|
|
| Re: IQ and Sex (764493) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 3 of 3 |
||
|
| (765023) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Apr 14 21:41:40 2011, in response to Re: IQ and Sex, posted by SMAZ on Thu Apr 14 18:12:21 2011. Any man who says "that guy is one ugly dude" is making such a statement.I think that if a man calls another man ugly, then that man must also secretly think of other men as being "pretty", since ugly to me in that case means that the man doesn't find him sexually attractive. Anytime we say "that guy looks cool" and wished we'd look like him, we are making such a comparison. I don't think that there's anything homosexual about saying that another guy has "nice shoes" or a "nice hat", but saying things like "I like his style" are a little more questionable. Almost all men want to look good, not just to women, but also to their male peers. Homosexuality has nothing to do with it. Looking good amongst your peers has social benefits. When you were a kid, who did you consider worthy of emulation and respect? The ugly dudes or the cool good-looking ones? Actually, I cared more about personality than anything else. I'm probably going to sound like a real airhead saying this, but people would sometimes question my choice in friends because of they way that those friends looked, and although I never understood how some men could be that shallow, it helped filter out the people I don't want to be associated with. If your sister were to bring home a boyfriend, would you be happier if he's a monstrous-looking guy or if he's attractive in aesthetics and mannerisms? I don't have a sister, but if I had a daughter (if I had a sister, I probably wouldn't care about the men she dates) his personality, morals, and her happiness would definitely my top priorities, hygiene would probably be 2nd though. |
|
|
| (765024) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Apr 14 21:45:05 2011, in response to Re: IQ and Sex, posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Apr 14 21:41:40 2011. I had a daughterKnock on wood, no man wants a daughter. |
|
|
| (765027) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Apr 14 21:56:40 2011, in response to Re: IQ and Sex, posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Apr 14 13:13:12 2011. A guy that has no interest or attraction to other guys still knows what a "good looking" guy means. Just like women know what an attractive woman means, even if they aren't attracted to other women.It doesn't mean they are looking at guys like they would look at women, but still most people know what a good looking person is vs an "ugly" person. |
|
|
| (765029) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Apr 14 21:57:46 2011, in response to Re: IQ and Sex, posted by SMAZ on Thu Apr 14 06:46:22 2011. Source? |
|
|
| (765031) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Apr 14 22:14:09 2011, in response to Re: IQ and Sex, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Apr 14 21:56:40 2011. I know what nicely dressed means, but not physically attractive. |
|
|
| (765061) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Thu Apr 14 23:09:37 2011, in response to Re: IQ and Sex, posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Apr 14 21:41:40 2011. Actually, I cared more about personality than anything else. I'm probably going to sound like a real airhead saying this, but people would sometimes question my choice in friends because of they way that those friends looked, and although I never understood how some men could be that shallow, it helped filter out the people I don't want to be associated with.That's commendable. I am the same way but I doubt that you wanted to look like these strange looking friends. The fact that your other male friends questioned this demonstrates that these guys were making judgement calls on male aesthetics and that there is nothing gay about it. I don't have a sister, but if I had a daughter (if I had a sister, I probably wouldn't care about the men she dates) his personality, morals, and her happiness would definitely my top priorities So all things being equal, you wouldn't prefer that your grandchildren be produced by the better looking guy? In other words, based on those pics posted by JayMan, wouldn't you prefer that your daughter brought home the decent looking young Einstein rather than the sickly and weird-looking young Hawkins? hygiene would probably be 2nd though. Why wouldn't you want her to marry a railfan? |
|
|
| (765073) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Thu Apr 14 23:26:25 2011, in response to Re: IQ and Sex, posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Apr 14 22:14:09 2011. Bullshit.Everytime you look in the mirror to fix your hair or lament that your abs are not what they used to be, you are making an aesthetic judgment call based on an ingrained mental model of what the perfect or at least acceptable male body or facial features is supposed to look like just like women do with their bodies and grooming. Same-sex attraction has nothing to do with it. It's an evolutionary trait that if someone looks like shit, they are not gonna reproduce. If someone looks sickly, weak or weird, he will not only not reproduce but also have a hard time socializing with his own peers. It's why popular people are good looking. From an early age, kids don't want to be seen with the ugly kids. It may be unfair and perhaps taught to be discouraged but it's part of human evolution. In fact even parents want their children to hang out with the good looking kids because they want their children to be popular (or at least not outcasts). There is a reason why guys in the 50's wanted to look like James Dean instead of like Mickey Rooney and it had nothing to do with wanting to have sex with James Dean. |
