Eh, at least on the front page of that blog, even in the silly internet way you pretend to see into people's souls, the only case where the woman seems better than the guy is in the monosyllabic yutz photo. She's telegraphic pretty, sweet, undouchey girl. All the other women seem douchey in the same way the guys do.
I would've picked the beach picture. And of course that's the one where the guy says "the chick ain't super hot." I think we have different tastes in fake tan (I don't find it attractive).
Right, but she is equally--alright, alright--almost as douchey. That is the fundamental truth that the author of this website fails to grasp. If attractiveness was a free pass from douchiness, many of the guys on that site would be rescued too.
This is the "Ducky" thing all over again. Which reminds me, when that came up I don't think I made my point: Although "Why do girls like jerks and not me?" is pretty unforgivable, I think many guys of my generation were scarred by Reality Bites. So many of our female friends thought Ethan Hawke, playing the platonic ideal of a douchebag, was hot. Of course Winona Ryder's character probably deserved him.
Tia's right. And the guy who runs the site seems susceptible to the kind of stuff that's comparatively easily manipulated--showing some cleavage, tight jeans, glossy hair-n'-lips. And that's fine, but it's a kinda facile measure of hotness.
it's the time of year for undergraduates to dress inappropriately.
Geez Labs, quit being so satorial-normative.
This appears at the bottom of the comment window: Odd number of elements in hash assignment at lib/MT/App/Comments.pm line 68.
Use of uninitialized value in list assignment at lib/MT/App/Comments.pm line 68.
You people are insane. Labs offers you the sweet, sweet water of truth, and you refuse to drink it.
Labs, I think the problem is that there's a gender-related attractiveness asymmetry. I'm much morre familiar with the overchicked phenomenon than the reverse.
Yeah, I was wondering about that, Tim. I was remarking to ogged via email that when I browse personal ads, I often see attractive women (often unattractive women as well). But when, out of curiousity, I look at men's ads, they mostly horrify, digust, or sadden me. It seems that the effect outstrips correction for heterosexuality. Huh.
Do most people want to be liked for their looks, though? That seems to be the way to deal with beautiful people: play on the fact that they yearn to be appreciated for their souls.
Women are more attractive than men because a) they put more work into it and b) because we're socialized to associate certain salient woman-aspects with teh sex. I think I've made just this comment at Unfogged. But rarely did the pairings on that site seem that mismatched, and the women were displaying all the same personality flaws as the men.
Also, I think most women, beautiful or not, want to be appreciated simultaneously for their souls and their hot, hot bodies.
rarely did the pairings on that site seem that mismatched, and the women were displaying all the same personality flaws as the men.
But it's not funny to think that hot women don't also have great personalities.
It's kind of depressing, actually. My whole world is shattered. Thanks, Tia.
I have noticed that many women are torn on the issue of "being appreciated for their hot bodies" -- on the one hand, yes, everyone wants to be considered attractive, but being appreciated for one's body opens up the possibility that one would be disqualified for social benefits due to factors ultimately beyond one's control. For someone with a liberal sense of entitlement, such a thought is intolerable.
The high preponderance of guys getting women "above their means" might be an indicator of the continued existence of male privilege -- the "masculine aura" as such is sufficient to compensate for unattractiveness, within certain limits.
If lots of people tell you you're beautiful, it's not that interesting. The asshole thing can work because he withholds praise, or is alternately interested just for shallow reasons and something more (at least pretends to aim for more), or for perverse reasons the woman decides that he should see into her soul, even if he doesn't at all.
My friends who are universally considered very attractive, though, still seem interested in praise of their physical aspect when it comes from the right quarter. But it would suck for them, as it would for anyone, if the attention focused too much on the physical. I guess I don't have any friends who are model types, or who are totally glossy and perfect, but the women I'm thinking of know they're hotties and don't want for male attention.
But when, out of curiousity, I look at men's ads, they mostly horrify, digust, or sadden me.
Yeah, what Tia said. Guys are less likely to put a lot of effort into grooming and presentation, and if they do so in any way that strikes the viewer as even vaguely off, then they get penalized for being douchebags because they're trying too hard. They aren't required to make themselves attractive nearly as much, but they've got a smaller target to hit (well groomed in an effortlessly insouciant manner so as to look like they completely don't care what they look like).
This goes back to that post of Scheherazades' about not finding fashionable men attractive.
I'm talking within the context of douchebags/assholes. Why this particular douchebag or asshole, of all the douchebags and assholes in the world? If he's not so good-looking and his personal qualities are questionable, it's probably some elusive quality about the relationship, possibly some intermittant reinforcement.
I had a hard time loading the Hot Girls With Douchebag site's photos, so I gave up browsing through it, but seriously: we need a control. What kind of guys with hot chicks are not douchbags for him?
Weiner, I said it there also, but thanks for that link over in Crooked Timber comments. I don't normally either look at my own sitemeter except on either the day I post something or the day after, so I didn't realize I was getting a bunch of hits (a bunch for me being a very low number) until I caught up on my CT reading, started reading comments in that thread, and before I could recommend myself, saw that ,a href="http://crookedtimber.org/2006/04/13/the-ethicist/#comment-151592">you had.
Part of it is that it's harder for men to distinguish themselves as hot or not. JM mentions that the women are showing cleavage, etc. I don't think there are comparable moves for men. You see the same thing when you go clothes shopping; there is a wealth of variety in clothing for women that doesn't exist for men. I have no idea what the male analogue of the mini skirt would be, for example.
Whatever it is (I'm not sure either -- tight jeans and a leather jacket?), a guy dressed up in it would be condemned as a douchebag for trying to look sexy.
The male equivalent to cleavage would obviously be showing the chest hair, and that is one of the most infallible signs of a douchebag -- or else a successful businessman in his fifties.
Whatever it is (I'm not sure either -- tight jeans and a leather jacket?), a guy dressed up in it would be condemned as a douchebag for trying to look sexy.
Because he would be douchebag. He's trying to do something that's not possible, and in doing so succeeds only at pointing out the failure of it. There are similar boundaries for women, but the boundaries just aren't as restrictive as they are for men. A guy stuffing socks down his pants is a douchebag; a woman wearing a low cut shirt is not.
One of my hottie friends is currently in a happy relationship with a guy who's "objectively" way less hot than she is. In fact, I'm sure he'd qualify, if photographed with her, as a douchebag to this blogger. He's got dorky facial hair, etc. But in that case it was just that she liked him, which is probably the case in most of these circumstances. Guys always *seem* like douchebags when they've got something you want.
See? You try to think of what a man could do to make himself look good, and can't come up with anything that doesn't make him a douchebag.
(One of the funniest meetings I've ever been in was with a shady businessman who looked like he was dressed up to be a shady businessman on the Love Boat. Tens of thousands of dollars of jewelry -- big, big chains, and a diamond belt buckle the size of a dessert plate. Bald, very tan, and with a boldly striped shirt open to expose giant gold chains nestling in chest hair. I spent the meeting giggling quietly to myself, and shushing the little voice in my head telling me that my economically soundest option was to snatch the chains and head for Brazil.)
I have no idea what the male analogue of the mini skirt would be, for example.
That goes back to Tia's 17b. Breasts and women's legs are inherently sexy (at least for attractive women). A woman can signify 'sexy' by showing them off. For guys, there's no corresponding body part that signifies sexy and that it's acceptable to accentuate.
This guy, whatever you say about him, is ripped; and showing that off in itself gets him judged a douchebag. (And really, how about Ms. Atlas Shrugs there?)
He's trying to do something that's not possible, and in doing so succeeds only at pointing out the failure of it.
But it's not impossible, it's just unacceptable in our current society. Men have dolled themselves up to look sexy throughout human history -- they just don't do it with any great success in 21C America.
Oh, thank god Tia is already on top of this thread.
One addition to what she's already said: often "hot chicks" are hot, in part, b/c of either great insecurity or great vapidity (or both). I'll leave it to each of you to work out the reason why insecurity & vapidity --> hotness.
I find the idea that you can judge someone to be or not to be a douchebag solely from appearance vaguely disturbing, even when I agree with many of the assessments.
49- I don't get it, is it anti-feminist to say that women tend to be more objectively physically attractive than men? Take more care of their appearance and so on?
The problem with that blog is that the concept is great but the execution is lousy. In particular, the diagnoses are inaccurate, and the commentary is not what it could be.
Asian guy, for example, is just hot. When I look at his stomach I'm not completely sure that we're the same species, because nothing could make my abs look like that. Even though I'm convinced I could move more weight, I could never approach anything like that definition. This makes me sob quietly in the dark, but I don't think he's a douchebag. Some of those smug fratty guys, on the other hand, well,...'bag!
52: Yeah, women mostly do, b/c blah blah patriarchy. My point was only that the "why do good-looking girls date dumbass guys?" thing is silly; good-looking guys also often date dumbass girls.
58: But this only proves that a common set of baseline assumptions is important. Tia also thinks Taylor Hicks is hot; I think he looks like the creepy, pervy science teacher I had in 8th grade. (NB: I haven't seen him on Idol, so maybe I'm missing something.) I can't very well prove that Taylor Hicks isn't hot.
What kind of guys with hot chicks are not douchbags for him?
From his Blogger profile: "I'm the biggest douchebag you ever met. The problem is I don't get the hot bitches, so I'm like the anti-douchebag douchebag. They need a new term for my sorry ass."
the concept is great but the execution is lousy
If only Zach had more time on his hands, think of what he could do with this. In that link, by the way, "Hotel, Mohel, Holiday Inn" is one of the greatest things ever.
I've got a new name for his sorry ass: envious wanker.
Asian guy is kinda hot, now that I have finally uploaded that photo. The girl with him, though, sets off my skank alarm.* French maid outfit?!? Sparkly tiara?!? Shimmery eyebrow-enhancing makeup?!? What, no portable wind-machine?
*By which I mean "enthusiastically participating in her objectification by the patriachy." Of course.
65: And so? That means that dressing as a French maid isn't a form of enthusiastic participation in your own patriarchal objectification? Not that we haven't all done it (participated, not dressed as a French maid, jesus), but ain't no point in pretending it's only pathetic if she actually walks down the street dressed like that.
Now, see, I can't find that Asian guy hot; his muscles signal that he spends far too much time at the gym.
58: Hooray! The mere invocation of my name is an argument! Sweet (I am apparently too frightened of SB to add the "h" though). It's taken me much longer to get to this point on Unfogged than it has among my real life friends. Probably because I can't do the eye narrowing thing here. (I kid, I kid.)
I actually do think that men look on average more ridiculous than women naked, but only because we're taught to see them that way. A naked man, if his body isn't utterly perfect, often looks weak and exposed in a way that we're not supposed to see men, but we are supposed to see women as weak and exposed, so women's bodies seem right when they're naked. But if you hang out in the locker room and consciously jaundice your eye, you start to see why every woman's body is also ridiculous, and we're all just a bunch of floppy naked apes. It's mostly because women are given a prescribed bunch of poses they can strike to signal teh sex, and because we all think "women! teh sex!" that women don't seem ridiculous naked.
Reasons for the overchicked/underdicked phenomenon: there are more hot women than men (see comment 17). Hot women confer more status on men than hot men confer on women, so men have more impetus to pursue hot women exclusively. That's about it, I think. And I do know of men who've dated unattractive female douchebags who they knew were douchebags. The intermittent reinforcement thing works on them too. I don't think that's the phenomenon here though--the blogger just thinks, this girl is hot, and doesn't consider what she's telegraphing about her personality, and is jealous of the guy, so every piece of evidence of his douchbaggery is pounced upon.
In response to a specific situation, as a visual kind of "fuck you," and clearly not meant seriously, yes. But I'm actually going to be cranky on the implication that women acting like sexbots is always good, and that since obviously that's a given, my real argument here is that guys have a free pass to be assholes.
