to say it's an easy "yes, they like fashion things more than men, and have more of them".
The thing is, I don't think you can make the assumption your making, which is that women having more clothes/shoes means women are more interested in those things. Most of the women I know would prefer not to be expected to keep up with fashion trends (which necessitates buying more clothes every year), but they get so much flack if they don't that it's just easier to buy a new goddam outfit.

Also, women are expected to play by completely different rules when it comes to clothing. For instance, my boyfriend can own one suit and just wear a different shirt and tie each day, but if I wear the same women's suit twice in a row I have people making snide comments about me. I've even had a boss complain about my "sloppy appearance" because I wore the same suit jacket two days running, despite the fact that the suit was neat, clean, and I even wore it with different slacks. My boyfriend can wear THE SAME SUIT to weddings and other formal celebrations, but if I wear the same dress to two different weddings I have people telling me that it is tacky and disrespectful to "recycle" my formalwear.

Do I personally give a shit about clothing? Hell no. If left to my own devices, I use one pair of shoes, two pairs of pants, and a rotating collection of bland t-shirts. Most women I know feel pretty much the same way, in that much of their closet space is taken up with clothing that was purchased only to accomodate other people's expectations.

Well, now you've learnt your lesson, right?Well, changing my deeply rooted prejudices and stereotypes would take an awful lot of effort; frankly it'd be easier for all concerned if you could pretend to be a man instead.
I concure. Taking the thread prompt into account we're obviously troubled by complexity. You're really just unnecisarily muddying the issue. Quit being selfish. ;)

Joking aside, since you can't even say "All women like men" I've never understood how people can ask why women as a whole like anything. Clearly it's a case by case situation. Do they not notice that they don't like all the same things other dudes do?
It seems pointless to me, too.

"Women" don't all share any particular like or dislike. If some women are fond of something that you personally find obnoxious, then don't hang out with or hit on those women. I assure you, there will be plenty of women who do not share that annoying interest.

Well, changing my deeply rooted prejudices and stereotypes would take an awful lot of effort; frankly it'd be easier for all concerned if you could pretend to be a man instead.
Easy? But then I'm going to have to go from wanting a longterm relationship to wanting one night stands, from being passive and demure to obnoxious and aggressive, from obsessing over fashion to obsessing over sports, from being computer illiterate to being a technology geek, from having crushes on boybands to headbanging along to metal bands, from constantly having headaches to having my life revolve around porn... Fitting all the requirements to be a "real man" sounds like a nearly impossible task...

You're right, don't know what I was thinking.

I should go out and wash my motorized personification of my penis and rate the merits of athletes with my friends while I assert that I certainly don't have 'feelings' that don't involve "I feel like putting my dick in that."

Yes, and do be sure to spit, scratch your crotch, belch and fart loudly, and remark loudly about the various foibles of "the fairer sex."

IMHO, yes. I'm only speaking from my experience, but it's made your point more than obvious, Eut. Men seek jobs because we like women. Women seek men because they like money.

There's a lot of women out there who couldn't care less, but from what I've seen and heard, there's a whole lot more who do.
Quite. There is a tendency for females to prefer males who can provide for them and their offspring, and/or who likely to bring successful genes to their offspring, and that means males who are successful. This applies to all species, is largely unconscious, and is an inevitable consequence of evolution. It doesn't necessarily manifest itself in an attraction to ostentatious wealth, but it often does.

Easy? But then I'm going to have to go from wanting a longterm relationship to wanting one night stands, from being passive and demure to obnoxious and aggressive, from obsessing over fashion to obsessing over sports, from being computer illiterate to being a technology geek, from having crushes on boybands to headbanging along to metal bands, from constantly having headaches to having my life revolve around porn... Fitting all the requirements to be a "real man" sounds like a nearly impossible task...

And what's wrong with that?

I don't know that this is true, in my experience. I haven't noticed a dramatic difference between the number of shoes owned by females and the number owned by males. In my experience, its far more dependent on hobbies and occupation; people who need to "dress up" more often tend to have more shoes, and this includes people who need to dress more formally for work. People who are athletic or very active will tend to wear out their shoes faster, and thus will spend more time buying shoes. Economic status also matters, since obviously the people who have money will spend more of it than the people who haven't got any to spare.

And then there are the people who just really care about their feet. My father, for example, will spend WEEKS researching a new pair of shoes before he will buy them. He will visit countless stores, try on countless pairs, sometimes returning to try the same pair on several days later. He never owns more than three or four pairs of shoes at the same time, so when a new pair is purchased it is a MASSIVE EVENT.

I am just going by my own experience, which indicates - corrected for the above factors you mentioned like carreers and hobbies - that women tend to own many more pairs of shoes. Sometimes dozens of pairs. I can attest to this from past and current relationships.

Also, there is the whole manolo blahnik thing going on with women, which tends to confirm my suspisions. (Again generalities).

Nah. Whether men know it or not, the vast majority of things that are supposedly about attracting women are actually about homosocial interaction. In other words, they've got nothing to do with impressing chicks, and everything to do with impressing other men and making those men BELIEVE that you can attract lots of chicks. The car industry capitalizes on this marvelously.

Sadly, this is not accurate. I know plenty of guys who actually buy cars to impress chicks.

I always tell them to buy a dog. It's far easier to get chicks with a dog, because the dogs make the best recon pilots/wingman. Far better than any stupid drunken buddy.

No one ever listens to me though.

Joking aside, since you can't even say "All women like men" I've never understood how people can ask why women as a whole like anything. Clearly it's a case by case situation. Do they not notice that they don't like all the same things other dudes do?
Actually, I find men seem to like enforcing the generalisations about men, regardless of how unattractive the generalisations can be.

If a guy dresses neatly, with nice, clean clothes that match and make him look good, women figure he's probably a neat guy who pays attention to detail and knows how to take care of himself and those around him.

Perhaps it's too much of an assumption to make, but it's more likely than assuming it from a guy who doesn't care about wearing clean clothes.

And what's wrong with that?
Oh right. I'm a woman. I should be able to multi-task and do all those things. And of course it means I get to fill the expectations of the males around me, my ultimate goal :p

I imagine that any women who are fixated on wealth are primarily motivated by a desire for security.

Easy? But then I'm going to have to go from wanting a longterm relationship to wanting one night stands, from being passive and demure to obnoxious and aggressive, from obsessing over fashion to obsessing over sports, from being computer illiterate to being a technology geek, from having crushes on boybands to headbanging along to metal bands, from constantly having headaches to having my life revolve around porn... Fitting all the requirements to be a "real man" sounds like a nearly impossible task...

Congratulations, you are now an honoury man; don't forget you're not allowed to express any emotion in public except anger. If you need any tips on technique just TG me and I'll try and help.

The thing is, I don't think you can make the assumption your making, which is that women having more clothes/shoes means women are more interested in those things. Most of the women I know would prefer not to be expected to keep up with fashion trends (which necessitates buying more clothes every year), but they get so much flack if they don't that it's just easier to buy a new goddam outfit.

Also, women are expected to play by completely different rules when it comes to clothing. For instance, my boyfriend can own one suit and just wear a different shirt and tie each day, but if I wear the same women's suit twice in a row I have people making snide comments about me. I've even had a boss complain about my "sloppy appearance" because I wore the same suit jacket two days running, despite the fact that the suit was neat, clean, and I even wore it with different slacks. My boyfriend can wear THE SAME SUIT to weddings and other formal celebrations, but if I wear the same dress to two different weddings I have people telling me that it is tacky and disrespectful to "recycle" my formalwear.

Do I personally give a shit about clothing? Hell no. If left to my own devices, I use one pair of shoes, two pairs of pants, and a rotating collection of bland t-shirts. Most women I know feel pretty much the same way, in that much of their closet space is taken up with clothing that was purchased only to accomodate other people's expectations.

I understand where you're coming from. I'm not into fashion, and frankly, it sounds like a royal pain in the ass! I'm not assuming anything about "women".
I've only offered observations on the women I know.
That's all I can offer in a conversation like this one. And the women I know tend to like fashion. I don't mean that they read Vogue and keep up with trends (many of them are more into counterculture anti-fashion, so to speak).
Just that they love to buy new clothes, shoes, accessories, purses, makeup and that kind of stuff. Almost across the board. I have to call it as I see it.
If I did otherwise, I'd be lying \just to appear PC.
And Bottle, we know that's not gonna happen. ;)

Most women I know feel pretty much the same way, in that much of their closet space is taken up with clothing that was purchased only to accomodate other people's expectations.

