Question for the hetero guys aged 25+!

Dudess

andrew wrote:

Your friends... are you sure they're good looking? I mean i've heard girls describe other girls as good looking when they are infact horrid looking.

One of them is average-looking but far from unattractive. She dresses well, has lovely hair, great figure etc.
The other one actually is beautiful.

Smellyirishman wrote:

Exactly. Unlike Simon Schama who is still in his prime

He may not be what you'd call a hottie but watching him do his History of Britain thing... I go weak at the knees!

Amazotheamazing wrote:

The problem here is the OP doesn't know what men find attractive, just becuase a girl thinks another girl is stunning doesn't mean many (or any) men will agree.

Ah yeah, I know there are lots of other factors to take into account. It's certainly not intended as a propery survey or anything. This is After Hours!:)

The-Rigger wrote:

I find the poll confusing, are we meant to believe that the blonde is beautiful too, or not? It doesn't say, are we meant to believe the intelligent girl is unattractive?

Well I said the blonde girl is beautiful in a Jessica Simpson way. And the intelligent girl is attractive, if not conventionally so. Basically, striking rather than beautiful. I'd be thinking along the lines of Christina Ricci before she went all sexy. Maybe Chloe Sevigny.

the_syco wrote:

OP: a/s/l?

=-=

Sorry the_syco, I don't understand what you mean.

Victor

Dudess, before you get yourself in more trouble, the examples you are looking for are Dido (nice, but not stunning, but has definite skill) and Anna Nicole Smith (huge fake boobies, but couldn't string two words together, never mind hold a conversation).

Chucky the tree

Victor wrote:

Anna Nicole Smith (huge fake boobies, but couldn't string two words together, never mind hold a conversation).

eh, she's a fat mess.

Dudess

Was, Chucky. Was.

Victor wrote:

before you get yourself in more trouble

I know. My head's doing somersaults here! But no, not quite the right track. I said the blonde's not tacky-looking. And I should have said she has real boobs.
Dido - physically she's pretty, but I can't imagine her being all that interesting (well, if her dull-as-paint-drying music is anything to go by).

Dr Strange

Dudess wrote:

Sorry the_syco, I don't understand what you mean.

I'd say he means age/sex/location.

Dudess

Ah I see. Cheers.

WindSock

Dudess wrote:

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!

Maybe he goes for that type of girl to mirror his proletariate sentiments? Some blokes just don't want a partner that uses her head. They are probably insecure and feel they can control a bimbo more easily.

JC 2K3

nesf wrote:

Few men are like that too. What you get is a load on both sides who are pretentious and like to think that they've a deep understanding of many "high brow" topics.

QFT.


Anyway, this topic is stupid and the poll question might as well have been "Are you a proud intellectual?"

Voting for the first option here is essentially the pretentious dismissal of what is likely the majority of modern young people - image obsessed, materialistic, unopinionated etc.

Thing is, the likelyhood is that girl 1 won't be all that different to girl 2 if one were to analyse the situation properly.

I mean there's a lot more to having a "great taste in music, film, literature, art etc." than simply rejecting the conventional mainstream trends. The likelyhood is that someone who considers themselves an "intellectual" just adheres to what is popular amongst their subculture. It's not so much thinking for themselves as deciding they would like to adhere to an alternative stereotype.

Along the same lines, you'd wonder just how unique and interesting girl 1's opinions on politics and history would really be.

Also, as part of this "intellectual" subculture, girl 1 would probably have some kind of resentment towards "blonde bimbos" and would strive not to look anything like them. Perhaps her peers would consider her to have a unique sense of style, but unless she makes her own clothes or something, she's probably only dressing in slightly less popular items of clothing than these sort of girls.

She probably wouldn't wear very exposing clothes on a night out because she presumably would believe that that would make her a slut. Ironically, this could be considered regressional and pseudo-intellectual, as the mentality that girls who dress a certain way are sluts is an old fashioned attitude. Indeed, it's just a convention that "intellectual" girls don't dress like sluts.


All either is doing is adhering to a certain stereotype. Same thing basically. Now I accept that you haven't described girl 1 fully enough for me to simply lump her in with an alternative herd of sheep, she could actually be my dream girl.

What I can conclude, however, is that if she wasn't like how I've described above, then she wouldn't have posted this topic in AH.

aidan_walsh

Victor wrote:

Anna Nicole Smith

Chucky the tree wrote:

eh, she's a fat mess.

Dudess wrote:

Was, Chucky. Was.

Yeah, I hear she's wasting away to pretty much nothing these days...

aidan24326

JC 2K3 wrote:

Thing is, the likelyhood is that girl 1 won't be all that different to girl 2 if one were to analyse the situation properly.