81: In all seriousness, I assumed you were pro-slutting-it-up. Or at least pro- "we should remember that slutting it up tells us nothing about the person's competence, etc." I certainly subscribe to the latter view; more to the point, I worked to learn to subscribe to that view in order to be a more decent person. I am actually entirely befuddled by your response.
84: Erm, I kinda know what B. means, but not well enough to explain myself. A starting point is that there's a difference between not judging a woman as immoral or incompetent or anything like that simply because she's presenting herself in a sexually appealing fashion (good! and the thing which you taught yourself to do, and thereby became a better person) and not judging a woman for anything if she's presenting herself in a sexually appealing fashion, because that's all that's important about her (bad! women are sexbots).
Like, say, the picture on that site with the idiot on the motorcycle doing a wheelie with the woman in white in front of him. He is clearly a douchebag, just for posing in a picture like that. She's intentionally in the same picture, posing with some idiot on a motorcycle. While she's very pretty, that doesn't save her from being equally a douchebag -- it's not like the idiot on the motorcycle sneaked into the picture behind her.
Sorry, I saw some sort of "INTERNAL EXTERNAL SERVICE ERROR: PLEASE MAKE A NOTE OF IT" thing when I posted the comment, and refreshed, and forgot that this created another post of the comment.
None of that gay "understanding computers" shit for me.
Eh, at least on the front page of that blog, even in the silly internet way you pretend to see into people's souls, the only case where the woman seems better than the guy is in the monosyllabic yutz photo. She's telegraphic pretty, sweet, undouchey girl. All the other women seem douchey in the same way the guys do.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 8:25 AM
"telegraphing" I mean
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 8:26 AM
I would've picked the beach picture. And of course that's the one where the guy says "the chick ain't super hot." I think we have different tastes in fake tan (I don't find it attractive).
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 8:31 AM
The funniest picture is the topmost one in the March archives. Douchebag factor=11.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 8:36 AM
Right, but she is equally--alright, alright--almost as douchey. That is the fundamental truth that the author of this website fails to grasp. If attractiveness was a free pass from douchiness, many of the guys on that site would be rescued too.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 8:41 AM
Tia speaks the truth, except that that woman is really quite attractive. (And relatively pale!)
Wouldn't it have been funny if the douchebags were literally douchebags?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 8:44 AM
This is the "Ducky" thing all over again. Which reminds me, when that came up I don't think I made my point: Although "Why do girls like jerks and not me?" is pretty unforgivable, I think many guys of my generation were scarred by Reality Bites. So many of our female friends thought Ethan Hawke, playing the platonic ideal of a douchebag, was hot. Of course Winona Ryder's character probably deserved him.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 8:49 AM
Tia's right. And the guy who runs the site seems susceptible to the kind of stuff that's comparatively easily manipulated--showing some cleavage, tight jeans, glossy hair-n'-lips. And that's fine, but it's a kinda facile measure of hotness.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 8:53 AM
it's the time of year for undergraduates to dress inappropriately.
Geez Labs, quit being so satorial-normative.
This appears at the bottom of the comment window: Odd number of elements in hash assignment at lib/MT/App/Comments.pm line 68.
Use of uninitialized value in list assignment at lib/MT/App/Comments.pm line 68.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 9:17 AM
satorial-normative
Hey, navel-gazing is navel-gazing.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 9:22 AM
Dammit. Sartorial-normative. There goes that joke.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 9:25 AM
You people are insane. Labs offers you the sweet, sweet water of truth, and you refuse to drink it.
Labs, I think the problem is that there's a gender-related attractiveness asymmetry. I'm much morre familiar with the overchicked phenomenon than the reverse.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 9:31 AM
Yeah, I was wondering about that, Tim. I was remarking to ogged via email that when I browse personal ads, I often see attractive women (often unattractive women as well). But when, out of curiousity, I look at men's ads, they mostly horrify, digust, or sadden me. It seems that the effect outstrips correction for heterosexuality. Huh.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 9:36 AM
Do most people want to be liked for their looks, though? That seems to be the way to deal with beautiful people: play on the fact that they yearn to be appreciated for their souls.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 9:43 AM
"satorial-normative"
Hey, navel-gazing is navel-gazing.
Very nicely played.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 9:48 AM
Thanks!
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 9:50 AM
Haven't we had this conversation before?
Women are more attractive than men because a) they put more work into it and b) because we're socialized to associate certain salient woman-aspects with teh sex. I think I've made just this comment at Unfogged. But rarely did the pairings on that site seem that mismatched, and the women were displaying all the same personality flaws as the men.
Also, I think most women, beautiful or not, want to be appreciated simultaneously for their souls and their hot, hot bodies.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 9:51 AM
rarely did the pairings on that site seem that mismatched, and the women were displaying all the same personality flaws as the men.
But it's not funny to think that hot women don't also have great personalities.
It's kind of depressing, actually. My whole world is shattered. Thanks, Tia.
Posted by Jon McGee | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 9:56 AM
I have noticed that many women are torn on the issue of "being appreciated for their hot bodies" -- on the one hand, yes, everyone wants to be considered attractive, but being appreciated for one's body opens up the possibility that one would be disqualified for social benefits due to factors ultimately beyond one's control. For someone with a liberal sense of entitlement, such a thought is intolerable.
The high preponderance of guys getting women "above their means" might be an indicator of the continued existence of male privilege -- the "masculine aura" as such is sufficient to compensate for unattractiveness, within certain limits.
Posted by Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 9:56 AM
If lots of people tell you you're beautiful, it's not that interesting. The asshole thing can work because he withholds praise, or is alternately interested just for shallow reasons and something more (at least pretends to aim for more), or for perverse reasons the woman decides that he should see into her soul, even if he doesn't at all.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 10:00 AM
Compare Cheever's "Chaste Clarissa."
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 10:04 AM
My friends who are universally considered very attractive, though, still seem interested in praise of their physical aspect when it comes from the right quarter. But it would suck for them, as it would for anyone, if the attention focused too much on the physical. I guess I don't have any friends who are model types, or who are totally glossy and perfect, but the women I'm thinking of know they're hotties and don't want for male attention.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 10:05 AM
But when, out of curiousity, I look at men's ads, they mostly horrify, digust, or sadden me.
Yeah, what Tia said. Guys are less likely to put a lot of effort into grooming and presentation, and if they do so in any way that strikes the viewer as even vaguely off, then they get penalized for being douchebags because they're trying too hard. They aren't required to make themselves attractive nearly as much, but they've got a smaller target to hit (well groomed in an effortlessly insouciant manner so as to look like they completely don't care what they look like).
This goes back to that post of Scheherazades' about not finding fashionable men attractive.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 10:05 AM
I'm talking within the context of douchebags/assholes. Why this particular douchebag or asshole, of all the douchebags and assholes in the world? If he's not so good-looking and his personal qualities are questionable, it's probably some elusive quality about the relationship, possibly some intermittant reinforcement.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 10:10 AM
I had a hard time loading the Hot Girls With Douchebag site's photos, so I gave up browsing through it, but seriously: we need a control. What kind of guys with hot chicks are not douchbags for him?
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 10:13 AM
OOOooh.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 10:15 AM
Weiner, I said it there also, but thanks for that link over in Crooked Timber comments. I don't normally either look at my own sitemeter except on either the day I post something or the day after, so I didn't realize I was getting a bunch of hits (a bunch for me being a very low number) until I caught up on my CT reading, started reading comments in that thread, and before I could recommend myself, saw that ,a href="http://crookedtimber.org/2006/04/13/the-ethicist/#comment-151592">you had.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 10:15 AM
Part of it is that it's harder for men to distinguish themselves as hot or not. JM mentions that the women are showing cleavage, etc. I don't think there are comparable moves for men. You see the same thing when you go clothes shopping; there is a wealth of variety in clothing for women that doesn't exist for men. I have no idea what the male analogue of the mini skirt would be, for example.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 10:19 AM
Whatever it is (I'm not sure either -- tight jeans and a leather jacket?), a guy dressed up in it would be condemned as a douchebag for trying to look sexy.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 10:22 AM
either(the first time), a working hyperlink. Time to rethink recommending things I've written.Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 10:23 AM
I have no idea what the male analogue of the mini skirt would be, for example.
Banana hammock?
Posted by Jon McGee | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 10:24 AM
The male equivalent to cleavage would obviously be showing the chest hair, and that is one of the most infallible signs of a douchebag -- or else a successful businessman in his fifties.
Posted by Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 10:26 AM
Whatever it is (I'm not sure either -- tight jeans and a leather jacket?), a guy dressed up in it would be condemned as a douchebag for trying to look sexy.
Because he would be douchebag. He's trying to do something that's not possible, and in doing so succeeds only at pointing out the failure of it. There are similar boundaries for women, but the boundaries just aren't as restrictive as they are for men. A guy stuffing socks down his pants is a douchebag; a woman wearing a low cut shirt is not.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 10:28 AM
showing cleavage, etc. I don't think there are comparable moves for men
Au contraire.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 10:29 AM
One of my hottie friends is currently in a happy relationship with a guy who's "objectively" way less hot than she is. In fact, I'm sure he'd qualify, if photographed with her, as a douchebag to this blogger. He's got dorky facial hair, etc. But in that case it was just that she liked him, which is probably the case in most of these circumstances. Guys always *seem* like douchebags when they've got something you want.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 10:30 AM
See? You try to think of what a man could do to make himself look good, and can't come up with anything that doesn't make him a douchebag.
(One of the funniest meetings I've ever been in was with a shady businessman who looked like he was dressed up to be a shady businessman on the Love Boat. Tens of thousands of dollars of jewelry -- big, big chains, and a diamond belt buckle the size of a dessert plate. Bald, very tan, and with a boldly striped shirt open to expose giant gold chains nestling in chest hair. I spent the meeting giggling quietly to myself, and shushing the little voice in my head telling me that my economically soundest option was to snatch the chains and head for Brazil.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 10:31 AM
I have no idea what the male analogue of the mini skirt would be, for example.
That goes back to Tia's 17b. Breasts and women's legs are inherently sexy (at least for attractive women). A woman can signify 'sexy' by showing them off. For guys, there's no corresponding body part that signifies sexy and that it's acceptable to accentuate.
This guy, whatever you say about him, is ripped; and showing that off in itself gets him judged a douchebag. (And really, how about Ms. Atlas Shrugs there?)
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 10:32 AM
34: That image is of an installation that was in a window right next to the entrance to my old firm.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 10:32 AM
Well, if they have them, guys can show off their biceps. But to this crowd, the wearing of a cutoff shirt would signal douchebag, too, I'm sure.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 10:33 AM
He's trying to do something that's not possible, and in doing so succeeds only at pointing out the failure of it.
But it's not impossible, it's just unacceptable in our current society. Men have dolled themselves up to look sexy throughout human history -- they just don't do it with any great success in 21C America.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 10:34 AM
(somehow I left that comment without reading the second paragraph of yours, Weiner.)
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 10:35 AM
The camera generally adds douchebagness, making any guy who might really be a normal guy seem like a huge douchebag.
Posted by Jon McGee | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 10:35 AM
1. The Asian guy doesn't seem like a douche to me.
2.But it's not impossible, it's just unacceptable in our current society.
Amounts to the same thing. I'm not wedded to an idea of "natural" attractiveness (though some of it seems pretty straightforwardly natural to me).
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 10:41 AM
they just don't do it with any great success in 21C America.
Powdered wigs are poised to come back in a big way.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 10:47 AM
And padded stockings to show off those sexy, sexy calf muscles.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 10:49 AM
Oh, thank god Tia is already on top of this thread.
One addition to what she's already said: often "hot chicks" are hot, in part, b/c of either great insecurity or great vapidity (or both). I'll leave it to each of you to work out the reason why insecurity & vapidity --> hotness.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 11:08 AM
I guess I have hottie friends dating guys they know are douchebags, and yet can't break up.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 11:10 AM
I find the idea that you can judge someone to be or not to be a douchebag solely from appearance vaguely disturbing, even when I agree with many of the assessments.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 11:14 AM
Don't we all also know attractive guys dating women who are jerks?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 11:18 AM
The male equivalent to cleavage would obviously be showing the chest hair, and that is one of the most infallible signs of a douchebag
I disagree (and not from self-preservative reasons, either).
