• Podcasts
  • Archives
  • Contact Me
  • The Secret Origin of Dr. NerdLove
  • Dr. NerdLove Apparel
  • Dr. NerdLove’s Affiliate Store

Paging Dr. NerdLove

Love, Sex and Dating For The Modern Nerd

Search The Archives

  • Books
  • Ask Dr. NerdLove
  • The Basics
  • Dating
  • Sex
  • Self-Improvement
  • Relationships
  • Contact Me
You are here: Home / Level Up / Leveling Up: The Most Attractive Aspect of A Man (Isn’t Looks or Money)

Leveling Up: The Most Attractive Aspect of A Man (Isn’t Looks or Money)

March 1, 2013 by Dr. NerdLove

Men spend a lot of time worrying about being more attractive to women. Men tend to feel as though they’re at a disadvantage when it comes to dating and consistently look for the magic bullet that will maximize their efforts. Because of the pervasive belief that sperm is cheap and eggs are expensive – the idea that women grant sexual access only to those who offer the best “value” – they tend to focus on the most obvious aspects of what supposedly makes men attractive: looks and material wealth, with “status” following third.

The problem is that they’re working on the wrong areas and a misunderstanding of just what makes somebody appealing to women. Yeah, good looks can help – nobody denies that being gorgeous doesn’t have an impact on one’s life – but not only is it not the only thing that counts… more often than not it’s not even in the top 5 of what makes a man attractive.

More than looks, more than money, more than whatever nebulous definition you want to give to “value” or “status”, the most attractive aspect of a man, that x-factor that nets him attention, attraction and dates is…

…fun.

Wait, WHAT?

Over the years as I was trying to make my transition from “dateless loser” to “ladies man”, I got to know a wide variety of folks who were good with women. Some were blessed with every advantage – classic good looks, money and charm – while others had to work for their success. And yet there were  a few people in my social circle who could – to put it charitably – punch well outside of their apparent weight class. They were not classically handsome – in fact, many of them were fat and balding. They weren’t “high-status males” with impressive jobs or flashy cars and fancy clothes. They didn’t have useful contacts for the social climbers or the money for those supposedly hypergamous women looking for the next level. They were strictly average dudes… who still managed to date sexy, intelligent, ambitious women.

Their secret was very simple: they were fun to hang around with. If you talked to them, then you were going to enjoy yourself. They knew how to make people feel good. They were genuine interesting people with stories to share and a genuine interest in getting to know the people they talked to. They made friends wherever they went. The bouncers, the bartenders, the waitstaff… they all loved these guys within minutes of meeting them. Everybody knew who they were. Everybody wanted to hang out with them.

Small wonder that they were so consistently successful.

Which, come to think of it, does explain a few things.
“Or maybe it was the tux. Ladies love the tux.”

The fact that they were fun to be with was all it took to flip those attraction switches. Being fun, being able to help someone enjoy themselves transcended looks and status. It gave them a notable, long-term advantage over the guys who were all surface and flash, the ones who only had a handful of tricks and routines to rely on and the ones who got by on social pressure and status games.

It took me a while to appreciate just what they had but once I understood, it was like a new world opened up to me. I began to see just how integral being fun was to a successful dating life… and I started to understand how to integrate it into my approach towards women.

“What Do You See In That Guy?” “He Makes Me Laugh”.

It’s a very simple premise: we instinctively like people who make us feel good. The better they make us feel, the more we like them.

It’s known as the Reward Theory of Attraction – we are attracted to people whose presence or behavior makes us feel appreciated and liked. When the feeling of pleasure at a person’s involvement in our lives outweighs the costs (someone who’s fun to hang around with but who causes problems through his behavior, for example) then we tend to be drawn towards that relationship over others. The brain increases dopamine and norepinephirine, which regulates the brain’s pleasure and reward centers. We associate the pleasure with the person and thus want to spend more time in their presence.

This is part of why a sense of humor ranks so highly in every poll about what makes men attractive. Laughter produces endorphins that go straight to the pleasure centers of your brain and relieves physical tension and stress in the muscles making you feel more relaxed. Making you feel good triggers the instincts that tell us that these are people we should like and enforce that feeling with a shot of dopamine.

Many geeks and outcasts learned in high-school that being funny as a means of self-defense; making people laugh helped keep you from getting your ass kicked. Who knew that one day you could turn it around and use those same skills as a part of a way of getting dates?

“You win for now, but I’m totally going to steal your girlfriend away from you in four years!”

However, as much as making people feel good makes them like us, there’s more to it.

Someone who is fun tends to be more confident in themselves – after all, it’s hard to be fun when you’re too worried about looking silly or acting childish. Fun people are also positive; excessively negative people suck the energy out of the room and kill the mood while positive people help generate energy. Fun people make others feel comfortable and have a better grasp on how to read people’s signs and moods and can adjust themselves as needed. This makes the difference between someone who’s fun and someone who’s just a clown: fun people can find the line and know when things are appropriate or not while a clown tends to blunder on regardless of mood or intent. Fun people are interesting – they tend to have diverse interests that they enjoy and have stories to share.

Fun as Dating Strategy

This isn’t to say that it’s just a matter of telling a few jokes until you manage to laugh them into bed.

…otherwise this guy would be drowning in chicks.

Being fun is a holistic part of dating and attraction – it influences everything about what makes someone attractive.

Once I understood the appeal of fun, I began to recognize how it formed the underpinnings of everything I’d learned up to that point – and how much I had seen it in action over the years. My friend Miles – he who attracts women the way cheese attracts mice – was successful not just because he looked like the bastard son of Hugh Grant and Rob Lowe but because he knew how to be fun. He was naturally outgoing and positive and instinctively understood how to make people feel good, how to feel special. He was a genuinely nice guy who liked to tease and play around with everyone – especially the girls he was attracted to – and they would respond with great enthusiasm.

Take bantering and antagonistic flirting, for example. I enjoy bantering as a means of flirting because it meshes with my personality and it’s a method of screening for the type of  women I am most attracted to. I get a charge from sharp women who enjoy that sort of witty duel-by-wordplay. When done properly, it’s a game of verbal sparring back and forth, matching wits and humor with gentle ribbing and sexually charged teasing… and it’s insanely fun for everyone involved.

…yeah, kind of like that.

Being fun and helping others have fun is a way of keeping dates and potential relationship partners engaged and invested in the relationship. It’s a vital part of the chemistry that helps ensure that not only will she enjoy the first date but that she’ll be interested in coming back for a second… and even a third date. The worst dates aren’t the ones that go badly but the ones that are utterly unremarkable. A bad date can be salvaged after all; a boring date just drains the life out of everyone involved.

Even building sexual tension involves understanding fun. Proper, deliberate sexual tension is like a roller-coaster ride: the deliberate slow build-up of anticipation at the very beginning cresting at the absolute height of almost unbearable frustration and the sudden thrill of the release at juuuuust the right moment. Even little tricks like the “almost-kiss” are built on the idea of fun; it’s unselfconsciously, deliberately cheesy… and yet when delivered properly, it’s silliness is a significant part of it’s appeal. You’re playing a naughty game like a pair of horny teenagers, seeing just how far you can push things before one or both of you simply can’t stand it any longer.

The more that you can bring a sense of fun into your dating life, the more success you will have.

Fun As Social Proof

Much is made about the concept of social proof: the idea that the behavior of others is a model for how one should act. In a social context, a person with social proof – say, a crowd of people around him has been vetted by others; people are responding positively to him, therefore he is someone others should want to get to know and pay attention to. It generates something known as the halo effect – where positive aspects of a person influence others into assuming more positive aspects about them. People like this person, therefor he must be cool.

Pick-up artists often try to manipulate social proof as a way of establishing to others that they’re cool or desirable. This is often managed by trying to be surrounded by attractive women; the effect is to say “These beautiful people find me compelling; clearly they know something you don’t, so you should find me compelling.”

And yet being fun is a simpler and more organic way of generating social proof – without having to rely on status games or trickery. To be fun is to bring legitimate value to an interaction rather than trying to leverage social contracts and often coercive tactics.

