Do men like women who are helpless?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You are missing the nuance here PP. Everyone understands men value physical beauty and attraction. We are discussing whether or not some men also value dominance and seek out hot helpless women.

Two hot twins. One is helpless, the other is dominant. Who do you court?

I don't think he's missing the nuance. I think OP is missing how people choose their partners. And what the definition of helpless really is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You are missing the nuance here PP. Everyone understands men value physical beauty and attraction. We are discussing whether or not some men also value dominance and seek out hot helpless women.

Two hot twins. One is helpless, the other is dominant. Who do you court?

Totally depends on the guy. Most guys like someone in between -- not ball busting but not completely dependent Some guys really like dominant women. Some guys really like dependent women

It's a matter of the guy's personality and taste. I'm an attorney and widely described as "a strong personality." I've had no shortage of men begging to date me. Some of them were very strong personalities who wanted a partner who wouldn't be overwhelmed by them. Some were more passive men who wanted a partner who would take the lead and run the relationship and their lives.

If OP can't find a date, she needs to look at herself not at men.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are missing the nuance here PP. Everyone understands men value physical beauty and attraction. We are discussing whether or not some men also value dominance and seek out hot helpless women.

Two hot twins. One is helpless, the other is dominant. Who do you court?

I don't think he's missing the nuance. I think OP is missing how people choose their partners. And what the definition of helpless really is.

+1

A waitress is not "helpless."

[Anonymous]

I'm the pm that got derided to find a new playmate. First off, I think that 10:16 nailed it. The one thing I'd add is that it's not just about what is attractive to each gender. Men and women are attracted to multiple things. I'm attracted to wit. I'm also attracted to humor and warmth. I wished I'd find everything in one person, but it doesn't always work out that way. Dating is about determining what mix you really want in a partner and them doing the same with you.

Second, I think the notion that someone who is less educated is only a playmate is exactly what is wrong with OP's post. Sometimes people contribute important things other than their education. And yes, one of things is fun. Which is play if it's the only thing the relationship consists of, but not if it is just one part of the package.

[Anonymous]

PP, not pm

[Anonymous]

Relationships are complicated, as are people. My mom is a SAHW that never went to college. My dad is a high level exec. My mom totally runs the show at home-- she's way more capable at general life stuff, though my dad is excellent at what he does at work.

It was a different time then, of course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is the female analog to the frequent male complaint of "women like Bad Boys and don't like Nice Guys."

This reflects a misunderstanding of what the other sex wants. "Bad Boys" are often roguishly handsome, funny, have an aura of competence and are exciting in bed. Women are attracted to these positive traits, not necessarily the fact that these guys are "bad." A lot of Nice Guys lack these positive traits despite being "nice."

The analog to this is the professionally accomplished thirty-something woman who observes that men keep falling for women who are "beneath them" socially, and career wise. But this reflects a lack of understanding of what men find attractive. Men don't evaluate women the same way women evaluate men. Men don't expect women to have a high social status, career or lots of money. Men are overwhelmingly focused on looks and personality.

A fun, sweet and physically attractive young barista is more attractive to most men than a not-so-attractive, but well-paid, professional who has lots of education, which she likes to show off, and generally has an unpleasantly entitled personality.

Just like the Nice Guys, these women often have a sense of entitlement that they deserve a certain class of men because of their accomplishments and they end up being lonely and resentful because they all end up competing for the same tiny population of unicorns who frequently end up marrying a younger woman anyway.

Nice Guys and Accomplished Woman: You don't get to dictate what the other sex finds attractive.

The major difference, I'd say, is that men are pretty up front about what they want. Much more common for women to say they want a funny guy with compassion and integrity then not pick that guy when he's available. Much less common for a guy to say he wants a funny girl with compassion and integrity. Guys are much more likely to say they want a girl who is hot and fun. Doubtful he'd pass her up if she was available.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I was in law school, many of the men in my class were very open about the fact that they were not the least bit interested in dating women who were fellow law students. I was already engaged at the time so it didn't affect me, but I thought it was weird.