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 11:22 AM
Kotsko would feel differently if he had chest hair, ben.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 11:29 AM
49- I don't get it, is it anti-feminist to say that women tend to be more objectively physically attractive than men? Take more care of their appearance and so on?
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 11:38 AM
To me, the essence of male douchebaggotry is probably gawdy jewelry of any kind.
Posted by Urple | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 11:38 AM
s/b "gaudy" obviously...
Posted by Urple | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 11:40 AM
The problem with that blog is that the concept is great but the execution is lousy. In particular, the diagnoses are inaccurate, and the commentary is not what it could be.
Asian guy, for example, is just hot. When I look at his stomach I'm not completely sure that we're the same species, because nothing could make my abs look like that. Even though I'm convinced I could move more weight, I could never approach anything like that definition. This makes me sob quietly in the dark, but I don't think he's a douchebag. Some of those smug fratty guys, on the other hand, well,...'bag!
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 11:42 AM
52: Yeah, women mostly do, b/c blah blah patriarchy. My point was only that the "why do good-looking girls date dumbass guys?" thing is silly; good-looking guys also often date dumbass girls.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 11:43 AM
52 - Also, women look far less silly naked than men do.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 11:43 AM
57: Tia doesn't think so.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 11:44 AM
But are the dumbass women hot?
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 11:57 AM
58: But this only proves that a common set of baseline assumptions is important. Tia also thinks Taylor Hicks is hot; I think he looks like the creepy, pervy science teacher I had in 8th grade. (NB: I haven't seen him on Idol, so maybe I'm missing something.) I can't very well prove that Taylor Hicks isn't hot.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 11:58 AM
What kind of guys with hot chicks are not douchbags for him?
From his Blogger profile: "I'm the biggest douchebag you ever met. The problem is I don't get the hot bitches, so I'm like the anti-douchebag douchebag. They need a new term for my sorry ass."
the concept is great but the execution is lousy
If only Zach had more time on his hands, think of what he could do with this. In that link, by the way, "Hotel, Mohel, Holiday Inn" is one of the greatest things ever.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 12:00 PM
Jeez, apo, don't you even read my posts anymore?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 12:04 PM
Also, it should be noted that the dude's wearing a trucker hat in his profile photo.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 12:04 PM
I've got a new name for his sorry ass: envious wanker.
Asian guy is kinda hot, now that I have finally uploaded that photo. The girl with him, though, sets off my skank alarm.* French maid outfit?!? Sparkly tiara?!? Shimmery eyebrow-enhancing makeup?!? What, no portable wind-machine?
*By which I mean "enthusiastically participating in her objectification by the patriachy." Of course.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 12:25 PM
It's pretty plainly a costume party, JM.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 12:27 PM
And.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 12:28 PM
But the resemblance to this picture is uncanny. Isn't it? If Glenn Reynolds were a hot ripped Asian guy instead of a douchebag.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 12:32 PM
Weiner with an apo moment! Sweet.
Matt, that counterfactual is really straining at the bonds of modality, isn't it?
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 12:36 PM
65: And so? That means that dressing as a French maid isn't a form of enthusiastic participation in your own patriarchal objectification? Not that we haven't all done it (participated, not dressed as a French maid, jesus), but ain't no point in pretending it's only pathetic if she actually walks down the street dressed like that.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 12:44 PM
Re: 66; the sexy ketchup bottle outfit would at least show some originality.
And I'm not mollified about the eyebrow-ridge enhancing shimmery stuff, which is make-up's holla out to airbrushing.
[/arbitrary value judgments]
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 12:48 PM
And so?
And so, denouncing college-aged women for slutting it up at costume parties is akin to denouncing dogs for barking.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 12:58 PM
The recent comments sidebar doesn't seem to be updating itself very well.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 12:59 PM
71: Much like denouncing college-aged guys for being douchebags, in fact. Gander, goose, baby.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 1:16 PM
Gander, goose, baby.
That's ludicrous. Storks bring babies.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 1:22 PM
baby s/b gosling.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 1:26 PM
But seriously, 73 is dead on.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 1:29 PM
76: No way. Is this the face of a douchebag, I ask you?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 1:32 PM
STARE! STARE INTO THE DOUCHEBAG!
[wiggly fingers]You will all wear French maids' uniforms now.[/wiggly fingers]
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 1:33 PM
Women of any age slutting it up is a good thing. If you want to argue that men behaving like douchebags is a good thing, more power to you, B.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 1:52 PM
Now, see, I can't find that Asian guy hot; his muscles signal that he spends far too much time at the gym.
58: Hooray! The mere invocation of my name is an argument! Sweet (I am apparently too frightened of SB to add the "h" though). It's taken me much longer to get to this point on Unfogged than it has among my real life friends. Probably because I can't do the eye narrowing thing here. (I kid, I kid.)
I actually do think that men look on average more ridiculous than women naked, but only because we're taught to see them that way. A naked man, if his body isn't utterly perfect, often looks weak and exposed in a way that we're not supposed to see men, but we are supposed to see women as weak and exposed, so women's bodies seem right when they're naked. But if you hang out in the locker room and consciously jaundice your eye, you start to see why every woman's body is also ridiculous, and we're all just a bunch of floppy naked apes. It's mostly because women are given a prescribed bunch of poses they can strike to signal teh sex, and because we all think "women! teh sex!" that women don't seem ridiculous naked.
Reasons for the overchicked/underdicked phenomenon: there are more hot women than men (see comment 17). Hot women confer more status on men than hot men confer on women, so men have more impetus to pursue hot women exclusively. That's about it, I think. And I do know of men who've dated unattractive female douchebags who they knew were douchebags. The intermittent reinforcement thing works on them too. I don't think that's the phenomenon here though--the blogger just thinks, this girl is hot, and doesn't consider what she's telegraphing about her personality, and is jealous of the guy, so every piece of evidence of his douchbaggery is pounced upon.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 1:57 PM
79: I'm pretty sure you know that I'm not gonna agree with either of those statements.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 2:18 PM
81: Oh really?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 2:25 PM
In response to a specific situation, as a visual kind of "fuck you," and clearly not meant seriously, yes. But I'm actually going to be cranky on the implication that women acting like sexbots is always good, and that since obviously that's a given, my real argument here is that guys have a free pass to be assholes.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 2:32 PM
81: In all seriousness, I assumed you were pro-slutting-it-up. Or at least pro- "we should remember that slutting it up tells us nothing about the person's competence, etc." I certainly subscribe to the latter view; more to the point, I worked to learn to subscribe to that view in order to be a more decent person. I am actually entirely befuddled by your response.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 2:38 PM
Don't we all also know attractive guys dating women who are jerks?
Possibly, but not being gay, I don't know which guys are attractive.
NICE TRY!
Posted by Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 2:46 PM
Just use me as the template, Ned.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 2:47 PM
84: Erm, I kinda know what B. means, but not well enough to explain myself. A starting point is that there's a difference between not judging a woman as immoral or incompetent or anything like that simply because she's presenting herself in a sexually appealing fashion (good! and the thing which you taught yourself to do, and thereby became a better person) and not judging a woman for anything if she's presenting herself in a sexually appealing fashion, because that's all that's important about her (bad! women are sexbots).
Like, say, the picture on that site with the idiot on the motorcycle doing a wheelie with the woman in white in front of him. He is clearly a douchebag, just for posing in a picture like that. She's intentionally in the same picture, posing with some idiot on a motorcycle. While she's very pretty, that doesn't save her from being equally a douchebag -- it's not like the idiot on the motorcycle sneaked into the picture behind her.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 2:54 PM
Sorry, I saw some sort of "INTERNAL EXTERNAL SERVICE ERROR: PLEASE MAKE A NOTE OF IT" thing when I posted the comment, and refreshed, and forgot that this created another post of the comment.
None of that gay "understanding computers" shit for me.
Posted by Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 04-14-06 2:54 PM