Think of it in terms of a party. There’s always those people who are seen as being the life of the party, who tend to have many people hanging around them. These are often (but not always) the most fun people. When people see others hanging around and wanting your attention, others – like that cute brunette you’ve had your eyes on – will naturally gravitate towards you. The fact that others view you as someone to spend time with will help invoke that halo effect that will make you shine even more in other’s eyes.

Even if you’re on the introverted side of the personality spectrum, you can make fun-as-social-proof work for you; it’s a matter of establishing a reputation as much as it is about being seen in the “proper” light. Introverts often work best in one-on-one situations and so can take advantage of the situation by having interesting, intense conversations. Being fun isn’t just about being the entertainer, it’s about how you make others feel.

How To Be Fun

The most obvious way of being fun is to be funny; after all, the appeal of a man with a sense of humor is nearly universal. However, not everybody is going to be a laugh riot, nor is it the only way to be fun.

So what are some other ways of bringing more fun into your dating life?

Pick Offbeat Dates

Everybody’s done dinner and a movie; you want to stand out by taking your date somewhere different. If you can’t be funny yourself, you can always borrow somebody else’s sense of humor for the night and take her to a comedy club or improv performance. If you’re dating a foodie, try signing up for a couple’s cooking class or a wine tasting. You want something different than what she’s used to – novelty helps produce dopamine in the brain, after all.

Explore Your Passions

It can’t be said enough: a person who explores and pursues their passions in life and can communicate them to others are people who are interesting. So many people live day-to-day humdrum lives of boring routines; having passion makes you stand out. It’s an attractive trait, one that women adore because people who are passionate have drive and intensity. They have taken charge of their lives and their enthusiasm carries others along… and that is incredibly fun.

Embrace Your Competitive Side  

There’s nothing quite like a little rivalry to liven things up. The playful smack-talk, the tension when scores are tied, the thrill of victory… these get your hearts pumping, the juices flowing and the senses come alive. Few things are quite as fun – or arousing – as a friendly competition. Bowling, laser tag, mini-golf, go-kart racing, pool… as long as there’s a contest for winner and loser, you’re likely to have fun.

Master The Art of Conversation

The old adage is true: interested is interesting. We love nothing more than a chance to talk about ourselves to an audience that really gets us and wants to know more. All too often we don’t encounter people who actually want to converse so much as people who are waiting for their turn to talk. Being a master conversationalist and utilizing active listening can lead to long, deep and in-depth discussions about life, the universe and everything… and make you both feel as though you’ve known each other for years instead of hours.

Collect Stories

Just as few people have passion in their lives, few people are interested in finding new experiences. Sometimes it’s worth going out and doing things just because you know there will be a story involved at the end. Take some chances and try things you’ve never done before… and build that bond between the two of you by experiencing them together. Whether it’s exploring your city without a map or a plan and just letting whim guide you, signing up for a beginner’s line-dancing session, going geocaching or even an impromptu picnic out under a blanket of shooting stars, you should make a point of finding exciting new opportunities for escapades and exploits. Sharing these new and awesome adventures will be more fun than you could ever imagine… and bring you closer together than you ever dreamed.

 

Related Posts

  • Leveling Up: How To Get Women To Approach YouLeveling Up: How To Get Women To Approach You
  • Level Up: Facing Your Dating FearsLevel Up: Facing Your Dating Fears
  • The Importance of Making MistakesThe Importance of Making Mistakes
  • The Subtle Things That Make Men More AttractiveThe Subtle Things That Make Men More Attractive
  • Leveling Up: Developing An Abundance MentalityLeveling Up: Developing An Abundance Mentality
  • Build Up Your Emotional ResilienceBuild Up Your Emotional Resilience

Filed Under: Level Up Tagged With: be more attractive, level up, self-improvement

Enjoy my work? Want to help support the site? Consider becoming a patron!



If you want dating advice you can take on the go, be sure to check out and if you enjoy them, please don't forget to give a review on Amazon and Goodreads.

