Apologise, can dating income disparity were mistaken, obvious

Posted by: Kigarg Posted on: 12.09.2020

your place

Advertiser Disclosure: The credit card and banking offers that appear on this site are from credit card companies and banks from which MoneyCrashers. This compensation may impact how and where products appear on this site, including, for example, the order in which they appear on category pages. Advertiser partners include American Express, Chase, U. Bank, and Barclaycard, among others. Both spouses work hard for their money, and enjoy spending their discretionary income. Can each spouse still respect and love the other, without fostering feelings of guilt and resentment? Yes, but it is not easy.

So much inequality comes from not being comfortable to speak up, and worse, tacitly defaulting to your parents' roles. Having a deep and meaningful conversation about gender and money is important in a relationship - find each other's biases and challenge them. Outdated and unreasonable gender expectations should not dictate what happens in your relationship.

For many, money equals power. So when one partner earns more than the other, the higher earner can easily become the de facto decision-maker in where to vacation, what to buy for dinner, the kind of house you live in, and what kind of hobbies you partake in. This is precisely the kind of power imbalance that leads to highly toxic relationships.

confirm. And have

Resolve to discuss medium-to-major expenditures with your partner before making them. As long as you share your household, it's always half theirs. It's also key to encourage your partner's goals. Earning less than your partner can make you feel as if you don't matter, because one salary is floating most of the household.

This can lead to resentment, or worse, a childlike attachment and dependency on the other to help you financially. Just because your income accounts for a smaller percentage of the household finances doesn't mean that your role in the relationship is smaller.

This comes up a lot when one person decides to stay home to take care of the kids. But remember that contribution to the household is not measured by income. The easiest way to avoid fights is to assign financial contributions on a sliding proportion scale. Or, agree on new terms - like one being in charge of all groceries and utilities, while the other pays the rent or mortgage.

Also, it's time to ban the word "breadwinner. If you think less of your partner for doing the dishes, or if you think more of a partner for earning more material wealth, you have set yourself up for trouble. It's time to stop being combative about status.

Feeling more or less important is only true if you believe it. Disclaimer: The links and mentions on this site may be affiliate links. But they do not affect the actual opinions and recommendations of the authors. Wise Bread is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.

What is t here to get over? Not my type but good enough for a roll. Glad she worked out for ya. Tinder swipes are cheap but thats part of the draw as well; a simplistic measure of sexual desireability. The full measure of female to male attraction is, of course, more complex, contextual, and circumstantial.

But if a big chunk of the moden sexual market is funneling thru apps like tinder, then the implications carry more weight than a mere swipe. Eg if the gateway to complex attraction is constrained by a culture that favors behavioral and psychological reinforcement of simplistic superficial physical only attraction then all those nice guys will just have to wait.

Hence poly. Hence delayed marriage, delayed and more costly family formation, and the destabilizing affects of prolonged sexual activity with mates that are not assortively matched. We could conclude that looks are less important to women, thus you must be exceptionally good-looking to catch their eye.

In other words, either become rich or develop the ability to make them laugh. I suggest the second option, as it is not something you can lose. Eurocrat I have to agree. This article is fantastic. Like the best Quillette articles, it addresses an extremely important yet overlooked social phenomenon, and does so with elegance and brute honesty.

Nov 03,   Income disparity, when one person makes much more than the other, can be a surprising source of stress. If you're one of these couples, be on the lookout for these four ways an income disparity. Mar 12,   The economist Robin Hanson has written some fascinating articles that use the cold and inhuman logic economists are famous for to compare inequality of income to inequality of access to sex. If we follow a few steps of his reasoning, we can imagine the world of dating as something like an economy, in which people possess different amounts of. Aug 15,   He found that inequality on dating apps is stark, and that it was significantly worse for men. The top 1of guys get more than 16of all likes on the app, compared to just over 11for the top 1.

I especially appreciate the implications of moral hypocrisy on the contemporary left, and with regard to feminism in particular. My experience in the contemporary dating market suggests a significant degree of cognitive dissonance on the part of women with respect to their biologically-endowed and competing sexual objectives: a man who possesses high mating value, and a man who is faithful, loyal, and monogamous.

Yet the sorts of men who might fulfill this role are rejected wholesale because they do not present a high enough sexual value-not handsome enough, tall enough, or successful enough. It is the present-day sexual marketplace produces this result, rather than the women themselves.

Halfway down the sexual hierarchy the rewards more or less flatline. Even high value men might prefer to exclusively date a partner with commensurate value, if only for logistical reasons, not to mention the emotional rewards. But sadly, chasing after such a woman is simply not an optimal strategy, nor is pledging monogamous fealty to a woman of lower sexual mating value optimal, when one can have several.

