Question for the hetero guys aged 25+!

Eglinton

Dudess wrote:

I'm not taking their level of education into account. Look at so many female UCD commerce students, for example!

UCD + commerce course= Intelligent.

A sight I've yet to witness indeed

Not forgetting Orts and Morkeshing

J.S. Pill

nesf wrote:

...pretentious and like to think that they've a deep understanding of many "high brow" topics.

Good enough for me!

Giblet

Whoever is having sex with me at that moment.

nesf

J.S. Pill wrote:

Good enough for me!

Well, any port in storm and all that.

Dudess

BrandonBlock wrote:

They are probably incredibly stuck up their own arses and no guy would put up with them.

Nope. Two of the most down-to-earth, unassuming, unpretentious people you could meet. Completely chilled out and a great laugh. And also completely lacking in that quality so many males decry in females - bitchiness.

Crumble Froo

Dudess wrote:

, Justin, fashion and make-up.

what i think is so messed up about this world is that everyone knew exactly who you were talking about when you said 'justin'

but i kinda do get the whole being mates with guys cos youre into the same stuff and that... i duno if thats all that bad a thing... let's face it... girl number 2 is never actually gonna get a *relationship* out of things... well, at least not likely in the pub scenario...

and ... dudess, for all those two girls never brought anyone home, if they do be goin out clubbing much, i cant imagine neither of them have ever been hit on (hell, even I get hit on in clubs.. maybe the guys just arent up to their standards?!

coyote6

Girl number 1 is like a good pint of plain. It's very good and rich and you can drink it every day for your whole life.

Girl number 2 is like crack or meth. Intense and sensual but it's short lived and it will kill you.

Crumble Froo

Dudess wrote:

Nope. Two of the most down-to-earth, unassuming, unpretentious people you could meet. Completely chilled out and a great laugh. And also completely lacking in that quality so many males decry in females - bitchiness.

just read that (reading harry potter, drinkin JD and chattin to a housemate while posting)...

it does have to be said... i DONT get bitchy girls. or... well... girls in general.

my two housemates are guys, and they do be talkign about their exes and im going "no way! omg! wtf?... i dont blame yis, i give up on girls too!" my best mates have always been girls (but the tomboys who are generally into rock music), while my larger circle of friends tends to consist largely of guys, cos, in general, theyre just easier to get on with in general.

Earthhorse

Your arthouse friend sounds pretentious rather than properly intelligent to be honest.

Dunno what's up with your friends not scoring but if it helps I've been on the opposite end of the same phenomenom. Talk to smart, funny girls all night, get on really well with them, then they head off with the rugby captain who likes nothing more than to laugh at the sound of his own farts.

I'd link to ladder theory and intellectual whores at this point but I don't want to be shouted down.

Eglinton wrote:

UCD + commerce course= Intelligent.

Why thank you!

easyontheeye

well its early days so your not really tied to anyone hypothetically speaking so, id bang number 2 then tell i dont think im ready for a relationship and then go with number1


simple!

SprostonGreen

Without a shadow of a doubt I would choose the first girl that you describe. The second one sounds like an annoyance.

J.S. Pill

Dudess wrote:

Nope. Two of the most down-to-earth, unassuming, unpretentious people you could meet. Completely chilled out and a great laugh. And also completely lacking in that quality so many males decry in females - bitchiness.

Well if the live in 'The people's republic of Langerland' send them my way.

25yo/modest income/bench press 75kg...

Earthhorse wrote:

Talk to smart, funny girls all night, get on really well with them, then they head off with the rugby captain who likes nothing more than to laugh at the sound of his own farts

Rugby captains! How can us ordinary Joes hope to compete with such paragons of manliness?

Dudess

Earthhorse wrote:

Your arthouse friend sounds pretentious rather than properly intelligent to be honest

Mixture of both - he has brains all right but yes, he's definitely super pretentious.
Not so much a friend as a guy I know who'd be pretty great if it wasn't for all his nonsense.

I've been on the opposite end of the same phenomenom. Talk to smart, funny girls all night, get on really well with them, then they head off with the rugby captain who likes nothing more than to laugh at the sound of his own farts.

Very good point. There's no denying it's also the case. Sorry for only aiming this at lads.

I'd link to ladder theory and intellectual whores at this point but I don't want to be shouted down.

I'm intrigued.
/heads off to Wikipedia

Dudess

J.S. Pill wrote:

Well if the live in 'The people's republic of Langerland' send them my way.