The ratio of male to female passengers on the woodbury commons buses run on midnight after thanksgiving would tend to indicate the opposite however.

I understand where you're coming from. I'm not into fashion, and frankly, it sounds like a royal pain in the ass! I'm not assuming anything about "women".
I've only offered observations on the women I know.
That's all I can offer in a conversation like this one. And the women I know tend to like fashion. I don't mean that they read Vogue and keep up with trends (many of them are more into counterculture anti-fashion, so to speak).
Just that they love to buy new clothes, shoes, accessories, purses, makeup and that kind of stuff. Almost across the board. I have to call it as I see it.
If I did otherwise, I'd be lying \just to appear PC.
And Bottle, we know that's not gonna happen. ;)
Haha, that's fair enough. I know there are plenty of women who really dig shoes and clothes, I just happen to find that there are a great many men who also are interested in those things. And no, most of them are not gay. I think that socialization, and one's economic status, are stronger indicators than gender.

Actually, I find men seem to like enforcing the generalisations about men, regardless of how unattractive the generalisations can be.
We got this whole 'being a' or 'becoming a' man thing that hangs a few of us up. Not as many women get accused of not being a woman-and that usually doesn't mean the same thing.

But a dude can be accused of not being a man and that's supposed to be the most cutting thing there is. So some grab onto whatever they can to identify themselves as 'a man.' You don't often see threads or questions about 'what makes a woman.' You do, however, get 'what makes a lady,' which has its own baggage...

The ratio of male to female passengers on the woodbury commons buses run on midnight after thanksgiving would tend to indicate the opposite however.
How would that indicate the opposite?

Hmmm. I certainly wouldn't say that women are generally fixated on wealth or the trappings thereof. At least not any more than men are in general. I do think that financial security is something most of us consider when thinking about relationships, regardless of our sex. And why not? It's an important practical consideration, one factor that merits serious attention when making decisions. I don't see what the big deal is, really.

But they are! They also are interested in commitment (but never sex), shoes (but only silly ones with uncomfortable heels), the color pink (or maybe something else in a pastel), fairies, unicorns, cuddling, and long walks on the beach after candle-lit dinners.
I'm interested in both commitment and sex, not so much in shoes especially ones with uncomfortable heels (which men like because it exsensuates our legs). I hate the color pink and just about every pastel ( I prefer "jewel tones" dark red, blue, green etc.). Fairies and unicorns make me nauseated. Cuddling is good, especially in the cold. Long walks anywhere only if my goal is exercise, if I want to talk, we can sit. Candle lit dinners are definitely nice.

Actually, I find men seem to like enforcing the generalisations about men, regardless of how unattractive the generalisations can be.
Ahh, but usually you can find the reason, if you look closer.

For example, take the stereotype of the stupid, bumbling husband. We see this all the time: a fat, stupid, clumsy husband who is unable to do simple things like change a diaper or cook dinner. Why would men want to perpetuate this negative image of maleness?

Well, because if men are simply incapable of taking care of chores, then I guess women should be the ones to do those chores...isn't that convenient? You'll notice that all of these unattractive, bumbling men just HAPPEN to have attractive, capable women who clean up after them (we can call this the Homer and Marge dichotomy, if you like). Women just happen to be better at doing all those annoying little tasks that nobody wants to do, so it miraculously makes sense for women to be the ones who are expected to do all those chores. Men can't be blamed if they're just too durn goofy to figure out how to change a diaper, so naturally it should fall to the wife to do those things. Men can't possibly cook dinner without starting a fire, so women should be the ones who cook for them. Men can't figure out how to vaccuum or clean a toilet, so women should use their "superior" woman-powers to take care of those chores.

This also works when you see women who help perpetuate negative stereotypes about females. Some women like to encourage the stereotype that they are weak and helpless, because it means that they expect their man to mow the lawn, shovel the walk, or do other arduous tasks that the nobody likes doing. I even met a girl who confessed that she deliberately encouraged the "girls can't do math" stereotype because she didn't like having to balance her own checkbook and do her own taxes.

How would that indicate the opposite?

It's basically only women that'll do that sort of thing for pleasure.

Shopping for clothes/shoe as a pastime is far more prevelent among women, judging by the fact that there were hardly any men on the buses.

Ahh, but usually you can find the reason, if you look closer.

For example, take the stereotype of the stupid, bumbling husband. We see this all the time: a fat, stupid, clumsy husband who is unable to do simple things like change a diaper or cook dinner. Why would men want to perpetuate this negative image of maleness?

Well, because if men are simply incapable of taking care of chores, then I guess women should be the ones to do those chores...isn't that convenient? You'll notice that all of these unattractive, bumbling men just HAPPEN to have attractive, capable women who clean up after them (we can call this the Homer and Marge dichotomy, if you like). Women just happen to be better at doing all those annoying little tasks that nobody wants to do, so it miraculously makes sense for women to be the ones who are expected to do all those chores. Men can't be blamed if they're just too durn goofy to figure out how to change a diaper, so naturally it should fall to the wife to do those things. Men can't possibly cook dinner without starting a fire, so women should be the ones who cook for them. Men can't figure out how to vaccuum or clean a toilet, so women should use their "superior" woman-powers to take care of those chores.

This also works when you see women who help perpetuate negative stereotypes about females. Some women like to encourage the stereotype that they are weak and helpless, because it means that they expect their man to mow the lawn, shovel the walk, or do other arduous tasks that the womenfolk don't like doing. I even met a girl who confessed that she deliberately encouraged the "girls can't do math" stereotype because she didn't like having to balance her own checkbook and do her own taxes.
Okay, but seriously-Unless it has instructions on the side of the box I really can't cook, and even then there shouldn't be much more than three steps...

Okay, but seriously-Unless it has instructions on the side of the box I really can't cook, and even then there shouldn't be much more than three steps...
You're kidding, right? I can cook at least as well as Chef Tyler Florence (from Food 911 and other shows).

This came up in another thread and I wanted to see what people on here have to say about it.

It's been my experience over the years that many, if not most women go "on point" when they see a man who wears what appears to be expensive clothes. The man may or may not be relatively well to-do. What seems to matter is that he has the appearance of being so. It would be pretty easy to get very cynical about this.

Does this mean that most women are interested primarily in wealth and material possessions? Or is this just an abberation? Inquiring minds want to know! :D

It is difficult to generalize people in to terms such as “most women” and as one single woman I can not speak for my entire sex. However, I would suggest that women are attracted to what they perceive to be secure. It has also been suggested that this is possibly a function of evolution because women are expected to care for offspring and thus seek out partners or mates that can provide both themselves and their offspring with support and security.

Well, because if men are simply incapable of taking care of chores, then I guess women should be the ones to do those chores...isn't that convenient?

Yes, I imagine every marketing departments dream is a world where men don't do chores. Or they might want to associate their product with a feeling of superiority and competence. No, the first one is more reasonable.

Okay, but seriously-Unless it has instructions on the side of the box I really can't cook, and even then there shouldn't be much more than three steps...
There are plenty of people who just can't cook. I'm one of them. The stereotype I am talking about is the one that states "Men can't cook, women can cook." Some men can't cook. Some women can't cook. This is because both men and women are people, and some people cannot cook.

Okay, but seriously-Unless it has instructions on the side of the box I really can't cook, and even then there shouldn't be much more than three steps...

That's too bad. I'm glad not to be one of the men that fits that stereotype. I'd go hungry too often if that were the case.:)

A much more interesting question, though, would be why are men so fixated on the trappings of breasts?

Yes, I imagine every marketing departments dream is a world where men don't do chores. Or they might want to associate their product with a feeling of superiority and competence. No, the first one is more reasonable.
But wouldn't a marketting department want to target the largest possible demographic, to get the largest number of consumers? Why, then, would they only portray chores as "empowering" for female customers, when doing so eliminates 50% of potential buyers? Why would they chase away an entire market (males) by portraying men as unable to clean, cook, or perform any domestic tasks? Men are targetted for lawn-care appliances with remarkable success, so why are they not targetted for the "inside chores"? Gee, do you think it might have anything to do with an entrenched system of gender roles that can be profitably exploited?

I'm not saying marketting departments invent these stereotypes...how could they? The stereotypes have existed longer than any of the marketting departments. What I'm saying is that they quite gladly perpetuate these roles because it is profitable to do so.

You're kidding, right? I can cook at least as well as Chef Tyler Florence (from Food 911 and other shows).
Nope, I suck. Though not because I'm a dude-my parents wheren't great cooks and they didn't even teach me thier moderate cooking skills. So, nothin'. Part of the joy of working (aside from knowing money is coming in) is that I get to eat well. (food is often catered).

