But in the specific case that prompted ogged's question, Adam was right. Or at the very least, further research is needed.
A bizarre mutant version: Going to a small Christian college, I found that when some young ladies discovered feminism, they used that as a tool to shame men into pretending they were able to ignore physical appearance (and secondarily to try to wear the dumpiest-looking clothes possible, etc.). It was a veritable War on Objectification!
Still, even though I was put on the offensive, I managed to be attracted to attractive women, pretty much exclusively. And as Ben points out, my taste is infallible.
I've never heard of straight edge. So many movements out there. Oh, was this a post about physical attractiveness? I hadn't even noticed there was such a thing.
Ben, on sports and relative hotness, you may not comment.
Listen, at the time of filming, that statement was true. I freely admit, and already have, that it isn't any longer.
Besides, one must take into account perceptions about the person as a whole! Personality and whatnot. For if you dislike someone already, they will seem less hot to you. Truly is it said: hotness is in the eye of the beholder.
Someone please explain straight edge before it gets all Euclid up in here.
As the question is formulated, w-lfs-n might be right by ogged's own standards. Clearly our pro-choice womyn looks more likely to go camping than the pro-life woman. So isn't the pro-choice woman more "attractive" to ogged.
Hotness, like death, is different.
Straight edge is like punk, except they don't drink, smoke, fuck, etc. I feel like they get a lot of tattoos, though.
Hmm, judging by #2's standards, I discovered the War on Objectification by the age of 14, before I knew squat about feminism or even sex per se.
The answer to that question is obvious.
The *real* stumper is, why do liberal women feel superior for preferring irritating men to agreeable ones?
The *real* stumper is, why do liberal women feel superior for preferring irritating men to agreeable ones?
That's easy. Because you suspect that the agreeable facade hides something much more troubling. And you're probably right.
12: It helps feed their sense of victimization.
11: yeah, I wore the dumpiest possible clothes before I knew anything about feminism or sex, too. I did know that my body had to be hidden at all costs. Now I wear dumpy clothes because I'm lazy, but if anyone can get around to objectifying me anyway, I won't fight them.
on the topic of the post, I think a lot of people go through a stage in adolescence where they proclaim they don't care about sex. I certainly did. As a freshman in college, before I'd ever been kissed, my clothes slowly got less dumpy, but stayed flowery and virginal, and I sat in trees and ran about in thunderstorms and declared that I was undersexed. I was not. But sex is scary, and it's tempting to believe that you can just exempt yourself from it and be more satisfied and happier than everyone else. When I was a senior in college a bunch of people told me that there was this new freshman I had to meet; I would adore her, and in our first conversation she told me, "My sexuality is books." And I kvelled a little knowing she would change her mind, but that that moment on the brink was so tensely quiet and full of promise.
I know I will be mocked for the o-earnestness of that last sentence, but I will not edit it. As Bphd would say, nyah.
Tia (18), we might have had slightly different issues at 14. At 14, I started, suddenly and before I was ready, to understand that I was becoming a sexual object.
(I had almost exactly the same body then that I do now at 28, -2 for muscles, +1 for tit-size, etc.)
I totally identify with the protectively earnest asexuality that you describe. For most of my adolescence my position was I can't control what you see in/on/at me except by saying no, no, no. And, frankly, I've found that "dealing with" objectivizing desire has required a fair amount on cynicism on my part.
Great question from ogged. Although I might avoid phrasing it in political terms (why do liberal guys...) and ask instead what is motivating those who prefer, or claim to prefer, the worse to the better.
A couple of hypotheses:
1. Moral self-creation. Such a person is trying to overcome their own shallowness, and fears that tp admit a preference for mere physical attractiveness is to confess, and reinforce, shallowness. This makes sense. You can change who you are by how you behave, and what you tell yourself you prefer.
2. Studied eccentricity. Such a person wants to be unusual/different. Here, just replace 'attractive' with 'conventionally attractive. And who wants to be conventional. Not me, daddy-o!
3. Snobbery. Such a person wants to have complex tastes. A version of #2, perhaps. Everyone can appreciate beauty -- it's a great equalizer. But who can discern that Edith Piaf is cuter than Bridget Bardot? Only the connoisseur with sophisticated tastes. Thus, a man who prefers Piaf to Bardot must ipso facto be sophisticated.
Here, just replace 'attractive' with 'conventionally attractive.
Baa ignores the possibility that this reason might apply ingenuously.
Less competition is an advantage, yes.
Oh tempore. I remember when steatopygia was all the rage.
a man who prefers Piaf to Bardot must ipso facto be not getting any.
For some men, being with Edith Piaf is as close to sex with a sparrow as they'll ever come.
Which is to say, yes, I think those are the reasons, more or less, in varying combination. I might add or rephrase 2 to describe not wanting to be told what's attractive, which will necessitate finding something unconventional attractive: a desire to feel like one's innermost desires aren't culturally determined.
I still fondly remember "reading" (a euphemism there) at the age of 14 the 1974 Playboy pictorial on the occasion of Bardot's 40th birthday. Oh my frigging god, what a beautiful woman.
Baa claims to want to understand those who "prefer, or claim to prefer", the weaker argument to the stronger. But none of his theses is responsive to someone with an actual, unstudied preference for the weaker: he thinks of this preference only as something feigned, or won through hard toil taken on oneself deliberately. The closest he comes to something that could explain this phenomenon is with the snob—but then, with his analysis ("such a person wants to have complex tastes") he obviates the possibility of the naïve snob (if you will); at any rate, the baa-style snob will only seem to prefer Piaf to Bardot.
But this is outrageous.
Conclusion: baa is a nunshitting fuckchutney.
baa was answering the question I asked, not the question of why people's tastes differ.
You asked a different question from the one baa seems to take himself to be answering.
Other than the revision he makes explicitly, how so?
nunshitting fuckchutney
Congratulations, Ben. That's a googlorphan. Googlorphan itself now has joint custody.
I don't understand. What is this concept "unattractive women"?
What is this concept "unattractive women"?
Does this help?
I think Ben's right. Baa should have said "claim to prefer" and left it at that. If they actually prefer the weaker to the stronger - well, then, I think we're lost in the thickets of "weaker" and "stronger", at a minimum.
Congratulations, Ben. That's a googlorphan.
From here, no?
You asked: "Why do [some] guys feel superior for preferring unattractive women to attractive women?"
He asked: "what is motivating those who prefer, or claim to prefer, the worse to the better."
Baa's question assumes that anyone who does prefer the worse to the better does so for some motivation. His answers thus don't take into account those who just do have different taste, even though they fall in his question's purview. And anyway, one answer to baa's question could be: to feel superior. If we read your question as asking about all guys who prefer the worse to the better, and assuming that they feel superior for doing so, it has the same flaw as baa's; if we read it as asking only about the ones that do feel superior, then baa's answer might suffice, but your questions differ.
Ah, cockbucketry! Forgot about that one.
In so far as 'conventional beauty' is defined in terms of things that constrain and restrict women - makeup that takes hours, shoes that inhibit walking, tight or long skirts and nearly indecently low cut blouses that almost completely immobilize - there are good political and ethical reasons for feeling superior about not preferring that standard.
