Honestly, I'm not sure there's any rhyme or reason to it.

Sure there is: looks, personality, then other stuff. If a woman wants more dating options, she should lose the fat, look hot, be fun, and not assume bragging about her Mensa membership helps sell herself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If men are so attracted to beauty, then why do they pass up beautiful women to marry plain ones? I have seen it many times, and it wasn’t like the plain ones were smarter or had better personalities either.

They’re pretty enough. It’s not he who dies with the prettiest woman wins. Plus they said yes and showed up. Showing up is 90% of success, and if you’re too busy to, you don’t count.

Tell that to OP of the other thread who is trying to cut off a guy who won’t give her the time of day. She is showing up for him and is getting the slow it down we are evolving line.

She must be at a bad spot on the hot/crazy chart. Bring enough grief to the table, and the guy's gonna bolt.

You’re insinuating she must be crazy or did something wrong?

Honestly, I'm not sure there's any rhyme or reason to it. People like what they like. Some guys like skinny women, some like curvier women. Some like very smart women, some are fine with someone less intelligent. Some like extroverts, others like introverts. Some like "nice" women, others go for bitches. And so on.

That said, the hotter you are, the more attention you'll get, positive or negative, both in real life and on dating sites. Period. My hot friends definitely get bombarded on Tinder, and they get more attention in bars. It's just the way it is. and by "hot" I mean attractive face, attractive body, attractive hair, clothes that show off the body. And it can help to be younger-looking, because unfortunately, even my 40-50-year-old guy friends like to look at hot young girls and they all seem to think they have a shot. (a few of them do, but some are deluded.)

If you're reasonably attractive and have a decent personality and aren't too narrow in your criteria for a guy, you'll probably do ok.

NP. I think the man PP here is basically right about a lot of men not wanting to date high-powered women. BUT I also think the kind of man who is married to a high-powered woman is not the kind of man who is posting on DCUM during the workday

What does this mean? What "type" of man posts on DCUM? I am a single father and read the posts in a number of different areas (e.g., threads regarding schools, etc.)

State what you mean by this clearly (i.e., please grow a pair of balls and come out say what type of men post on this website).

Anonymous wrote:OP here. That’s interesting that men find beauty so important. I was thinking they would find youth and fertility also important on a similar level.

So if men are presented with an average looking woman in her 20s and another woman in her mid 30s who is a stunning 10/10, who would they most likely date?

Dumb question...it obviously depends on the age of the man. If the man is in his late 30s or older, then he would obviously choose the mid-30's stunner.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If men are so attracted to beauty, then why do they pass up beautiful women to marry plain ones? I have seen it many times, and it wasn’t like the plain ones were smarter or had better personalities either.

They’re pretty enough. It’s not he who dies with the prettiest woman wins. Plus they said yes and showed up. Showing up is 90% of success, and if you’re too busy to, you don’t count.

Tell that to OP of the other thread who is trying to cut off a guy who won’t give her the time of day. She is showing up for him and is getting the slow it down we are evolving line.

She must be at a bad spot on the hot/crazy chart. Bring enough grief to the table, and the guy's gonna bolt.

LOL. I had to look this up:

Avoid: Redheads, people named Tiffany......

https://shamelesspride.com/hot-crazy-matrix/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If men are so attracted to beauty, then why do they pass up beautiful women to marry plain ones? I have seen it many times, and it wasn’t like the plain ones were smarter or had better personalities either.

They’re pretty enough. It’s not he who dies with the prettiest woman wins. Plus they said yes and showed up. Showing up is 90% of success, and if you’re too busy to, you don’t count.

Tell that to OP of the other thread who is trying to cut off a guy who won’t give her the time of day. She is showing up for him and is getting the slow it down we are evolving line.

She must be at a bad spot on the hot/crazy chart. Bring enough grief to the table, and the guy's gonna bolt.

Why wouldn't an accomplished lawyer or physician or CEO be more attractive than one who dithered around in life and never got her shit together?

Riiight, the only options a guy ever faces are a woman who never got her shit together, and a lawyer/MD/CEO.

Lots of assortative mating in wealthy DMV. Lots of plain to plain-minus to fugly couples. The common denominator seems to be overpriced graduate degrees in useless subjects to compensate for mediocre undergraduate degrees. Read the right things, talk endlessly about the horrors of life under Trump, stay fit, and you’ll find your male match, except he’ll probably be developing a gut and balding.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Man here. When I'm looking at online profiles, there is a certain minimum acceptable level of youth and beauty that is required. I'm not even going to click on someone who is older or less physically attractive than that. And file "athletic" under beauty, meaning, you can't be fat.

After that I'll consider education a plus.

Wealth and career are not positive attractors. They can only be a negative (i.e., if you're an obvious loser that's bad)

Independence and Confidence, don't care about at all.