I watch a lot of Iron Chef. Doesn't seem to help for some reason...

For example, take the stereotype of the stupid, bumbling husband. We see this all the time: a fat, stupid, clumsy husband who is unable to do simple things like change a diaper or cook dinner. Why would men want to perpetuate this negative image of maleness?

Well, because if men are simply incapable of taking care of chores, then I guess women should be the ones to do those chores...isn't that convenient? You'll notice that all of these unattractive, bumbling men just HAPPEN to have attractive, capable women who clean up after them (we can call this the Homer and Marge dichotomy, if you like). Women just happen to be better at doing all those annoying little tasks that nobody wants to do, so it miraculously makes sense for women to be the ones who are expected to do all those chores. Men can't be blamed if they're just too durn goofy to figure out how to change a diaper, so naturally it should fall to the wife to do those things. Men can't possibly cook dinner without starting a fire, so women should be the ones who cook for them. Men can't figure out how to vaccuum or clean a toilet, so women should use their "superior" woman-powers to take care of those chores.

This also works when you see women who help perpetuate negative stereotypes about females. Some women like to encourage the stereotype that they are weak and helpless, because it means that they expect their man to mow the lawn, shovel the walk, or do other arduous tasks that the nobody likes doing. I even met a girl who confessed that she deliberately encouraged the "girls can't do math" stereotype because she didn't like having to balance her own checkbook and do her own taxes.

Okay, your overthinking this.

The fact is that many people use percieved societal norms to give themselves a sense of identity. A husband will be the buumbling fool, because that is what he believes is expected of him by society in this role. In the fifties, when TV and norms were different, the behaviour was different. Go where the TV/sociatal norms are different, and you'll get different behaviour. e.g. drunken japanese businessman.

That's all. There is no clever strategy. Which is why people force themselves to do all the stupid shit, that can't possibly be enjoyable, that they do.

I am talking in generalities of course.

I watch a lot of Iron Chef. Doesn't seem to help for some reason...

Learning to cook comes from doing it. I made a lot of mistakes when I was younger, but read a lot of books and tried a lot. It works.

Don't watch Iron Chef - it's just like Fear Factor.

You're kidding, right? I can cook at least as well as Chef Tyler Florence (from Food 911 and other shows).

Being able to cook well is a necessary life skill.

Being able to cool extremely well means it's dead easy to get sex.

That's too bad. I'm glad not to be one of the men that fits that stereotype. I'd go hungry too often if that were the case.:)
Yeah, those Carl's Jr ads ("Without us, some guys would starve.") aimed directly at me...

IMHO, yes. I'm only speaking from my experience, but it's made your point more than obvious, Eut. Men seek jobs because we like women. Women seek men because they like money.

There's a lot of women out there who couldn't care less, but from what I've seen and heard, there's a whole lot more who do.
Too bad there aren't stats on this somewhere. :(

Okay, your overthinking this.

The fact is that many people use percieved societal norms to give themselves a sense of identity. A husband will be the buumbling fool, because that is what he believes is expected of him by society in this role. In the fifties, when TV and norms were different, the behaviour was different. Go where the TV/sociatal norms are different, and you'll get different behaviour. e.g. drunken japanese businessman.

That's all. There is no clever strategy. Which is why people force themselves to do all the stupid shit, that can't possibly be enjoyable, that they do.

I am talking in generalities of course.Ahh yes, the old, "Stop thinking" refrain.

Sorry, my friend, but no. It is true that most people go along with entrenched culture primarily because it's the path of least resistence. That doesn't mean we should stop thinking about WHY the particular culture exists and why it is perpetuated. Especially if we ever want things to change for the better.

People are. Women are people.

Yes...

...though not all people.

I watch a lot of Iron Chef. Doesn't seem to help for some reason...

Iron chef is not a good example of cooking. It's also a bit fake. For example they get to know the ingredients weeks ahead.

Watch the PBS shows. They are far more practical.

I watch a lot of Iron Chef. Doesn't seem to help for some reason...
That show RULES. Excentric billionaire constructs cullinary arena in which to have various chefs do battle to create exotic foods for his enjoyment...BRILLIANT.

Learning to cook comes from doing it. I made a lot of mistakes when I was younger, but read a lot of books and tried a lot. It works.

Don't watch Iron Chef - it's just like Fear Factor.
But Fear Factor doesn't have Hiroyuki Sakai, the Delacroix of French Cuisine!!

Sorry...geek side got the best of me there...

A much more interesting question, though, would be why are men so fixated on the trappings of breasts?

because they should be set free!

Actually, I find men seem to like enforcing the generalisations about men, regardless of how unattractive the generalisations can be.

I think there's an explanation for that: Men tend to be proud (and dumb) enough to force themselves into "being" like those generalisations. Women tend to be exactly the oposite: insecure and willing to change their behaviour and appearence for any (real or imagined) critical remarks.

Iron chef is not a good example of cooking. It's also a bit fake. For example they get to know the ingredients weeks ahead.

Watch the PBS shows. They are far more practical.
Do you really think people watch Iron Chef because they're looking for realism or practicality? Dude, it's a show called IRON CHEF. It is set in "Kitchen Stadium," and records the "battles" between chefs who wish to see "whose cuisine will reign supreme." Realism has no place in that world.

That show RULES. Excentric billionaire constructs cullinary arena in which to have various chefs do battle to create exotic foods for his enjoyment...BRILLIANT.
See, someone understands!

Sadly, this is not accurate. I know plenty of guys who actually buy cars to impress chicks.

I always tell them to buy a dog. It's far easier to get chicks with a dog, because the dogs make the best recon pilots/wingman. Far better than any stupid drunken buddy.

No one ever listens to me though.
Ever watch the reactions of some ( perhaps most? ) women to a guy driving a Porsche? Heh!

Ahh yes, the old, "Stop thinking" refrain.

I didn't say stop thinking. I just said you were overthinking. There is a difference. You are building a whole host of hypopthesis and mechanisms that are completely unnecessary to explain why people behave the way they do.

Sorry, my friend, but no. It is true that most people go along with entrenched culture primarily because it's the path of least resistence. That doesn't mean we should stop thinking about WHY the particular culture exists and why it is perpetuated. Especially if we ever want things to change for the better.

Our culture is the way it is because of TV. TV has replaced the shaman/bard/mummers/storyteller/village elder &c. from which people used to get their societal norms in the past. And it comes into most people's livingrooms everynight for a few hours and tells them how society works. You could argue that what's on TV is a reflection of actual society, but it isn't. Not really. Law Offices aren't like Boston Legal. Cops don't behave like NYPD blue.

It's basically just what a bunch of TV people think is going to be popular. And then people just copy that.

I do think that financial security is something most of us consider when thinking about relationships, regardless of our sex.
I don't ... never have. :p

Do you really think people watch Iron Chef because they're looking for realism or practicality? Dude, it's a show called IRON CHEF. It is set in "Kitchen Stadium," and records the "battles" between chefs who wish to see "whose cuisine will reign supreme." Realism has no place in that world.

A lot of people watch that show because they think it is actually a display of culinary prowess. It isn't. And yes, they do think it is real.

Ever watch the reactions of some ( perhaps most? ) women to a guy driving a Porsche? Heh!

Nah. They were always to busy playing with my dog to notice the guy in the porsche.

I'm interested in both commitment and sex, not so much in shoes especially ones with uncomfortable heels (which men like because it exsensuates our legs). I hate the color pink and just about every pastel ( I prefer "jewel tones" dark red, blue, green etc.). Fairies and unicorns make me nauseated. Cuddling is good, especially in the cold. Long walks anywhere only if my goal is exercise, if I want to talk, we can sit. Candle lit dinners are definitely nice.
Nothing whatsoever wrong with any of that, IMHO.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone can prefer whatever they please. I just think that anyone ( regardless of sex, or virtually anything else ) who focuses primarily on the appearance of economic and material success is very shallow. Am I wrong about this???

Why are women so fixated on the trappings of wealth?
I don't believe that any of the choices on your poll are appropriate. Who are any of us to judge how "all" women are? I can only judge by what I believe; however, many women and men for that matter may believe differently. So, in my opinion, I believe that it is an extremely shallow way of judging a person (by how much money they do or do not possess). Material possessions only last so long, but other things such as love, courteousy, humor, respect, etc. last a lifetime. And sure, who is to say money isn't important? But, more important than the person...definately not. So, I may be with a guy that picks me up on a bicycle...but, I bet he has a bigger heart than the other guy with the Lambourgini! As a wise person once said...Money does not bring happiness.