The one place where covering must be enforced.
What an odd situation in which to find oneself.
But look at baa's 1--there's the possibility that a preference is both genuine and self-willed, so with a "disingenuous" origin. So those who "just do have different taste" can still be subject to his analysis.
Uh, Michael up in 41, you're not channeling bphd at all, since we've had that discussion here, and she's taken nearly the opposite position.
Why do men who prefer attractive women feel superior to men who feel superior for preferring unattractive women?
Because their desires accord with nature, of course.
really? I'm surprised. I suppose I should do a search
shoes that inhibit walking
Imperfectly channeling, indeed. BPhD likes wearing high heels.
45: yes, but only if they fit that specific profile. Do you really think that's everyone with a genuine instance of different taste?
Let's flip it around. Why do liberal women feel superior for prefering unattractive men to attractive men?
Wait, I don't understand the position you're describing in 45.
Because their desires accord with nature, of course.
I do hope that was ironic.
Too late guys, now we're talking about how great I am in bed.
Why do liberal women feel superior for prefering unattractive men to attractive men?
They don't. At the end of the day, they realize we're all the same piggish brothers under the skin, and they feel like suckers.
what are you, my stalker?
I googled it, kenko-man, because I remembered linking to it or something much like it (on Kotsko's site, maybe?) back in the day.
60.--So you're saying I should angle for the biggest bank balance, right?
27: a desire to feel like one's innermost desires aren't culturally determined.
If we recognize that desires are culturally determined, and that cultures differ, then for cultural reasons some people will prefer the steatopygious. Of course they'll feel superior. One's own culture is manifestly superior to all others. And bed certainly sounds like a good idea.
62: no, go for the most agreeable. "Yes, Dear" can be the nicest thing to hear.
Too late guys, now we're talking about how great I am in bed.
Curses! I was aiming for something more like this.
Once is a fluke, twice is a coincidence …
o you're saying I should angle for the biggest bank balance, right?
Largely, though you can sacrifice some (though not much) money for aesthetic reason like a full head of hair, athletic reasons like height, or ease of (mis)use reasons alluded to in 64. But generally - cash is King.
Once is a fluke, twice is a coincidence …
Once is a fluke, twice is a haddock.
how great I am in bed
You're kinda grumpy.
Once is a fluke, twice is a coincidence …
I'd argue with you, SB, but I'm afraid you'll leave me.
It's a good thing I didn't use my initial idea, "once is a fluke, twice is a flounder", since apparently a fluke is just a kind of flounder! We woundn't want 1 just to be a kind of 2 (a small kind, probably)—think of the trouble for mathematics.
I hope never to be put on a diet of flapjacks and flounders.
And founders aren't very sexy, w-lfs-n.
2 is just 1 plus palaver.
Too late guys, now we're talking about how great I am in bed.
Depends on how you define "great in bed," I guess:
it's not as if coming on a woman's face feels better (or even as good) as other ways and places, but it sure can look cool.
(Sorry, can't figure out how to link to the above comment by the O-man.)
Founders or flounder, JM? What's going on here? Who's that guy?
Mamba, motherfucker.
I don't understand. Are you saying that you're a venomous snake?
Or that he's Kobe, aka "Black Mamba".
I'm still stunned by the premise that liberal guys apparently prefer unattractive women.
In which universe is that true?
It doesn't bear any connection with reality in my experience. In fact, in my experience, there's pretty much no correlation between political views and what one rates as attractive in women.
It's a damn good thing that no women read these threads.
Why do liberal guys feel superior for preferring unattractive women to attractive women?
I'm not sure, but I suspect the answer is simply that guys are bombarded with images/media/etc telling them what counts as attractive, and comparatively little information telling them that a woman's non-physical characteristics should be valued. (Even in movies, it's always a relatively hot woman wanting to be loved for more than her body.)
Feeling attracted to a physcially non-attractive woman is something to feel superior about on this model because it has a higher degree of difficulty (even if you botch the dismount, you get the gold.) Liberal guys get the bonus of feeling like they're obeying the liberal orthodoxy, but I'm not so sure this is a liberal as much as it is an 'educated, enlightened' phenomenon.
Aah, straight edge. That brings back fond memories of Minor Threat shows in high school. You know, Fugazi is still pretty good.
The *real* stumper is, why do liberal women feel superior for preferring irritating men to agreeable ones?
I don't know, but I thank god for this everyday.
So, typically, I endorse Cala's 84. And ogged's revision in 27 helps a lot.
I think, Ben W, that your response results from the my web post not conveying the same background information as real conversation. Of course tastes differ, and some genuinely conclude X > Y when most are hardwired to think Y > X. Some men will exhibit a native preference for Star Jones over Beyonce. But what more needs to be said there? The interesting question is how people get from a native X > Y to a new Y > X, I think. And just because they started in the one place first doesn't mean the new preference can't be real.
I'm still stunned by the premise that liberal guys apparently prefer unattractive women. In which universe is that true?
What he said. I think you could generalize from the trend that "liberal" types tend to be the most non-conventional in terms of dress and appearance, but my experience has generally been that most couples -- liberal, conservative, conventional, or wacky-dressing -- tend to be comprised of two people of similar hotness-levels (the sitcom cliche of the fat guy with the hot wife notwithstanding). I don't think there are a lot of examples of hot liberal men swooning over objectively-non-hot liberal women.
And yeah, Minor Threat/Fugazi memories. Although my crowd managed to like that music but still smoke a lot of pot.
What's the evidence that this phenomenon of transformation, as opposed to posing that usually never gets as far as a relationship with a less attractive woman, even exists? Not could exist, but does? My boyfriend has been known to say, "Large breasts are so obvious" (which is perhaps silly, but he's not saying it in mixed company) but I don't think he developed that taste from an underlying desire to be unconventional; dating a woman 20 years your junior is not exactly the way to prove you don't think about physical beauty; I think he had that preference and is now trying to use it bolster his belief that he has refined taste.
IME women (don't know whether it's restricted to liberals) often like to believe that their men are less conventionally attractive than they are, for similar ego-bolstering reasons. A little part of me is disappointed every time a 23 year old hits on my boyfriend, or my friends say he's hot. Of course, another part of me is gratified too.
82, 87: Um, yeah.
I find it hard to talk about this without knowing what you mean by the premise. Taken literally, it seems flatly false -- that liberal men are attracted to women in a way that ranks their physical attributes in the reverse order that conservative men do? That can't be true -- I'm not seeing a lot of liberal men pursuing women with, e.g., horrible infected acne.
I think if you clarify what you mean (I have some guesses, but none that strike me as obviously true in themselves) it'll be easier to figure out why and if your statement is true.
I don't think there are a lot of examples of hot liberal men swooning over objectively-non-hot liberal women.
I don't think this is necessarily incompatible with ogged's thesis. Not all liberal men like crunchy granola types any more than all liberal women eschew heels & makeup.
He's talking, I presume, about the sort of guy that honestly is attracted to a conventionally unattractive or borderline attractive woman; wouldn't stop traffic or (conversely) a clock, but he finds her super-de-duper attractive because she's cool, fun, etc. Because that makes him 'sensitive' or 'deep' or whatever, he gets to feel smug, too.
(I don't think we're honestly talking about some theoretical guy who goes around sleeping with women he finds repulsive in order to prove his liberal street cred, yo.)
It just occurred to me that another reason women might prefer to believe their men are less hot than they are is for a feeling of security in the relationship. I'm not sure this isn't operative for me on some level. If your boyfriend is the beneficiary of your expansive taste, then you have less reason to worry that he'll get competing attention from other hotties. Of course, I'm talking about deep, lizard-brain processes here.
He's talking, I presume, about the sort of guy that honestly is attracted to a conventionally unattractive or borderline attractive woman; wouldn't stop traffic or (conversely) a clock, but he finds her super-de-duper attractive because she's cool, fun, etc. Because that makes him 'sensitive' or 'deep' or whatever, he gets to feel smug, too.
But for this to be a phenomenon worthy of discussion, he's have to prefer the plain woman to a pretty woman with equal personality merits. Otherwise all that's being said is that personality is a part of attraction, and that's obvious.
I think you could land between moral self-creation/studied eccentricity and unstudied preference just by having a certain idea of love. You want to have the sense that you see the beloved's endearing qualities when they are not always so obvious to the world at large. The person is more yours that way.
It's not exactly unstudied, because you are aware of your own particularity.
90 and a bunch of other comments:
"Nineteen out of twenty persons (including the younger sister herself) pronounced Edith infinitely the prettier of the two; but the twentieth, besides reversing the judgment, had the entertainment of thinking all the others aesthetic vulgarians." Henry James, Portrait of a Lady. Of course it's made clear that Isabel is quite adequately hott, and the narrator himself is totally in love with her.
But for this to be a phenomenon worthy of discussion, he's have to prefer the plain woman to a pretty woman with equal personality merits.
Not really. We're wondering, I took it, why he feels superior about it, given that he doesn't feel superior about other preferences. Few, I think, found ogged's original statement very surprising, but they might have found it surprising if he declared that liberal men felt superior upon dating a green-eyed woman versus a blue-eyed woman, or a woman who prefered anime versus a woman who preferred video games.
I see, Cala. In that case, I don't find the question that interesting. Of course people are going to feel superior about elements of their taste that they perceive as unusual or discerning--it's certainly not unique to attractiveness, and it certainly doesn't mean he has transformed his taste in order to feel superior.
(I didn't find the question all that puzzling, either, personally.)
Incidentally, boys. Even if you are of the enlightened liberal sort, the girl you are dating? Is, as far as you are concerned, the hottest girl on the planet, the most desirable girl on the planet.
Don't tell her, say, that your standard for dating women is only that they be 'not physically repulsive.' Unless you're okay with her saying she doesn't mind if you're a 'lousy lover' because you have a good heart.
88 and 91 are fascinating to me; I don't think I've ever been privy to those particular conclusions.
proposal (haven't read all the posts):
hott fades. Even before hott fades, sexual desire fades, because the hott becomes familiar. If you let your sexual desire dictate romantic decisions, above all other considerations, you will never stop falling for new people, pursuing them, and making yourself and others unhappy.
Some men recognize this and put more emphasis on traits that don't fade so quickly, in anticipation of overcoming the desire to have sex with lots of new, hott women.
For men who are teh sm@rt11!!!1!!!!!1 this probably means looking for good conversationalists. For men who are st000p1d and don't like conversation, there are other traits you can look for, such as birthing hips, or something.
99: I saw some standup comic talking about how in "Thunder Road" Bruce sings "You ain't a beauty but eh, you're alright, Oh and that's alright with me," and saying, "Who the fuck would try to get away with that?"
"eh" should probably be "hey." I suspect that I copied and pasted from a Canadian lyrics archive.
The Boss can get away with all that, and more.
Another question is: does every woman want to be thought of as beautiful? Or be told she's beautiful?
I once gave an aeronautical presentation for the boss at the air & space museum.
text, do you work there? The Smithsonian?
I wouldn't speak for every woman, but it's damn sure true about me. I'm not saying you can't find other women prettier, or drool over actresses, but if I don't physically turn you on, move along.
I worked there in high school, and through most of my summers in college. I wore a bright red shirt and taught children about lift, weight, drag, thrust.
And one day, I taught Bruce. I wasn't allowed to alert his presence to the rest of the crowd, who were completely oblivious.
108: certainly, you've got to find your mate sexually attractive. But most men find lots and lots of women sexually attractive, and if you use your woody like a compas, it leads to pain.
Get off teh pl3@sure cycl3!!111!!!111 That way leads destruction.
taught children about lift, weight, drag, thrust
p3rv3rt!
I'm still stuck on what you all are talking about. Everyone engaged in the conversation seems to get it, but I really don't recognize the underlying phenomenon. Could someone spell it out for me, slowly?
Well, I once got "You're very pretty, but I wouldn't say either of us is beautiful," and I was fine with that, actually. (It was later amended, honestly, to "beautiful" as he began to appreciate me more.) Beautiful is great when it's honest, but "Oh my God baby I'm so hard for you," will do fine in its place. But I definitely want to hear that I'm a turn-on, not just alright.
LB, I'm not sure I do get it, except as Tia spelled in out in 98 -- if you really do have taste that you can see as unusual or discerning, then you may feel smug about it. I really go for pale skin and dark hair, and I do feel kind of like, "Ha! I'm not conforming to the tan blonde stereotype!" But of course I want a really attractive woman with pale skin and dark hair.
Why hasn't anyone picked up on the possibly more interesting "complete indifference to anything sexual" aspect to the post?
I'm not sure I understand either, LB. Cala alerted me to the nature of the original question, which, once I realized what it was, seemed too obvious to expend this many comments over: why do men feel superior for being attracted to less conventionally attractive women?
But I'm pretty sure that at some point other phenomena have been discussed, like the fact that perhaps the reason they are attracted to less attractive women is their desire to feel superior (I think baa was first with this; I doubt this actually happens). But it's not clear to me which question people are referring to when they comment.
Yeah, and are we really going to let Lab's new wave admission go untouched?
He's the one with the triangle, in case anyone was wondering.
I pretty strongly prefer brunettes to blondes, but I don't feel superior about it -- except sometimes.
As for pale vs. tan, pale skin on a dark-haired woman leads inevitably to at least a slight moustache.
I'm not saying I endorse this logic but, as a real-life example, one of my (very cute) female friends used to frequently state her dating philosophy as "I like geeks. Geeks are grateful." I think that does imply some kind of power dynamic and not wanting to defend your man against competing attention. (She found and married the geek of her dreams a couple of years ago.)
Beautiful is great when it's honest
That's the thing, if it's something the guy is obliged to say, as per 99, it doesn't mean that much.
Though, in any case, I'm not sure I care that much. Or it's complicated. It doesn't have that much to do with my self-conception, so maybe it's a little distancing?
117: Whoops. I should've remembered that too, because "sex is scary" was one of the thoughts in my mind about that.
Other thoughts: In the case of the straight edges, I think it's a reaction against everything around them; in rejecting drugs and smoking they just reject everything pleasurable but the music. Hardcore antihedonism is a way of being hardcore. With new wave types, it's a bit trickier. (Though part of it is not realizing that when Morrissey says he's celibate he means "gay.") I think there's a feeling that love is cliched, because it does lead people to act in stupid ways just like everyone else who has gone before. And when you haven't felt it yet, you can think, "All these people in love, they are so stupid and boring. I will never be like them." Hence the common adolescent thought that bands like Pink Floyd or Yes or PiL that never sing about love are so much deeper than Smokey Robinson, with his cliched old amazing wordplay and insights into the human condition. (Note: I actually like two of those bands, and I think they all sing about love occasionally.) (Further note: Not Yes, dammit!)
Of course, if you're a complete moron, you might read Fear and Trembling and decide that true love never speaks its name to the beloved. It's probably best that such people not reproduce anyway.
if you really do have taste that you can see as unusual or discerning, then you may feel smug about it. I really go for pale skin and dark hair, and I do feel kind of like, "Ha! I'm not conforming to the tan blonde stereotype!"
But this I think is not an effect associated with either liberal values or preference for a look cherished by a minority of people. It seems to me that this feeling follows from the attraction, as a kind of self analysis: my girl has such and such characteristics, so preferring those characteristics must mean such and such (positive) things about me.
I find it curious that Ogged and Labs are so willing to believe that you can "trick" yourself out of preferring the most attractive mate. My thinking is that, for example, Matt Weiner is wrong to think that his preference for dark-haired, pale girls puts him in a distinct minority. Or conversely that Hindrocket is right to think that publicly lusting over the Ms. America contest will put him in such numerous company among straight men that he, too, will be perceived to be straight.
It strikes me as a similar phenomenon as the Dove girls drama: The abundant, unrealistic and overstated conventions of beauty among women do not accurately reflect real preferences among men.
Yeah, Weiner, I think you have another aspect of it with the cliche of love. Sex also has its aspect of cliche (which reminds me: I can testify that men with paraphilias sometimes feel kind of superior about them, too) though I don't know that that's what's going on with the teenyboppers. Another weird stage I went through in college was to feel kind of unconventional and smug because I was attracted to men, since the cool and easy thing to do was to be queer.
pale skin on a dark-haired woman leads inevitably to at least a slight moustache.
Not necessarily. I'm pale with dark hair on my head, and the hair on my arms is light and fair. If I have any hair on my face it is blond and miniscule.
"I like geeks. Geeks are grateful." I think that does imply some kind of power dynamic and not wanting to defend your man against competing attention.
See, I agree with this, and I don't think there's a surprise here? One evaluate things like identity signifiers and power and how long since we've reset the TiVo when one becomes attracted to another person. But the way that Ogged/Labs are interrogating attraction, it's as if liberals trick themselves out of authentic feelings of attraction with all these second-order concerns.
I agree with Armsmasher. Or, what I said in the first paragraph of 88.
Hence the common adolescent thought that bands like Pink Floyd or Yes or PiL that never sing about love are so much deeper than Smokey Robinson
And tragically, the preference for bands that never sing about love sometimes presents as a preference for bands that always sing about hobbits.
Tia, you're just ahead of your time.
Why do Led Zeppelin fans never feel the hobbit-shame?
why do men feel superior for being attracted to less conventionally attractive women?
Hm. I can see one reason being self-perceived honesty and kindness. There's a conventional position (I'm using conventional in opposition to 'liberal' here -- I don't mean to say much more than 'there are some, nothing like all, perfectly ordinary guys that do this') in which guys insult the attractiveness of women who they probably do, in reality, find attractive, for not meeting some stratospheric standard.
An example, to make it clear what I'm talking about -- remember those Dove ads with the size 10 or so models? One not uncommon response to the ads was "Ick, don't make me look at the fat chicks!" Now, I am leaving entirely to one side the question of whether it's right or wrong, good or bad not to be attracted to larger women -- let's for the sake of argument say that you're attracted to who you're attracted to, and there's no culpability about that. Even under that assumption, the described response to the Dove ads was weird, because if you compare it to how men act in real life, it looks insincere. Women built like the women in the Dove ads seem, in terms of finding men who desire them, to be just about as successful as size 2 women who look like the typical advertising model.
I brought this up in the context of weight because it's easier to give examples, but the same thing happens in terms of attractiveness generally -- that there's a conventionalized willingness among a fair number of men to insincerely condemn as unappealing women who, revealed preferences suggest, they'd be happy to get the opportunity to schtup. I'm not dead sure what the explanation is -- probably a status claim of some sort: "My opportunities to have sex with women in the top .5% of physical attractiveness are so great that I find any woman that doesn't meet that standard repulsive."
If you take that conventionalized insincere condemnation of the attractiveness of most women as a background, I can see a possibility that liberal/feminist men who intentionally or knowingly don't do that, and instead report attraction honestly, even when they're attracted to a non-supermodel, might feel superior about not being twerps in this regard. But I'm not at all sure that what I'm talking about has much to do with the conversation.
Or, what Armsmasher said in 124.
Also, why is no one reading my blog?
[I am, if it is not obvious, just kidding.]
as if liberals trick themselves out of authentic feelings of attraction with all these second-order concerns
Right. Why do some guys, despite, in their heart of hearts, lusting after typically hot women, claim to prefer something else? If you deny that this happens, I can't help you.
Labs' explanation in #94 is best. There are, for example, guys who feel virtuous about liking a not very attractive movie star. (This is reverse of someone who pretends that Selma Hayek isn't evidence that we, as a species, are evolving towards something better.)
Why do some guys, despite, in their heart of hearts, lusting after typically hot women, claim to prefer something else?
Because the good liberal guy values being supportive in a relationship? And this may lead to prizing the relationship over other considerations, like who you lust after outside it?
Someday, if I'm lucky, I might be as cool as LB.
Agreed, Tim, I think Labs is on the right track with 94.
LB, I don't deny lusting after typically hot women (I mean, come on), I just say I wouldn't date most of them.
SCMT, who are we thinking of as a not very attractive female movie star? I claim that this is a rare species.
But isn't there a little whiff of superiority in refusing to date the typically hot women, too?
I'd acknowledge that some men pretend not to be attracted to conventionally attractive women, but a) this is not quite the original question and b) this attitude is just posing, and leads to very little, if any, change in dating behavior. No one's actual sexual preferences are changing in response to a desire to be less conventional.
But isn't there a little whiff of superiority in refusing to date the typically hot women, too?
More than a whiff, Becks.
Yeah, what Tia said. There may indeed be guys out there who go to the trouble of actually dating and carrying on relationships with women they find personally unattractive, just to prove some sort of point, but I've never, ever met such a person, and if I did, I wouldn't begin to assume such behavior was the norm for one group or other. I'd just think he was a weirdo.
I'm not talking about dating behavior. Obviously, most guys will take whatever they can get--I'm talking about expressed preferences.
143: I guess I've really never run into any man who does deny lusting after typically hot women. I mean, men with particular tastes that exclude some typically hot women, sure. Men like you who think of being over-groomed as either esthetically displeasing or indicative of an undesirable personality, I've met those. Men who insincerely claim not to be attracted to pretty women generally? This is a new phenomenon to me.
Following up on 144: We've already had the "which movie stars are ugly" discussion a couple of times, and let's not actually do it again, please. But I think that the idea of an unattractive movie star either stems from a contextual effect, where a woman who would be really damn cute in IRL is seen as eh when in with the rest of the movie stars (see Fametracker on Lili Taylor) -- or maybe guys trying to be unconventional by saying "Oh, she's not so great." In other words, the very phenomenon that was being critiqued! Boo-yah! Also, this.
On the other hand, maybe tastes vary, and I shouldn't be making fun of SCMT for having varying tastes.
Weiner: off the top of my head, Barbara Streisand and fat Mini Driver.
Look, I don't really see what's confusing about this phenomenon. Many's the time that someone has found a professor attractive because they found what s/he taught thrilling. This is a flip of the same thing.
expressed preferences
Depends on the audience to some extent, I imagine, but sure, people—maybe liberals more than conservatives—claim offbeat sexual preferences in the same way that they take public pride in not watching television. But that's a phenomenon on the reporting end of it, a boasting effect. I just don't agree that sexually healthy adults will prefer unattractive mates over attractive ones.
Wait, according to Fametracker which knows all and sees all, fat Minnie Driver is in Circle of Friends, and that would be the one on the left. Are you nuts?
I've never understood the appeal of Minnie Driver, fat or skinny.
I confess that a fat Mini Driver would be uncomfortable.
Sarah Jessica Parker. Great figure, I suppose, but almost aggressively unattractive.
She was hott in Grosse Pointe Blank, I thought, but that was at least 50% personality hottness, I confess.
Aaaargh. I know I started it, but can we not?
Just retract your 144, Matt, and we won't have to keep doing this.
(In particular, not talk about "These movie stars are really unattractive." cf.)
I imagine, but sure, people—maybe liberals more than conservatives—claim offbeat sexual preferences in the same way that they take public pride in not watching television.
And those people are annoying.
We think it's a familiar phenomenon that, as we grow to like someon, we find them more physically attractive. We say that someone in therapy shouldn't fuck his therapist because there is something inauthentic about his response. But somehow this idea that there are guys who claim they find certain women attractive because of what it says about their own decency is incomprehensible?
OK, 144 is retracted, and the guys who are expressing attraction to Estelle Getty really are perverse.
Apostropher, I was kinda hoping you'd help me out with an image of a fat Mini Driver.
Hypothesis: No one claims to like "unattractive" people. But individuals' ideas of what is "attractive" do, in fact, vary.
168: Totally. Mostly kinda by definition of "attractive."
No one claims to like "unattractive" people.
I guess you guys sincerely haven't come across this. But it seems like Labs, baa, SCMT and I have seen plenty of it. Interesting.
170: Have they? I've seen them all engage with your question as if the premise were a given, but I haven't seen an anecdote, or even a 'come on, this happens all the time.'
Seriously -- who here commonly sees men claim not to find conventionally attractive women attractive, in a manner that convinces you that it's insincere (or insincerely arrived at), not just an ordinary difference in taste? Is this really common? (I'm not saying it's not -- I'm just saying it's completely new to me, and in reading the thread I haven't seen people supporting the fact claim.)
Ogged, are you saying you all have encountered guys who say, "You know who I'm hot for? Unattractive women!" I think that's what B meant, and I'm a little skeptical. And I think such a guy would have to be a tool.
I don't think you have seen it, Ogged. If I say that I really don't like women who have characterstics x, and you and even most men greatly prefer women who have characteristics x—and even if my preference indicates was invented or persists for reasons to do with my pride—that does not mean that I prefer "unattractive" women.
If I say that I'll take a Suicide Girl over a Playmate any day of the week, I might be expressing pride or superiority in my selection, but I disagree that this preference is necessarily inauthentic.
No no, more how LB described it, "claim not to find conventionally attractive women attractive, in a manner that convinces you that it's insincere."
Come on, this happens all the time.
Maybe it's just more common among you Mexicans.
I thought ogged was just kidding about thinking there's a fact of the matter about attractiveness, but maybe he really does.
Well, if that's what's happening, it's got to be a pose, right?
I'm sure I'm being annoying here, I'm sure, but like how? You mean you're talking to someone about Rachel Whatsername the volleyball player, and he says "she doesn't do it for me", and from that you deduce that he's insincerely claiming not to be attracted to hot women? Or are you talking about guys who make policy statements like, I can't even figure out what this would sound like, maybe "The whole movie star thing -- they're all so unattractive. Not really hot like Myrna over there," indicating some dumpy woman with warts on her face?
This is me killing time and avoiding work, of course, it certainly isn't important, but I just can't figure out what you're likely to be talking about.
Expressed preferences seem to be pretty easy to sort out, and I think professing to care more about a woman's mind or whatever is motivated by wanting to be publicly acceptable in a certain way.
What about real preferences? I don't think preferences are fixed (by which I mean neither innate nor culturally determined); neither do advertisers. And if they're not fixed, it doesn't seem crazy at first blush to think that they could be under some sort of conscious control.
So if a person values being the sort of person that doesn't find women hot based solely or primarily on looks, he may come to find quirkier looking women more attractive overall, even if physically he prefers a more standard type. And hey, it may become that he prefers his quirky gal's shape over more conventional beauties.
This doesn't seem a crazy picture to me. I don't think this authentic/inauthentic distinction is a good one.
I guess you guys sincerely haven't come across this.
Ogged, would an example be the way people deliberately talk about the hotness of older actresses? For instance, Susan Sarandon is an attractive woman, but the amount of interest in her often strikes me as disproportionate to her actual hotness. Some of this is that she is perceived to be more attractive than most women her age, or that she was immensely hot when she was younger and still carries a wonderfully confident air, but some of it is no doubt an attempt to demonstrate liberal virtue on the part of the admirer.
This is exaggeration, rather than claiming interest where you actually have none, but a related phenomenon.
LB, take w-lfs-n's preference for Thora Birch over Scarlett Johansson, for example. (Leave aside whether he's changed his mind or whatever; just take the preference as he expressed it at the time.) The only possible response to that is "come on." If someone makes a quirky judgement like that once, ok, maybe it's just a quirk, but two or three, and he's trying to prove something.
180: Exactly.
To SCMT in 165, I don't think that the therapy thing is about authenticity of attraction; to say "people shouldn't sleep with other people if there's anything inauthentic in their attraction" is to advocate voluntary extinction. We think therapists shouldn't sleep with their patients because there's too much potential for psychological abuse.
But Ogged, w-lfs-n is clearly a guy with unconventional tastes. Unless all those tastes are some sort of pose, which is pretty hard to believe, I think suggesting that he's a poser is off base. Let Ben be Ben.
Or take the example that started this, Kotsko's choice in pairing #1. Ogged thought it was insincere, and so did I. We shouldn't really be looking at people talking about people they know well, or perhaps even in person.
w-lfs-n's preference for Thora Birch over Scarlett Johansson, for example. (Leave aside whether he's changed his mind or whatever; just take the preference as he expressed it at the time.) The only possible response to that is "come on."
This makes perfect sense to me. In the movie they were in together, Thora Birch's character was the more appealing one.
182: I just looked up pictures of both of them, and they're both awfully pretty. Saying that Birch is more to one's taste than Johannsen just doesn't seem quirky enough to require explanations involving insincerity. Maybe it does -- I just can't see that kind of question as one with a self-evidently right answer.
ogged, you've got to be joking. A preference for one hot movie actress over another is supposed to count as evidence that one is being inauthentic?
Since when do men demonstrate a unity of taste on anything?
Also, Scarlett Johansson looks really young in Ghost World. I had a friend say that he had a huge crush on her in Lost in Translation and then when we saw Ghost World not so much.
I don't think ogged was claiming the preference for TB over SJ was evidence of insincerity, but rather that claiming that SJ is, on her own, unattractive is.
But w-lfs-n never made such a claim.
I believe this thread is doomed. I hereby retire from it.
My boyfriend has been known to say, "Large breasts are so obvious" (which is perhaps silly, but he's not saying it in mixed company)
I thought you were a woman, Tia?
one of my (very cute) female friends used to frequently state her dating philosophy as "I like geeks. Geeks are grateful." I think that does imply some kind of power dynamic and not wanting to defend your man against competing attention. (She found and married the geek of her dreams a couple of years ago.)
That sounds like the female equivalent of that song, "If you want to be happy for the rest of your life, never make a pretty woman your wife." I suppose a geek isn't necessarily unattractive, though, just socially maladroit. One could plausibly call me a reasonably attractive geek.
SCMT, who are we thinking of as a not very attractive female movie star? I claim that this is a rare species.
In addition to those mentioned above (Minnie, Barbra, and Sarah Jessica), Renee Zellweger.
Thora Birth: just plain hideous. It's somewhat beside the point, but it's easy enough to make Ben's case.
It should also be noted that w-lfs-n forgave her.
Also, how is SCMT getting off unscathed in this discussion?
#175: There's a difference between claiming not to find "conventionally attractive" movie actress A attractive in an insincere way, and claiming to find "unattractive" people good-looking. I categorically deny that anyone ever says "I dig the unattractive chicks."
Also, what LB said.
IMO, Scarlett Johansson is hotter than Thora Birch. But looking at Google Images, I see that Esquire once had TB on its cover as "The Sexiest Woman Alive." Given that, and my own judgment from their photographs, I agree with LB that preferring TB to SJ, while probably the minority position, doesn't qualify as quirky.
Thora Birch is the hotter of the two in Ghost World. I don't even think Scarlett Johanson was that hott in Lost in Translation. Lately, though? Yowza.
I didn't care for Lost in Translation, and I think Scarlett Johanson has two expressions: vapid, and vapid-come-hither.
vapid, and vapid-come-hither.
Both of which work just fine.
Another friend of mine had to walk out of Lost in Translation after the bit that goes: "What did you major in?" "Philosophy." "That's lucrative." (or however it went.)
A lot of what goes into people's idea of attractiveness is stuff that, while on the surface, does indicate certain personality traits or attitudes. Certain ways they dress, or their posture or tone of voice. These kinds of cues can be just as "physical" as the shape of their body in determining how attractive they are. And those cues also tend to be more individual than other preferences, like not being overweight or having clear skin.
I'm sure this comment has some relevance... hmm.
Hence the common adolescent thought that bands like Pink Floyd or Yes or PiL that never sing about love are so much deeper than Smokey Robinson, with his cliched old amazing wordplay and insights into the human condition
Admit it; there is a lot of Smokey Robinson which is just shit, whatever Bob Dylan says.
202: Yeah, like, omg, would you like fries with that? Giggle! I'm sure that anthropology major is like majorly useful without a further degree!
Moral of Lost in Translation: if you don't bother to educate yourself about a culture and hang out in your hotel room alone all the time, you'll be depressed and bored. Who knew?
I thought you were a woman, Tia?
twas a joke. everyone present had small breasts, I meant.
I was going to make the point that LB and B have that it's not that people say they like "unattractive" but that they think their taste is more "unusual" or "discerning," but then I got interrupted by work, so what they said. If BW evinced his Thora Birch over SJ three more times, he might be posing, but he wouldn't be posing by saying "Thora Birch is homely. I want her."
28. I still remember a photo of Bardot from Time's "People" section, also in 1974. Probably from the Playboy spread. Yes, she was fucking beautiful.
Some of this is that she is perceived to be more attractive than most women her age, or that she was immensely hot when she was younger and still carries a wonderfully confident air, but some of it is no doubt an attempt to demonstrate liberal virtue on the part of the admirer.
I think Susan Sarandon is way hotter now than she was when she was younger. I flipped to Rocky Horrow the other day and though she looked like a somewhat gawky starlet. Now she both looks great for age, her features sit better on an older woman than a younger one, and, as you noted, she has a powerful energy.
Re: 209, maybe this is what ogged is getting at. Maybe the supposed pose is, claiming certain qualities to be "hott" when they're usually not thought of as hott.
"Dude, women who attend pro-choice rallies are hottt!" is obviously dumb, and intended to score points with progressive laydeez. "I find woman X more attractive than woman Y" is much more difficult to unpack, without more information, because we're talking about individuals.
That said, even the first statement might be defensible, if the speaker was intuitively drawn to a certain type of politically active woman.
Verdict: maybe a pose, but maybe not. Context is the guide here.
"Dude, women who attend pro-choice rallies are hottt!"
More likely to put out, anyhow.
Sarandon is attractive, obviously. But I still feel there's some aspect of trying to win political points for saying so. Not that that's a bad thing.
Women who endorse my comments are hott.
Women who endorse my comments
And that's not a euphemism.
Nor is he posing, because then he would say, "Women who expose the logical fallacies in my comments are hott."
Right; that's the least hott thing I can think of.
Not that that's a bad thing.
It's a terrible thing.
On the Birch/Johansson issue: a male friend of mine said he could barely watch Last Days of Disco because Kate Beckinsale was so much more objectively hot than Chloe Sevigny, and yet all the guys in the film fall for the latter. He thought it made so little sense he couldn't follow the rest of the movie. (A man after Ogged's heart?)
But there, again, it's the personality that makes the difference, Chloe's character being much more sympathetic. I normally find K.B. way hotter than C.S., but her character was so unpleasant it was hard to overlook.
There are so many reasons for being suspicious about that film. As I recall, its chief virtue is the bit about how that canoe was riding slow and low in the water, like the HMS Hood.
Finding out your lover is a different gender than you thought, taking about a day to get over it and then loving your lover anyway is hott.
It's a terrible thing.
Making a show of being virtuous, sure. But not the larger political project of challenging and expanding notions of beauty.
213: A college friend wrote a song about that very topic, but I can't find a good link to the lyrics (much less the music)...
Relevant line: "I follow politics / to ball all the chicks."
Becks in 142: Someday, if I'm lucky, I might be as cool as LB.
I don't know whether you were joking, Becks, but I totally agree. LizardBreath wants to grow up to be Hilzoy, but I'm pretty impressed with LB and wish that I could write as well as she does. I'd like to be LB when I grow up; oh, wait, I'm supposed to be grown up now. Damn.
I think it is foolish to ignore dating behavior and focus on expressed preferences. The only people who it really matters whether they find that volleyballer attractive are people who that volleyballer will go out with. It is more reasonable to see expressed preferences as advertising for dating behavior. I think this almost happened on an earlier thread.
I think in a ladder theoretic sense, it is a bad idea to always be crushing on someone out of your league. Plus, it makes sense to advertise your desire for people with undervalued dating ladder qualities.
There was that thread where all the guys expressed their preference for smart, accomplished women, for example. Which isn't to say people's desires are inauthentic, but smart accomplished women are dating ladder bargains for men who are attracted to smart accomplished women.
Pretense often bleeds over into reality, though. If enough people pretend that Susan Sarandon is hott, and enough of these people get her onto magazine covers and interviews where her hottness is extolled, at some point, people are going to start seeing her as hott. Maybe not as hott as a younger woman, but people's perspectives can certainly be influenced by this. (Less controversial examples: weird ass clothing styles that become mainstreamed and thought hott.)
This is just Pascalian habit-forming.
If enough people pretend that Susan Sarandon is hott
Who's pretending? Susan Sarandon is hott.
Though I believe it has been established that my hott-bar is set lower than the bars of most of the prisses that hang out here.
I get the Pascal point, but I suspect what will emerge in this particular case is that certain claims will just move into the "true but we know better than to say them" category.
To clarify on some points: BG, 142 wasn't meant as a snark (if I'm lucky, I might be as cool as LB.), although I could see how that clarification may be needed because those words probably would be in a different context coming from me.
And, in response to 193, I didn't mean to suggest that my friend was wrong in liking geeks, just that the "because they're grateful" part kind of suggested there were some bizarre dynamics implied. I'm all for geeks (even if claiming so will probably get me called insincere).
A female version of the Thora Birch/Scarlett Johannson comparison: I'd totally go Ed Norton over Brad Pitt in Fight Club
Becks, I'm totally with you on Ed Norton over Brad Pitt.
the "because they're grateful" part
I've heard this same argument used (by cretins) when discussing "fat chicks."
But not the larger political project of challenging and expanding notions of beauty.
That in itself might be ok, but it also might be undermined by pretending.
Not to mention obsessing about what is and isn't "hott."
That's the thing, people aren't being completely insincere. They're just giving unusual stress to the fact that they find Sarandon attractive. Making a point of saying "she's hot" as though she's number 1 on their list of hot celebrities, when in reality she's probably further down the list--but she's still on it.
In some ways this is insincerity, in some ways it's more like Armsmasher's point in 124, that it's a real feeling, but (in the past) less talked about.
#236, crap, forgot that the italics don't carry over onto the second paragraph. The italicized sentence is Cala's (I think); the second, unitalicized one is Labs'.
#237: Stop oppressing me.
Stop oppressing me.
Sorry. BitchPhD is "hott"!
Finding out your lover is a different gender than you thought, taking about a day to get over it and then loving your lover anyway is hott.
Certainly flexible, at any rate. How many people have actually had such an experience and reacted that way? My mother, who was a schoolteacher, related that another (male) teacher had picked up a woman and taken her to his place, being delighted how "easy" she was. While groping her, he was surprised to discover an unexpected body part. Evidently, he was not hott as defined above, since I gather he ended the date, and their brief relationship, upon making that discovery.
Susan Sarandon is hott, and I'm not just saying that to be politically correct.
Also, Susan Sarandon is occasionally hott (Bull Durham? Wow.). Other times, she has bags under her eyes worse than Emperor Palpatine.
God, I'm shallow.
244: Frederick? If so, I am the psychic goddess of Unfogged. Anyway, the Chloe Sevigny character in Boys Don't Cry was my basis for the statement.
Damnit, there's a principle at stake here!
Bull Durham? I remember that movie fondly. I took my now-wife to it on our second date. She then took me back to her apartment and attacked me. Sorry, TMI, I know.
246: Yes, 244 was me. Tia, you are the Psychic Goddess of Unfogged! I hadn't realized that Chloe Sevigny was Hillary Swank's character's girlfriend in Boys Don't Cry. I think seeing that movie was so traumatic that I've largely blocked it out of my mind.
As to BPhD, it has even been asserted, extremely oppressively, that she is the apotheosis of teh hott.
Not to mention obsessing about what is and isn't "hott."
That's not obsessing. It's covering by affirming one's allegiance to norms, and affirming the rightness and naturalness of those norms.
I guess it has little or nothing to do with intent of the question:
"Why do liberal guys feel superior for preferring unattractive women to attractive women?"
and similarly I guess it has little or nothing to do with the answers which seem to resolve around a clarification of "attractive" as "conventionally attractive",
but what struck me as requiring of clarification or restatement is "preferring".
For, if it "preferring" means "feeling attracted to" then the the question becomes oxymoronically nonsensical, as in:
"Why do liberal guys feel superior for feeling attracted to unattractive women [more than] attractive women?"
Of course, I think Ogged's clarifications confirm that what is intended is:
"Why do liberal guys feel superior for feeling [more] attracted to [less conventionally-attractive women] more than [more-conventionally-] attractive women?"
Furthermore I think that the "attractiveness" in "less conventionally-attractive" and "more-conventionally-attractive" is meant to refer basically to only visual appeal, and specifically sexual visual appeal of the woman to the man.
So to restate:
"Why do liberal guys feel superior for feeling more attracted to less conventionally [visually appealing] women more than more-conventionally [visually appealing] women [where visual appeal is defined as the males' heterosexual positive sexual response to viewing the woman]?"
Or:
"Why do liberal guys feel superior for feeling more attracted to women who appear less hot-at-first-glance."
I don't know that they do, at least not in general.
But, there're all kinds of snobbery. And for those that feel superior for doing this, I suppose it is because they feel that to do otherwise is inferior because they value more highly the ways in which they perceive themselves to be behaving above the ways in which they perceive others to be behaving.
Ha!
Passive voice aggressive.
Susan Sarandon is hott, but when I watched Shall We Dance? (a bad idea on many counts), I was struck that her hands truly betray her age. Though I can't think of any at the moment, I've noticed this in other actresses renowned for their relatively youthful good looks have old, frail hands.
In 249, "Hillary Swank" should be "Hilary Swank." I suck. Only when that given name is in "Hillary Rodham Clinton" (named after Sir Edmund Hillery) does it have two ls.
Hands are reputed to be the best indicator of age these days; you can't do anything about them with plastic surgery.
You can get them replaced with hooks.
Hands, btw, are also the best indiciator of sex-change operations, I think.
Sure, if you're looking for the easy way out.
Now subtract one from each of those numbers. I'm keeping you on your toes.
This has been wonderful. First, the putative purported factoid that liberal guys prefer unattractive women and are proud about it. Then a lot of explanations why, mostly focussing on defects of the liberal guys. And then the ensuing controversy. Hilarity ensues.
I'm really impervious to this kind of shit -- I hang out at GNXP, for Christ's sake. But really, guys.
I think 238 is dead on about Susan Serandon -- she really is remarkably attractive both for a woman of her age, and even in general without spotting her points for her age, but she gets more attention than she would if people weren't showcasing their willingness to be attracted to an older woman.
(and 142, 226. Aw, shucks. Thanks.)
JE, some of us were trying to cast doubt on the veracity of the factoid. Give us some cred.
266 to 264, it's a scientific-seeming group blog, which may have some legitimate science on it for all I know, but also spends some time promoting Bell Curve-style stuff. Please don't do anything that might cause them to show up here, there's one particular guy who likes to defend the Bell Curve's thesis who's as prolific and unpleasant a poster as the Troll of Sorrow.
But Matt, nothing you've said is tautological.
(P.S. when are you posting on evidence?)
(I put that paper down for a little bit, because I'm trying to make a deadline with another paper, but then hopefully I'll get back to it. And while working on it I will hopefully come up with a blog post.)
#263: Disagreed. She gets more attention than she would if Hollywood didn't write so few interesting roles for older women--in which case there would be a lot more older women actors out there who people could point to as evidence that John Derbyshire is full of shit.
192, 262- What's so much worse about this thread than all the others?
This is a wonderful thread. I've already learned that one should wear gloves while checking for the best indicator that an individual is cross-dressing.
272 -- I don't know, maybe my blood chemistry is off, but this whole thing is weird.
The thing that resembles GNXP, which has a few very sharp people on it BTW, is that you seem to have a lot of sharp guys still dreaming of the supermodels and annoyed that maybe some other guys don't. To me, a straight guy who isn't obsessed with the Bo-Derek-10 beautifulness of women is a lucky guy. (Even here, a recent post featured a guy grumbling about his trophy ex-wife.)
Even here, a recent post featured a guy grumbling about his trophy ex-wife.
This seems a non sequitur, John.
Bonding over shared norms and affirmance of shred beliefs always looks weird to someone who doesn't share that norm. I have the same reaction at tent revival meetings.
OK, dotting the i's: there seem to be guys here in serious danger of getting trophy wives, even though a recent thread warned against that.
And at the moment they're bitching about possibly-imaginary guys who are not, or claim not to be, looking for trophy wives.
You're claiming there might be a difference between what people do and what they say they do? I'm shocked.
Crazy old man dogfight! Roooof! Let 'im have it! (Pull up a chair, girls.)
People go on in the media about the hottness of Susan Sarandon for the same reason they go on about the hottness of Jennifer Aniston or Mel Gibson or any other celebrity: the celebrity's publicist arranged an interview. There are probably many other celebrities on the publicist's list with whom future interviews might be arranged. So if you want to get paid for writing more articles about hott celebrities, you'd better go on a bit about the hottness of this one.
SS is hott, btw.
Jeebus. I can't believe the misreading of this.
1. Look at the cannonical #94. Now, you either do or don't know of or believe in the existence of people who befriend minorities or gay people to demonstrate that they are tolerant and decent. If you don't and never have, you live in a magical world that I want to visit, or you live in a population with a no minorities or gay people. These people used to be a staple of jokes, as far back as (at least) Tom Wolfe making fun of NY limousine liberals hosting (IIRC) Black Panthers.
2. Assuming you know the sorts of people referenced in #94, why is it so hard to believe that people would misreport their attraction to certain others for similar reasons?
3. None of this regards who one should date or mate in any real way. This is largely a judgment that regards women we don't know, and is a critique of the "liberal guys" making statements about their responses that we don't believe. You might easily make the same sort of critique in the opposite directions: "Why do conservative guys pretend there is nothing hot about person X?" It says nothing about why people really get involved, should get involved, what is the basis for a real attraction, etc.
OK, dotting the i's
Ah, that makes sense now. Thanks, Uncle John.
Don't get too excited, Tia. The official rules for crazy old man dogfights specify unlimited time-outs for naps, and frequest bathroom breaks.
192, 262- What's so much worse about this thread than all the others?
Nono, the formula is "why is this thread different from all the others?"
281, paragraph 1: Of course, it works the other way, too. People will mis-report attraction to normatively approved sex objects, just to prove that they're regular guys; that they're normal.
Yes, it was Black Panthers, and the classic example was Leonard Bernstein.
284: Are we going to liken conventionally attractive women to horseradish?
It's a step up from lamb shanks, I guess.
LB, take w-lfs-n's preference for Thora Birch over Scarlett Johansson, for example. (Leave aside whether he's changed his mind or whatever; just take the preference as he expressed it at the time.) The only possible response to that is "come on." If someone makes a quirky judgement like that once, ok, maybe it's just a quirk, but two or three, and he's trying to prove something.
Ogged, come on. I have lots of classes today! Tomorrow morning, from 6 to 9am pst, is the time to slander me.
Anyway, I submit that, despite the real-life evidence that Armsmasher has dug up on Thora Birch, in that movie, she plays the more attractive character. Surely you concede that attraction is not simply physical, and signals (which can be as shallow and easily feigned as what kind of clothes you wear), insofar as they are seen as signalling shared tastes or similar interests, stimulate attraction? And have experienced the phenomenon of finding someone less physically appealing after learning something distasteful about his or her character?
To conclude: I am not a poser, and ogged needs to be more accepting of diversity.
Jeebus. I can't believe the misreading of this.
Is it possible to "misread" an Unfogged thread? Aren't there just many different equally-valid readings? Isn't a "strong reading" possibly the best, and most truly accurate, possible reading? ("Truly accurate" in the sense of "not exactly accurate from a picky, small-minded point of view.")
Now, I've got nothing against horseradish, but how could anyone claim that horseradish is a step up from lamb shanks, unless just trying to feel superior?
MHS:
Re: People will mis-report attraction to normatively approved sex objects, just to prove that they're regular guys; that they're normal.
That's what I intended to get at with the sentence in #281 that reads, You might easily make the same sort of critique in the opposite directions: "Why do conservative guys pretend there is nothing hot about person X?
Surely you concede that attraction is not simply physical, and signals (which can be as shallow and easily feigned as what kind of clothes you wear), insofar as they are seen as signalling shared tastes or similar interests, stimulate attraction?
Very true. And physical signals can be feigned, or at least modified. somewhere among liposuction, bustiers, make-up, hair straighteners (?!), and wearing vertical stripes there's a way to modify just about anything. The ways in which phsyical signals are modified can signal taste and interests, too.
291: Right. Apologies for failing to acknowledge priority in the literature.
I ordered the veal last night just for you, Ben. Well, actually, because I wanted it. But you can pretend.
I ordered the veal last night just for you, Ben.
I can't tell. Is that a euphemism?
