Female+sexy+skeptic = 1 in a million? // Men are better than women?

[soon2bepro]

Why is it so hard to meet thinking females? Do they hide from us?

Is it that there's only 1 of them per 100 equally intellectual men?

Personally I think the second is true. (And rational men are hard to come by also) My impression for years (and until a couple of years back) was that this is mostly or only because of social conditioning. But seriously, how long now have girls been averagely better at school/college than men? Yet women don't excel in anything. Yes they're better on average, because men are lazy, but the very best are always men.

For almost ANY activity or career, intellectual or not, among the world's top 100, only 1 or 2 are women, at most (depending on the activity). Even in activities that women proportionally do much more of than men, like say cooking.

It seems girls just don't have that drive to become the best at something like us men do. And from an evolutionary/psychological point of view it makes all the sense in the world. Males have to be the best in order to become the alpha, dominating male. Females will only want the best male (or the best they can get); while females are fine with being only a bit above average level, since each male wants want them all, but they only want 1 male (and that's all the alpha male is willing to tolerate).

The last part isn't necessarily so the way society works now, but in my opinion, natural selection doesn't work fully for human beings anymore. (no need to adapt to the enviroment when you can fully adapt the enviroment to yourself, or nowadays even adapt yourself to the enviroment! In fact the way natural selection works for human beings now, is that almost a lot of different mutations, unfit to the enviroment, will stay alive and probably reproduce too, thus creating a species where most individuals would be a lot different to each other). So I think this info should be included in our genes. Even if natural selection is still working fully, society is advancing much faster; so natural evolution can't be expected to keep up.

However, I don't want to automatically throw out social conditioning as an important cause. For most of the human history until very recently, most women were raised under the concept that they are inferior to men. Even in the past couple of generations, most girls were raised with the objectives of being pretty, painting their fingernails, get a decent job, marry, have kids, etc; but didn't receive the pressure to compete and win that boys receive. From sports to videogames to strategy games to other kinds contests of many kinds.

The only thing I can think of where women seem to excel at more than men is at being beautiful, sexy or otherwise looking good (beauty contests, etc); and I'm not even sure this is true. (however subjective the "ranking" is)

Bottomline is, I think women just aren't competitive. Not nearly as much as men, at least. Both because of genetic/natural selection and social conditioning.

(By the way, if you know any thinking, decent looking girl, feel free to send them my way /images/graemlins/laugh.gif)

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Bottomline is, I think women just aren't competitive. Not nearly as much as men, at least. Both because of genetic/natural selection and social conditioning.

[/ QUOTE ]

Never mind beauty contests, you've never been to a fall fair?
Women are very competitive, but until recently it's been focused on areas that we don't measure academically.

Your quest 'female+sexy+skeptic' is not a very common mix of traits. One hurdle is that skeptics tend to challenge social norms so most skeptical females would tent to dismiss a lot of the standard 'sexy' behavior as arbitrary nonsense.

Best bet is to adapt to feeling that a touch of normal sexiness and a large dollop of skeptical intelligence is what is Really sexy.

luckyme

[madnak]

Is it possible for a woman to be smart and skeptical, but not attractive? Hell, even a total bear with those qualities is something to write home about. But uh, if you really just want to have your cake and eat it too, you won't get a whole lot of sympathy for guys like me who put looks firmly in the "optional" category. Keep in mind that you're looking for a coincidence of attributes - and each attribute you add lowers the likelihood.

I mean, assume that 10% of women are "really smart" and 10% of women are "really sexy." In that case, only 1% of women are both. Now imagine you're looking for the top percentile of women in looks and brains - you've already narrowed your prospects to 1 in 10,000, without even considering deal-breakers and diseases and age and mental illness, etc etc. I say if you're looking for a combination of attributes that rare, then you should try to re-evaluate to some degree. Obviously it's not as simple as I'm making it out to be - I'd like to find a girl in the top 1% for intellect and in my general age range, but I will also be exposed to a large proportion of such women due to my habits and interests. The other traits I like also tend to correlate with intelligence, so my chances are decent.

But it's unlikely that beauty correlates with intellect, so you may be reducing your probabilities even further. Moreover, a super-smart and super-sexy woman, due to her rarity and desirability, will be in high demand. Do you have a similar combination of rare and desirable traits that make you competitive?