Aw, you missed the boat! They're now in Dublin and Limerick respectively. But they are from our fair Republic, so who knows what the future may hold?!;)

Pepe LeFrits

Dudess wrote:

Imagine the scenario: you're out one night and you get chatting to a girl who's around your age, maybe slightly older. She's witty, intelligent, interesting, has great taste in music, film, literature, art etc. Is knowledgeable about politics and history. She's attractive if not stunning in the populist/conventional sense.

What is the populist/conventional sense? Why is a qualifier necessary? Surely she's either attractive or not, or stunning or not?

She may have pale, rather than tanned, skin. She may have brown/black, rather than blonde, hair.
She has a good figure and she's dressed well - again, not necessarily conventionally so, she may not be following the current high street trend, but she has her own style and it looks great - subtly sexy without the need for too much skin exposure. You find you can really chat to her and there's no flirting sh1te to contend with - stupid small talk, her teasing you, fluttering her eyelashes, all that bollocks.

Does this fictional girl think that flirting, teasing etc is sh1te and bollocks? This is important, I prefer people who are light-hearted, playful and fun to people who taking themselves too seriously. When on a night out, a fun, high energy person who isn't afraid of being silly and having a giggle is what I'd go for. Nothing wrong with the other, but 'interesting' conversations like the above mentioned are best left in the coffee shop in the afternoon / early evening.

She's literally just a great person to talk to. In fact, in a way, it's like talking to one of your mates because you don't feel any sort of pressure to keep up a pretence. You're starting to think you might like to meet her again, you think you might fancy her.

What, the guy isn't sure if he fancies her yet? Surely he should know immediately if he is attracted to her or not, unless she is fairly middling looking?

Then... a blonde, tanned young one (about 21 or 22) with big boobs and wearing really tight, revealing clothes saunters in and makes a beeline for you. In fairness, she's not tacky-looking and she's very beautiful with a fabulous curvy figure - along the lines of Jessica Simpson. But she's rather thick and superficial, and has no interests other than Big Brother, Justin, fashion and make-up. All she reads is entertainment magazines. She doesn't know jack-sh1t about anything else and she's not interesting to talk to - a bimbo really. But she's all over you - if in a flirty, silly way. Still though, she's undeniably got the hots for you.

Would you politely reject her advances in favour of the first girl, or would she have no chance now, thanks to this latest development?

At this point I'd go for the blonde. Wouldn't settle down with her but she sounds like much more fun for a quick fling.

Earthhorse

J.S. Pill wrote:

Rugby captains! How can us ordinary Joes hope to compete with such paragons of manliness?

I find a perfectly timed witty retort to their vulgar behaviour followed by a swift kick to the nads and laying low for 6 to 8 weeks doesn't do the trick.

MooseJam

depends on what you are looking for, if its a wife go for the first girl, if it's a shag go for the bimbo

Dudess

Pepe LeFrits wrote:

What is the populist/conventional sense? Why is a qualifier necessary? Surely she's either attractive or not, or stunning or not?

Beyoncé = good-looking in a populist sense
Dita Von Teese = not good-looking in a populist sense, but still attractive

Does this fictional girl think that flirting, teasing etc is sh1te and bollocks? This is important, I prefer people who are light-hearted, playful and fun to people who taking themselves too seriously. When on a night out, a fun, high energy person who isn't afraid of being silly and having a giggle is what I'd go for. Nothing wrong with the other, but 'interesting' conversations like the above mentioned are best left in the coffee shop in the afternoon / early evening.

I'm talking about a person who's a laugh and witty but doesn't feel the need to be all "silly" and "cutesie". I'm not talking about someone who takes themselves seriously. Sorry, I should have made that clearer.

What, the guy isn't sure if he fancies her yet? Surely he should know immediately if he is attracted to her or not, unless she is fairly middling looking?

Ok, replace "think you fancy her" with "think you'd like to start a relationship with her". Sorry again.

At this point I'd go for the blonde. Wouldn't settle down with her but she sounds like much more fun for a quick fling.

Well I'm wondering which one would be relationship material.