Men, no less than women, are inclined to optimize their sexual strategy. The problem with the strategies you suggest is that they are mistaking two marketplaces for one. I think your female friends may be making a similar mistake. The sexual marketplace is about who you want to bone.

If you want to have casual sex with attractive people, then it makes sense to make yourself attractive so that they will reciprocate. And it might sometimes make sense to avoid sex with a moderately attractive person if you think that you might be able to find a very attractive person with a bit more work. The dating marketplace is not about who you want to bone. It is about who you want to share your time, and possibly your whole life with.

It is about finding your best friend. Sexual attractive plays some part in it, but not a terribly large one. The same is not true for dating. What personalities are compatible is highly subjective and varies from person to person. There are a few near universal standards of date-ability i. If the women you know are attempting to find date-able men using the partner selection standards of the sexual marketplace, they are likely to fail.

They are different standards for different roles. There is no guarantee a man who meets one will meet the other. It might be helpful if you reframe your advice to them, however. Presumably the women who pursue men who are more attractive than themselves out of their league, as we say are still deeply disappointed to find themselves treated as a throwaway item, or bit on the side.

There are women who are content, even happy, to partake in less formalised occasional relationships that will lead to nothing enduring, for example friends with benefits and simple hook ups. Some of these women are already in formal partnerships with other men. Of course it would be. I have no objection to people doing such things provided they are forthright and both have accepted it.

Ah, the ultimate male crime, to the feminists.

Sorry, dating income disparity think, that you

Can you understand why a man may dangle the prospect of a long-term monogamous relationship, when he really has no intention of one? A healthy, average to above average man, infused with the testosterone that God have him, even one who applies and improves himself, who seeks a sex life, has unappetizing options available. He can deceitfully purport to desire a monogamous long-term relationship so as to get sex from women he is attracted to.

He can honestly communicate that he has no desire for a monogamous long-term relationship and pursue casual relationships. Average women will have no interest in this with him, as they can easily have casual sexual relationships with top-tier men.

If he does this, he will only be able to have sex with obese women. In casual relationships, women mate upward, and men downward in attractiveness hierarchies. He can get sex through entering into a monogamous long-term relationship. He can pay for it. Easy, she did not throw herself away, she was raped. And, since hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, once she has been thrown away, her knives come out. Cue Colttaine. There are many advantages to being an older man, because sex drive is lower and there are more available women.

Young women look to the dominant males in music and movies, the pagan attraction to the prince and the bad boy. Young women are highly valued, older women not so much, by men, because men first see just the physical attractiveness.

I envied those guys who seemed to know girls without effort, like my cousins. I thought I was undesirable, years later found out that many girls actually liked me, but thought I was a snob. Women look at financial status and personality, and confidence. Walk with confidence, and a good sense of humor. Women are fiercely competitive when it comes to attracting suitable partners.

Place this guy in front of cameras or feature him in glossy magazines: women will fight over him. Do not generalize from data taken in the United States. They are also quite unfeminine if you want to convince yourself of this, by comparison, take a stroll down any street in Warsaw of Moscow or any city in that part of the world where rabid feminism has not yet taken hold.

Moreover, women there still do want to get married. Men in the US and UK are perhaps the unluckiest of all. Feminism has made women uglier, and both men and women more miserable.

Feminine women are boring, for the obvious reason that they have less in common with men. This means there is less they will want to talk about and less they will want to do together. I am often astonished when I watch movies and TV shows set in the Fifties, because at parties husbands and wives split up into different conversation groups!

The wives all talk to each other in one room, and the husbands all talk in another! Why are they married if they have so little in common that they need to split up to find good conversation?

At all the gatherings I attend the men and women all talk together. Encouraging men to be less masculine and women to be less feminine means that they have more to talk about with each other.

They have more hobbies and activities in common. Do you really want to have to wait forever for a woman to put on makeup every time you go out? Men in the Fifties must have been bored out of their skulls! Having a wife and kids is many times better than the single life for most men and women who are not at the top of the SMV marketplace.

Hence the reason monogamous societies and cultures have prospered while polygnous societies are in constant strife and cousin marriage ie inbreeding is common and encouraged. You are absolutely right that having a wife and kids is better than the single life for most people.

One of the main reasons for this is the destruction of traditional gender roles by feminism. In the past, it was considered unwomanly for women to have the same interests as men, and unmanly for men to show interest in feminine things.

That meant that men and women had very little in common and limited the activities they could do together. Not a recipe for a good marriage. Feminism fixed this by expanding what it was socially acceptable for men and women to be interested in. Another way feminism has improved marriage is that it allows women to seek status for themselves through work and other means. Previously, the only way for a woman to have high status was to be married to a high-status husband.

