pretty, dumb and marketable

[mimi]

Not long ago I listened to a program discussing how far we have come in regards to the expectations of women over the past 50 years.

The program mentioned a 'club' or organization that helped wealthy men find suitable wives. They screen applicants and find matches etc.
Interestingly, the characteristics most sought after by men were: Hot Body and pretty face. Smart but not really intelligent

Wealthy men want women who are moderately educated, for example, school teacher, or nurse, but, not engaged in a career that generates a great income. It is expected that they will cease employment upon marriage.

So nothing has changed for over 500 years...the cultivation of beauty and a modest investment in grey matter will net a young woman a fine "catch".

So, I wonder...men are constantly asking what women find attractive...is it all about looks? But, what about men?...do men actually find intelligent women sexually attractive?
Or just fun to pal around with?

Is this the perfect wife?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdt6wcK1cSQ&feature=related

 

[Devils_Advocate]

pretty, dumb and marketable...

I thought you were talking about the Sarah Palin... The Republic Party certainly thought that was what the American people wanted. (and they are probably right...)

 

[Evolve]

Not long ago I listened to a program discussing how far we have come in regards to the expectations of women over the past 50 years.

The program mentioned a 'club' or organization that helped wealthy men find suitable wives. They screen applicants and find matches etc.
Interestingly, the characteristics most sought after by men were: Hot Body and pretty face. Smart but not really intelligent

Wealthy men want women who are moderately educated, for example, school teacher, or nurse, but, not engaged in a career that generates a great income. It is expected that they will cease employment upon marriage.

So nothing has changed for over 500 years...the cultivation of beauty and a modest investment in grey matter will net a young woman a fine "catch".

So, I wonder...men are constantly asking what women find attractive...is it all about looks? But, what about men?...do men actually find intelligent women sexually attractive?
Or just fun to pal around with?

Is this the perfect wife?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdt6wcK1cSQ&feature=related

I do find intelligence in women to be a very attractive quality. However, I do not pursue it in a partner nowadays. From my personal experience, women who have above average intelligence have above average crazy.
Maybe that's just been my bad luck though.

 

[hunsperger]

...

not sure if you want an answer or you're just trying to be a s**t disturber...

generally speaking woman are perceived as sex objects by men in the early stages of courtship and a male will try to acquire the most beautiful woman he is capable of, or circumstance allows...

on the flip side, men are perceived as success objects by women in the early stages of courtship and a woman will try to acquire a male of the highest status or rank she is capable of, or circumstance allows...

men are generally more superficial than women but not by as much as you ladies would like to think...

I know all the Pollyannas will disagree, but it is a sociological and anthropological fact...

more so today than ever...

that's why the divorce rate hovers around 50-60% in this day and age and the institution of marriage along with long-term committed relationships have literally become disposable...

 

[Keithks]

For a relationship, looks are very important to me. I'd want someone very beautiful, very young, and very feminine looking. Think Emmy Rossum's face with Scarlett Johanson's body. That's someone I would automatically fall in love with if she was into me and wasn't a complete bitch. Call it shallow, but that's just how it is.

As far as intelligence and ambition, I'd prefer someone who's just average in both areas. And despite what feminists will tell you, it has nothing to do with being "intimidated by strong, independant womyn" and everything to do with my biological imperitave as a man to seek out a sweet, affectionate, demure, nurturing type who'd be easy to get along with and would make a good mother to my children. Even if I don't really want children, this is still the ideal, and the more intelligent and ambitious a woman is the further away she tends to be from that ideal.

 

[hunsperger]

...

I've always wanted a woman like the one who married dear old Dad...

 

[mimi]

Shit disturber? Compared to whom?

Many of these threads explore the unfairness of men paying for sex. There is a good deal of grumbling about women only being after money and not caring about 'the inner personality'.

Great example: Keithks has already complained that pretty women do not have the forbearance to deal with his looks, and, in this thread he states that he will prefer to seek out exactly the type of woman who will reject him, instead of finding a nice homely woman who can love him for himself and more so as the years wax.

I know of a very beautiful woman, talented and intelligent, who chose to marry a man with a face only his mother could love, and live in a small town in the boonies on what could be called a stable, yet average, income. The reason?

Her father was a drop dead gorgeous, woman chasing, lazy, non providing, never showed up at school events, high income earner who depended on his wife to provide all the essentials from her much smaller salary and be grateful for it...after all....ALL the women wanted him and he settled for her, right?

Yes, hunsy, I agree...nothing has changed since the dawn of time...the marriage market is still about buying and selling and not really about 'love'. Or, shall we say, LOVE, that many splendored thing, disguises itself as sexual attraction, and humans are only sexually attracted to what is socially conceived as beautiful in the specific time (era) or culture of their individual backgrounds?

So in these posts about the inconstancy of women and the blackness of their souls, we are really only referring to pretty women, not the ugly ones, right? Because the ugly ones don't count, they are the left over bartering chips, the potential servants of a mans old age when he needs something cheaper than a nurse to change his colostomy bag and something cheaper and more grateful than a paid housekeeper to tidy up the place, oh, and let's not forget whipping up some yummy food....

but, when the ugly one is out of the house, he can use the money he has saved on nurses and housekeepers to buy a pretty girl for an hour....

 

[Keithks]

Great example: Keithks has already complained that pretty women do not have the forbearance to deal with his looks, and, in this thread he states that he will prefer to seek out exactly the type of woman who will reject him, instead of finding a nice homely woman who can love him for himself and more so as the years wax.

It's just a preference. Really, being in the position of scarcity that I am, I'd be happy with any hood rat. Unfortunately, even these women won't have anything to do with me. They'd rather share the alpha males, men who only use them for sex while reserving their emotional investment for attractive girls with low mileage (which is exactly what I would do if I were an alpha male).

 

[bobby]

there's a lot of jaded people both men and women. pain and bitterness are like cancer they could get anyone. the thing i always like to remember is that most of us are good. we like people, we dont want to hurt anyone and we dont want to be hurt.

if you're jaded or bitter work to get over it, it hurts you more than anyone else and makes you miss much

 

[godfather_77]

I know all the Pollyannas will disagree, but it is a sociological and anthropological fact...

hunsperger Not only would the Pollyanna's disagree but so would Sociologists and Anthropologists ...there are no real facts in the behavioral/social sciences, despite science at the end of these terms, most if not all that is published in the social sciences are hypotheses, with some being more accepted than others No Laws or irrefutable facts when dealing with human emotions, cognitions and social structure.

 

[hunsperger]

...

I know all the Pollyannas will disagree, but it is a sociological and anthropological fact...

hunsperger Not only would the Pollyanna's disagree but so would Sociologists and Anthropologists ...there are no real facts in the behavioral/social sciences, despite science at the end of these terms, most if not all that is published in the social sciences are hypotheses, with some being more accepted than others No Laws or irrefutable facts when dealing with human emotions, cognitions and social structure.

I agree that there are no Laws governing human behaviour in the sense of something like Ohms law in electricity...

and it's not hard science like Physics or Chemistry...

but why does there need to be when we are discussing how we behave...

a cataloguing of observations should suffice...

as to why we behave the way we do, that's where it gets a little gray...

 

[godfather_77]

Even with a cataloging of observations we can't reliable predict what others will do because of the myriad of factors involved in affecting behaviours. Because of this lack of certainty humans tend to simplify explanations about what goes on around them leading to stereotypes, which are just readily accessible, simple cognitive templates. That is in theory of course