They were smart.

I'm married to a lawyer. I can't imagine trying to have a family and give your children the attention they deserve with two lawyers as parents. The hours are brutal and not compatible with a balanced home life.

well, I'm a lawyer married to a lawyer and we have a family and even give our children attention . . . not every legal job has brutal hours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The general consensus is that for men, they want a hot women before anything else.

As long as the woman is hot stuff, it doesn't matter to him whether or not she is a pauper.

Think "Pretty Woman" slash Cinderella-type situation.

As for women, they place a high importance on money and power vs. just good looks.

"Pretty Woman" is a movie. The main character is a hooker. No one is marrying her. You are very sorely mistaken if you think men look at nothing but looks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is the female analog to the frequent male complaint of "women like Bad Boys and don't like Nice Guys."

This reflects a misunderstanding of what the other sex wants. "Bad Boys" are often roguishly handsome, funny, have an aura of competence and are exciting in bed. Women are attracted to these positive traits, not necessarily the fact that these guys are "bad." A lot of Nice Guys lack these positive traits despite being "nice."

The analog to this is the professionally accomplished thirty-something woman who observes that men keep falling for women who are "beneath them" socially, and career wise. But this reflects a lack of understanding of what men find attractive. Men don't evaluate women the same way women evaluate men. Men don't expect women to have a high social status, career or lots of money. Men are overwhelmingly focused on looks and personality.

A fun, sweet and physically attractive young barista is more attractive to most men than a not-so-attractive, but well-paid, professional who has lots of education, which she likes to show off, and generally has an unpleasantly entitled personality.

Just like the Nice Guys, these women often have a sense of entitlement that they deserve a certain class of men because of their accomplishments and they end up being lonely and resentful because they all end up competing for the same tiny population of unicorns who frequently end up marrying a younger woman anyway.

Nice Guys and Accomplished Woman: You don't get to dictate what the other sex finds attractive.

You are making two logical mistakes: engineering a false dilemma and imagining a relationship where there is none.

The qualities like fun, sweet and physically attractive aren't unique to baristas. An educated, upper class man will be much more likely to marry a fun, sweet and physically attractive woman from an upper/middle class family with a comparable level of education. Education doesn't make a woman un-fun, un-sweet and unattractive physically. Unattractive, unpleasant baristas don't have a lot of takers, either. (If you don't believe me, please consult wedding announcements and note occupations and background of both bride and groom).

My DH was very open with me that when we married, he was looking for a woman of the appropriate caliber of education and sophistication because women shape households, and particularly, the minds of children. He wouldn't have wanted a barista to raise his children. Note that education and sophistication doesn't necessary connote the same level of ambition and working hours; the woman might as well become a SAHM to raise the children. But the woman must be educated enough for the man to entrust her the upbringing of his children. She must speak a certain way. She must have the right values to transmit to children. She must carry her own weight in the right company. A barista just won't do. She's OK to date or enjoy in bed, but not for marriage and especially not for childrearing.

So, yes, looks matter to upperclass men and personality does, too - as long as certain education, class and sophistication prerequisites have been met. Assortative mating is alive and well, and is getting weller every day as upper classes become more entrenched in their position.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are missing the nuance here PP. Everyone understands men value physical beauty and attraction. We are discussing whether or not some men also value dominance and seek out hot helpless women.

Two hot twins. One is helpless, the other is dominant. Who do you court?

Totally depends on the guy. Most guys like someone in between -- not ball busting but not completely dependent Some guys really like dominant women. Some guys really like dependent women

It's a matter of the guy's personality and taste. I'm an attorney and widely described as "a strong personality." I've had no shortage of men begging to date me. Some of them were very strong personalities who wanted a partner who wouldn't be overwhelmed by them. Some were more passive men who wanted a partner who would take the lead and run the relationship and their lives.

If OP can't find a date, she needs to look at herself not at men.