This created an incentive for women to nag their husbands to seek status more than the husbands often really wanted to. Sexual attractiveness and marriageability are not the same thing at all. There are lots of people who would enjoy having sex with each other, but would hate living together for years. The only women who want to do so are the tiny minority who in this day and age still have the courage to call themselves feminists.

Another lie which Hollywood gave us. Ghatanathoa I really do love feminine women. Actually there is a villain in this story and it is woman, at least according to social constructionists.

If there are no sex related differences women are rejecting men out of selfishness. In other words are they overestimating their own relative attractiveness. Or do they think he will see something in them that others have failed to see a standard chick lit theme. I suspect that if told that their husband was as good as they could expect to get given their own level of attractiveness, some women would feel profoundly insulted. Let alone being told they were lucky to have him!

For men the strategy is elementary: impregnate as many women as you can, attractive, but also less attractive. A successful reproductive strategy must go beyond the first generation. To name a few examples: Does he like cats, dogs, or rabbits?

What are his tastes in music and movies? How many kids does he want? What kind of food does he like? Will he run a 5k with me? Does he like to travel on vacation or relax at home? What is his philosophy of life?

None of the answers to these questions are anywhere near universal. Some women would love it if a man wanted to run a 5k with them, other women would be angry if a man wanted her to run a 5k with him. Some women like horror movies, some like action, some like comedy. Women vary in their philosophy of life. What an awesome article in the age of politically correct fake settled science.

In several landmark studies, it has been found that among married couples the physical attractiveness of the genders is highly correlated. Thus, the trophy wife of a rich homely guy is not very common. This means that women prize good looks just like men. Perhaps the reasons are different but the outcome is the same. The modern progressive movement has become far more puritanical than most religions with even an end of the world belief in climate apocalypse.

Secularists could learn a great deal from old fashioned religious rules in how to make a just and stable society. Immediate gratification versus long term security is what separates socially sentient primates from the insentient. That might suggest an explanation for the longstanding popularity of monogamy and marriage based on pair bonding and arranged marriages.

Men are much more visual and less interested in character at least as far as being initially attracted. As far as incels go, my theory is that they lack the confidence and boldness that women are attracted to. The are often shy and insecure. In my life I have seen men who are often not that good looking or wealthy sleep with many women. These guys are confident and cocky.

It also seems that the worse they treat women the more women are interested in them. When a woman says she wants a nice man, what she means is she wants an attractive man who treats her nicely. As someone pointed out, the readers and commentators should be made aware that the situation described in this article is very particular to the Anglo countries. In starkest difference with central and eastern European countries, where the sight of an average-looking man with a beautiful woman is not at all uncommon.

Even in the cases which by no means are the norm, as some cynics would point out where she is with him for the money, he is still better off than men in Anglo countries, where they need both money and great looks to get a higher-than-average looking woman.

From these it follows that 1. Young adulthood is a sexual golden age for most women, as men will find all but a few young women attractive. Young adulthood will be sexually frustrating for many men, as sexual competition for women near their own age will be at its most intense. For most men, sexual competition will lessen as they age. Especially if they have more e. Enforced monogamy social pressure against promiscuity plus laws making divorce difficult produces something of a tradeoff.

Women typically marry near the peak of their attractiveness: never again will they be able to attract so many high-attractiveness men. Yet over time her attractiveness will fade much faster than his. But, despite her fading attractiveness, the high cost of divorce will discourage him from dumping her. With the decline of monogamy, life becomes particularly sweet for men in the top decile of attractiveness. Yet for men will below that standard, their attractiveness will rise relative to women near their own age.

Whereas for most women sexual life will become more of a challenge. Thus, although it may seem that women get the better deal under declining monogamy, a life in which expectations rise with age seems easier to navigate than one in which they inexorably fall.

Women know that is, many women that they can go to the corner bar and get laid any night of the week. They can have sex with their fellow students, fellow workers, guys in line at the grocery store, delivery and repair guys, you name it. This means that they can afford to be choosey. Because they have the pussy, and we want it. However, when the sex-bots get good if will be fun to watch these same women lose their shit and they become obsolete.

This does not match my understanding of how things work.

Thanks for dating income disparity for

The only ethical way of handling this is to make chemical castration widely available and attractive to men. It will probably reduce crime as well. It needs to be compelled materially as well. This has been accomplished previously by giving them control over resources, defending their rights to those resources from better men, and limiting the access women have to resources of their own.

Although, I think that if we could work out a way to make men gay, it would be ideal. The currency in play is desire. Blue: In my experience, crushing alimony solves the problem perfectly.

Now, if we could only find a way to extract it before marriage. They wanted to design people too. And of course, the only reason you come up with this horrifying idea is because you hate men to begin with. I fail to see how this differs from the treatment of mental illness, which is conceptualized as a social problem before it is ever established as a medical one.

That way expanding genetic diversity, which is for all we know so far desirable as the more diverse offspring has a better chance for an improved immunity system and therefore survival. Feminists are for free-birth control, free abortion, promoting homosexuality, experimenting with different poly-amorous relationships, etc.

you tell

Blue haired savant. This is a short game feminists are playing that will ultimately win over them in the long run.

Seems dating income disparity seems

Men are adapt to being alone. Before trying something as drastic as castration, it might be worth trying some kind of biological tweak to make women orgasm during sex as easily as men do.

Encouraging androgynous behavior seems like the best way to supply more of that. If men and women are more similar to each other they will have more in common, and therefore be more compatible in long term relationships.

That might be the way forward to get a power balance between the sexes. This means learn from the experts, the lesbians. That is where the punctum saliens is. Conceiving of it a medical problem like ADHD or restless leg syndrome, and prescribing a treatment that alleviates the personal and social suffering it causes.

We could re-engineer women to make them nymphomaniac and attracted to every male. Are women perhaps rating the men as technically unattractive but partnering with them anyway? After all, if Bill Gates and Donald Trump can find someone how important can physical attractiveness be? Modest economic capital used to translate to sexual capital although not sexual desire because women had limited access to economic capital.

Truly silly statement. Women seek provider men cuz they will stick around and raise children with them. I know, in your feminist world, fathers are irrelevant. Among many traits, personal power has a very important role in male attractiveness.

A normal woman is aroused by a global perception of the individual, and power is a major player in this global picture. So, this woman definitely can be attracted and aroused by a powerful man even if his physical ct in itself is unattractive to her.

He makes me tingle like never before, he makes handsomeness seems drab and boring.

apologise, but

Perception is a complex process linked to construction of meaning. I wanted to add to this the usual trapping of what it means to be masculine vs. Overall, beauty is not considered a masculine trait. Women, even the most average-looking ones, transform easily via make up and flattering clothing and thus can move upwards on the attractivity scale.

Unfortunately, it is or at least has been for centuries a predominant social law to claim that a man who cares about his appearance is shallow or vain. Or, absurdly, too feminine. Why not acknowledge that instead of digging in the far-reaching reasons of how most males are left at the curb?

It is a very one-sided discussion if we do not address the fact that in Western society male beauty especially looking for ways to enhance it if the natural one is lacking is deemed largely inappropriate.

Female beauty, therefore, is a good worth investing in and pursuing. Male beauty is not. But what other good can a dating App offer, really?

It is visual, and there is little to no way to find out if a male is funny, smart or responsible. So I would suggest to either not use dating Apps for making such large claims about society, or to adjust for the negative trait - in fact, a sin - of a male enhancing his own natural beauty that had been nested in Western civilization for millennia.

Take a look at Middle Eastern men, or East Asians, for example. The majority of them do not mind make up, and yes, kohl eyes make quite a lot of otherwise average-looking men in the Middle East much more attractive even though some of their behaviors might be a turn off. Here, I am talking about the strictly visual experience of perceiving male beauty.

But when a Western man tries to highlight his eyes with make up, what demeaning names does he get called? There are entire industries in East Asia built on the beauty of males and how to properly use and enhance it. Ask yourselves about why most women in the world find K-pop guys so irresistible. Is it because of their superior genes and better facial structures? No, far from that. Most of it is style, dress, diet, hairstyling and yes, make up. Because of that, the sheer sex appeal of Western males is a less obvious good than their status or personality traits.

But status and personality take time to unveil, and most dating Apps allow us, women, to finally discriminate based solely on appearance. Because why not? After all, this is a dogma of female competition in the arena of sex appeal.

Women do not put on make up to attract men. We do it to compete with other women, some of whom might have vastly superior genes and natural resources than others. Does that stop the rest of women from daring and trying to compete?

and thought

And whining about the unfairness of nature afterwards? No - it forces women to be cunning and very proficient in manipulating our appearances. Such a dated perception has nothing to do with biology - only with social customs that have far outlived their utility. In fact, biology would advise men to adapt and evolve past that and expand their horizons on what male beauty is and can be, I think.

And above all: if you use data from a visual-based ranking system where males obviously are lacking in performance and presentation skills, then please adjust the entire article to reflect that.

In era of Instagram and make-believe lifestyles, women want photogenic partners because such an accessory generates prestige for women among other women. Most males in the world could achieve that level easily if they only tried. Look at Mick Jagger and Steven Tyler, they are hardly good looking but many, many women throw themselves at those guys. Pretty much any guy in a successful band is a magnet to lots of women. Of course women do this for men.

Women are competing with other women for MEN. To be more attractive to men. This means the guys are sleeping with multiple women or if the men are faithful to one woman each, women are still single. Women may want a photogenic guy but what are they going to do when all the Brad Pitts are taken? Look elsewhere or go single. Thank you for writing this.

I wanted to add a lot about prestige of goods, about female hierarchy, and about attraction contrary to popularity into my original comment, but it was getting too long for me already and I was afraid my thoughts would end up being too scattered to actually offer a genuine different look that could matter to the article above.

Essentially this is what my comment is to offer. It is worth keeping and protecting only if it is desired by many. Well, women see beautiful men the same way. Yes, males want females for reproduction and females want males for the same general result. That my husband is hot, reflects well on me among other women, and vice versa for him. Opinions of the opposite sex are much less valuable, though.

They are easy to get. Forgive me my vulgarity, but I know I would find a male sexual partner pretty easily whenever I want solely on the fact that I have a vagina and I am fit and look healthy. What role does make up play in that? When I put on make up to attract males, it looks wildly different from the make up I put on to impress women. Do guys really find my blue or chartreuse nails or bold oxblood or, god forbid, black lips very attractive? Does it help with marketing my reproductory value?

Not at all. But women in my circles like it, and I put on such make up solely for them. After all, only women compliment my make up my skillmy choice of nail polish my tasteor my clothes my status and proficiency in fashion industry. I have my tasteful pink lipsticks, clear nail polish and my nigh-invisible mascaras for that purpose. They are dull as hell, sorry. Likewise with fashion. Most women behave this way.

not necessary

We know when we are visual goods to be looked at, and we know when we are our own agents and need to instead flaunt our independence from male gaze. Please do not tell me you understand how we work better than we do. There are at least two modes of our social performance, not one. Alas, that is also true. Insert here the difference in male and female libido and all societal myths associated with that.

It puts our entire system of beliefs about who we are, in question. Although, most of the time such a claim is an act and is false. And that is much more dangerous to women than the dislike of men. A woman ostracised by her sex will not survive on her own - males will forget her once her beauty fades, is dealt with by jealous opponents, or once her reputation is ruined.

When women want to destroy a woman, they will do it more efficiently than any man can. Regarding K-pop idols, I want to say that their popularity is a good, too, but it is not entirely correct to equivolate sheer and sometimes blind popularity with baseline sex appeal. They are different goods. So do not compare K-pop idols to Jaegger or a Beattle, for example. Jaegger did not work for all women, and Beattles did not work for everyone as well.

But there are K-pop idols who are Jaeggers, there are Paul McCartneys, and there are countless of other styles and images present there. Now compare it to K-pop. They are pretty boys first, and only then a female listener tries to get into their music or lifestyle. Post factum.

If we are talking about the strictly visual experience, sorry - no one would swipe right on Jaegger based on his looks. No one, likewise, considers K-pop boys real icons of musical industry. They are eye candy. No amount or lack of popularity will stop women from feeling attracted to a hot guy.

Say, you see a very hot woman in real life who is not a celebrity, and then see a much less hot woman on a movie poster. You will be attracted to both for different reasons because they offer you different goods. And in fact, too much popularity in K-pop may even work against most of them. K-pop and J-pop idols change so often precisely because no one really likes to be attracted to the most popular ones.

In this, Jaegger and Beattles work against your argument because, again, they are iconic in more ways than visual, and they were also slim pickings in an otherwise empty supermarket. Lastly, to talk about male make up and care. I know men take care of themselves, and I respect them for that.

Clean, well-dressed man is a classic staple of female gaze, especially if he possesses a beautiful face. And what if he has to compete with other males who are just as clean, well-dressed and fit, but also have good facial structures he lacks? And in an environment where he cannot prove how smart, kind, funny and wonderful he is deep inside? Like on a dating App? What then? No woman would ever say that. So do not say male care for their looks is nearly on the same level as female.

Men are not eager to be the focus of unashamed female gaze. And the point is, unashamed female gaze does not even fully exist yet. We, women, have a lower libido than men.

Think, dating income disparity commit error. can

We usually take pride in being more cerebral when it comes to finding a sexual partner - even in modern times when we are very far away from choosing husbands based on their status. So female gaze is a very discreet, finally-trying-to-grow thing, and industries like K-pop and some others only now begin to cater to it.

It had worked for males for millennia except for some brief times during decadent eras. Males now can only compete in the area of visual ranking if they evolve to cater to female gaze while sacrificing their need for validation in the male one. And no - I and most women do not want men to wear caked on make up and false eyelashes like women.

God no. But we want more pleasing faces to choose from. Guys with pimples? Chaffed lips? Weak eyebrow angles? Skin discoloration?

All these things are minor and do not require a Trans Diva worth of make up. But it still helps women who do not possess outstanding facial genetics. Upkeep is not a sign of competing for female gaze. Thank you for your detailed reply. Hypocritical, no? Also it beggars belief to think every woman in the world understands women better than any man could. Are you saying that self-centered, deluded or unbalanced women understand women better than a male trained psychologist who has studied human psychology for decades does?

