More Superficial: Men or Women?

liah

What gender do you believe, in general (since not everyone should be tarred with the same brush, obviously, just looking at trends here), is more superficial?

I think women tend to find a larger variety of traits in a partner to be attractive-- in tLL, even in the standard Male Form Appreciation thread you get quite a few lads who aren't conventionally attractive but women will still swoon over, and the Strangely Attractive thread is even odder. It tends to be largely the sense of humour that is the ultimate decider, or confidence. All body types, face shapes, hair styles (or lack thereof), heights, etc. There's a lot fewer male models than expected, and the men who see these threads are often incredibly surprised at what women truly find attractive.

Men, on the other hand, tend to have a slightly more uniform standard of attraction, and in general it has incredibly little to do with personality. In all the "Would ya?" threads on here and the Female Form Appreciation thread in BGRH, you can't exactly deny a running theme-- all conventionally attractive, slim and/or fit girls, and quite a lot of them are models. Men tend to be an awful lot more critical about appearance in picking a potential partner (for sex or otherwise) and are also a lot quicker to write a girl off if she isn't what he'd normally look for in a girl, physically, despite having an attractive personality.

It's also a very visual and obvious trend in watching couples-- far more often will you see an amazing looking girl with a not-so-hot guy than an amazing looking guy with a not-so-hot looking girl.

I find it interesting that men here often complain that attractive girls only go after assholes or male model-a-likes or men with money, when I constantly see the opposite. I'm not like that, and I honestly haven't met many (if any) girls who are like that. In my view it seems to stem from jealousy and lack of confidence on the part of the complainer rather than the person they're slagging actually possessing any of these traits.

But that's enough out of me, I could be completely wrong. What do you think?

amacachi

Both are equally superficial in most respects. I more often see couples where I'd've said the fella was better looking than the woman. That's not a scientific measure obviously. :P
Looks aren't the only thing either sex are superficial about though.

galwayrush

Men who are afflicted with the ghey.:D

Hazys

Men could defly give the better Superfacial

Hazys

Hazys wrote: »

Men could defly give the better Superfacial

:rolleyes:

Hazys

Deleted User wrote: »

:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

midlandsmissus

Men are definitely more superficial.

I had this fella follow me round all last saturday night. I was talking to him for a while, (cue he then thought I wanted to sleep with him but thats another discussion about men!!!!!)

I says 'I have a boyfriend!!', and he goes 'I cant leave you alone you're a pretty one. you're so pretty thats all I want in a girl' etc etc.

Looks are important to women too, but not to the same extent as to men.

This all goes back to my theory that men are obsessed with sex because they cant get it all the time, whereas women can get it anytime they want, and therefore aren't as bothered about it.

Hazys

Hazys wrote: »

:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

midlandsmissus

Deleted User wrote: »

:rolleyes:

I think we have a bromance going on

Hazys

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Men are definitely more superficial.

I had this fella follow me round all last saturday night. I was talking to him for a while, (cue he then thought I wanted to sleep with him but thats another discussion about men!!!!!)

I says 'I have a boyfriend!!', and he goes 'I cant leave you alone you're a pretty one. you're so pretty thats all I want in a girl' etc etc.

Looks are important to women too, but not to the same extent as to men.

This all goes back to my theory that men are obsessed with sex because they cant get it all the time, whereas women can get it anytime they want, and therefore aren't as bothered about it.

You go girlfriend!!!

johnathan woss

Is sexual attraction more based on looks for men .... yes.

Are men more superficial .... no.




The vast majority of great authors ..... men.
The vast majority of great artists .... men.
The vast majority of great poets .... men.
The vast majority of great scientists .... men.
The vast majority of great philosophers (if not all) .... men.

You get the picture ......

midlandsmissus

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I think we have a bromance going on

if you click that last smilie, it's how i feel about what you just said :P

Thundercats Ho

Hard one to call.
Both will obviously prefer the attractive ones (if given the choice).

One thing i have noticed over the years is that although girls do prefer good looking lads, a good few will give an average joe a chance if he has confidence, and although lads would prefer the good looking ladies, they will generally ride anything.

60/40, women being more superficial

liah

johnathan woss wrote: »

Is sexual attraction more based on looks for men .... yes.

Are men more superficial .... no.




The vast majority of great authors ..... men.
The vast majority of great artists .... men.
The vast majority of great poets .... men.
The vast majority of great scientists .... men.
The vast majority of great philosophers (if not all) .... men.