Maybe in this instance, but only because the OP didn't pose the question particularly well.

Obviously someone who's genuinely smart and interesting will be quite different to the bimbo airhead who's interested in little other than big brother and what Pouty Spice is up to.

The question is do you go for the gorgeous looking but dull and uninteresting girl (trophy girlfriend) or the much less physically attractive but intelligent and much more interesting girl to talk to. Personally I think I'd nearly always go for option 1** (in this poll) , unless there really was no physical chemistry there at all.

There's a disproportionate leaning towards option 1 here. I suspect in the real world it wouldn't be quite as clearcut.

EDIT:
** If we're talking relationship of course, if it was just a bit of casual fun then girl 2 comes into play alot more :-)

simu

Is this a Dove ad?

nesf

JC 2K3 wrote:

Anyway, this topic is stupid and the poll question might as well have been "Are you a proud intellectual?"

Voting for the first option here is essentially the pretentious dismissal of what is likely the majority of modern young people - image obsessed, materialistic, unopinionated etc.

Thing is, the likelyhood is that girl 1 won't be all that different to girl 2 if one were to analyse the situation properly.

I mean there's a lot more to having a "great taste in music, film, literature, art etc." than simply rejecting the conventional mainstream trends. The likelyhood is that someone who considers themselves an "intellectual" just adheres to what is popular amongst their subculture. It's not so much thinking for themselves as deciding they would like to adhere to an alternative stereotype.

Along the same lines, you'd wonder just how unique and interesting girl 1's opinions on politics and history would really be.

Also, as part of this "intellectual" subculture, girl 1 would probably have some kind of resentment towards "blonde bimbos" and would strive not to look anything like them. Perhaps her peers would consider her to have a unique sense of style, but unless she makes her own clothes or something, she's probably only dressing in slightly less popular items of clothing than these sort of girls.

She probably wouldn't wear very exposing clothes on a night out because she presumably would believe that that would make her a slut. Ironically, this could be considered regressional and pseudo-intellectual, as the mentality that girls who dress a certain way are sluts is an old fashioned attitude. Indeed, it's just a convention that "intellectual" girls don't dress like sluts.


All either is doing is adhering to a certain stereotype. Same thing basically. Now I accept that you haven't described girl 1 fully enough for me to simply lump her in with an alternative herd of sheep, she could actually be my dream girl.

What I can conclude, however, is that if she wasn't like how I've described above, then she wouldn't have posted this topic in AH.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8DiX_ZCTs8

tbh

davyjose

2nd girl every time. She's better looking, and for all I know - on the basis of a short conversation in the boozer - could be a million times more fun, sweeter, kinder, better in bed (likely), and also I'm willing to admit that intelligence, wit, et al goes out the window in the face of a great pair of t!ts!!!

Lirange

davyjose wrote:

and also I'm willing to admit that intelligence, wit, et al goes out the window in the face of a great pair of t!ts!!!

And here I was thinking that the movie Idiocracy was only a cautionary tale for America.

davyjose

Lirange wrote:

And here I was thinking that the movie Idiocracy was only a cautionary tale for America.

I just don't discriminate against the intellectually challenged

Adam

Dudess wrote:

Very interesting reactions, folks! 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.


Funny you should say that, because 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!

Phone numbers and photos ftw! (myspace/bebo links semi-acceptable...)

On the note of the thread, I'm just tipping 21 and feel somewhat overlooked seeing as how even I would say hands down girl number one wins. And I've found a couple of them too, though rare as they are!

End of the day, I think most guys will say number one when given a choice. However, that choice is rarely there and most lads will admit to taking a couple of girl number 2's as a consequence!

/returns to reading thread

EDIT: Having now read the following four pages, I've come to the conclusion that the OP is far too biased, you're almost being protective of this "theoretical girl number one" which doesn't help the truth to really be revealed.

And on the note of the level of attractiveness of your friends, girls regularly refer to each other as beautiful when, in actual fact, they are BOTH wrecked!

Reku

I've a short attention span and my friend an even more brief one, as such she'd need to be intelligent enough to keep us interested.

In all seriousness though I'd rather someone I could have mature conversations with, enjoy a nice cuddle, feel knows me, than someone who I could easily replace by forking out whatever the current going rate is with a hooker. Throw in the fact that physical beauty fades while emotional connections only grow stronger...

That said however I will say that life has taught me that the more intelligent a woman the more of an emotionally needy headcase she tends to be as such even the intelligent ones need careful screening before deciding that they are date worthy.