If you accept that in this circumstance the male would have a better understanding of women then there must be other instances too. I am not a psychologist btw. You mention K and J pop a lot. These boy bands go for an androgynous look. You are projecting your likes onto all women. A true test of the attractiveness of these band members would be to have them walk around anonymously on the street and see if women think the same about them as they do when they see them in a video or on stage.

I highly doubt it. What is the most popular music in the western world right now? Rap and hip hop. These are unbermasculine forms of music. Even female rappers generally emphasize masculine traits. Yet many women love the look and image of them. We are not all the same. Some men do this throughout their lives, but they are in the minority. People are different. How do these fit into your comments about every woman only liking the most attractive men?

Some solutions to tackle income disparity Finally, money management expert J.D. Roth, who has written extensively on personal financial challenges, offered the following counsel to marriage. Totaling everything up (rent, groceries, entertainment, etc.), he spends about 30of his monthly income. I spend about 24 percent of my monthly income on rent alone. There's a huge disparity that only gets larger because I try to "hold my own" when it comes to financing things (and still put into savings, etc.). Race, Income, Net Worth, and the Wealth Gap Median income in was $41, for black American households, according to the Census Bureau, compared to $63, for all households and $66, for white households.

Do they have a lower bar? However, what is the goal of being at the top of the attractiveness pecking order? It is to get the top pick of men. It is to put on makeup so when you are out you can maximise your appeal to men. Now maybe you do this to find a man or to show off for your man but nonetheless, it is to be attractive to men.

Also, not ALL women do this. You seem to be someone who likes the glamorous life where everyone is pretty and looks are very important to social standing. There are certainly a lot of people who enjoy this life, but I doubt if even half the population of either gender is as focused on looks as you are. Certainly not once people get a bit older.

Some women know what they like, are vocal in expressing it and have no shame or embarrassment about it, as should be the case. Also there are lots of men who love the focus of unashamed female gaze.

In the - keitaiplus.com world it may be uncouth to act like a heathen, but not everyone lives in those circles.

pity, that

Your whole comment is about how important looks are for women but then you say women are more cerebral? I am sorry to make you feel like you can insult me with attacks on my personality and my sincere opinions. I thought this was a site for people to discuss things. Why would you think I ever considered you or your words that? Where have I ever done that? Show me. We are talking about visual perception of beauty. By women. By young women of my age. The demographic that is the majority of what it cited in this article.

I offer my opinion on the piece since the piece lacks the opinion of its research target completely. This is simply a waste of my time, alas. Which are, again, truisms! If you actually bothered to read me carefully, you would have understood that.

Which, I hear most often in all the SJW-bashings, is a choice. I hope you enjoy this choice of yours to be so offended. Here I wrote an extensive paragraph elaborating, again, what tastes are and can be, and how changes in taste such as hip-hop and females gravitating towards that is a different damned good from the concept of barest VISUAL attractiveness, but god, I feel like I am talking to a wall.

So instead of going on with my commentary to your reply, I erased my words. You will never listen. You will never even pretend to respect anything I will ever offer you in good faith like I did to you - if not from genuine interest, then at least basic human politeness.

If not by their current claim power, then by the use of the same old techniques of silencing the opponent. By name calling. Which, incidentally, only proves one point: if given all this cultural power back, you will abuse it just like all those SjWs do.

To bully and shut people up. I do lament dignity and patience people had in the Age of Enlightenment when everyone, no matter their gender, profession, language skill, class, race, or education could be in the same place, coffeehouse or debate salon, and hold arguments made to help each other understand other humans better.

Instead of whatever this is. Again, sorry to frustrate you, and have a good day. This is a very interesting discussion as well, and I have wondered a lot about it when considering the male-on-male romance catering to female audiences or female-on-female porn catering to males. To be fair, I am completely out of my depth in discussing the latter, but I can testify a lot in the formet, plus, I know that a lot of hikkikomori males, for instance, prefer the all-female casts of normal, non-porn-related slice-of-life TV Shows and anime only because they are the sole male present in the picture.

The voyeuristic viewer is the alpha male in that case because there is no other one male present in his perception of the female dynamic.

So it works much the same for women. When he hangs out with a boy, we do not mind. A boy is not competing with the female audience for another boy no matter what he does we know we have something he will never have - a vagina. So we are the only gaze that matters. Consider homoerotic teasing a male harem slice of life. By the way, some of homoeroticism is attractive to women only because we, women, like to see men in submissive roles. But only sometimes. We usually do not see them in submissive roles when in sexual relationships with us, so we do not mind seeing him submitting at least somewhere, to someone.

A lot of sexual tension, I believe, is built on power dynamics of submission and control and balance between them. But since such a facet as male submission usually is missing in female-male partnership and is in fact derogatory to a male so by nature not very attractive to a femalewe substitute it with fascination with homoeroticism.

A male submitting to his complete equal is not as derogatory, overall, and is even romantic because nothing truly serious a baby, the sole biological purpose of sex can really come out of such relationship.

In a way, homoerotic male relationships, to females, seem purer than male on female relationship, and we all know that females are much more romantically minded than males.

Ah, the arrogance of youth. I dont think this is true at all. In fact, many cultures, including our own here in the west, have been very infatuated with the beauty of the male body. Look at the ancient Roman and Greek statues, they were all celebrations of the male body.

In fact, bodybuilding is probably the most extreme form of beauty enhancement and considered socially acceptable, not a sin as you say.

The dont. Only a small sub set of nerdy females give a shit a k pop guys.

Aug 17,   Plus, along with a gender pay gap, a racial income disparity is still prevalent throughout North America with a consensus revealing university-educated Canadian-born members of a .

Most women dont even know what k pop is. How so? You dismiss my thesis by strawman fallacy, really. I never said that male beauty the way I talked about it is confined to body, and this is the most widely represented area of male beauty in the West, yes.

But, first of all, I never claimed that and I will address this point in full, below, and second of all, representing female sexuality via historical realistic art is erroneous at best, and simply incorrect at worst.

Add to this the fact that most historical art has been created by males - and we cannot really base our assumptions of what constitutes female gaze from it. Moreover, there are at least two big directions in all visual art: the realistic one and the idealistic one. Classic antiquity and Renaissance sculpture and paintings celebrating male body and female as well represent only half of all historical art.

The other one is idealistic. The religious art, the sentimental, the Romance, the Gothic, the Art Nouveau, Modernism by a large margin. Nowhere is the true human beauty more evident than in those art narratives. But please show me where the human body is exalted there. When we say a man is beautiful, we mean his eyes, his face, his overall image in which his body is only one of many parts. Beautiful, lovely and pretty all usually describe the human face, not the human body.

Marriage And Money - Dave Ramsey Rant

So please do not straw man me here. Too add to the above, historically, women have always been more drawn to idealistic art than to the realistic one. Just how we are. We like romance, we like sentimentality, we like chivalry, we like galantry and above all, dignity. The beauty of human body, while undeniable, is also walking a fine line with vulgarity and most women usually shy away from that. Body building effort also fades much sooner than a well-proportioned, symmetrical, truly beautiful face, and cannot be passed on to the offspring.

In fact, most body builders in old age are distractingly unattractive compared to males who had not been body building their entire lives. Age, getting fat, getting sick or injured maim bodily beauty so much faster. There will always be younger, more fit bodies around. Like having sex with a person with a bag on their head? Why should it be different? If the person lacks in the good facial structure department, then a beautiful body is more than enough!

But I would ask you not to equivocate natural beauty one is born with: face, good proportions, nice shapes to enhanced beauty gym, make up, plastic surgery, etc. If the first one is lacking, no one would mind the second, but the first is and will always be preferable. Subconsciously, a woman is much more likely to evaluate his intellect and personality higher if he has a pretty face. We want our babies to be hot and reproduce as much as possible!

Dating income disparity

Note that a lot of women state outright that they swipe to ignore the guys who only post photos of their specs or abs on dating Apps. If she mainly focuses on her breats and butt, without showing her face, yes - she would be labeled that.

Why is that such a surprise? Another biological facet I have to address here is that males have always been appreciated for what women lack: strength. So women in the times before ours have always looked for males who could prove, physically, how strong they are. Most women did not care about male beauty in those times because those times were harsher than ours. Women cared about survivability of the offspring and the higher chance that a strong male can 1 defend her and the child by sheer power, 2 more likely to return home from the war based on how strong he is, 3 can work more land and amass more capital through his strength.

But we live in a different society now, and male strength, while attractive, is mostly a leftover instinct in appreciating male beauty than a real point against the focus on a beautiful face.

And the further we go from the primeval instincts, the more male beauty wil be concentrated in appreciating his face rather than anything else. Because, to repeat, a body can be built through natural means. A face cannot.

site, with

Hope this reply clarifies my previous points, and sorry if I wrote unclearly in my original post. Also thank you for talking to me. Which is our disagreement. You dont think we as a society think men can be beautiful, but I do.

While yes, much of the art in that I am talking about is centered around the body, the body is not separate from the head and face.

remarkable, rather

David is a beautiful man. He was sculpted to be both beautiful and a man. I agree that people shy away from calling men beautifulbut I think that is a recent thing. I have no issue with calling men beautiful. In fact, I think overall, men are the more beautiful of the sexes.

sorry, that

I say that was someone solely sexually attracted to women. I also disagree that women are solely interested in faces above bodies. I have spoken to many women who are very attracted to bodies, and not just body builders.