Ever watch the reactions of some ( perhaps most? ) women to a guy driving a Porsche? Heh!
Exactly. Post-feminist ideals sorta become less convincing to me when I'm driving with my brother to Clearwater beach in his souped-up Olds W-30 442.
You'd think we were the pope in the vatican, and they were looking to kiss something besides the ring. :D

Ever watch the reactions of some ( perhaps most? ) women to a guy driving a Porsche? Heh!
True car guys buy thier cars in spite of what women feel, especially the ones already in thier lives. I don't think I've had a girlfriend yet that's liked my rides, and I've had the range. A 4X4, a muscle car (okay, calling it a muscle car is the height of generosity, just move on...), the much maligned Porsche, and the classic bus (which should have got me hippie chicks should the notion be believed...).

But I don't care-they don't like the cars they don't get to drive 'em. (especially the girlfriend I had when I had the Porsche...I'm suprised the transmission didn't just jump out of the car to save itself...yikes...) My cars are for me because I have to drive them. And if I'm 45 before I'm able to afford a new Porsche I'm going to buy it. I would have bought one when I was 20 (actually, that's when I had one, but it was shitty) if I could-those things are expensive and it'll take me until the middle of my life to afford one. Why should I be ashamed because some hen has a problem with it? They can walk-I'm driving the car I earned.

Men can't be blamed if they're just too durn goofy to figure out how to change a diaper, so naturally it should fall to the wife to do those things. Men can't possibly cook dinner without starting a fire, so women should be the ones who cook for them. Men can't figure out how to vaccuum or clean a toilet, so women should use their "superior" woman-powers to take care of those chores.

This also works when you see women who help perpetuate negative stereotypes about females. Some women like to encourage the stereotype that they are weak and helpless, because it means that they expect their man to mow the lawn, shovel the walk, or do other arduous tasks that the nobody likes doing. I even met a girl who confessed that she deliberately encouraged the "girls can't do math" stereotype because she didn't like having to balance her own checkbook and do her own taxes.
Most call that "being manipulative."

See, someone understands!

Well, will you please spread the word. I, for one, am sick of having people talk about it like winning was equivalent to getting three michelin stars.

Seriously. That show annoys me to no end. The only good thing it ever did was electrocute Bobby Flay.

It is difficult to generalize people in to terms such as “most women” and as one single woman I can not speak for my entire sex. However, I would suggest that women are attracted to what they perceive to be secure. It has also been suggested that this is possibly a function of evolution because women are expected to care for offspring and thus seek out partners or mates that can provide both themselves and their offspring with support and security.
I tend to agree ... to a point.

Women only fixate on wealth when the man is boring.

Well, will you please spread the word. I, for one, am sick of having people talk about it like winning was equivalent to getting three michelin stars.

Seriously. That show annoys me to no end. The only good thing it ever did was electrocute Bobby Flay.
Dude, that show rocks. Talk about overthinking something...

I don't believe that any of the choices on your poll are appropriate. Who are any of us to judge how "all" women are?
I don't recall saying "All."

If a guy dresses neatly, with nice, clean clothes that match and make him look good, women figure he's probably a neat guy who pays attention to detail and knows how to take care of himself and those around him.

Perhaps it's too much of an assumption to make, but it's more likely than assuming it from a guy who doesn't care about wearing clean clothes.

I don't suppose you've tested this assumption in the real world? Because I've noted in my life, as well as the lives of other well-dressed, well-mannered, yet poor guys, that this is only sometimes (at best) the case. Granted, my evidence is inductive, but it's pretty persuasive for me.

The value a woman attaches to a man's wallet and her shoe collection is in my experience highly dependent upon geography and locale. I knew very few women who were really hung up on shoes in Idaho, and most of those were, to put it gently, complete morons. Any fairly articulate and capable woman, of which there were surprisingly many, generally had a fairly small collection, with one or two really nice pairs of heels, as well as some sneakers. The reason for this is obvious: in Idaho, where in the winter the daytime high can be -20 and trudging through knee-deep drifts of snow are common, flip-flops or heels just aren't workable. Moreover, its not like there are lots of places to take your fancy heels to show of in rural Idaho, and what communal events do occur (church functions, mostly), aren't really the place for Manolo's.

By contrast, I know and routinely meet women in Vegas who have shoe collections that are more expensive than everything I own put together. Obviously, as Vegas is hot and hip, it is easy to wear them, and easy to get attention by doing so.

With respect to money, women in Idaho aren't interested quite so much in material wealth, but again, the reason is fairly obvious: everyone is fairly poor, only one in five Idahoans has a college degree, and most women marry the first nice guy they meet who just got back from his mission. In this case, the emphasis is not on money, but on social power: they are looking for a person with the highest standing in the local church culture. That being said, women are quite willing to go to war over an eligable bachelor who exudes "good character and good earnings potential": my cousin, for instance, nearly got knifed at my little brother's graduation because she inadvertantly got in between one girl and her intended prey (namely, my little brother, who had the misfortune of being handsome, charming, nice, and going into the computer programming field).

By contrast, in Vegas, I am routinely told by women that I am the nicest, most honest, caring individuals said women have ever met. I care for myself: I am quite fit, and while I dress casual, I am always smelling nice, cleanly-shaven, and well-groomed. I rent out my own apartment with no help from friends or family, which is far more than many men half-again my age in this town can claim. In short, I am better mannered, better cared for, better-educated, and exude far more responsibility than most men in this town, so by your theory, I should be positively beating women off with a stick. In point of fact, I've had approximately one makeout session in the last seven years. If I were to go to a club and pick up a woman, she would quickly drop me like a bad habit, and the reason why isn't hard to find: I don't have a car, and I can only afford a small apartment in a rough neighborhood around campus. To put it bluntly, I don't have what Vegas women want, which is money. Women in this town seem congenitally willing to endure the worst treatment if their man has a pretty good income, and will go to whatever lengths necessary to secure one with such. Is that all women? Of course not. But that is the dominant ethos, if for no other reason than because the partying woman looking for a quick sugar daddy fix is by far the easiest kind of woman to find in this town.

So what does this ethnography prove? Well, nothing conclusively, but it does suggest general trends. Women it seems to me may not necessarily be mercenaries, but they are quite specific about what they want, and what they want is usually (in contrast to what they usually claim) a male with a high standing in whatever is the dominant cultural currency in their area. I'm young, fit, responsible, and moral, and I'm not terrible on the eyes, so I'm considered a pretty decent commodity among young women in Idaho, although my salty humor often gets in the way. For my brother, who is most of what I am except taller and more handsome, he's downright fearful that women aren't going to jump him as he walks around the mall. By contrast, in a mercenary society like Vegas, you see women who are mercenary in every sense of the word. I don't have money, so despite all those qualities, I am radioactive. I'm willing to bet that in three years after I get a law degree at a reasonably prestigious university and can flaunt myself; hell, if I were to borrow a Corvette and a penthouse suite at the Wynn for a night, I could easily find myself with two or three women, possibly even at the same time.

Do I personally give a shit about clothing? Hell no. If left to my own devices, I use one pair of shoes, two pairs of pants, and a rotating collection of bland t-shirts. Most women I know feel pretty much the same way, in that much of their closet space is taken up with clothing that was purchased only to accomodate other people's expectations.Woo-hoo! That is how I dress - except my t-shirts are not bland. (ok, ok, I do wear some tops that aren't t-shirts too)

I'm just lucky that for my job, "business casual" is when you have to dress up.

Well, will you please spread the word. I, for one, am sick of having people talk about it like winning was equivalent to getting three michelin stars.

Seriously. That show annoys me to no end. The only good thing it ever did was electrocute Bobby Flay.
That was the American version, which sucks. Haven't you ever watched the Japanese show? Now that's television!!

Why should I be ashamed because some hen has a problem with it? They can walk-I'm driving the car I earned.
LOL! You GO, dude! :D

Congratulations, you are now an honoury man; don't forget you're not allowed to express any emotion in public except anger. If you need any tips on technique just TG me and I'll try and help.
You expect me, an honoury man, to ask for help? Yeah right.

Too bad there aren't stats on this somewhere.
The thing is, what use would statistics be? Let's say the majority of women like something. Does that mean you can immediatly assume that a woman you meet likes it? No. Statistics are great in some contexts but not in human relationships.

I think there's an explanation for that: Men tend to be proud (and dumb) enough to force themselves into "being" like those generalisations. Women tend to be exactly the oposite: insecure and willing to change their behaviour and appearence for any (real or imagined) critical remarks.
Actually, I'd probably say it can be a mixture of both for males and females. Insecurity leading to people finding an "identity" by following a stereotype.

[QUOTE=Xenophobialand]<snip>QUOTE]
What did someone say about overthinking the issue? ;) :D

I don't suppose you've tested this assumption in the real world? Because I've noted in my life, as well as the lives of other well-dressed, well-mannered, yet poor guys, that this is only sometimes (at best) the case. Granted, my evidence is inductive, but it's pretty persuasive for me.

It would depend on where you are. Some places attract certain kind of people and you'll have to play by different rule. If we were to take a random sample of women, not just from Vegas, perhaps that'd be different.

On the other hand, clothes don't make the man, and if you only have the nice clothes but not everything else (and I'm not talking just about material possesions), then you won't go too far either.

The thing is, what use would statistics be? Let's say the majority of women like something. Does that mean you can immediatly assume that a woman you meet likes it? No. Statistics are great in some contexts but not in human relationships.

Actually, I'd probably say it can be a mixture of both for males and females. Insecurity leading to people finding an "identity" by following a stereotype.
That's not why I indicated that it would be interesting to see some stats on that. I try very hard to not make assumptions about people when meeting them for the first time, men or women.

I know serveral people who apparently needed a lifestyle they could just slip into, like a suit of clothes off the rack. Some people are simply unable or unwilling to design a lifestyle for themselves.

Actually, I'd probably say it can be a mixture of both for males and females. Insecurity leading to people finding an "identity" by following a stereotype.

Yes, but the male way is much easier. And the aparently proud/insecure stance reinforces that same stereotype.

That's not why I indicated that it would be interesting to see some stats on that. I try very hard to not make assumptions about people when meeting them for the first time, men or women.
I was just making the general point that even if we could find statistics or even if we can say "most women like this", it's pointless and of no real use. It wasn't aimed at you to say "stop treating people as statistics!" because I have no idea how you treat people.

Some places attract certain kind of people and you'll have to play by different rules.
The hell with that! I have always made my own rules to live by and I'll be damned if I'll change them for any supposed "cultural norms!"



On the other hand, clothes don't make the man, and if you only have the nice clothes but not everything else (and I'm not talking just about material possesions), then you won't go too far either.
After seeing the sort of men women choose when they're "materialistic" or "security oriented" or whatever term you choose, I disagree ... strongly!

I was just making the general point that even if we could find statistics or even if we can say "most women like this", it's pointless and of no real use. It wasn't aimed at you to say "stop treating people as statistics!" because I have no idea how you treat people.
Fair enough. :)

Yes, but the male way is much easier. And the aparently proud/insecure stance reinforces that same stereotype.
What do you mean by easier?

I'd say men can be just as insecure as women and women can be just as proud as men, the characteristics can just be shown or hidden in different ways.

[QUOTE=Xenophobialand]<snip>QUOTE]
What did someone say about overthinking the issue? ;) :D

Like I always say: Anything worth doing is worth overdoing.

Nothing whatsoever wrong with any of that, IMHO.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone can prefer whatever they please. I just think that anyone ( regardless of sex, or virtually anything else ) who focuses primarily on the appearance of economic and material success is very shallow. Am I wrong about this???
its more practical than a man's obsession with women's looks. wealth is much more stable than beauty.

its more practical than a man's obsession with women's looks. wealth is much more stable than beauty.

Less fun in the bedroom though.

I'd say men can be just as insecure as women and women can be just as proud as men, the characteristics can just be shown or hidden in different ways.
This goes almost without saying. It's not a matter of "whether," but more about "why" that insecurity takes whatever form it does.

That was the American version, which sucks. Haven't you ever watched the Japanese show? Now that's television!!

I must agree. the american version pales to the drama which is the japanese one.

I'm a good cook. I've never learnt anything from watching iron chefs, except how to order around a sous-chef.

no, you won't learn anything there. there are other, more practical shows for learning these skills.

What do you mean by easier?

Obvious: Men get to exagerate what they "already are" and women have to change. Read my original post, it'll explain everything.

I'd say men can be just as insecure as women and women can be just as proud as men, the characteristics can just be shown or hidden in different ways.

The word "aparently" in what I wrote makes that argument void. I agree that we're all insecure. Our responses however tend to be diferent. Notice the "tend"s I've been using since the begining.

---

Edit: Didn't mean to say "void" but "something we're agreeing on". Sorry.

Let me ask a question primarily for the women on here.

Hypothetical situation: You're mildly interested in finding someone to date. You go to a local place where lots of single people hang out. You see two men, both of whom are relatively attractive. One of them has on rather plain, but clean clothes appropriate for the setting, but nothing to write home about. The other man is wearing an expensive-looking suit, with a designer tie, silk shirt and obviously expensive leather shoes ( perhaps an Italian make ). Both seem equally approachable.

Which would you talk to first? ( Please be as honest as you can be )

Less fun in the bedroom though.
oh i expect its about the same. a pretty face doesnt mean she is good in bed. many women obsessed with their looks are unable to loosen up enough to enjoy a good time.

Let me ask a question primarily for the women on here.

Hypothetical situation: You're mildly interested in finding someone to date. You go to a local place where lots of single people hang out. You see two men, both of whom are relatively attractive. One of them has on rather plain, but clean clothes appropriate for the setting, but nothing to write home about. The other man is wearing an expensive-looking suit, with a designer tie, silk shirt and obviously expensive leather shoes ( perhaps an Italian make ). Both seem equally approachable.

Which would you talk to first? ( Please be as honest as you can be )
you mean TALK TO A STRANGER?? are you nutz??

lol

the only reason i would approach a man in a suit in a local bar in socorro new mexico is because i thought he must be lost. or maybe because i knew that everyone else in the bar was a loser. (small town eh?) 2 strangers, one dressed comfortably one dressed utterly inappropriately, id go for the one dressed comfortably.

This goes almost without saying. It's not a matter of "whether," but more about "why" that insecurity takes whatever form it does.
Well, I suppose, for one thing, the gender stereotype is so common, it's an easy thing to cling on to.

If the insecurity arises from not being accepted because it violates gender expectations, then the "logical" solution is to change so you fit those expectations. Women are expected to care about their figure, to diet, to primarily want to attract men, to obsess over clothes and make-up, to be sexy and attractive etc. At first glance, low confidence about appearance doesn't necessarily seem to be related to gender expectations, but in a lot of cases it probably does.

Also when people are looking for relationships - something many people obviously want - they get the influences from everywhere telling them what women want and what men want. Not fitting that will make you feel insecure about your ability to find someone.

This only gets furthered, in a vicious cycle, because people start to feel like they should be attracted to a certain type of woman/man.

There's also the fact that relationships are made out to be a huge deal, as if they should be the biggest priority in life and if you aren't in a relationship or attracting people, you're a failure at life. Which makes all the above things even more likely to cause insecurity.

The hell with that! I have always made my own rules to live by and I'll be damned if I'll change them for any supposed "cultural norms!"

Then don't complain about the results you get.


After seeing the sort of men women choose when they're "materialistic" or "security oriented" or whatever term you choose, I disagree ... strongly!
Completely went over your head, didn't it? When I said I wasn't just talking about material possessions, I meant that a woman will try to determine if you have a sense of humor, confidence, patience, etc. not if you drive a Porsche. Of course, every woman is different and what each considers important will vary. And you'll be doing the same, try to determine if she has what you're looking for.

Geez, Eut, someone with your age should know a lot better.

I'm a good cook.
for a second, I thought you said something something else entirely! :eek: :fluffle:

:D

The thing is, I don't think you can make the assumption your making, which is that women having more clothes/shoes means women are more interested in those things. Most of the women I know would prefer not to be expected to keep up with fashion trends (which necessitates buying more clothes every year), but they get so much flack if they don't that it's just easier to buy a new goddam outfit.

-snip-

Do I personally give a shit about clothing? Hell no. If left to my own devices, I use one pair of shoes, two pairs of pants, and a rotating collection of bland t-shirts. Most women I know feel pretty much the same way, in that much of their closet space is taken up with clothing that was purchased only to accomodate other people's expectations.
Bah; women have no pride. People can't accept that you will wear the same thing more than once? Well, fuck 'em, as I would say.