I really don't understand this. Why wouldn't an accomplished lawyer or physician or CEO be more attractive than one who dithered around in life and never got her shit together?

As a man who has dated both doctors and lawyers, I will tell you. It is mainly because they are busy, and have no time for you. They are so totally focused on their career (and that's fine, they have to be) that you are only ever a distant second to them. Also, generally speaking, women like that are aggressive, argumentative, unpleasant pains in the ass. They spend all day being "in charge" and they can't turn it off at home. Fck that shit, I don't need it. I would far prefer to date a pleasant paralegal or nurse practitioner than a lawyer or doctor.

It's mystifying, then, that most such women are partnered or married. Apparently there are some men who don't think of relationships in terms of who's "in charge."

NP. I think the man PP here is basically right about a lot of men not wanting to date high-powered women. BUT I also think the kind of man who is married to a high-powered woman is not the kind of man who is posting on DCUM during the workday....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Why would that matter to a guy, weather a woman had 3 previous sexual partners or 13? What difference does it make to a guy? If the woman he marries stays incredible loyal and has only eyes for him, in what way would her previous sexual history bother him?

Doesn't matter why it matters. You might as well ask why it matters to women that a man is taller than them. Maybe it shouldn't, but it does.

It probably won't matter for casual dating, but it certainly matters for marriage. The more previous partners she's had, the more likely the marriage will end in divorce. Not to put too fine a point on it, if she's had a lot of previous partners, this decreases the odds that she will "stays incredible loyal and has only eyes for him".

Finally, the question is not what men should want, but what men do want. And they don't want a girl who has been plundered by countless other guys.

You want her to have fewer partners so she doesn't have enough experience to know you are terrible in bed. Got it!

Guy here. I don’t need a beauty queen - average is fine. I do love women who are healthy/fit though. If that’s you and you’re reasonably nice guys will be lined up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Beauty
Confidence
Athletic/Physically active

These are my top three and I've said it before,

"a woman with a pleasing figure and a pleasant disposition will always be more popular with men than a very pretty woman with neither."

The good news, ladies, is you have a measure of control over your figure and your disposition. There's really no requirement to be a beauty queen.

Ugh, please don't refer to us as a collective "ladies". It's so condescending.

It doesn’t bother me, but then again I’m a lady who doesn’t walk around seeking reasons to be offended. I can see that you are already behind the 8-ball on attractive qualities.

Nah. You're a dude.

I can assure you I’m a woman—Jeff could verify if you really needed him to—I’m also a successful lawyer, but not overly obsessed with proving myself and going on feminist rants. I’m secure in who I am and love doing traditionally feminine things like keeping aclean house and cooking for my husband and just generally doing nice things for him without keeping score.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Finally, the question is not what men should want, but what men do want. And they don't want a girl who has been plundered by countless other guys.

...plundered?

Yes, plundered. Pillaged, ransacked, ravaged, despoiled.

Are you getting the idea that men do not regard their women having given themselves to numerous other men as a good thing?

Good. Because it's true.

Dude, you're a sad, misogynistic little man. Having sex is not like getting attacked by a boatful of Somali pirates. When you actually sleep with someone for the first time, perhaps you'll understand this.

Dudette, your shaming language is a failure, and only amuses me.

It's hard to be a virgin, isn't it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Man here. When I'm looking at online profiles, there is a certain minimum acceptable level of youth and beauty that is required. I'm not even going to click on someone who is older or less physically attractive than that. And file "athletic" under beauty, meaning, you can't be fat.

After that I'll consider education a plus.

Wealth and career are not positive attractors. They can only be a negative (i.e., if you're an obvious loser that's bad)

Independence and Confidence, don't care about at all.

I really don't understand this. Why wouldn't an accomplished lawyer or physician or CEO be more attractive than one who dithered around in life and never got her shit together?

As a man who has dated both doctors and lawyers, I will tell you. It is mainly because they are busy, and have no time for you. They are so totally focused on their career (and that's fine, they have to be) that you are only ever a distant second to them. Also, generally speaking, women like that are aggressive, argumentative, unpleasant pains in the ass. They spend all day being "in charge" and they can't turn it off at home. Fck that shit, I don't need it. I would far prefer to date a pleasant paralegal or nurse practitioner than a lawyer or doctor.

It's mystifying, then, that most such women are partnered or married. Apparently there are some men who don't think of relationships in terms of who's "in charge."

Nope. They are far more likely to be single than women who are not so well-educated and career-oriented. The reason for this is not really a mystery. Most men want a pleasant and agreeable woman, not some careerist harpy.

I forget, is this thread about asking men what they want, or about women telling men what they should want? So hard to keep it on-track.

I'm sorry, that's simply not true. More educated, higher-income women are more likely to be married/in long-term relationships than poorly educated, lower-income women.