Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very few will. But the world will bend over backwards telling women to give chances to unattractive guys.

Bingo.

Precisely.

Oh please. I see lots of beautiful, fit women (even in their mid years) and who are married to average, at best, guys. I see that way more than the reverse.

Anonymous wrote:Yes, men call these "practice" women. You see what works with them so you don't screw up your date with attractive women.

This sound like something a woman would do...not a man.

Yes, men call these "practice" women. You see what works with them so you don't screw up your date with attractive women.

Generally I'm attracted to something whether it be physical or some other shared interest. Undoubtedly for every positive trait there is another glaring negative one, sometimes several. So yes, but not for long. I'm not perfect and I'm sure it's the same for them on some level too.

When I was dating there was always something attractive about the person and not necessarily looks. Brains, good athlete, great sense of humor were attractive to me. Any of those plus good looks was a definite ask. But there had to be something or why bother?

There have been plenty of women who were not inherently very attractive to me - i.e., just looking at them I didn’t think “gee she’s hot” - but they sent out such strong signals of wanting my D that I said “well, why not?”

I did when I was younger but the relationships never progressed. I’m married now so I’m always attracted to my date.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very few will. But the world will bend over backwards telling women to give chances to unattractive guys.

50% of men find 50% of women to be "attractive" so why would any man ask out THIS (unattractive) girl when there is a different (ATTRACTIVE) girl standing 3 feet over there?
Meanwhile 80% of women find only 20% of men to be "attractive" so just do some basic math and you can see why the world tells women to adjust their standards.

Cite.

https://quillette.com/2019/03/12/attraction-inequality-and-the-dating-economy/

"Yet another study, run by OkCupid on their huge datasets, found that women rate 80 percent of men as “worse-looking than medium,” and that this 80 percent “below-average” block received replies to messages only about 30 percent of the time or less. By contrast, men rate women as worse-looking than medium only about 50 percent of the time, and this 50 percent below-average block received message replies closer to 40 percent of the time or higher."

This only makes sense if you ignore the way women and men use online dating. Men will swipe right on EVERYONE, then they're picky once they see who matched with them. A swipe doesn't mean he was attracted. Whereas many women will swipe left on conventionally attractive men when their profile is noting more than "ay im tony wanna fuk?" It also doesn't account for bots and fakes.

Also, online dating doesn't give us evidence of anything outside of online dating. AND the study by OKC is old AF and forgets that OKC used a "star" system as a way of blocking. OCK also took down their own study because incels wouldn't stop misinterpreting it.

Overall when it comes to looks women are more generous than men are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very few will. But the world will bend over backwards telling women to give chances to unattractive guys.

50% of men find 50% of women to be "attractive" so why would any man ask out THIS (unattractive) girl when there is a different (ATTRACTIVE) girl standing 3 feet over there?
Meanwhile 80% of women find only 20% of men to be "attractive" so just do some basic math and you can see why the world tells women to adjust their standards.

Cite.

https://quillette.com/2019/03/12/attraction-inequality-and-the-dating-economy/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very few will. But the world will bend over backwards telling women to give chances to unattractive guys.

Bingo.

Precisely.

And quality of life would go up for both men and women if we stopped telling women that being single is akin to having cancer. When she eventually marries the meh guy, she's going to stop having sex with him. Maybe he's OK with that, but most men aren't. Both groups in that scenario would be better off if rather than bending to "give him a chaaaance, you can't be single foreveeeer" pressure she said "no thanks".

So very true!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wasn’t initially attracted to my now wife but we were friends for a few years and over time the attraction grew. She was cute in a girl next door way but in my early 20’s I was interested in hotter women. But she was really smart, fun and warm. So I wasn’t physically attracted to her early on but it definitely changed over time. After many years I’m still very attracted to her physically.

Why do women do this?

Do what?

I'm assuming pp meant, pretending to be men. It's obvious and pathetic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very few will. But the world will bend over backwards telling women to give chances to unattractive guys.

Only when the woman is complaining about being single, about no available men meeting her standards of income, height, eye color, profession, brand of automobile, and choice of footwear.

Not true at all.

Anonymous wrote:If you aren't initially attracted to a woman do you go out with her a few times, just to give her a chance?

When I was in my teens and 20s I was attracted to damn near everyone of the opposite sex.
Pardon my bluntness but I was all about getting p*ssy not finding “The One”.