Passive men begged to date you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've noticed that some men that I work with or friends with date women who are not their equals. Ex: PhD dates a woman that works as a waitress. Athletic guy dates a girl that doesn't like sports. Etc. Of course none of these men are married so maybe that is why. Your thoughts DCUM?

There is more to a person than their vocation. You seem terribly naive, OP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is the female analog to the frequent male complaint of "women like Bad Boys and don't like Nice Guys."

This reflects a misunderstanding of what the other sex wants. "Bad Boys" are often roguishly handsome, funny, have an aura of competence and are exciting in bed. Women are attracted to these positive traits, not necessarily the fact that these guys are "bad." A lot of Nice Guys lack these positive traits despite being "nice."

The analog to this is the professionally accomplished thirty-something woman who observes that men keep falling for women who are "beneath them" socially, and career wise. But this reflects a lack of understanding of what men find attractive. Men don't evaluate women the same way women evaluate men. Men don't expect women to have a high social status, career or lots of money. Men are overwhelmingly focused on looks and personality.

A fun, sweet and physically attractive young barista is more attractive to most men than a not-so-attractive, but well-paid, professional who has lots of education, which she likes to show off, and generally has an unpleasantly entitled personality.

Just like the Nice Guys, these women often have a sense of entitlement that they deserve a certain class of men because of their accomplishments and they end up being lonely and resentful because they all end up competing for the same tiny population of unicorns who frequently end up marrying a younger woman anyway.

Nice Guys and Accomplished Woman: You don't get to dictate what the other sex finds attractive.

You are making two logical mistakes: engineering a false dilemma and imagining a relationship where there is none.

The qualities like fun, sweet and physically attractive aren't unique to baristas. An educated, upper class man will be much more likely to marry a fun, sweet and physically attractive woman from an upper/middle class family with a comparable level of education. Education doesn't make a woman un-fun, un-sweet and unattractive physically. Unattractive, unpleasant baristas don't have a lot of takers, either. (If you don't believe me, please consult wedding announcements and note occupations and background of both bride and groom).

My DH was very open with me that when we married, he was looking for a woman of the appropriate caliber of education and sophistication because women shape households, and particularly, the minds of children. He wouldn't have wanted a barista to raise his children. Note that education and sophistication doesn't necessary connote the same level of ambition and working hours; the woman might as well become a SAHM to raise the children. But the woman must be educated enough for the man to entrust her the upbringing of his children. She must speak a certain way. She must have the right values to transmit to children. She must carry her own weight in the right company. A barista just won't do. She's OK to date or enjoy in bed, but not for marriage and especially not for childrearing.

So, yes, looks matter to upperclass men and personality does, too - as long as certain education, class and sophistication prerequisites have been met. Assortative mating is alive and well, and is getting weller every day as upper classes become more entrenched in their position.

So, a barista couldn't possibly be highly intelligent, educated and classy. This is classic entitled classism at its finest.
You know what, PP? I'm a extraordinary intelligent, classy lady that's quite capable of raising amazing children. I switched careers when I became older to something less "sophisticated" to allow my mind to relax at work, so I have plenty of mental energy for my art. We don't all fit the same mold. I certainly hope that you do not have a nanny, since you'd surely look down a her, even tho many nannies have degrees.

[Anonymous]

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So, a barista couldn't possibly be highly intelligent, educated and classy. This is classic entitled classism at its finest.
You know what, PP? I'm a extraordinary intelligent, classy lady that's quite capable of raising amazing children. I switched careers when I became older to something less "sophisticated" to allow my mind to relax at work, so I have plenty of mental energy for my art. We don't all fit the same mold. I certainly hope that you do not have a nanny, since you'd surely look down a her, even tho many nannies have degrees.

She could be. Statistically, she is less likely to be all these things. This is not personal to you.

If you switched careers to something less sophisticated when you became older, you couldn't possibly be a fun, sweet, young thing the PP had in mind. Your education would be..er...in the way.

I have no problems with nannies but my DH wouldn't have married one, and I don't want my son to marry one or my daughter to become one, either.