You get the picture ......

a) We're not talking about authors, artists, poets, scientists, philosophers. I'm talking about physical superficiality, not mental. That's an entirely different ballgame.
b) ...they're all men because until quite recently women weren't allowed to do anything outside of the kitchen, much less write books, paint, write poems, be scientists, or.. well, think.

Darkbloom

johnathan woss wrote: »

Is sexual attraction more based on looks for men .... yes.

Are men more superficial .... no.




The vast majority of great authors ..... men.
The vast majority of great artists .... men.
The vast majority of great poets .... men.
The vast majority of great scientists .... men.
The vast majority of great philosophers (if not all) .... men.

You get the picture ......

Nothing at all to do with women being denied access to education for centuries, I'm sure.:rolleyes:

midlandsmissus

johnathan woss wrote: »

Is sexual attraction more based on looks for men .... yes.

Are men more superficial .... no.




The vast majority of great authors ..... men.
The vast majority of great artists .... men.
The vast majority of great poets .... men.
The vast majority of great scientists .... men.
The vast majority of philiosophers (if not all) .... men.

You get the picture ......

Hardi har har.

I do believe the thread was asking are men more superficial when it comes to choosing a partner, and not anything else.

And in respose to the rest of your post: do you have any grasp of history at all?
Yes men made up the majority of just about anything, and why is that? Because women were beaten down and killed by men up until this century if they even tried to get an education. Hell, women had to die to even get the vote from men. So dont spout any of that nonsense.

metaoblivia

When it comes to the physical attractiveness of a partner, yes I think generally men are more "superficial." But I don't think that's a negative thing. I think it's just biology. Men, in general, are inclined to seek out the most attractive woman they can find. It's how they're built.
Of course there are exceptions, etc. This is just generally speaking.

johnathan woss

Have I hit a raw nerve ?


Are women still denied an education?
Because most great modern scientists/philosophers/oh yea I forgot MUSICIANS/etc/etc still seem to be men .......

Darkbloom

johnathan woss wrote: »

Have I hit a raw nerve ?


Are women still denied an education?
Because most great modern scientists/philosophers/oh yea I forgot MUSICIANS still seem to be men .......

Come off it, you're not even using logic. Thought your superior male brain would at least grant you that?

liah

johnathan woss wrote: »

Have I hit a raw nerve ?


Are women still denied an education?
Because most great modern scientists/philosophers/oh yea I forgot MUSICIANS still seem to be men .......

Probably because recent history is not so easily forgotten, mate. There's still societal pressures for women to get "girl jobs" and men to get "man jobs."

Though there's a lot more female musicians out there than you seem to notice.

994

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Hardi har har.

I do believe the thread was asking are men more superficial when it comes to choosing a partner, and not anything else.

And in respose to the rest of your post: do you have any grasp of history at all?
Yes men made up the majority of just about anything, and why is that? Because women were beaten down and killed by men up until this century if they even tried to get an education. Hell, women had to die to even get the vote from men. So dont spout any of that nonsense.

Men had to die to get the vote from other men; in Ireland, only 3 years passed between universal male suffrage and universal female suffrage. And this idea doesn't really hold water as most noblewomen sat around doing nothing (and thus had time to write and think, if they wanted), just as noblemen did, and many high-achieving men had little or no institutional support.

A woman's looks indicate fertility, so obviously men judge more on looks; a man who was attracted to infertile women wouldn't pass on his genes, after all. One could also ask, how many women would reject a man with no money vs. how many men would reject a woman with no money?

johnathan woss

I must have missed the societal pressure put on girls to discourage them from studying literature/science/philosophy....
This wouldn't be pressure put on girls by other girls, would it ?

midlandsmissus

994 wrote: »

Men had to die to get the vote from other men; in Ireland, only 3 years passed between universal male suffrage and universal female suffrage. And this idea doesn't really hold water as most noblewomen sat around doing nothing (and thus had time to write and think, if they wanted), just as noblemen did, and many high-achieving men had little or no institutional support.

A woman's looks indicate fertility, so obviously men judge more on looks; a man who was attracted to infertile women wouldn't pass on his genes, after all. One could also ask, how many women would reject a man with no money vs. how many men would reject a woman with no money?

I dont think this is true.

Were those noblewomen allowed to go to university? I think not. Sitting around doing nothing sounds like fun unitl you try it. Women who got married had to give up work as late as the 1970's in Ireland, so of course men have a massive head step in developments.

Money wise true for some women but not all. Speaking from experience, my boyfriend was broke when I met him, and I loved him straightaway. Money didn't come into it at all. Now he's rich and I still love him. Mone doesnt make you happy!

Darkbloom

johnathan woss wrote: »

I must have missed the societal pressure put on girls to discourage them from studying literature/science/philosophy....
This wouldn't be pressure put on girls by other girls, would it ?

I'm interested in why you keep mentioning philosophy; would we happen to have a great unemployed thinker in our midst?

A philosophy degree's a waste of time.

midlandsmissus

johnathan woss wrote: »

Have I hit a raw nerve ?


Are women still denied an education?
Because most great modern scientists/philosophers/oh yea I forgot MUSICIANS/etc/etc still seem to be men .......

Of course women have it good now, but you said all the great scientists etc are men, thats because in history women werent allowed to study those things.

Its your personal opinion that most great scientists/philosophers/musicians are men nowadays.

Cause I know a great many brilliant women scientists, having a degree in science MYSELF. I can reel off as many as you want!

Music taste is personal

Thundercats Ho

Darkbloom wrote: »

I'm interested in why you keep mentioning philosophy; would we happen to have a great unemployed thinker in our midst?

A philosophy degree's a waste of time.

good job you didnt misspell that one

johnathan woss

Darkbloom wrote: »

I'm interested in why you keep mentioning philosophy; would we happen to have a great unemployed thinker in our midst?

A philosophy degree's a waste of time.

Typical woman ^

Equates PHILOSOPHY with a philosophy degree and its associated earning power.

midlandsmissus

johnathan woss wrote: »

Typical woman ^

Equates PHILOSOPHY with a philosophy degree and its associated earning power.

How do you know the sex of people on here? Wheres that I cant find it!

liah

johnathan woss wrote: »

I must have missed the societal pressure put on girls to discourage them from studying literature/science/philosophy....
This wouldn't be pressure put on girls by other girls, would it ?

No, mostly by their backwards-thinking, old-fashioned families and schools.

Women are still pushed to be homemakers and childbearers from an early age by their own families and communities, and are often berated if they don't aspire to have children and look after a family (there's been a thread in PI about this recently, actually). Men are pushed towards careers, and nobody really cares or notices if they don't want to have kids.

A lot of schools will focus subjects like arts and languages on girls and maths and sciences on lads. There is still a noticeable difference that will take a lot more time to overcome.

Women still get paid less in the same fields and positions as men, thus encouraging them to seek out "women's jobs" to feel less inferior.

But there are and have been some brilliant female scientists in the past-- look at Marie Curie! Female authors and poets-- a lot of the classics were written by females, Jane Austen, Emily Bronte, Virginia Woolf.

They were all when the odds were completely against them.

Last but not least, don't forget, a lot of men have taken an awful lot of credit for the work of their wives in the past. Don't discount it.

Snowie

johnathan woss wrote: »

Have I hit a raw nerve ?


Are women still denied an education?
Because most great modern scientists/philosophers/oh yea I forgot MUSICIANS/etc/etc still seem to be men .......

I can hear an air raid siren........ :pac: are you wineding it ?


to a degree yeah liah your right, it was said some where in this forum that men get turned through visual stimulation

women apparently get turned on through mentle stimulation...

As for me yeah I am superficial, it doesnt mean that a pretty face isnt a pretty face, it does not mean that a woman whos a sise 12 is not attractive for that matter but then again some guys like bigger bodied women others like petite short girls other like bloned sise 10 6.0 to be fair id happily say that everybodys got a superficial tendenceys if you ask me!

johnathan woss

midlandsmissus wrote: »

How do you know the sex of people on here? Wheres that I cant find it!

You can tell by their posts :pac:

midlandsmissus

liah wrote: »

No, mostly by their backwards-thinking, old-fashioned families and schools.

Women are still pushed to be homemakers and childbearers from an early age by their own families and communities, and are often berated if they don't aspire to have children and look after a family (there's been a thread in PI about this recently, actually). Men are pushed towards careers, and nobody really cares or notices if they don't want to have kids.

A lot of schools will focus subjects like arts and languages on girls and maths and sciences on lads. There is still a noticeable difference that will take a lot more time to overcome.

Women still get paid less in the same fields and positions as men, thus encouraging them to seek out "women's jobs" to feel less inferior.

But there are and have been some brilliant female scientists in the past-- look at Marie Curie! Female authors and poets-- a lot of the classics were written by females, Jane Austen, Emily Bronte, Virginia Woolf.

They were all when the odds were completely against them.

Last but not least, don't forget, a lot of men have taken an awful lot of credit for the work of their wives in the past. Don't discount it.

Exactly they wouldnt even let Marie Curie get the acclaim that she deserved. They were so offended that a woman could have discovered what she did, they lumped her in with her husband.

Darkbloom

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Exactly they wouldnt even let Marie Curie get the acclaim that she deserved. They were so offended that a woman could have discovered what she did, they lumped her in with her husband.

Rosalind Franklin's achievements only came to light after her death.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalind_Franklin

johnathan woss

From wikipedia;

Marie decided to look into uranium rays as a possible field of research for a thesis. She used a clever technique to investigate samples. Fifteen years earlier, her husband and his brother had invented the electrometer, a device for measuring extremely low electrical currents. Using the Curie electrometer, she discovered that uranium rays caused the air around a sample to conduct electricity.[16] Her first result, using this technique, was the finding that the activity of the uranium compounds depended only on the amount of uranium present. She had shown that the radiation was not the outcome of some interaction between molecules but must come from the atom itself. In scientific terms, this was the most important single piece of work that she carried out.[17]

So; using technology her husband created she recognised the dependence of activity on the amount of uranium under investigation....

Seems to me she was riding in her husband's slipstream.

Davidius

I personally believe that [insert your choice here] are much more more superficial.

[Your reasoning here]


[Please place your +1 in the box]

cherryghost

some men and some women are more superficial than others. its a simple fact really. just in some places you tend to see more of the 'more superficial' people about.

am i right or am i talking absolute rubbish? :rolleyes:

Darkbloom

johnathan woss wrote: »

From wikipedia;

Marie decided to look into uranium rays as a possible field of research for a thesis. She used a clever technique to investigate samples. Fifteen years earlier, her husband and his brother had invented the electrometer, a device for measuring extremely low electrical currents. Using the Curie electrometer, she discovered that uranium rays caused the air around a sample to conduct electricity.[16] Her first result, using this technique, was the finding that the activity of the uranium compounds depended only on the amount of uranium present. She had shown that the radiation was not the outcome of some interaction between molecules but must come from the atom itself. In scientific terms, this was the most important single piece of work that she carried out.[17]

So; using technology her husband created she recognised the dependence of activity on the amount of uranium under investigation....

Seems to me she was riding in her husband's slipstream.

Amazing how you missed some of the first sentences in that article:

She was a pioneer in the field of radioactivity, the first person honored with two Nobel Prizes,[1] and the first female professor at the University of Paris.

Her achievements include the creation of a theory of radioactivity (a term coined by her[2]), techniques for isolating radioactive isotopes, and the discovery of two new elements, polonium and radium. It was also under her personal direction that the world's first studies were conducted into the treatment of neoplasms ("cancers"), using radioactive isotopes.

midlandsmissus

johnathan woss wrote: »

From wikipedia;

Marie decided to look into uranium rays as a possible field of research for a thesis. She used a clever technique to investigate samples. Fifteen years earlier, her husband and his brother had invented the electrometer, a device for measuring extremely low electrical currents. Using the Curie electrometer, she discovered that uranium rays caused the air around a sample to conduct electricity.[16] Her first result, using this technique, was the finding that the activity of the uranium compounds depended only on the amount of uranium present. She had shown that the radiation was not the outcome of some interaction between molecules but must come from the atom itself. In scientific terms, this was the most important single piece of work that she carried out.[17]Seems to me she was riding in her husband's slipstream.

You have superficial selection

From wikipedia: Marie Curie coined the term 'radioactivity', she singlehandedly developed techniques for isolating radioactive isotopes, and she discovered two new scientific elements: polonium and radium.

More than her husband ever did.

Disease Ridden

Eh, why are you's getting caught up in a debate over women and their achievments? It has nothing to do with which sex is more superficial!

I think all human beings ultimately strive to get the best mate possible, hence most lads being attracted to a much smaller cohort of women. And those nerds that say they arnt concerned about looks are just trying to get into your knickers ladies; your best bet is to avoid them and go for the straight out bastards like myself

johnathan woss

It would have been easier to copy+paste the whole article but I managed to find the paragraph about the most important single piece of work that she carried out.

Using technology her husband created.

liah

Since 1966, the number of women receiving bachelor's degrees in science and engineering in the U.S. has increased almost every year, reaching 202,583 in 2001, approximately half of the total.[13] The number awarded to men has not increased significantly since 1976. The proportion of women graduate students in science and engineering has risen since 1991, reaching 41% in 2001. Substantial differences between subjects are seen, however, with women accounting for almost three-quarters of those enrolled in psychology in 2001, but only 30% in computer science and 20% in engineering.[13] Both the number and the proportion of doctoral degrees in science and engineering awarded to women have increased steadily since 1966, from 8% in 1966 to 37% in 2001. The number of doctoral degrees awarded to men peaked in 1996 and has since fallen.

In the UK, women occupied over half the places in science-related higher education courses (science, medicine, maths, computer science and engineering) in 2004/5.[15] However, gender differences by individual subject were large: women substantially outnumbered men in biology and medicine, especially nursing, while men predominated in maths, physical sciences, computer science and engineering.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Cavendish
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89milie_du_Ch%C3%A2telet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatrix_Potter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnes_Pockels
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sofia_Kovalevskaya
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lise_Meitner
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmy_Noether

Darkbloom

johnathan woss wrote: »

It would have been easier to copy+paste the whole article but I managed to find the paragraph about the most important single piece of work that she carried out.

Using technology her husband created.

Good thing we have you here to clear up the mistakes of the Nobel committee and scientific community!

midlandsmissus

Disease Ridden wrote: »

Eh, why are you's getting caught up in a debate over women and their achievments? It has nothing to do with which sex is more superficial!

I think all human beings ultimately strive to get the best mate possible, hence most lads being attracted to a much smaller cohort of women. And those nerds that say they arnt concerned about looks are just trying to get into your knickers ladies; your best bet is to avoid them and go for the straight out bastards like myself

I have to say this is true.

I much prefer the straight out b*stards, to the ones who pretend to love helping old grannys and say theyre saving themselves for marriage, and then you find out theyre d biggest player in town!

liah

johnathan woss wrote: »

It would have been easier to copy+paste the whole article but I managed to find the paragraph about the most important single piece of work that she carried out.

Using technology her husband created.

That is probably (miraculously) the single stupidest thing you've said yet, and affirms you definitely are trolling.

Since when does using a tool discount the discovery made with it? That's like saying because you use a petri dish or a beaker to discover something new, your discovery mustn't be valid solely because you did not create the petri dish or beaker.

Wtf?

cherryghost

johnathan woss wrote: »

It would have been easier to copy+paste the whole article but I managed to find the paragraph about the most important single piece of work that she carried out.

Using technology her husband created.

why are you doing this?

marie curie
mary anne cary
isadora duncan
caterina dei vigri
mother theresa
cleopatra :pac:

to name a few off the top of my head

johnathan woss

cherryghost wrote: »

why are you doing this?

marie curie
mary anne cary
isadora duncan
caterina dei vigri
mother theresa
cleopatra :pac:

to name a few off the top of my head

How could you forget Beyonce :pac:

cherryghost

johnathan woss wrote: »

How could you forget Beyonce :pac:

she done nothing notable

dvpower

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Men are definitely more superficial.

I had this fella follow me round all last saturday night. I was talking to him for a while, (cue he then thought I wanted to sleep with him but thats another discussion about men!!!!!)

I says 'I have a boyfriend!!', and he goes 'I cant leave you alone you're a pretty one. you're so pretty thats all I want in a girl' etc etc.

Looks are important to women too, but not to the same extent as to men.

This all goes back to my theory that men are obsessed with sex because they cant get it all the time, whereas women can get it anytime they want, and therefore aren't as bothered about it.

midlandsmissus wrote: »

From wikipedia: Marie Curie coined the term 'radioactivity', she singlehandedly developed techniques for isolating radioactive isotopes, and she discovered two new scientific elements: polonium and radium.

More than her husband ever did.

Well. That's my mind made up.

liah

liah wrote: »

Probably because recent history is not so easily forgotten, mate. There's still societal pressures for women to get "girl jobs" and men to get "man jobs."

Though there's a lot more female musicians out there than you seem to notice.

I think I spent half an hour trying to dig out this pic:


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v660/blueywolf/men_women_jobs.jpg

liah

bluewolf wrote: »

I think I spent half an hour trying to dig out this pic:


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v660/blueywolf/men_women_jobs.jpg

Wow.

...Wow.


:eek:

bluewolf

bluewolf wrote: »

I think I spent half an hour trying to dig out this pic:


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v660/blueywolf/men_women_jobs.jpg

savage!! :pac: