Guys Go For Looks, Girls Go For Status?

[cylon]

Originally Posted by rei

yes maybe he hasn't met the right woman, or maybe he has met a string of right women. he doesn't strike me as a playboy, but he does strike me as someone who wants to enjoy himself. i won't judge him for that.

That's my take as well.

[MidasGirl]

@cylon, don't worry about having to qualify your statements with me, it takes a lot for me to get offended by something someone writes here.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by MidasGirl

@cylon, don't worry about having to qualify your statements with me, it takes a lot for me to get offended by something someone writes here.

I know you don't, but it's made apparent to me that some people are getting their feelings hurt by what I have said and I'm trying to not have that be the case.

[Rose of Cairo]

Originally Posted by MidasGirl

Well, he's a rare combination. Incredibly handsome, charismatic, lots of money, very successful in his career, and seems like a really a cool person. Maybe he just hasn't met the right woman?

Are you talking about George Clooney? Honestly, I have a hard time seeing what is so sexy about him. He's a good actor and he has humor, that I know. Maybe if I met him in person, I would find him charming? But based only on movies, I find him totally not attractive.

(I don't mean it in a mean way against him. I'm sure he's a great person. Just not sexy as a man, to me.)

[Daffy Duck]

I think this whole "sleeping around for variety" thing is typically a young desire. I've always been a LTR kind of guy, but I have friends who could literally sleep with many new woman every month without even trying. And for years, this is basically what they'd do. I've found myself with many opportunities to be like them (sometimes with the same girl), but like I said, it's not my thing, so I'd decline.

But then eventually all of them met "the one" and decided to give up the variety. A good friend of mine, who I thought would never get married, just got engaged about a month ago.

So it seems to typically be a young desire. There seems to be, in my experience, some correlation between maturity and LTRs. The more mature and conscious adults I've met are usually in LTRs.

I don't think immaturity is the pure causation for sleeping with many women and avoiding commitment. I don't think there's anything wrong with it, providing you're being authentic (not leading women on) and it's what you really want.

Commitment, for some, is a harder path to take. But I think, for some, it is far more rewarding.

[Gene]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

Some men too.

Yes, the stereotype is that all a man wants is to ejaculate, at least among some people. I can say I have had intercourse where neither of us reached a climax and we were both pleased with the experience.

[Rose of Cairo]

Daffy Duck, I understand that sleeping with many new women all the time without building any relationship with them is linked to avoiding commitment. Maybe avoiding commitment is not the reason for doing it, but it sure is a consequence or side-effect of it.

However, you seem to associate maturity, LTRs and commitment with being in a relationship with one single partner. I don't agree it necessarily has to be this way.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by Gene

Yes, the stereotype is that all a man wants is to ejaculate, at least among some people. I can say I have had intercourse where neither of us reached a climax and we were both pleased with the experience.

That's a bad stereotype though. Variety is not just ejaculation. Variety is connecting with someone in a unique way because they are unique individuals. Connecting with someone is a wonderful feeling, but it feels different with each person you connect with. It's that connecting with someone for the first time, learning all about them, that is the most intoxicating part. Sure it's driven by procreation, but.... all relationships are. The more the merrier.

I love certain bands, but I can't listen to them exclusively. Same thing. (I take music very seriously BTW, that's a legitimate metaphor)

[Gracestars]

Originally Posted by cylon

I like sweet, shy, feminine women who don't bark orders at men or who aren't always complaining about how men act and don't use words like "feminism" in every day conversation. In my experience, that is more rare, but when you find a girl like that, I guess you appreciate her more (because she appreciates you more).

So you like submissive women?

[cylon]

If that's your definition of submissive, then yes, I like submissive women. I prefer the term "feminine", but again, that's just me.

There ARE plenty of guys who like a woman to bark orders at them, and to give them lectures on feminism and the evils of a patriarchal society. I am not one of those men, but there are many more of them in the world to make up for it.

[brendannz]

Originally Posted by MidasGirl

On another board I used to frequent, a guy there was very very good with this women stuff (on paper that is). He seemed to really know what women want. However, he was in his late mid 50's and had been without a relationship to speak of for over 12 years.

Haven't studied all the ladies men, but Wilt Chamberlain, claimed to have slept with over 1000 women, and he never married. One of his spouses said that his sleeping around, was that he was unable to form any real relationships..

[brendannz]

Originally Posted by cylon

I like sweet, shy, feminine women who don't bark orders at men or who aren't always complaining about how men act and don't use words like "feminism" in every day conversation. In my experience, that is more rare, but when you find a girl like that, I guess you appreciate her more (because she appreciates you more).

Shy's no big deal really, I've been described as shy most of my life.. Now I don't really think about it, but often 1 shy and 1 outgoing make a good match.

But loud, show off and controlling types are hell on earth, I have known a few women like that.. Feminism's a good concept, but sometimes people use it as another term for sexism.. that's when it's time to look elsewhere..

[Gracestars]

Originally Posted by cylon

If that's your definition of submissive, then yes, I like submissive women. I prefer the term "feminine", but again, that's just me.

There ARE plenty of guys who like a woman to bark orders at them, and to give them lectures on feminism and the evils of a patriarchal society. I am not one of those men, but there are many more of them in the world to make up for it.

My first instinct is to say you're a bit behind the times cylon and your criteria is pretty limiting. You're perfect woman reads like 'doormat' to me. Sounds like you're not much interested in partner who will challenge you, but then you like to be right, right? Not meaning to have a go at you here, just being honest, but maybe now I'm sounding like one of those ball-breaking feminists? I don't know, each to their own I guess.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by brendannz

But loud, show off and controlling types are hell on earth, I have known a few women like that.. Feminism's a good concept, but sometimes people use it as another term for sexism.. that's when it's time to look elsewhere..

Shy isn't the word, but I can't really think of a word to describe it. It's one of those "I know it, when I see it" things. Just feminine charm I guess?

I agree with you about the hell on earth type. Feminism is two things (in my mind), giving women equal legal rights, equal pay, all that stuff. It's also used as a cover for man-hating. It can be used for both purposes.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by Gracestars

My first instinct is to say you're a bit behind the times cylon and your criteria is pretty limiting. You're perfect woman reads like 'doormat' to me. Sounds like you're not much interested in partner who will challenge you, but then you like to be right, right? Not meaning to have a go at you here, just being honest, but maybe now I'm sounding like one of those ball-breaking feminists? I don't know, each to their own I guess.

Human nature is never behind the times.

Those things you're saying are not what I mean when I say feminine.

You're also implying that I would "walk all over" someone, otherwise why would I need a doormat?

[Rose of Cairo]

Originally Posted by cylon

That's a bad stereotype though. Variety is not just ejaculation.

I think you got something wrong.

rei said

Originally Posted by rei

that [having an orgasm] is fun too. but women can enjoy [sex] without that too. some women anyway.

To what Daffy Duck replied:

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

Some men too.

To what Gene replied:

Originally Posted by Gene

Yes, the stereotype is that all a man wants is to ejaculate, at least among some people. I can say I have had intercourse where neither of us reached a climax and we were both pleased with the experience.

So the topic here was sex with or without ejaculating/having an orgasm. This has nothing to do with variety.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by Rose of Cairo

So the topic here was sex with or without ejaculating/having an orgasm. This has nothing to do with variety.

Oh, ok. I didn't read very much into it, no biggie. I was just making a general comment on what I thought was a "guys only care about sex" theme.

But in the same I comment I contradicted myself by saying all relationships are motivated by reproduction.

So yes, all we care about is sex, ultimately.

And, that is ok.

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by Rose of Cairo

However, you seem to associate maturity, LTRs and commitment with being in a relationship with one single partner. I don't agree it necessarily has to be this way.

I don't agree it necessarily has to be this way either. I just know that in my experience with people, if a guy is sleeping around with a bunch of women at the same time (especially if he hides this fact from them), he often has undesirable character traits to go along with it, one of which is immaturity.

So I was drawing a correlation, but not a rule. It's certainly not a rule.

Originally Posted by brendannz

Haven't studied all the ladies men, but Wilt Chamberlain, claimed to have slept with over 1000 women, and he never married. One of his spouses said that his sleeping around, was that he was unable to form any real relationships..

Yeah, I read an interview with Chamberlain where he said he regretted it in the end, and that he doesn't want other young men to emulate him.

"In an interview shortly before his death, Chamberlain warned other men who might admire him for his sexual escapades: “Having a thousand different ladies is pretty cool, but I have learned in my life that having one woman a thousand different times is much more satisfying.”

So here we have a man, arguably one of the most successful men in regards to sleeping with a variety of women in all of history, and he looks back on his life with a little regret. That says something to me about this whole idea of "f*ck as much as possible!"

[Rose of Cairo]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

I don't agree it necessarily has to be this way either. I just know that in my experience with people, if a guy is sleeping around with a bunch of women at the same time (especially if he hides this fact from them), he often has undesirable character traits to go along with it, one of which is immaturity.

Yeah sure. I was just saying that people can be in mature, committed LTRs with several people at the same time (instead of the "the one" model).

[marinik]

Sorry to spoil you fun, but the topic here is weather girls go for status and boys for looks. We were deep in defying what status really meant when the subject slipped into this "orgasmic" / variety subject.

So back to OP - what is status for you people?

1. We had money, power, fame..

2. And substance as in character, integrity, intelligence, compassion...

Some were on the line that 1. does not necessarily mean a person had 2. and that 2. meant status automatically... (this is just to remind people and my view of the discussion before it went sidetracked...)

[rei]

how interesting... i thought this was an example of a thread that evolves. status and looks also relate to relationships whether they are long-term or purely sexual. what guys and girls go for is what they find attractive, and we often end up in the bedroom in those situations. so i actually don't see that the sex/relationship talk was off topic. but maybe it was.

i don't really pay much attention to traditional status. i'm not sure i can even say what my specific version of status would be, but when i come across it i know.

[marinik]

Originally Posted by rei

how interesting... i thought this was an example of a thread that evolves. status and looks also relate to relationships whether they are long-term or purely sexual. what guys and girls go for is what they find attractive, and we often end up in the bedroom in those situations. so i actually don't see that the sex/relationship talk was off topic. but maybe it was.

i don't really pay much attention to traditional status. i'm not sure i can even say what my specific version of status would be, but when i come across it i know.

I agree but it has really gone to a totally different direction. And the initial topic it self has a lot to ad to the Social & Relationships forum , it is very interesting on its own. The sexual part is interesting but in context of status and looks, in my opinion not in what has been discussed in other threads already in other threads...about Tantric sex, and numerous others.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by marinik

Sorry to spoil you fun, but the topic here is weather girls go for status and boys for looks. We were deep in defying what status really meant when the subject slipped into this "orgasmic" / variety subject.

It's all the same thing. I don't think one person can claim the thread is off-topic, but I see what you did there.

[rei]

marinik, if it bothers you to see how the thread progressed, if you're more interested in a strict discussion of status, couldn't you start a new thread?

i'm not sure i get why it is an issue.

[marinik]

Originally Posted by cylon

It's all the same thing. I don't think one person can claim the thread is off-topic, but I see what you did there.

What did I do? I didn't say it was of topic just slipped away form something very interesting we were discussing.

[cylon]

It's just an online expression.

[marinik]

Originally Posted by cylon

It's just an online expression.

I know, I just thought you were making a point of some kind.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by marinik

I know, I just thought you were making a point of some kind.

My point was you didn't like the way the conversation was evolving so you tried to divert it to something else.

Feel free though.

[brendannz]

[QUOTE=cylon;441852]

Shy isn't the word, but I can't really think of a word to describe it. It's one of those "I know it, when I see it" things. Just feminine charm I guess?

It's not really shy as in low social confidence, but more humility that's attractive I think.. you just don't want a control freak, and who would? Your description sounds pretty similar to a girls description of the 'nice guy' she wants..

I agree with you about the hell on earth type.

I've known a few aggressive & loud hell-on-earth types. I think the problem is that some people are controlling, because they confuse it with confidence. Noones looking for a control freak.. really

[rei]

actually brendan, when i was researching the people pleaser, it turns out a people pleaser who has no interest in changing is best matched with a control freak. makes sense if you think about it, and i doubt either party in that bond would own their labels. not many people like to be labeled.

so maybe "shy" means "quiet"? or the type of girl who looks down and giggles when you give her a compliment? i ask because it is fascinating to eavesdrop on guy talk.