The_B_Man

well i wouldnt be lookin for a relationship so i'd go with 2, purely coz she'd be better for the short term in many ways. tbh, i'd prob try sneakily get number 1's phone number behind number 2's back and keep it for when 2 goes belly up.

Zulu

Hang about - do Iknow I'm definatly in there with girl 1? ...'cause I'd be thinking, hot blonde is a deinate, will I risk it for "whats in the box!"???

Reku

Zulu wrote:

Hang about - do Iknow I'm definatly in there with girl 1? ...'cause I'd be thinking, hot blonde is a deinate, will I risk it for "whats in the box!"???

Hot but easy blonde would be the one I'd have the greater worry as to "what's in the box!" Who knows who/what's been there and what they've left behind for you.:eek:

Iago

JC 2K3 wrote:

QFT.


Anyway, this topic is stupid and the poll question might as well have been "Are you a proud intellectual?"

Voting for the first option here is essentially the pretentious dismissal of what is likely the majority of modern young people - image obsessed, materialistic, unopinionated etc.

Thing is, the likelyhood is that girl 1 won't be all that different to girl 2 if one were to analyse the situation properly.

I mean there's a lot more to having a "great taste in music, film, literature, art etc." than simply rejecting the conventional mainstream trends. The likelyhood is that someone who considers themselves an "intellectual" just adheres to what is popular amongst their subculture. It's not so much thinking for themselves as deciding they would like to adhere to an alternative stereotype.

Along the same lines, you'd wonder just how unique and interesting girl 1's opinions on politics and history would really be.

Also, as part of this "intellectual" subculture, girl 1 would probably have some kind of resentment towards "blonde bimbos" and would strive not to look anything like them. Perhaps her peers would consider her to have a unique sense of style, but unless she makes her own clothes or something, she's probably only dressing in slightly less popular items of clothing than these sort of girls.

She probably wouldn't wear very exposing clothes on a night out because she presumably would believe that that would make her a slut. Ironically, this could be considered regressional and pseudo-intellectual, as the mentality that girls who dress a certain way are sluts is an old fashioned attitude. Indeed, it's just a convention that "intellectual" girls don't dress like sluts.


All either is doing is adhering to a certain stereotype. Same thing basically. Now I accept that you haven't described girl 1 fully enough for me to simply lump her in with an alternative herd of sheep, she could actually be my dream girl.

What I can conclude, however, is that if she wasn't like how I've described above, then she wouldn't have posted this topic in AH.

saved me having to type it...

...oh noes I'm conforming to someone elses ideologies!!

CLARK
There's no problem. I was just hoping
you could give me some insight into
the evolution of the market economy in
the early colonies. My contention is
that prior to the Revolutionary War
the economic modalities especially of
the southern colonies could most aptly
be characterized as agrarian pre-
capitalist and...

WILL
Of course that's your contention.
You're a first year grad student.
You just finished some Marxian
historian, Pete Garrison prob'ly, and
so naturally that's what you believe
until next month when you get to James
Lemon and get convinced that Virginia
and Pennsylvania were strongly
entrepreneurial and capitalist back in
1740. That'll last until sometime in
your second year, then you'll be in
here regurgitating Gordon Wood about
the Pre-revolutionary utopia and the
capital-forming effects of military
mobilization.

CLARK
(taken aback)
Well, as a matter of fact, I won't,
because Wood drastically underestimates
the impact of--

WILL
--"Wood drastically underestimates the
impact of social distinctions predicated
upon wealth, especially inheriated
wealth..." You got that from "Work in
Essex County," Page 421, right? Do
you have any thoughts of your own on
the subject or were you just gonna
plagerize the whole book for me?

Look, don't try to pass yourself off
as some kind of an intellect at the
expense of my friend just to impress
these girls.

The sad thing is, in about 50 years
you might start doin' some thinkin' on
your own and by then you'll realize
there are only two certainties in life.

CLARK
Yeah? What're those?

WILL
One, don't do that. Two-- you dropped
a hundred and fifty grand on an
education you coulda' picked up for a
dollar fifty in late charges at the
Public Library.



CLARK
But I will have a degree, and you'll
be serving my kids fries at a drive
through on our way to a skiing trip.

WILL

Maybe. But at least I won't be a prick.

Ishmael

The answer i have arrived at is proportional to 3 variables.

1. The length of time i have already spent talking to Lady #1, X
2. Amount of Alcohol Consumed, Y
3. How Randy/Horny i am, Z

Now assuming

0< X < 3 Hours
0<= Y <= 6 Pints
0<= Z <= 100%

Assume for X, if i spend 3 hours with lady #1 then lady #2 doesn't get a look in

Assume for Y, if I've Had six pints, I've very little idea whats going on and sex, beer and food are the only things on my mind, lady #2 will get the Vote.