Yes, and do be sure to spit, scratch your crotch, belch and fart loudly, and remark loudly about the various foibles of "the fairer sex."
Women have more power than we think. Case in point: they have taken the phrase "the fairer sex" to universally refer to them.

I'm interested in both commitment and sex, not so much in shoes especially ones with uncomfortable heels (which men like because it exsensuates our legs). I hate the color pink and just about every pastel ( I prefer "jewel tones" dark red, blue, green etc.). Fairies and unicorns make me nauseated.
I am a straight man who despises high heels. I don't think they are worth it. Women are stupid to wear them. I like some faeries and unicorns.

But wouldn't a marketting department want to target the largest possible demographic, to get the largest number of consumers? Why, then, would they only portray chores as "empowering" for female customers, when doing so eliminates 50% of potential buyers? Why would they chase away an entire market (males) by portraying men as unable to clean, cook, or perform any domestic tasks? Men are targetted for lawn-care appliances with remarkable success, so why are they not targetted for the "inside chores"? Gee, do you think it might have anything to do with an entrenched system of gender roles that can be profitably exploited?

I'm not saying marketting departments invent these stereotypes...how could they? The stereotypes have existed longer than any of the marketting departments. What I'm saying is that they quite gladly perpetuate these roles because it is profitable to do so.
True, but also remember that marketing departments can change stereotypes. For example, we are currently seeing them make moisturising creams, etc, fashionable for men to use.

This only gets furthered, in a vicious cycle, because people start to feel like they should be attracted to a certain type of woman/man.

There's also the fact that relationships are made out to be a huge deal, as if they should be the biggest priority in life and if you aren't in a relationship or attracting people, you're a failure at life. Which makes all the above things even more likely to cause insecurity.

I think the even the stereotypes are not just some fabrication but are based on some true gender traits (that MOST ppl of the same sex share), but have been built since the dawn of Man, sorry, Humankind and fairly distorted.

The thing about relationships being made to be more important than they are: maybe. But we have a natural drive to have sex (like all other animals) and the act itself releases loads of "feel-good" hormones, so, even if ppl weren't telling you to do it, you'd still feel bad for not doing it.

Well, I suppose, for one thing, the gender stereotype is so common, it's an easy thing to cling on to.

If the insecurity arises from not being accepted because it violates gender expectations, then the "logical" solution is to change so you fit those expectations. Women are expected to care about their figure, to diet, to primarily want to attract men, to obsess over clothes and make-up, to be sexy and attractive etc. At first glance, low confidence about appearance doesn't necessarily seem to be related to gender expectations, but in a lot of cases it probably does.

Also when people are looking for relationships - something many people obviously want - they get the influences from everywhere telling them what women want and what men want. Not fitting that will make you feel insecure about your ability to find someone.

This only gets furthered, in a vicious cycle, because people start to feel like they should be attracted to a certain type of woman/man.

There's also the fact that relationships are made out to be a huge deal, as if they should be the biggest priority in life and if you aren't in a relationship or attracting people, you're a failure at life. Which makes all the above things even more likely to cause insecurity.
Good exposition. To one extent or another, we are all creatures of our cultural milleu, right up to the point where we develop sufficient maturity to realize that we can create our own. For some people, this point never comes.

Then don't complain about the results you get.

Completely went over your head, didn't it? When I said I wasn't just talking about material possessions, I meant that a woman will try to determine if you have a sense of humor, confidence, patience, etc. not if you drive a Porsche. Of course, every woman is different and what each considers important will vary. And you'll be doing the same, try to determine if she has what you're looking for.

Geez, Eut, someone with your age should know a lot better.
Heh! And you somehow know that I don't? Interesting how you know me better than I know myself. Are you psychic or something? :p

An indication that you in fact don't know me is that you think I was complaining about any "results" I get. LOL!

I must agree. the american version pales to the drama which is the japanese one.

I'm a good cook. I've never learnt anything from watching iron chefs, except how to order around a sous-chef.

no, you won't learn anything there. there are other, more practical shows for learning these skills.
I consider how to order a sous-chef around to be one of the primary life skills that all civilized people should learn.

I mean, really, how can anyone fail to be impressed with the original Iron Chef -- from Kaga's (or as I call him, Dracula) wardrobe (my show-opening ritual question: "What IS he wearing??"), to the pageantry, to the coverage ("Fukui-san!"), to the food itself (what planets do they get these things from? Did you ever see the live octopus battle, when one of the octopuses escaped and was crawling around the set?) -- no, I'm sorry, but Iron Chef is arguably the most perfect television program ever created. It fulfills all of television's potential as a medium. I.M.H.O. I thank you. (<bows>) :D

Obvious: Men get to exagerate what they "already are" and women have to change. Read my original post, it'll explain everything.

Men tend to be proud (and dumb) enough to force themselves into "being" like those generalisations. Women tend to be exactly the oposite: insecure and willing to change their behaviour and appearence for any (real or imagined) critical remarks.
Assuming this is the post you're talking about, I don't see that huge a difference. And I don't see why, for men it's exaggerating something whereas for women it's totally changing. I seem to being a bit slow tonight though so perhaps I'm totally misreading you.

The word "aparently" in what I wrote makes that argument void. I agree that we're all insecure. Our responses however tend to be diferent. Notice the "tend"s I've been using since the begining.

---

Edit: Didn't mean to say "void" but "something we're agreeing on". Sorry.
Ah, sorry. I'm on a defensive stance tonight or something.

Hypothetical situation: You're mildly interested in finding someone to date. You go to a local place where lots of single people hang out. You see two men, both of whom are relatively attractive. One of them has on rather plain, but clean clothes appropriate for the setting, but nothing to write home about. The other man is wearing an expensive-looking suit, with a designer tie, silk shirt and obviously expensive leather shoes ( perhaps an Italian make ). Both seem equally approachable.

Which would you talk to first? ( Please be as honest as you can be )
I doubt I'd ever be in that situation so it's hard for me to imagine.

My first thought was that the first man would seem less intimidating, but then you said that "both seem equally approachable" which cancels that out.

Actually, I don't find what the second man is wearing attractive. That "look" has never done anything for me. Suits can be attractive, but it'd seem too over-dressed for what appears to just be a night out; other than work, I'd only really like them at very formal occasionals. And I really don't like silk shirts.

And based on my initial, stereotypical thoughts and prejudices, I'd see the second man as more likely to be arrogant or over-confident (huge turn off in my books) and to have overly high demands for/expectations of a girlfriend.

So I go for the first guy.

[QUOTE=Muravyets]

Like I always say: Anything worth doing is worth overdoing.
A man after my own heart.

Heh! And you somehow know that I don't? Interesting how you know me better than I know myself. Are you psychic or something? :p
I know you are a 46 year old woman leaving in a trailer in Arizona who makes up all this puppets in NS to pass the time.

I also see wedding bells for Prince William.

How's that? :)

I doubt I'd ever be in that situation so it's hard for me to imagine.

My first thought was that the first man would seem less intimidating, but then you said that "both seem equally approachable" which cancels that out.

Actually, I don't find what the second man is wearing attractive. That "look" has never done anything for me. Suits can be attractive, but it'd seem too over-dressed for what appears to just be a night out; other than work, I'd only really like them at very formal occasionals. And I really don't like silk shirts.

And based on my initial, stereotypical thoughts and prejudices, I'd see the second man as more likely to be arrogant or over-confident (huge turn off in my books) and to have overly high demands for/expectations of a girlfriend.

So I go for the first guy.
Interesting.

Could you define "over-confident" for me, please? :)

I know you are a 46 year old woman leaving in a trailer in Arizona who makes up all this puppets in NS to pass the time.

I also see wedding bells for Prince William.

How's that? :)
:rolleyes:

I think the even the stereotypes are not just some fabrication but are based on some true gender traits (that MOST ppl of the same sex share), but have been built since the dawn of Man, sorry, Humankind and fairly distorted.
Oh, I'm not saying that women and men are totally identical in their characteristics. Obviously there are differences in gender which the stereotypes come from. Obviously women can lean towards certain characteristics and so do men. (I suppose you could argue that even they come from socialisation - I'm not sure. I don't know enough biological fact to know what is "natural".) I just dislike that people take that and assume that a woman or man will be a certain way or, even worse, should be a certain way.

The thing about relationships being made to be more important than they are: maybe. But we have a natural drive to have sex (like all other animals) and the act itself releases loads of "feel-good" hormones, so, even if ppl weren't telling you to do it, you'd still feel bad for not doing it.
True. But one of the things about humans is that we can, to an extent, overcome natural urges. We choose our priorities and make goals for ourselves. We can sacrifice parts of our life for a purpose.