Earthhorse

Dudess wrote:

I'm intrigued. /heads off to Wikipedia

Just don't take it too seriously.

shane86

Dudess wrote:

Imagine the scenario: you're out one night and you get chatting to a girl who's around your age, maybe slightly older. She's witty, intelligent, interesting, has great taste in music, film, literature, art etc. Is knowledgeable about politics and history. She's attractive if not stunning in the populist/conventional sense. She may have pale, rather than tanned, skin. She may have brown/black, rather than blonde, hair.
She has a good figure and she's dressed well - again, not necessarily conventionally so, she may not be following the current high street trend, but she has her own style and it looks great - subtly sexy without the need for too much skin exposure. You find you can really chat to her and there's no flirting sh1te to contend with - stupid small talk, her teasing you, fluttering her eyelashes, all that bollocks. She's literally just a great person to talk to. In fact, in a way, it's like talking to one of your mates because you don't feel any sort of pressure to keep up a pretence. You're starting to think you might like to meet her again, you think you might fancy her.
Then... a blonde, tanned young one (about 21 or 22) with big boobs and wearing really tight, revealing clothes saunters in and makes a beeline for you. In fairness, she's not tacky-looking and she's very beautiful with a fabulous curvy figure - along the lines of Jessica Simpson. But she's rather thick and superficial, and has no interests other than Big Brother, Justin, fashion and make-up. All she reads is entertainment magazines. She doesn't know jack-sh1t about anything else and she's not interesting to talk to - a bimbo really. But she's all over you - if in a flirty, silly way. Still though, she's undeniably got the hots for you.

Would you politely reject her advances in favour of the first girl, or would she have no chance now, thanks to this latest development?

No offence but honestly, in approaching 5 years of drink fuelled pulling (Im 20 going 21 but hey, my immature opinion is as legit as any of the OAP`s born in the late 70s messin ) I have NEVER talked news/politics with a bird in a pub (though whilst extremely locked I have roared "free Iraq!" and "gwan the mujahideen!!!", but that was after waiting 90 mins for a taxi in town at 3am in March, which some American women tried to steal from us when we finally managed to hail one )

As for the question, if your first hypothetical girl talked to me first, I wouldnt let her out of my sight unless she made clear there was no chance of pulling, and vice versa with blondie. Id go for the finest, but having said that there is no guarantee from the example that blonde no.2 actually is the nicest looking.

And my last point.....did the above happen to you last night? If it did heres a tip- you mentoned talking politics/news. DONT. When I, and presumably any man, is out we are escaping, getting away from the badness of the world, the 40hour week, blowing off the stress of life, we arent in the mood for talking about the Iraq war or global hunger. I went out with a girl who, on the first date told me in depth about her friend (who id known from a house party) who was heavy into coke, cut her arms and was riding a new guy every weekend in the temporary belief he was "the one". If that wasnt bad enough she proceeded to tell me of another friend with pretty much the same issues, this must have went on for at least 15 minutes. I just nodded and sympthasied, i dont mean to sound insensitive but if im out with a bird i dont want to hear other peoples problems. I could have depressed her for hours with true stories of current or former friends/family members depressed, alcoholics, in prison, drug problems, but I wouldnt go near it So i wouldnt want anyone else to do the same.

btw ive been drinking all day

Pepe LeFrits

Dudess wrote:

Beyoncé = good-looking in a populist sense
Dita Von Teese = not good-looking in a populist sense, but still attractive

I still don't understand. What is 'populist' about Beyonce's looks, as opposed to Dita Von Teese? Is it because she follows modern fashion styles, while DVT likes burlesque? Because style aside, physically I don't see a great deal of difference between them. It's not like Beyonce is a size 0 supermodel and DVT is extra-chunky.

I'm talking about a person who's a laugh and witty but doesn't feel the need to be all "silly" and "cutesie". I'm not talking about someone who takes themselves seriously. Sorry, I should have made that clearer.

Ok, replace "think you fancy her" with "think you'd like to start a relationship with her". Sorry again.

Well I'm wondering which one would be relationship material.

In other words, as a grown man would I engage in a relationship with a hot girl who was completely vacant and incapable of holding my interest? No, probably not. But it is worth mentioning that 'intelligence' isn't the only positive personality trait a person can have.

Dudess

BrandonBlock wrote:

Your poll is too biased in that you are over-encouraging people to vote #1 girl.

No I'm not. I've given enough info about both. I may have typed less words about girl number two but that's because there is, frankly, less to her.

I know a girl who is very into politics & history and I can safely say she is the most boring person I have ever met in my life. More life in a plank of wood.

That's one person. And you know damn well that I listed a load of other attributes.

see how I manipulated the information - like you probably did if this is anyway reality-based

Yeah, I do see how you manipulated the information by cherry-picking what suits.

thrill wrote:

I think you gave girl no1 far too many attributes to make it a really hard decision.
I mean, all you gave the other girl is big boobs and tight cloths. Hmmmm

Have another read: I gave the second girl a lot more attributes than just big boobs and tight clothes.

Zebra3

Dudess wrote:

And also completely lacking in that quality so many males decry in females - bitchiness.

Nothing wrong with a bit of bitchiness in a bird.

Once it doesn't dominate her life.

Dudess

shane86 wrote:

did the above happen to you last night?

Got a lot of those queries earlier. Answer is contained in my second post:

Dudess wrote:

Firstly, I certainly would have a lot in common with girl number 1 (and literally nothing with girl number 2) but I'm actually in a relationship. The scenario described is purely hypothetical.
... even though I'm in a relationship now, I haven't been in many - nothing majorly serious anyway. I always found that while I got on really well with guys, they saw me more as a mate or a shag buddy rather than as a potential long-term partner. I know I'm not unattractive, I have a nice figure and I make an effort with my appearance, but I'm pale and my hair is jet-black with red streaks - a Beyoncé type I ain't. On several occasions over the years, girls would remark, "wow, you get on so well with lads and you're so relaxed around them and you just act like yourself" without finishing (but clearly thinking), "how come you're rarely in a relationship?"
To be honest, I'm independent and happy in myself so it never REALLY bothered me, but it did make me a little cynical and, forgive me, but it made me suspect that most guys, no matter how intelligent and non-laddish they are, will always pick appearance over substance. I've heard lads gushing over complete BINTS - like whatsername who played Candice in Coronation Street - and these lads were far from thick chavvy types.
This also made me suspect that maybe lads didn't go for me (and other similar girls) as a girlfriend because they felt, subconsciously, a little uncomfortable about the fact that I wasn't all girlie and into handbags etc.
I know two girls who are both definitely girl number one material - don't know them well and have only known them a couple of years, but in that time, I don't think they've ever been with ANY guy in any capacity whatsoever. My mate shared a house with them for nearly two years and they never even brought lads back for a shag. But they had plenty of male friends.
Now I would have thought they were perfect catches, but men just don't seem to be interested in them. And they're certainly not shy or uncomfortable around men. They are also both very attractive with great figures - one of them in particular is absolutely beautiful.
I know one guy who's a bit of a pain in the arse - he's so bloody precious about his art-house films and French literature (e.g. he wouldn't dream of going to a film in a mainstream cinema). He's ridiculously OTT when it comes to his leftist leanings - from a well-off family in an upmarket area, wants to be working-class, blah blah. And he's so politically correct you feel you have to walk on eggshells when you're talking to him. But does he go for girls like girl number one? Not a chance! Blonde, fashionable types all the way! Ok, not as bad as Jessica Simpson, but a far cry from girl number one!

And by the way, anyone who just brings up politics in the pub to sound impressive is obviously a twat. I'm only saying what if the conversation steered that way.

dumbeldore

girl 2 because girl 1 would be after slapping me for stareing at girl 2 with drool falling from my mouth

Dudess

Pepe LeFrits wrote:

What is 'populist' about Beyonce's looks, as opposed to Dita Von Teese?

Well wouldn't you be more likely to find the likes of Beyoncé - blonde, tanned, curvy - in men's magazines, advertising products etc. There's no denying they are very beautiful but I find them a bit generic looking.
Whereas someone who has the looks of Dita Von Teese - extreme paleness isn't a look the various image industries seem to have time for. Anyone who IS pale (e.g. Kate Moss) doesn't appear so in pictures.

Conor108

Em we dont know which ones attractive! well call me shallow but

looks<personality

Thats the greater than sign right?

Pepe LeFrits

Dudess wrote:

Well wouldn't you be more likely to find the likes of Beyoncé - blonde, tanned, curvy - in men's magazines, advertising products etc. There's no denying they are very beautiful but I find them a bit generic looking.
Whereas someone who has the looks of Dita Von Teese - extreme paleness isn't a look the various image industries seem to have time for. Anyone who IS pale (e.g. Kate Moss) doesn't appear so in pictures.

Dita Von Teese seems pretty curvy to me too, at least no less so than Beyonce. True she is pale but generally that isn't seen as attractive, not because the globalising media monster tells us it isn't so, but because having colour is a sign of being healthy.

Binomate

Personally I wouldn't like a fat bird like Beyoncé.

Dudess

Well that's not necessarily true. I'm pale, and in great health. I just don't tan. Being pale suits me. If I put on fake tan I'd look ridiculous!
Yeah I know Dita is curvy (she has the perfect figure in my opinion:)) but it's the pale skin, jet-black hair and the generally not having Jessica Simpson-type looks and the fact that Dita's kind of look is less likely to feature in the pages of Zoo, FHM, Loaded etc that I'm referring to.