Assume for Z, In reality its a little more complex, but just for simplicity cause its Monday, that I've no chance at sex from Lady #1 but she is interesting etc. and Lady #2 is guaranteed sex. Then 100% would correspond with a Choice of Lady #2.

Using Normalized scales i would probably evaluate the answer as something close to

P(Lady #2) = (Z).(Y)/(X) and P(Lady #1) = 1 - P(Lady #2)

Not 100% accurate but you get the general Idea.

There should be an added factor of probability of sex with lady #1 (Q) and the probability of going home alone

mountainyman

Which girl has bigger tits?


MM

Froot

Jesus, you failed miserably at an unbiased poll if that was your intention.

I mean option A: A perfect woman blah blah blah

option B: a retarded bimbo.

I am guessing some guy you were talking to saw this blonde girl and told you to f#ck off....

Sucks to be you

I voted for the retarded bimbo, because if the first girl you described is the kind of person that creates a poll like this then I would prefer to sleep with someone who was most likely comfortable with themselves instead of looking for validation from randomers on the internet. Too much of work.

Tchocky

Belgium

Dudess

Froot wrote:

Jesus, you failed miserably at an unbiased poll if that was your intention.

I mean option A: A perfect woman blah blah blah

option B: a retarded bimbo.

I am guessing some guy you were talking to saw this blonde girl and told you to f#ck off....

Sucks to be you

I voted for the retarded bimbo, because if the first girl you described is the kind of person that creates a poll like this then I would prefer to sleep with someone who was most likely comfortable with themselves instead of looking for validation from randomers on the internet. Too much of work.

:rolleyes:

I know it's a pain in the arse to have to read the entire thread but you really should if you're going to make a whole bunch of bollocks assumptions.
Honey, I'm seeing someone. It's hypothetical, I'm not looking for validation. I am, however, interested in finding out (in as much as AH can reveal, which I agree is hardly definitive) whether it's true that, ultimately, most guys will go for looks (no matter how much of a bint she is) over someone who's interesting and great to chat to (and, before you say, ugly, nope. Actually good-looking, but not in a Jessica Simpson kind of way).

So bite me.

Iago

Dudess wrote:

I am, however, interested in finding out whether it's true that, ultimately, most guys will go for looks (no matter how much of a bint she is) over someone who's interesting and great to chat to (and, before you say, ugly, nope. Actually good-looking, but not in a Jessica Simpson kind of way).

Ultimately guys will always go for looks in the first instance. We are driven by visual stimuli much more than women are. In a bar situation looks will win over personality every time.

In a situation where I was looking for a partner a combination of looks and personality will win the day, but I would never be in that situation in a bar.

Dudess

mountainyman wrote:

Which girl has bigger tits?


MM

A fair question, MM!

Burning Eclipse

Dudess wrote:

:rolleyes:

I know it's a pain in the arse to have to read the entire thread but you really should if you're going to make a whole bunch of bollocks assumptions.
Honey, I'm seeing someone. It's hypothetical, I'm not looking for validation. I am, however, interested in finding out (in as much as AH can reveal, which I agree is hardly definitive) whether it's true that, ultimately, most guys will go for looks (no matter how much of a bint she is) over someone who's interesting and great to chat to (and, before you say, ugly, nope. Actually good-looking, but not in a Jessica Simpson kind of way).

So bite me.

You obviously aren't looking for an unbiased opinion by putting this thread up, because if you were you wouldn't have been so horribly biased in your original post. You give girl one a myriad of positive attributes and not a single negative one.

Girl 2 is

Dudess wrote:

rather thick and superficial. She doesn't know jack-sh1t about anything else and she's not interesting to talk to - a bimbo really.

And you were expecting what exactly... You might as well ask if people think murdering children is wrong!

For the record saying you're not looking for validation while posting a thread asking who would guys go for; girl one who

Dudess wrote:

I certainly would have a lot in common with

and girl 2, who you give a bunch of negative traits to, is a bit rich, relationship or not.

Lola123

Slightly off topic...but not all blonds with b00bs are bimbos!
I seem to attract the kind of guys who go for "girl number 2" despite the fact that I do have stuff goin on between my two ears. and I have stuff to talk about besides fashion and big brother...(don't do politics though )
From what I can see, alot of guys would go for girl number 2, however having been talking to girl number one i don't think there'd be any contest...girl number one wins!