Even if it is an issue which would still exist, society makes that so to a much larger degree.

Also, just to make it clear, I don't see anything wrong with having a relationship as an ultimate goal. Being in a life-long relationship and raising a family are some of my ultimate goals. I just hate the concept of the "perfect" life which everyone should lead. I hate that not being in a relationship is somehow a failure in your life and makes your life worthless.

Let me ask a question primarily for the women on here.

Hypothetical situation: You're mildly interested in finding someone to date. You go to a local place where lots of single people hang out. You see two men, both of whom are relatively attractive. One of them has on rather plain, but clean clothes appropriate for the setting, but nothing to write home about. The other man is wearing an expensive-looking suit, with a designer tie, silk shirt and obviously expensive leather shoes ( perhaps an Italian make ). Both seem equally approachable.

Which would you talk to first? ( Please be as honest as you can be )
I never initiate conversation. If I'm interested, I use non-verbal signals. The guy who picks up on it and comes on to me in the most pleasing manner will get my undivided attention.

I've been a woman for 43 years. I've never been impressed by wealth, ever. I have my own income and no kids to support. I'm bored by cars and gadgets and fancy houses (usually decorated with other people's lousy taste). The quickest way for a guy to get rid of me is to start flashing cash around and expecting me to be impressed. What I am impressed with is brains and humor and independence.

Does this mean I'm not a shallow, self-serving person? Not at all. He also has to be hot, or don't even waste my time. ;)

Assuming this is the post you're talking about, I don't see that huge a difference. And I don't see why, for men it's exaggerating something whereas for women it's totally changing. I seem to being a bit slow tonight though so perhaps I'm totally misreading you.

I am supported by some girls (I use this word for all women, don't freak) who have said in this thread that they have lot's of clothes because ppl criticize when they use the same thing twice and whatnot and some other who said that men rush into their stereotype by scratching their crotch and stuff like that (although, believe me, if you had this gear it would be something you'd understand.)

BTW, great score on the political compass. I scored something like that 2 years ago. Now I'm even more radical: -10.0(!), -8.5(not exact on the auth/lib). Where are you from?

Nope. Not impressed by clothing. Not even drawn to wealth -- if I want more money, I'll earn it. I prefer to look for more substantive measures of a man's values: intelligence, wit, and a bit of humility. You don't see those in a suit.

In my personal experience, the wealthy guys I've dated that have shown their wealth with expensive cars or designer clothes have tended to be rather self-centered. The actual relationships I've had with well off guys were only with more down to earth types.

I would expect that a shallow man might attract a shallow woman, though., so perhaps your observation is accurate.

He also has to be hot, or don't even waste my time. ;)
Ah HA! ;)

I would expect that a shallow man might attract a shallow woman, though., so perhaps your observation is accurate.
No need to be insulting. :p

Interesting.

Could you define "over-confident" for me, please? :)
I don't know if I can. It's not something I'd class as a universal term; there's just a point, for everyone I think, where confidence turns into over-confidence.

To try and pinpoint where it crosses the line, I suppose it becomes where people have so much "confidence" that they can't see things clearly. They're blind to their flaws and the possibilty that people may dislike them. They assume they are always right, or when they're wrong it's about something that doesn't matter.

In a strange way, while being the opposite of insecurity it almost seems like another form of insecurity - not being able to deal with the reality of any flaws in your character or actions. Whereas the confidence that is attractive is being secure in yourself while recognising your strengths and your weaknesses.

Not many people come by that easily so I tend to go towards people who are under-confident because that way they're more likely to be open towards changing and searching to find that "perfect" level of confidence. With someone over-confident, they're more likely to be blind towards any error in their way of thinking and therefore won't be open towards any change. I also just find arrogance so unappealing, the opposite is always preferable.

That's my stance on it at the moment anyway.

No need to be insulting. :p

Goodness, it wasn't directed at you!

I am supported by some girls (I use this word for all women, don't freak) who have said in this thread that they have lot's of clothes because ppl criticize when they use the same thing twice and whatnot and some other who said that men rush into their stereotype by scratching their crotch and stuff like that (although, believe me, if you had this gear it would be something you'd understand.)
But that's just taking those particular examples. What about the idea that men shouldn't express emotion? If you compare that to an expectation of females such as one that they should like pastel colours, specifically pink, it seems a lot easier for women. I'd say that they probably even out overall, though it's not really something I think you can measure - taking the whole "men shouldn't express emotion", that can come naturally to some men, but bet a lot harder for others.

BTW, great score on the political compass. I scored something like that 2 years ago. Now I'm even more radical: -10.0(!), -8.5(not exact on the auth/lib). Where are you from?
That's what I can aim towards then ;) My score changes so much that I probably shouldn't keep this one in my signature because it's probably not accurate any more. I'm from West Sussex in England, you?

This came up in another thread and I wanted to see what people on here have to say about it.

It's been my experience over the years that many, if not most women go "on point" when they see a man who wears what appears to be expensive clothes. The man may or may not be relatively well to-do. What seems to matter is that he has the appearance of being so. It would be pretty easy to get very cynical about this.

Does this mean that most women are interested primarily in wealth and material possessions? Or is this just an abberation? Inquiring minds want to know! :D

The belief that women are fixated on the trappings of weath is a huge double-standard. Especially since Western culture gave women three options of obtaining money in the past: Killing a man, prostitution, and marriage. Thankfully, we have other options now, but since women get 75 cents for a man's dollar, they have more necessity, no?

Ah HA! ;)
What? Hot doesn't have to be expensive. I'll take a cut fry cook over a pudgy-pasty investment banker any day of the week.

Obviously there are differences in gender which the stereotypes come from. Obviously women can lean towards certain characteristics and so do men. (I suppose you could argue that even they come from socialisation - I'm not sure. I don't know enough biological fact to know what is "natural".) I just dislike that people take that and assume that a woman or man will be a certain way or, even worse, should be a certain way.

I agree with the last sentence, but we are biologically different beyond merely the sexual organs, body hair and all that. Women are on average much smaller than men and man have on average 40% more muscle. And a physical superiority goes a long way, it's why men (the "military") overthrew matriarchal societies and established this sorry escuse for a society.

True. But one of the things about humans is that we can, to an extent, overcome natural urges. We choose our priorities and make goals for ourselves. We can sacrifice parts of our life for a purpose.

Yes, but we like to think we're more different from animals than we actually are. And that's an area where we are animals indeed. :D

Even if it is an issue which would still exist, society makes that so to a much larger degree.

If I don't disagree, then I agree. :P Maybe I didn't phrase it well, though.

I agree with the last sentence, but we are biologically different beyond merely the sexual organs, body hair and all that. Women are on average much smaller than men and man have on average 40% more muscle. And a physical superiority goes a long way, it's why men (the "military") overthrew matriarchal societies and established this sorry escuse for a society.
Of course. I can't deny that. Just pointing out that that shouldn't lead to the stereotyping which it does.

Yes, but we like to think we're more different from animals than we actually are. And that's an area where we are animals indeed. :D
Like animals, but I'd say it's a lot more complex an issue than with animals. I don't know enough about animal behaviour to argue this properly, but I don't think animals have the same kind of peer pressure that can change sexual behaviour or can get the same kind of moral satisfaction which some people get from abstinance. Sure, the other animals in their pack or whatever will affect their decision, but in nowhere near the same way.

If I don't disagree, then I agree. :P Maybe I didn't phrase it well, though.
Heh, no - don't worry. I just tend to take what people say and then respond either going off in another direction or adding more depth to my opinion on the matter.

But that's just taking those particular examples. What about the idea that men shouldn't express emotion? If you compare that to an expectation of females such as one that they should like pastel colours, specifically pink, it seems a lot easier for women. I'd say that they probably even out overall, though it's not really something I think you can measure - taking the whole "men shouldn't express emotion", that can come naturally to some men, but bet a lot harder for others.

I have to agree there. Lately I've been crying (like a girl :p) in movies and feel really self-concious about it when I'm with male friends. (Movies like "In America" and "The March of the Emperor" - dunno if this is the correct title, it's the recent one about penguins which the anti-abortion guys like so much)


That's what I can aim towards then ;) My score changes so much that I probably shouldn't keep this one in my signature because it's probably not accurate any more. I'm from West Sussex in England, you?

I wasn't implying any kind of superiority, just a statement. Maybe the (!) threw you off, but I used it because it's probably a statistical impossibility. Try taking the moral political compass (google it), should be interesting.
What are your nations here? Send a tg to the nation with this name if you don't want to post here.
I'm from near Lisbon, Portugal. ... So, ever been to Algarve? ;)

There's a debate on TV between 2 of the presidential candidates, and this one I must see. Be back in a hour.

Men also like wealth, but we aspire for something that is greater than wealth, recognition. Recognition for all sorts of things (inventing, engaging in a war, breaking a record, etc) Recognition lasts longer than wealth and I don't usually see that kind of characteristic in the majority of women. Maybe this is true because this is still a male dominated world, but that is changing (slowly). There are some females that also present this kind of characteristics, for example Hilary Clinton (her determance to be recognized is annoying but also amazing at the same time).

The belief that women are fixated on the trappings of weath is a huge double-standard. Especially since Western culture gave women three options of obtaining money in the past: Killing a man, prostitution, and marriage. Thankfully, we have other options now, but since women get 75 cents for a man's dollar, they have more necessity, no?

Women do not get 75 cents per dollar made by a man. That statistic was compilied without taking into consideration the fact that women, unlike men, take time off for pregnancies and early-child rearing. If you factor in time off and seniority (the fact that men don't get as much time off puts them higher on the totem pole), women make about 92% of what men make, which is barely outside the realm of the standard margin of error; in other words, men and women of the same pay grade do in fact get paid just about equally, its just that women increase in pay grade at a slower rate because they, surprise, want children.

I'm failr y well off (family money) but I make my self seem poor when dealing with women...I like to think it helps drive off the women who are intrested in wealth.

as for my car, I have a Porsche, buts it A) old, b) uncomfy as hell, c) was cheap, and I dont drive it to get girls, I just love driving it, Im a car and bike nut.

as for girls who like security, thats a huge turn off for me, I live for unstablity and adventure. (maybe I am financaly secuyre, but nothing else about me is secure, I take random trips, I come home at 3am when I said I would be home at 6pm, I hate security, I hate stablity, and I hate routine.

That said, I do find lots of girls are into wealth. If I am wearing a armani suit and a rolex and italian shoes and a chain, I find alot more girls want to talk then if I am wearing a moors suit and a seko and just normal leather shoes, altho I am dressed to the same level of neatness and care.

But I dont like the girls into wealth, so I ignore them, and let someone who likes it be happy with them,

to each their own.

I don't know if I can. It's not something I'd class as a universal term; there's just a point, for everyone I think, where confidence turns into over-confidence.

<snip>

That's my stance on it at the moment anyway.
One of those "I'll know it when I see it" sort of things, eh? :)

What? Hot doesn't have to be expensive. I'll take a cut fry cook over a pudgy-pasty investment banker any day of the week.
Nothing. Just "ah HA!" :D

Goodness, it wasn't directed at you!
Whew! :D

One of those "I'll know it when I see it" sort of things, eh? :)
Basically, yes. And of course, my opinion can change after an initial judgement of someone.

I have to agree there. Lately I've been crying (like a girl :p) in movies and feel really self-concious about it when I'm with male friends.
Not that it makes a difference, but I know plenty of guys who cry at films.
What I find strange is how some guys will deny crying at films to male friends to maintain their "masculinity", yet boast about it to women because they want to show their "feminine" side. (just to point out, after various mis-readings, I'm not talking about you - just making a general comment :p )

I wasn't implying any kind of superiority, just a statement. Maybe the (!) threw you off, but I used it because it's probably a statistical impossibility. I didn't take it to mean you felt superior - I was just joking around, don't worry.

Try taking the moral political compass (google it), should be interesting.
If you mean this (www.moral-politics.com), I got these results for the long and short test respectively.
You scored -2 on the Moral Order axis and 4 on the Moral Rules axis.
System: Socialism
You scored -2 on the Moral Order axis and 6 on the Moral Rules axis.
Strange how they differ.

If you meant a different test, could you give a link?

What are your nations here?
Glitziness, as my forum name is. I tried to find a link but it doesn't seem to want to link to my nation page specifically. You can click on my name to the left of this page and I think the option about a homepage should lead you there, or you can do a search of The World for my nation.

I'm from near Lisbon, Portugal. ... So, ever been to Algarve? ;)
No, I haven't actually. Portugal's one of the many many places I'd love to visit. My friends went there just recently in fact.

There's a debate on TV between 2 of the presidential candidates, and this one I must see. Be back in a hour.
Hope you enjoyed it. Or were infuriated by it - that's what I usually find happens when I watch politicians :p

What? Hot doesn't have to be expensive. I'll take a cut fry cook over a pudgy-pasty investment banker any day of the week.

I am tall and fat (6'1" 350lbs+).

When wearing a suit, I have been approached by good-looking well-dressed women. One gold-digger I knew never approached me, since she knew how much I made. She did go after a short fat guy who made a great living and had lots of possessions (nice house, nice car).

When wearing grubby comfortable clothes, not so much. On the other hand, carelessly dressed fat women don't mind when I'm not wearing a suit.

But I have also been approached by attractive women when I am not wearing a suit, just clean office wear and a smile.

Some women are very concerned about being well cared for financially. Others want a happy bright guy who will treat them well, with whatever he has available (my wife fits happily into this category).

And shoes? My step-daughter tries to never wear the same pair twice! Thank God she buys her own!;)

I must agree. the american version pales to the drama which is the japanese one.

I'm a good cook. I've never learnt anything from watching iron chefs, except how to order around a sous-chef.

no, you won't learn anything there. there are other, more practical shows for learning these skills.
Alright, you silly people-you do understand that when I said "I watch Iron Chef but it doesn't seem to help" it was a joke, right? I'm not sitting there trying to get the reciepe for soft shell crab ice cream-I was joking. I do love the show, but I was kidding about watching it to learn how to cook, because I thought it'd be funny-not because I thought of you literalists would take that seriously...

Seriously. Where does this whole shoe idea come from?.It is called Industrial research

How many shoes you have?
How many do you buy/year?

are you between 20-40 years old?
and with an average income...
__________________________
..you male chauvinist pig.actually its "Mr Horny Chauvinist pig" :D

This came up in another thread and I wanted to see what people on here have to say about it.

It's been my experience over the years that many, if not most women go "on point" when they see a man who wears what appears to be expensive clothes. The man may or may not be relatively well to-do. What seems to matter is that he has the appearance of being so. It would be pretty easy to get very cynical about this.

Does this mean that most women are interested primarily in wealth and material possessions? Or is this just an abberation? Inquiring minds want to know! :D

how do you say,nesting instinct...same reason men want to go forth and reproduce...3rd grade biology if you ask me...survival of the fittist and all that nonsense.

spin it differentlly...if you had the choice of some nice way overweight nice girl...or a hot bitchy chick,or a medium hot nice chick...what would you do?

i would go for the medium nice and kinda hot girl...call me an asshole...but i am honest.

hell i am uglier then a hound dog...i have no ideas of any cuties coming my way and looking past my appearance shortcomings...but alas,that is life.

hell,i might be the nicest guy they will ever meet...but reality is different...is this really a question?

did you go to high school?

stupid jocks get sweet girls and hurt them later...so us uglies can let them cry on our shoulder...lol

they thank the "nice guy" and move on to the next retarded neck boy.

bitter...yep..a sweet girl i loved was killed by some pretty..mommmas boy jock...but at least he is bending over and takin 20..lol...but i liked her...it's life dude....girls always go with instinct(most time)and instinct tells them to go with biff or tad..lol

the nerd/smart guy...can wait in the wings until she realises the superboy is a jerk..and then...goes for another.

life is so predictable..by the way..i aint ugly,but i can commiserate with the ugg's....i like them more then the chosen...:mp5:

Just give me a man with long black hair, tattoos and a broad chest with nice strong arms to hold me tightly and I'll be happy. Ok. Just give me a man with long black hair. Better make him naked.

Dear lord!

It isn't the possession but the whole appearance, females, by enlarge want a mate who is stable and financially able to support her, not if but when she starts harping on about her 'biological clock' - when they see someone who APPEARS to be successful, the logical assumption is that the individual has his shit together and able to fulfil those qualities she looks for in a man.

Thats no different to a guy wanting a female with a classic hour glass figure that is a 'signal' that she is fertile and able to have children - the whole 'continuation of the DNA' crap.

Well people, thats the straight world for you - constant mate selecting, fucking and both obsessed about 'passing on their DNA' under the guise of 'continuing the family line' - more like people without anything else on the friday nights except for excessive mating and saliva sharing.