I say, limit your "required" attributes as much as possible - I just don't get along with people who aren't smart, but I consider that unfortunate. For the most part, leave yourself open to people of all different types, and hope to eventually love someone for their qualitative traits, rather than quantitative traits. The alternative is to settle, because if you're looking for quantitative traits with a 1 in 3,000,000 likelihood, you're highly unlikely to find such a mate through your entire life.

[Shadowrun]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is it so hard to meet thinking females? Do they hide from us?

Is it that there's only 1 of them per 100 equally intellectual men?

Personally I think the second is true. (And rational men are hard to come by also) My impression for years (and until a couple of years back) was that this is mostly or only because of social conditioning. But seriously, how long now have girls been averagely better at school/college than men? Yet women don't excel in anything. Yes they're better on average, because men are lazy, but the very best are always men.

For almost ANY activity or career, intellectual or not, among the world's top 100, only 1 or 2 are women, at most (depending on the activity). Even in activities that women proportionally do much more of than men, like say cooking.

It seems girls just don't have that drive to become the best at something like us men do. And from an evolutionary/psychological point of view it makes all the sense in the world. Males have to be the best in order to become the alpha, dominating male. Females will only want the best male (or the best they can get); while females are fine with being only a bit above average level, since each male wants want them all, but they only want 1 male (and that's all the alpha male is willing to tolerate).

The last part isn't necessarily so the way society works now, but in my opinion, natural selection doesn't work fully for human beings anymore. (no need to adapt to the enviroment when you can fully adapt the enviroment to yourself, or nowadays even adapt yourself to the enviroment! In fact the way natural selection works for human beings now, is that almost a lot of different mutations, unfit to the enviroment, will stay alive and probably reproduce too, thus creating a species where most individuals would be a lot different to each other). So I think this info should be included in our genes. Even if natural selection is still working fully, society is advancing much faster; so natural evolution can't be expected to keep up.

However, I don't want to automatically throw out social conditioning as an important cause. For most of the human history until very recently, most women were raised under the concept that they are inferior to men. Even in the past couple of generations, most girls were raised with the objectives of being pretty, painting their fingernails, get a decent job, marry, have kids, etc; but didn't receive the pressure to compete and win that boys receive. From sports to videogames to strategy games to other kinds contests of many kinds.

The only thing I can think of where women seem to excel at more than men is at being beautiful, sexy or otherwise looking good (beauty contests, etc); and I'm not even sure this is true. (however subjective the "ranking" is)

Bottomline is, I think women just aren't competitive. Not nearly as much as men, at least. Both because of genetic/natural selection and social conditioning.

(By the way, if you know any thinking, decent looking girl, feel free to send them my way /images/graemlins/laugh.gif)

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought this was the case for the last thousands of years.

[soon2bepro]

Thanks madnak, I understand what you're saying.

Actually I would settle for a girl a bit above my intellect level (which isn't all that high), but who's willing to learn, and looks can be far from a top model. 90% girls from 15 to 25 are fine by me. So are 70% from 25 - 30 years old, and some 50% from 30 - 35. At least where I live. (I've been to several places where this doesn't seem to hold true)

In any case, I understand that the activities I choose and friends I have give me a lot of increased chances to find a girl with these characteristics. But even if I do, there's the chance she won't like me, and the chance I won't like her for some other reason (like maybe she's a psycho or whatever).

Lestat: Women are partially competitive, but really, don't try and compare them to men's competitiveness. Men want to excel at something. Some want to excel at everything they do. Others won't do something unless they're interested in being the best in that area. This just doesn't hold true for women. Or at least I don't see it. Please try to enlighten me.

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
I thought this was the case for the last thousands of years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes indeed, but the more science advances (especially medicine, technology), the more this is true in my opinion.

I think this started mostly with the development of agriculture.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is it so hard to meet thinking females? Do they hide from us?


[/ QUOTE ]

I would guess many do hide it. I think that its true that most men are afraid/threatened by smart/driven/successful women.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
90% girls from 15 to 25 are fine by me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you mean 18 to 25? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Anyhow, good luck. If the ratio is off, that could present a big problem - if there are 3 smart men for every smart woman, and all 3 smart men want to be with smart women, well, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out things aren't going to work.

But is there really a disparity? For example, do women have lower average IQ scores? I know women rarely go into math and science, but that's getting better (if slowly).

[Propertarian]

Whether or not natural selection is still exerting pressure upon us or not, it moves so,so,so slowly that we still have largely the same hardware as we did tens of thousands of years ago i.e. that one in which women's fitness is based primarily on appearance and men's fitness is based on "success". Ever heard a straight woman say: "women are more beatiful/better looking than men"? More than half the women I know have told me that.

Personally, I think societal pressures are pushing women to try and become "sucessful" and to "think more"; things were even worse in terms of "smart, skeptical ladies" 50 or 100 or 150 years ago, and it wasn't natural selection that changed it (it doesn't do anything noticable over such a small time period).

As for your whole equation, a sexy woman simply has very little extrinsic incentive to become good at anything else. Being sexy alone gets them good mates and $.

[Speedlimits]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is it so hard to meet thinking females? Do they hide from us?

Is it that there's only 1 of them per 100 equally intellectual men?

Personally I think the second is true. (And rational men are hard to come by also) My impression for years (and until a couple of years back) was that this is mostly or only because of social conditioning. But seriously, how long now have girls been averagely better at school/college than men? Yet women don't excel in anything. Yes they're better on average, because men are lazy, but the very best are always men.

For almost ANY activity or career, intellectual or not, among the world's top 100, only 1 or 2 are women, at most (depending on the activity). Even in activities that women proportionally do much more of than men, like say cooking.

It seems girls just don't have that drive to become the best at something like us men do. And from an evolutionary/psychological point of view it makes all the sense in the world. Males have to be the best in order to become the alpha, dominating male. Females will only want the best male (or the best they can get); while females are fine with being only a bit above average level, since each male wants want them all, but they only want 1 male (and that's all the alpha male is willing to tolerate).

The last part isn't necessarily so the way society works now, but in my opinion, natural selection doesn't work fully for human beings anymore. (no need to adapt to the enviroment when you can fully adapt the enviroment to yourself, or nowadays even adapt yourself to the enviroment! In fact the way natural selection works for human beings now, is that almost a lot of different mutations, unfit to the enviroment, will stay alive and probably reproduce too, thus creating a species where most individuals would be a lot different to each other). So I think this info should be included in our genes. Even if natural selection is still working fully, society is advancing much faster; so natural evolution can't be expected to keep up.

However, I don't want to automatically throw out social conditioning as an important cause. For most of the human history until very recently, most women were raised under the concept that they are inferior to men. Even in the past couple of generations, most girls were raised with the objectives of being pretty, painting their fingernails, get a decent job, marry, have kids, etc; but didn't receive the pressure to compete and win that boys receive. From sports to videogames to strategy games to other kinds contests of many kinds.

The only thing I can think of where women seem to excel at more than men is at being beautiful, sexy or otherwise looking good (beauty contests, etc); and I'm not even sure this is true. (however subjective the "ranking" is)

Bottomline is, I think women just aren't competitive. Not nearly as much as men, at least. Both because of genetic/natural selection and social conditioning.

(By the way, if you know any thinking, decent looking girl, feel free to send them my way /images/graemlins/laugh.gif)

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know about the competitiveness but I believe this is the equation female + sexy + skeptic = very rare. For myself I have only found TWO girls ever that fit the criteria and both relationships would never work out due to circumstance.

I have actually tried quantifying this but it is hard to give an exact % of the population that would fit into those 3 categories. I also put Caucasian in because that is my preference, also age, geographical location and they would probably have to be single, which further limits the field.

All in all. They are out there, but are definitely an endangered species.

[hmkpoker]

Some of it's genetic, but a lot of it is social. What our friends think is unfortunately a very important factor in choosing a mate, and many people, male and female, are often dissuaded from pursuing their attractions just because their girlfriends might think he's a loser or their guy friends might think she's chunky. Heck, I've done that.

One need only look at the drastic change in standards of beauty. Just a few generations ago, full-figured women were the standard. The skinny waif supermodels we see today would have been considered sickly and bony. Today, they're the norm.

[domesme]

soon2bepro,

Interesting discussion. I agree with most things you said and that women aren't as competitive as men.. But would you really say women aren't as intelligent or as thinking as men or at least not in the same ratio? That's a very strong statement and I'm gonna have to disagree. Personally, I think this whole issue stems from sexism. And I think that if you had a girlfriend you would not think or post this.

Bottomline, get a gf, get to know what women are really like and then judge.

Also, refering to your last line, do you really think that a girl who read your post would be interested in contacting you?

[Propertarian]

[ QUOTE ]
One need only look at the drastic change in standards of beauty. Just a few generations ago, full-figured women were the standard. The skinny waif supermodels we see today would have been considered sickly and bony. Today, they're the norm.

[/ QUOTE ] This has only flucuated in the media; not in mate preferences. Women think that men prefer women that are thinner than then men actually prefer. I assume the same was true years ago i.e. men didn't necessarily prefer full-figured over somewhat thin women...However, as food gets more abundant and health is better, it is less likely that a thin woman is ill/unhealthy, which could mean mate preferences have actually changed (ill/unhealthy people are less attractive, everything else equal).

What actually matters, world wide, in terms of female attractiveness (attractiveness as a mating partner), is not full-figured or skinny, but a good hip to waist ratio. A full figured or a skinny woman could have this.

[WhoIam]

I remember reading somewhere that women on average scored slightly higher on IQ and other intelligence tests but there was a higher percentage of men on either extreme. As much as it isn't politically correct and as much as I wouldn't like it to be true, I have to think it is more or less accurate. I think women's rights have advanced enough in the past 50 years that huge difference in top-tier success rate can't be explained away merely as male prejudice and societal pressure. This is especially true in merit-based professions like chemistry, astrophysics, or composing. Male success in business, for example, is understandable since the percentage of the population that is extremely competitive is going to contain a higher proportion of men.

I realize this is far from scientific, but in my personal experience I've met lots of girls who were "smart," (i.e. they did well in school, could grasp most subjects that weren't too abstract) but the ones who were truly intelligent were few and far between. Very intelligent males are certainly not common, but I've found many more of them.

This may disappoint you, but very bright girls do not always make the best girlfriends. They, like most truly intelligent people, are often not well-adjusted and this can prevent them from having a healthy relationship.

I hope no one misconstrues what I've said as sexism; I'm merely stating the way things appear to be. I love and respect women and truly wish the world were filled with intelligent successful women. Also, I'd like to be one.

[Propertarian]

[ QUOTE ]
This may disappoint you, but very bright girls do not always make the best girlfriends. They, like most truly intelligent people, are often not well-adjusted and this can prevent them from having a healthy relationship.

[/ QUOTE ] I was just about to post this, more or less. I have met highly intelligent women that are attractive, but they generally have big negatives in other areas, such as sanity.

[Metric]

But Dr. Yamatov have proved that woman's brain is size of squirrel.

[guesswest]

I'm finding this whole thread a little scary. Picking a partner by measuring her (or him) against qualities x, y and z seems like a very detached and sorta sociopathic means of mate selection. We don't choose who we fall in love with, or at least I don't think people with a decent sense of emotional connectedness and empathy do.

It probably does involve the attributes a person has in relation to your own, but if so it's an unfathomably complex process we couldn't begin to deconstruct, and probably in some way related to the way in which each other's damaged parts fit together as much as it is the objectively positive ones. Setting aside the problems RE the rareness of the person the OP describes - I'm guessing if he found her she'd run a mile upon realising he was pursuing her based on some kind of dehumanising formula.

[joel2006]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This may disappoint you, but very bright girls do not always make the best girlfriends. They, like most truly intelligent people, are often not well-adjusted and this can prevent them from having a healthy relationship.

[/ QUOTE ] I was just about to post this, more or less. I have met highly intelligent women that are attractive, but they generally have big negatives in other areas, such as sanity.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT. See Asia Carrera thread

[valenzuela]

I agree with guesswest, I dont choose the girl Im atracted to.


Schopenhauer wrote an essay about attraction his case is that one tries to find the qualities he doesnt have on her partner while being more tolerant to the qualities one does have, for instance Im a smart serious kid.

The girls Im going to feel atractive( according to this theory Im not claiming its true) to are sweet outgoing sociable girls, they dont really have to be that smart.

The logic behind this is that I basically want the girl so I can have kids with her.
Arent my kids better off if they have the genes of their serious intelligent father and the genes of their lovely sweet mother? Intsead of having the genes of two smart serious persons?

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
The logic behind this is that I basically want the girl so I can have kids with her.
Arent my kids better off if they have the genes of their serious intelligent father and the genes of their lovely sweet mother? Intsead of having the genes of two smart serious persons?

[/ QUOTE ]

what if they end up being ugly like their father and dumb like thier mother? /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

if i had a son i'd want him to be as smart as possible, a daughter i'd want to be as good-looking as possible.

[valenzuela]

Im not ugly, Im a handsome young men. Im just not very outgoing.
The point is that my kid wont be a smart as me and they wont be as outgoing and sweet as their mother.
However he/she is going to be smarter than her mother and more outgoing, less shy than me.
Its not that I dont like smart girls, I do, but I focus on the stuff Im missing first( all of this according to Schopenhauer theory btw)
Ok so she is a stupid bitch, I let it slide.
She is intoverted, thats a dealbreaker.
see?

I may expand on Schopenhauer views about women...
anyway the love essay by schopenhauer has about 45 pages, the one about gals has like 13 pages.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm finding this whole thread a little scary. Picking a partner by measuring her (or him) against qualities x, y and z seems like a very detached and sorta sociopathic means of mate selection. We don't choose who we fall in love with, or at least I don't think people with a decent sense of emotional connectedness and empathy do.

It probably does involve the attributes a person has in relation to your own, but if so it's an unfathomably complex process we couldn't begin to deconstruct, and probably in some way related to the way in which each other's damaged parts fit together as much as it is the objectively positive ones. Setting aside the problems RE the rareness of the person the OP describes - I'm guessing if he found her she'd run a mile upon realising he was pursuing her based on some kind of dehumanising formula.

[/ QUOTE ]

On the contrary. There are strong, solid correlates. Most people aren't aware of them - that isn't an indication that most people are somehow more "in touch" than intelligent people. In fact, the common patterns of attraction indicate extreme superficiality, as well as self-delusion (particularly about the superficiality part).

To acknowledge that yes, brains matter or that yes, looks matter - that's being emotionally honest. Note that in my post I said that qualitative attributes are most important - but to suggest that quantitative attributes are wholly irrelevant is absurd.

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with most things you said and that women aren't as competitive as men.. But would you really say women aren't as intelligent or as thinking as men or at least not in the same ratio?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Although possibly the average young women is more of a thinker than the average young male today, but the top 10% are 99% men.


[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I think this whole issue stems from sexism.
And I think that if you had a girlfriend you would not think or post this.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not sexism. I'd love women to be more thinking individuals, but they're just not. Most of them that is.
And, um, I did have girlfriends, and I know many women personally. Plus through internet I got the chance to filter through a lot of people and concentrate mostly on thinking, rational people. But guess what, again 99% are male.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, refering to your last line, do you really think that a girl who read your post would be interested in contacting you?

[/ QUOTE ]

YES! She'd understand I don't mean every women, I meant MOST women. She should be proud she's one out of so many, that she's something so special and rare, and maybe she'd like that I understand these things and am not afraid to say them out loud. Anyway she has a lot of guys like me to choose from, because there are quite a few, but maybe she'd pitty me and choose me over others /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

In any case I don't expect to find a girl through this post. Chances are none of the regular posters/readers of this forums meet the criteria. And I was interested in sharing this with you guys, and also discussing some of the issues involved, more than my personal problem.

[Speedlimits]

[ QUOTE ]
Im not ugly, Im a handsome young men. Im just not very outgoing.
The point is that my kid wont be a smart as me and they wont be as outgoing and sweet as their mother.
However he/she is going to be smarter than her mother and more outgoing, less shy than me.
Its not that I dont like smart girls, I do, but I focus on the stuff Im missing first( all of this according to Schopenhauer theory btw)
Ok so she is a stupid bitch, I let it slide.
She is intoverted, thats a dealbreaker.
see?

I may expand on Schopenhauer views about women...
anyway the love essay by schopenhauer has about 45 pages, the one about gals has like 13 pages.

[/ QUOTE ]

Totally disagree with that. For me, intellect is a huge turn on/off when it comes to finding a girlfriend. Attractiveness is also on the top of the list. Being sweet/caring gets a footnote.

[MaxWeiss]

As far as I see it, I think it's just mostly biological. Women are CAPABLE but just don't have the testosterone and drive towards the same goals as men.

Be careful though in saying that men are better than women. This difference in drive to (career) success and other biological differences may exist (and I think they do, though I don't have any actual data other than my own observation) but in what way would you qualify this to mean women are inferior? Men may be alpha, but where would the alpha be without the pack? Behind every great man is a strong supportive and great woman. (And behind every great woman there are a dozen men staring at her ass.)

Gender differences are clearly there, but it's hard to make value statements about them because each gender's role is important to the overall functioning of the group.

Having just said all that, at first glance I would be inclined to agree with you.

But of course, we are not privy to the in-group CRAZY COMPETITIVENESS between females. I know many women and from their stories, women are more evil and back-handing bitches than the worst of men. So I think it's safe to say that women just have DIFFERENT competitive goals in life, which center more on relationship and emotional fulfillment than careers, but they are just as competitive as men are, just in those areas. Whereas guys are much less driven to success in relationships, and then when we do tell the women we care about them, they leave!!! Ha!

What a world, what a world.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I thought this was the case for the last thousands of years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes indeed, but the more science advances (especially medicine, technology), the more this is true in my opinion.

I think this started mostly with the development of agriculture.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have no idea why people say this. How exactly do you figure that natural selection could possibly be derailed?

[FortunaMaximus]

I don't know, maybe some of you are looking in the wrong places. (Hence my "disappearance" of sorts.)

Anyway, they're out there. Consider that it takes a hell of a lot more to impress them than it does the average woman. The average/average woman has an advantage in social selection and attraction, yes?

Now take women with 130+ IQ's... They'd want gods, wouldn't they... Sometimes misogyny doesn't reduce, but redefine itself, and when even the smartest of men run into that combination of female intellectual domination and beauty, it excaberates itself.

Sure, they can be as competitive as men, sometimes more so. But their reasonings and motivations are different, and perhaps not as recognizable.

Even moreso if they want to reproduce. The traits they look are have to be relatively rare, even among the intellectual.

And, of course, they want the same things most women want too. To be told they matter, that they are beautiful even on their bad days. And to be able to tell you what to do when it's obvious you're [censored] up.

tl'dr thread for the most part. They are out there, dudes, k? Set yourselves aside and try to think about what they might want. "So you're a genius. Cool. Do you know how to use a hammer? Massage me? Hold me when I'm cranky and bleeding?"

And it doesn't take a supersmart woman to recognize those traits on very little information.

Now the good news: You do have leeway and room for error.

<shrugs> Gear down a bit and soften your approaches. You'd be only viewed as less masculine by the very men you detest as [censored]' primates to be laughed at. If they get the joke too, the women... Well, you're way ahead on the equation then, ain't ya.

[ QUOTE ]
Yes. Although possibly the average young women is more of a thinker than the average young male today, but the top 10% are 99% men.

[/ QUOTE ]

This... <derisive snort> is the crux of the problem, this prevailing opinion. If some of you claim to be geniuses, and some of you are, of course. Do you really need a majority vote to figure this [censored] out on your own?

So many redheads, so little time. Take it easy, y'all.

[madnak]

Eh, major turnoff. Women with a sense of entitlement are hardly my ideal mates - I prefer women who happen to be ugly to women who choose to be ugly.

And of course, the women who actually manage to keep their heads on straight in spite of the extreme demand end up being even more in demand.

Thus, good-looking women are -EV, at least in terms of relationships. Moreover, women who know what it's like to be ostracized will tend to be more loyal, appreciative, and serious - and they're also the only ones to relate with if you yourself have suffered ostracism.

I know where you stand Fortuna, but some of us don't want to serve or impress women. I suppose women who acknowledge an inherent desire of that kind are perfectly respectable, I'd probably be one of them if the roles were reversed, but that's not how I swing.

A woman who wants and expects to be impressed, whether as a prize to win or a goddess to curry favor with, isn't a woman I want to be around. And this is quite where the quantitative and qualitative meet. How about someone who appreciates that I'm smart, likes who I am, the feeling's mutual, and that's the end of it (as well as the beginning)? And even if I might like to be treated as such in some circumstances, I'm no god - not even close. I want to be loved as a human, warts and all, not idealized as a perfect figure who, aside from being false, is also rather boring. And I would expect the same in a partner - though of course the part about "hold me when I'm cranky" applies.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
I know where you stand Fortuna, but some of us don't want to serve or impress women.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ugh. That wasn't the implication, although there's a market(like there is for anything else. yay 21st century.) Enough vapid creatures get worshipped as it is for having the right equipment.

Naw. Go to war with them instead. Some of them are truly fascinating, but just that. Worship? <laughs> Big difference from that and mutual respect.

Life's too short anyway. And love isn't dependent on intelligence. And I don't think intelligence equals amount of intrigue, curiousity. Not generally anyway.

I always flip it, even on myself, and at the end of the day, it's an ordinary life. The repercussions aren't, but that's for a different thread.

I like the battles. Just will never end up in that suite joke. Man get out of bed, wtf, he's woken up with a real Medusa. Eases his way out, wtf, steps over another woman, who stirs, says, nothing for the bridesmaid?

Some circles of Hades should be untrod.

Anyway, if the search gets to the point where you're frustrated enough that you think they aren't out there, maybe it's just standards need a tweak for some.

I'm happy with what I've got and, well, it keeps expanding, so screw it.

Libraries, bigbox bookstores, alternative clubs, observatories. If ya got something in common with somebody and you find her attractive, try. She's not gonna whip out a can of Mace and spray you. Well, the probability's low.

<shrugs> Depends on the person.

[Siegmund]

Returning to OP's original question for a moment....

They aren't as rare as you make them sound, if the students and faculty of the math and geology departments at the university I attended can be taken as an indication... a minority, yes, but they were outnumbered significantly less than 10:1. (And some of the men wouldn't count as "male sexy skeptic" etc to be suitable matches for them, frankly -- you could argue the eligible pool down to only a 2:1 or 3:1 advantage.)

The basic problem is that if the quality women are outnumbered even slightly by the quality men it becomes obvious right away: those of us who have a woman keep a tight hold on her to keep your grubby mitts off her ass, and if there are (say) 1100 men and 1000 women in this boat -- when a new woman comes on the market all 100 men left out in the cold tend to mob her.

---

Now, what's REALLY rare, are these sexy intelligent women who ALSO are prepared to have a good number of kids to make sure that the next generation doesn't consist entirely of illiterate breeders. Being "responsible" about reproduction is a recipe for evolutionary disaster, so long as the intelligent are and the masses aren't.

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
if the students and faculty of the math and geology departments at the university I attended can be taken as an indication...

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know them, but I'm pretty damn sure they can't. Maybe 1 in 3 for men, and 1 in 8 or so for women, if it was a very good university.

In any case, this isn't a good source for relevant statistic data.

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I thought this was the case for the last thousands of years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes indeed, but the more science advances (especially medicine, technology), the more this is true in my opinion.

I think this started mostly with the development of agriculture.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have no idea why people say this. How exactly do you figure that natural selection could possibly be derailed?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it obviously can't. Some people like to point out the difference between fitness to survive in the "natural" world, and fitness to survive (and reproduce) in this "man-made" world that we currently inhabit.

[revots33]

Almost every woman I know - many of whom I met at work when we were all young professionals in our 20's - is now a stay-at-home mom. I'm not disrespecting their choice - but there's no doubt in my mind that their decision to stay home is based at least partially on the desire to get out of going to work every day.

I think part of the dilemma is that for many women, motherhood is still the REAL goal of their adult lives - even for those who continue to work. This desire to focus on being nurturing mothers to an infant obviously can interfere with the pursuit of intellectual genius or career ambitions.

In spite of women's liberation, etc. girls are still brought up to be mothers and nurturers first. Men, on the other hand, are expected to provide for their family and achieve success in the working world, and this pressure to succeed leads to more ambition and drive to excel.

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
How exactly do you figure that natural selection could possibly be derailed?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because it no longer takes fitter genes to stay alive, and especially not to reproduce.