I mean they are attracted to the male physique. A smaller man can still have broad shoulders, thick back, chest, and legs. Dare I say that even a few scars would be nice? All of that on a mediocre face would still make for a beautiful man. Granted, there may be a face ugly enough to negate all of that, but Id imagine said face would have to be pretty bad.

Like wise, a beautiful face on a body that looks incapable of a single push up would likely prove to be unattractive. We want our babies to be hot and survive, push up ability will aid survival.

You mention this in your reply, but I think you are mistaken in that simply because we live in a different time means our attraction changes.

I dont believe it does. Thank you so much for your reply. Yes, I genuinely agree that masculinity actually offers more ways to perceive beauty than femininity. So beauty as a word has this odd connotation of being nearly practically useless for its owner, except for the enjoyment someone draws from the simple act of looking at that owner.

So the word beautiful is incredibly slippery in grasping, even though there may be several historical tendencies that usually follow the same general direction.

Nowadays, it simply shifts more to one side of the spectrum performance beauty of Instagram, for instance than it did previously. The variety in facial beauty, by the way, would seem to be much greater than the variety of beautiful bodies. Good bodies are all kinda of the same template, whereas facial beauty will vary significantly. So, statistically, without an actual selection of faces to choose from, it is probably wiser to say that a good body matters more since there is so little variety there.

But in an App, a photo of a headless body will be usually rejected by a woman unless she is interested in mostly sex. Because what real information can one gather from a photo of a good-looking abs? There will always be plenty of actual people with actual faces to choose from once she swipes to ignore this random headless torso.

Some of them will also possess good-looking abs, sooner or later in her search. So I just said that women find it a bit shallow of men to show off their bodies or concentrate too much on bodies. It is rather unpleasant. No need to overdo it like a lot, quite a lot of young men do on dating Apps. I know most of such guesses will be incorrect, but still. Body would say so much less in a span it takes a woman to swipe, than a face. And I guess I can also agree with you that strength is important to the potential offspring.

But maybe based on the different place of living? Or better yet, class? I see it less of a cultural divide and more of a class divide, actually. Generally, it seems like the positive perception of gendered beauty muscles, beards for men, wide hips and big breasts for women shifts slightly the further into elites this perception moves.

Probably as one of the signs of the ruling class decadence or the constant desire of the elites to move as far as possible from the tastes of working class and even the bourgeoisie. So for a typical person of the elite, it seems unlikely that they would care much about the survival of their child based on physical strength, when the high survival chance comes already equipped with the lifestyle of a person from ruling class based in their money and status.

Men are more visual than women. Looks trigger an man easily, while women have a dozen triggers that must be played simultaneously. Proof is porn. Yes, just so. Women swiping left or right, a decision they take mere seconds if not milliseconds to make. All I say here is that this millisecond worth of choice can be shifted towards more positive by very simple means on the part of men who desire that.

It is a fascinating discussion, and I feel people are not digging in it enough, but nowadays I can potentially find sexual and even marital partner without actually ever meeting them in person. Most of the interactions between sexes in such ways will shift from socially-performative to visually-performative, no? So, whether men are more visually-driven than females, in the world of modern dating, does not matter.

The playing field is equal, and so far women are kinda winning, as the author of the article laments so. Which is no wonder, as I tried to claim in my original comment. Women had millennia to learn how to very effectively manipulate solely-visual information about themselves.

So unless they learn how, and soon, they will keep losing in those incomplete-data statistics the author quotes above. Men, on the other hand, place physical attractiveness as 1, and 2 is far down the list. Thank you for your reply.

Please see the comments above where I discuss the fact that 1 in modern society such tastes shift which is natural and has always been natural across history. Whenever there is a large societal shift, human tastes will follow sooner or later. And 2 this is an article about visual perceptions of beauty of males vs females.

Visualwithout other ways to evaluate the potential partner. The author of this article complains that there is no equality. I say that the statistics of this article are incomplete, skewed and do not even try to reflect the ways women perceive male beauty and ways in which males are very inefficient with advertising themselves visually compared to women.

All other biological factors in evaluating partners is not the point of the article. Neither it is the point of my original comment. But in talking about male attractiveness in terms you would see in a photo posted on a dating App, sorry.

I think there is only one way to evaluate that. I appreciate that it is foremost, but certainly not the singular source of information about potential partners.

OkCupid, which is one of the three cited in the article, is quite different, in that people write long form profiles, where the app assists the creating of deeper profiles via the structure of the profiles themselves i.



Facebook twitter google_plus reddit linkedin

Nilkree

3 Replies to “Dating income disparity”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *