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

[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 [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

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.