|
|
| (765074) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Thu Apr 14 23:26:31 2011, in response to Re: IQ and Sex, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Apr 14 21:56:40 2011. Exactly! |
|
|
| (765075) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Thu Apr 14 23:27:10 2011, in response to Re: IQ and Sex, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Apr 14 21:57:46 2011. Observations by SMAZ over the last 42 years. |
|
|
| (765078) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Thu Apr 14 23:28:21 2011, in response to Re: IQ and Sex, posted by SMAZ on Thu Apr 14 23:27:10 2011. I thought you turned 43 in January? |
|
|
| (765084) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Thu Apr 14 23:46:21 2011, in response to Re: IQ and Sex, posted by LuchAAA on Thu Apr 14 23:28:21 2011. Nope.1969. |
|
|
| (765095) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Apr 15 01:06:21 2011, in response to Re: IQ and Sex, posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Apr 14 22:14:09 2011. If you know what it looks like for YOU to look good when you get ready in the morning, you understand what it means for a guy to look good. That does not imply you are attracted to guys.Have some confidence in your sexuality. |
|
|
| (765098) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Fri Apr 15 01:13:06 2011, in response to Re: IQ and Sex, posted by SMAZ on Thu Apr 14 23:09:37 2011. That's commendable. I am the same way but I doubt that you wanted to look like these strange looking friends.The fact that your other male friends questioned this demonstrates that these guys were making judgement calls on male aesthetics and that there is nothing gay about it. True, but still shallow. So all things being equal, you wouldn't prefer that your grandchildren be produced by the better looking guy? In other words, based on those pics posted by JayMan, wouldn't you prefer that your daughter brought home the decent looking young Einstein rather than the sickly and weird-looking young Hawkins? I don't know what you mean by better looking guy, I have no idea how females think & what they find physically attractive in men like I said before. I'd rather by daughter produce grandchildren with whomever she's happy with, I'll take either of the two to be honest with you since either way, I'm set for life! Why wouldn't you want her to marry a railfan? Haha that was good. |
|
|
| (765099) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Fri Apr 15 01:19:56 2011, in response to Re: IQ and Sex, posted by SMAZ on Thu Apr 14 23:26:25 2011. Everytime you look in the mirror to fix your hair or lament that your abs are not what they used to be, you are making an aesthetic judgment call based on an ingrained mental model of what the perfect or at least acceptable male body or facial features is supposed to look like just like women do with their bodies and grooming.I don't like looking in the mirror much because my mother tells me that the more you look into the mirror the uglier you get. What I usually look for when looking in the mirror is to make sure I'm not walking around with no zits, dry lips (my hatred of having dry lips is probably one of the most feminine things about me), boogers hanging out of my nose, etc. In the morning I'll look in the mirror to make sure my outfit & hair look proper before I go out though. Same-sex attraction has nothing to do with it. It's an evolutionary trait that if someone looks like shit, they are not gonna reproduce. If someone looks sickly, weak or weird, he will not only not reproduce but also have a hard time socializing with his own peers. It's why popular people are good looking. From an early age, kids don't want to be seen with the ugly kids. It may be unfair and perhaps taught to be discouraged but it's part of human evolution. In fact even parents want their children to hang out with the good looking kids because they want their children to be popular (or at least not outcasts). Really? I always thought that men choose friends more on a personality-basis, but I guess that's just myself & the people I grew up with. |
|
|
| (765100) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Fri Apr 15 01:21:21 2011, in response to Re: IQ and Sex, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Apr 15 01:06:21 2011. If you know what it looks like for YOU to look good when you get ready in the morning, you understand what it means for a guy to look good. That does not imply you are attracted to guys.No, I understand what it means for myself to look good, not other guys. |
|
|
| (765109) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Fri Apr 15 07:33:30 2011, in response to Re: IQ and Sex, posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Apr 14 22:14:09 2011. How it works is like this. You're a straight man but you see other men in your daily travels. You know that some dudes are good looking but you don't dwell on it because there's not an attraction to them, but just an acknowledgement. That's the point being made, no more, no further. This is a good looking guy.  This is not a particularly good looking guy. One need not be gay to know the difference. Other than that, gay straight or in-between, we all know what fugly is LOL. your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (765110) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Apr 15 07:51:50 2011, in response to Re: IQ and Sex, posted by Fred G on Fri Apr 15 07:33:30 2011. Yup, that's exactly the point. |
|
|
| (765113) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Fri Apr 15 08:20:03 2011, in response to Re: IQ and Sex, posted by Fred G on Fri Apr 15 07:33:30 2011. I know that girls find the first man more attractive, but I don't personally know what makes him more attractive. |
|
|
| (765114) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Fri Apr 15 08:22:47 2011, in response to Re: IQ and Sex, posted by Osmosis Jones on Fri Apr 15 08:20:03 2011. I don't see why that's so hard for you guys to understand, I understand what you're all talking about. |
|
|
| (765116) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Fri Apr 15 08:27:08 2011, in response to Re: IQ and Sex, posted by Osmosis Jones on Fri Apr 15 08:20:03 2011. The first guy is more attractive because he looks more like me than the other guy does :Pyour pal, Fred |
|
|
| (765117) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by JayMan on Fri Apr 15 08:58:39 2011, in response to Re: IQ and Sex, posted by Fred G on Fri Apr 15 08:27:08 2011. LOL! There you go. |
|
|
| (765142) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by JayMan on Fri Apr 15 11:49:24 2011, in response to Re: IQ and Sex, posted by LuchAAA on Thu Apr 14 01:08:13 2011. And many corporate type women I've met are sex machines.Revisiting this anecdote, it is possible that the seemingly pronounced difference between women in business careers and women in academia/more intellectual careers in terms of sex drive may not be so much because these career paths discourage sexuality (in the case of academia), as I suggested, because it's not like business careers promote promiscuity (women sleeping their way up the corporate ladder notwithstanding). Instead, it could just be that these places attract fundamentally different type of people. In the case of men, the difference is obvious; business careers appeal more to jock types than nerd types that tend to end up in academia. As well, these personalities do better in these respective career paths. The same is probably true of women as well. This would mean, contrary to what I said earlier, that women in academic careers are frigid because that's the type of women that head there. This is still quite consistent with higher-IQ individuals having lower sex drives, on average. |
|
|
| (765161) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Fri Apr 15 13:13:38 2011, in response to Re: IQ and Sex, posted by Osmosis Jones on Fri Apr 15 01:13:06 2011. True, but still shallow.Shallow yes but not gay. I don't know what you mean by better looking guy, Of course you do. If there are three guys: one with a good physique, one with poor muscle tone and one who is grossly obese, are you really telling me that you wouldn't know who the better-looking of the three is? Or who the worse looking is? Do you think the choice of male models they put on the cover of those fitness magazines for men are based on female or gay aesthetic ideals? You've never had a situation where you haven't seen a friend's male kid or relative since they were 9 and they show you a picture now that he's 20 and somebody says "hey, he turned out to be a good-looking kid!". You've never had a situation where a hot chick is dating some ugly dude and think "how the hell did somebody that looks like that get somebody that hot?" or the reverse situation where you think "he can do better than dating that hag". You've got some hang-up that something as normal as a straight guy being able to tell a good-looking from a not-so-good-looking male has some kind of homosexual undertone. |
|
|
| (765162) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Fri Apr 15 13:30:05 2011, in response to Re: IQ and Sex, posted by Osmosis Jones on Fri Apr 15 08:22:47 2011. There's more to understanding. It's ingrained.Let's say that you are normal looking guy and are competing for a chick's attention (and more). Then a Denzel-look-alike drops in. Don't you immediately believe that your job of scoring with the chick is now more difficult. That he has an advantage that you need to overcome with other attributes (personality, intelligence, money). Right then and there, you have made a male aesthetics judgement call. You are realizing that that guy is probably better looking that you. Nothing gay about that. It's normal. It doesn't mean that you are sexually attracted to the Denzel-looking dude. I'm not gay and I can tell that Denzel is better looking than Al Sharpton and that Sharpton is better looking than Flavor Flav. I also know that I'm better looking that Carrot Top but not as good looking as Denzel Washington. |
|
|
| (765172) | |
Re: IQ and Sex |
|
|
Posted by JayMan on Fri Apr 15 14:22:24 2011, in response to Re: IQ and Sex, posted by SMAZ on Fri Apr 15 13:30:05 2011. Yes, clearly from an evolutionary viewpoint it would be in a male's best interest to be able to size up other males (in all senses, actually), who could be potential competition for women or potential mates for his daughters. Just as women are clearly able to size up other women for attractiveness. There is nothing odd or inherently homosexual about it. |
|
|
|
Page 3 of 3 |
||