And thanks, I can't do it without you.

Our Sponsors

  • Marty Farley

    Very spoke on, Doc. Small note for the readers, though: when getting started on how to be fun, remember to do everything within moderation.

    Being interested and an active listener is fantastic; but a person who expects their date to do all of the talking is exhausting. If I'm remembering correctly, the ratio is something like 70/30…. be an active listener 70 percent of the time, and an active participant in the conversation 30 percent of the time. I've found a lot of success with doing a "Question-Comment-Question" sort of structure. You ask the other person a question…. they respond. Your active listening allows you to make a relevant (and hopefully funny/insightful) comment, and then you ask them another question built off of their answer and your comment.

    Discussing and displaying your passion is also great and good, but I think this one requires some reading of your audience. Until you develop a good gauge of people, stick more to commonly held passions. I am extremely passionate about Tudor era English history and sewing. But oh man, watch the eyes roll back in the head when I started talking (even passionately) about it.

    I got a much better response starting off with my LOTR or want-to-own-a-dog passion. These are much more widely held, so the other person can participate a lot easier.

    Small squiggly criticism: would it be possible to dial back the references to how being more attractive will get you "sexy, interesting" women? We all want to be attractive and attract people we are interested in, but sometimes I feel like discussing it in that way turns "sexy, interesting" women into a prize. I might be too sensitive; just a thought.

    • Gman

      Marty, I am glad you wrote down how you get conversations going, because I also felt that this kind of "Question-Comment-Question" technique has given me the best results so far.

      As for bantering and antagonistic flirting – it is still something that I am struggling with. I literally can't find myself being comfortable doing such conversations, unless it's someone that I know 200% that it is his style and won't get offended easily from such things. I guess it's a personality thing – I find myself easily embarrassed or feeling very awkward whenever someone starts being a bit more antagonistic with me – especially because I have a difficult time identifying if it's in a friendly way or in an insulting kind of way and thus I find myself paralyzed by confusion and not knowing how to respond.

      • Clementine Danger

        I think it's very important that everyone find a conversation style they're comfortable with. There's no one formula that fits everyone. Not everyone is comfortable with fast-paced banter and quips. Different people do different things in conversation. I have this friend who can't tell a story or a joke to save her life, but she is so sincere, she doesn't have to do any of that to be interesting and liked. There's this image of the witty quipping fast-talking charmer, but not everyone has to be like that, and it doesn't suit a lot of people.

        I think sincerity is very important in a good conversation, even if it's just a quick chat. I didn't become comfortable talking to people until I stopped being insecure about the things I liked. I suspect that's something a lot of dorks like me feel, a bit of shame about the things we're really passionate about.

        So I don't think there's a single technique to master. I think it's about being comfortable with yourself and confident in your interests. But that's just how it was for me. I don't see how having a bit of a script or a technique can hurt either. So, Gman, if you're struggling with quips and banter, maybe that's just because that's not a conversational style that fits you. There's others, and they're just fine too. And for talking to people you're interested in specifically, no matter what gender you and they are, there's no shame in being a little shy about this stuff. Hugh Grant built an entire career on it.

        And it takes two to have a conversation. If this antagonistic flirting thing isn't your speed, that's fine, and if it makes you uncomfortable, well, they can dial it back as easily as you can dial it up. More easily, in fact. Nobody said it's up to everyone else to dictate the tone of the conversation.

        • Christine

          Yes, yes, yes–there are many styles relating to humor. You don't have to be a joke-teller or comedian. Often observant, in-the-moment situational humor works very well–the "isn't-life-crazy" approach to becoming partners-in-crime.

          Some people (including me) are very turned off by the antagonistic flirting often mentioned on this site. I have to say that I understand now that I have been very mean to some men who, I know now, were just trying to be funny. Sorry!

          • Tosca

            Me too! I much prefer the quiet, thoughtful type. In fact, the second a guy starts aggressively flirting w me or doing that "antagonistic" thing, I start wondering what the heck he wants.

      • Akai

        My read on this is that you probably don't want to flirt antagonistically, then. Though DNL is a huge proponent, it's only one of many ways to flirt, and not one that works terribly well when it's unnatural. Being the best incarnation of yourself is always better than trying to use someone else's techniques if they don't mesh with your personality.

    • Jet Spygul

      Everyone wants people that are sexy and interesting. Why the hell would you want a boring person with whom you don't enjoy having sex with? That's really dumb.

  • Alex

    At first I was about to think that women polled were just fearful to say they value looks and money, but after reading the whole article, I retract those thoughts.

    I'll agree being "fun" or "interesting" does take a man much farther than being good looking and/or rich.

    I know things changed for me personally when I "got a life". When I didn't just hide in guy-centric/geek-centric activities and did new things simply because I wanted to try new things, but the added bonus is women seemed to find those things interesting as well.

    For me, it was cooking, traveling, and photography.

    • Akai

      I'll be the first to say, being good-looking is a huge asset. But that's not really advice: you can only improve your appearance so much.

      • Tosca

        In my experience, being good-looking might get you in the door more often, but it says nothing about long-term success or actual happiness (with a partner).

        • GIl

          Beh humbug! Getting through the door is halfway there for anything.

    • Ruqayyah Pasha

      Well said. I agree with this and your comments. From experience I can say it's true most women look beyond whats on the outside and gravitate toward humor and fun guys. Good examples are Louis CK and Ricky Gervais. ☺♀

      Qioah (pronounced with a K ☺)

  • Tosca

    I wonder if part of the reason a few men dig in their heels and bitterly insist that it IS money or good-looks is because they can't imagine being attracted to a woman for any reason other than HER good-looks (or whatever other stereotypical thing society deems as "attractive" in a woman).

    • Tosca

      Oh, and just echoing DNL here: the biggest ladies man I know is a very overweight, VERY geeky man. But the guy just radiates fun and good feelings.

    • Mel_

      I find when people dig their heels in about something like that, it's mainly because it allows them to continue to feel hard-done-by rather than take responsibility for their place in life. If you can believe that you can only succeed at dating if you have money or good looks, and you don't have either through no fault of your own, then you can feel justified in being bitter and also in not putting in an effort. Whereas if you allow yourself to believe that a change in lifestyle and personal approach might make you more successful… well, then you can't blame anyone but yourself if you don't try.

      • Jess

        I'm with you Mel, it is a cop out for blaming others for a lack of success, or a need for a plan that is easily controlled. If I have x money, women will automatically date me. Look at Trump. Yeah, look at his divorce rate too. That guy doesn't strike me as any fun.

        Fun wins. Hands down every time. I'd take a fun guy with mediocre or even not great looks that makes me feel wonderful over a hot guy who is dull in the head and a drag to be around any day. And money comes and goes. I've found an entitled jerk attitude sticks around much longer.

        It's best to be fun.

      • OldBrownSquirrel

        Speaking for myself, as someone who's recently divorced and carrying a lot of baggage, I find that getting shot down is exceptionally painful. Not dating is like a dull ache, but getting shot down is like a sharp, shooting pain that, over the course of a few days, dies down to a dull ache, and it feels like the major lesson of getting shot down is to learn to live with the dull ache. My therapist sees rejection — even the gentlest of rejection — as touching some very sore spots for me, and I probably need more time (and therapy) to let those spots become less tender before I subject myself to that again, and perhaps things will eventually become better for me. In the meantime, I'm thoroughly convinced that attempting to date is hopeless, and that physical appearance — especially things like height, which is beyond any practical control on my part — is one thing I can easily seize on and point to and say, "This is why dating is futile for me."

        • T-Rav

          If you're recently divorced and carrying a lot of baggage, you're not doing yourself or anyone who DOESN'T reject you any favors. It's a good bet that if you're trying to date now, you are getting rejected because of the recent divorce and the baggage you are carrying — no one wants to get involved with someone under those conditions, and end up hurt because you're on the rebound. Also, if you're still talking about your ex a lot and are generally negative or cynical about love, women, sex &/or relationships, even women interested in causal NSA sex aren't going to want to hang around you. Quit dating (for now), keep seeing the therapist, and give yourself some time to get rid of the baggage.

          • OldBrownSquirrel

            Well, I've only been rejected thus far, so I don't think I'm doing much harm to anyone else. And it's not that I'm foolish enough to bring up my ex or my cynicism in those contexts; there's obviously something else.

        • Robert

          You know, you already have something you can easily seize on and point to and say "This is why dating is futile for me": your baggage. You don't need to use the physical appearance/height thing.

          • OldBrownSquirrel

            Ah, but baggage is something I can *change*. 😉 I'm working on that — I'm in therapy, after all — but it feels somewhat comforting to "know" that there's some other reason that's totally beyond my control, that I'm not missing out on something wonderful solely on account of my baggage. Unpacking my baggage is unquestionably necessary and worth doing in its own right. I'm just not yet convinced that it will be sufficient.

          • enail

            But it sounds like focusing on these things that are beyond your control is giving you a bitter and hopeless mindset, ie more baggage. If you can just focus on dealing with your baggage and not worry about what's beyond your control, it'll make things easier for you in the long run.

          • Robert

            That doesn't sound very comforting at all. If anything, it makes the whole thing sound even more hopeless – if everything that's causing you to miss out on something wonderful in the present is under your control, then it means that there is a chance that you might not miss out later. If, on the other hand, there is something permanent and unchangeable and uncontrollable that's causing you to miss out on it, then there's no chance that you won't miss out later. Surely it's better for there to be a chance of you not missing out later.

          • OldBrownSquirrel

            How can it be under my control? Dating isn't something that happens unilaterally. My dating will always be subject to the consent of someone else.

          • Robert

            What I was trying (and failing) to get across was that there is almost nothing that is both completely out of your control and causing you to miss out on dating all by itself. The sorts of things that are both are things like being hospitalised or being imprisoned. Your baggage is causing you to miss out, but it's controllable and you are currently controlling it. Your height is uncontrollable, but it does not cause you to miss out without adding in the factor of the women you have tried to date, and that factor is controllable.

            Assuming you actually want to date at some point, it's better to believe that you either have a chance now or will have a chance later rather than believing that you will never have a chance.

          • OldBrownSquirrel

            Frankly, it feels Sisyphean. As an adult, I've started to appreciate the Peanuts strips in which Lucy pulls the football away just as Charlie Brown is about to kick it. Why does he keep trying? Why do any of us?

          • Robert

            Because we want to succeed. It's why we tried the first time, isn't it?

          • OldBrownSquirrel

            "Insanity is repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results."

            – widely misattributed to Einstein, but apparently from some Narcotics Anonymous literature from the early 80s.

            On the one hand, I'm varying my approach; on the other, I'm in therapy. I suppose I'm hedging my bets.

          • kitbag

            Yes, so if you were asking out the same woman, and she kept on turning you down, that quote would be entirely appropriate to the situation. However, presumably you are asking out different women, so that by default means you are trying something (or someone) different each time, no?

            The thing you do seem to be doing repeatedly is telling yourself that it's entirely hopeless and that you are too short to be attractive, and expecting that to make you feel better/happy. From the comments I've seen from you, it doesn't seem to be working. So maybe it's time to try something else?

          • OldBrownSquirrel

            "So maybe it's time to try something else?"

            I've considered distraction osteogenesis, but I don't think it's terribly practical in my case, especially given that my apartment building doesn't have an elevator. Sadly, full-body electrolysis, which is something else I've considered, isn't so patently impractical. One advantage of focusing on height as a scapegoat rather than body hair is that it spares me the pain and expense of full-body electrolysis.

          • eselle28

            I don't understand why you tend to revert to answers like this. There are answers other than continuing to bang your head against the wall and undergoing radical surgery procedures. You've even identified a couple of obvious, healthy ones in previous posts: finalizing your divorce and working in therapy to get to a place where ordinary amounts of romantic rejection are something you can tolerate.

            I'm not sure if it's an attempt at bitter humor or if these are things you've genuinely considered. In either case, the message it's actually conveying is that you're not in a great emotional place for starting a relationship right now.

          • OldBrownSquirrel

            Well, the divorce is final, at least from a legal standpoint; that wasn't true when I first started posting here. Therapy is useful, and it's worth pursuing independent of any benefits to my dating prospects, but I remain unconvinced at this point that I'll ever be considered relationship material.

            And yes, these surgical suggestions are an attempt at bitter humor, things I've considered and rejected as both impractical and, frankly, irrational. In a way, I see them as analogous to the sorts of surgeries many women undergo to forestall aging; in the long run, they're futile, like the old tale of Cnut and the tide. Even if I were taller, hairless from the nose down, etc. I'd still be increasingly old with each passing moment, and I'm quite simply not getting any prettier. The one concession I'm willing to consider in that direction is that if things don't go my way I might eventually see whether I get better results from profile photos in which I'm not wearing eyeglasses. If so, contact lenses actually aren't an unreasonable measure.

          • OldBrownSquirrel

            I've been thinking about this more, and I have more of a straight answer now. When I get shot down by a woman, it doesn't *feel* like I got shot down by one woman; it feels like I got shot down by *all* women. At a rational level, I know that I'm really only writing off the one woman who shot me down, but since I don't really understand why the next woman I ask out won't shoot me down the same way her predecessors did, especially if I've been getting shot down a lot, it doesn't really *feel* like I'm doing anything all that different, and I expect the results to be the same. And yes, I appreciate that these feelings are irrational, but I still feel them.

          • kitbag

            Ah, and that my friend is why The Patriarchy Hurts Everyone. Seeing women as a monolith is something you know is irrational, but is something you are struggling to shake even though it hurts you.

            I think you are actually doing some helpful stuff here by hanging out and speaking to a variety of women with a range of viewpoints. Maybe you could do some reading of women focused sites like The Hairpin to help you with this too? And talking with women in real life as much as possible in a non-sexy just-getting-to-know-each-other-platonically way sounds like something you would really benefit from, if you aren't doing that already. I know that I relaxed around guys a lot more once I became close friends with a few dudes and saw them in all their messy humanity, as opposed to unattainable creatures I was attracted to (thanks all girls school!).

          • kitbag

            For example, here is a comment I pulled from a thread about what guys people were attracted to on The Hairpin:

            "I'm on team dudes 5'8 or under, usually brunette and with athletic builds. Also, usually a drummer/water sign. I'm an Aries. Wail."

            So there you go, evidence of women specifically into your height. I'm sure you can find more.

          • OldBrownSquirrel

            The biggest problem I've had with women-focused sites (I haven't really read much of The Hairpin before, so they're off the hook) is that they often highlight the problem of women receiving unwelcome attention from men. It feels like there are a lot of web sites in which fish complain about bicycles, if you follow me. Given how often I've been shot down over the course of my life, it's easy for me to believe that I'm invariably part of the problem and that the considerate thing for me to do is to refrain from expressing any sort of romantic interest in a woman. Sure, there are women who are lonely, but my perception is that it's because they're hoping for — and are not yet getting — attention from *the sort of men they're interested in*, and even lonely women have standards. Believing that I might be the sort of man they're interested in strikes me as hubris. I'm willing to make something of an exception of online dating, since any woman with an online dating profile is tacitly soliciting messages, but I'm always looking carefully for subtle hints to look elsewhere rather than wait for explicit rejections, though I've gotten those as well.

          • kitbag

            I chose The Hairpin, as it is less about issues like the ones you stated above, and more about random interesting things, with a female focus. I also think reading/watching stuff made by women might help you too. And of course speaking to women in real life!

          • OldBrownSquirrel

            I have women as friends, mostly far away. As I've said before, women have standards. For any given woman, there are men who that woman simply won't be interested in dating under any circumstances. For a woman to date a guy exclusively, she has to believe that she's unlikely to be able to do better. Certainly, not all women have the same tastes, but I get the impression that most women have similar enough standards that there's a proportion of men that pretty much no women are willing to date. Perhaps women believe they can do better; perhaps they'd simply rather be single than date such men. If those men are trying to date, then they're simply barking up the wrong tree, and that's the situation where I find myself.

          • Tosca

            "For a woman to date a guy exclusively, she has to believe that she's unlikely to be able to do better."

            You seriously, *seriously* believe this? Wow, how bleak can you get?

            EDIT: You really need to NOT date anyone, dude. Some poor woman is going to like you one day, but you're going to insult her by insisting that she doesn't REALLY like you, she is merely settling for you. Then you might get resentful over nothing and possibly dump her, all while she's wondering what the hell she DID.

          • OldBrownSquirrel

            If a woman believes she's likely to be able to do better, she'll hold out for better. I suppose there's an alternative approach, now that you mention it: settle for the nonce and dump the guy when something better comes along. Frankly, I think the alternative is bleaker.

          • enail

            Or there's the far more reasonable alternative of her looking for people she likes and dating them without constantly comparing them to other potential partners. For this alternative to have any impact on you, you need to get your shit together to the point where you can actually believe that someone might like you for yourself and be able to act in a way that would allow someone to do so.

          • Tosca

            Right. I'm with my husband because I LOVE HIM. Could I "do better"? Possibly. There's billions of people on this dirt ball; the odds are good. But do I care?! No, because I love him.

            I wonder if there isn't a fair amount of projecting here that Squirrel is doing. Maybe he's accusing imaginary women of that mercenary mindset of holding out for something better because HE'S the one who is afraid of "settling" and is always going to be looking for greener pastures.

            In which case, my previous advice to him to NOT date anyone holds.

          • OldBrownSquirrel

            Do you consider yourself lucky to be with your husband? Supposing he were hit by a bus, do you think you'd have difficulty finding someone who makes you as happy? There's not much difference (if any) between a partner who can't be easily replaced and one who can't be easily improved upon. And I'll grant that there's a bird-in-the-hand component to dating, that one is likely to stick with a current partner rather than suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. I'm thinking more in terms of the scenario where a single woman who favors monogamy is trying to determine whether to become exclusive vs. keeping her options open.

          • Tosca

            The answers to your 1st two questions are yes, and very much so. We've actually talked about this, many times, due to his preferred lines of work. He has set the bar really high. I admit finding men to *sleep* with may not be hard, if I drop my standards down. But someone as awesome as my husband who treats me as well and is as smart, gentle, funny, sexy and nerdy as he is? Not bloody likely!

            And I've said this before on DNL, but I've been with him a looooong time, and so far I haven't met anyone *nearly* as awesome in all areas as he is. Attractive guys? Sure. Good for eye-candy and a little flirting, but they are not *him*. They will not ever be him.

          • OldBrownSquirrel

            That's all I'm talking about! I don't mean to be insulting by suggesting that you *should* feel like you could do better, nor that you'd casually wander off if someone more superficially attractive came along. I'm really just suggesting that willingness to commit stems from the sense that the one you're with is worth keeping, and lack of willingness comes from lack of that sense! Is that so controversial, really?

          • Trooper6

            The controversial part about what you say is that you then equate = "one worth keeping" with "not short, older, balding, pudgy, or me."

            You don't really give any weight to women saying that women don't all reject you because you are short and therefor they can do "better." Tosca is trying to tell you that there are women who feel like short is best.

            In trying to justify why women won't date you as something out of your control, you end up saying really jacked up essentializing things about women–that the women here keep trying to tell is not how they are so stop insulting them.

          • OldBrownSquirrel

            Let me put it this way:

            I find it daunting that I'm effectively competing with 3.5 billion other guys. If I express an interest in a woman, she theoretically has 3.5 billion other guys to chose from. Now, is she going to consent to spend time with me, or is she going to hold out in hopes that one of those 3.5 billion other guys a) is more her type b) will ask her out soon enough to make the opportunity cost of shooting me down negligible? Right now, it feels like women, as a rule, would rather keep their dance cards open than spend any time at all with me.

            Height is just one of a hundred different reasons women might reject me, most notable because it's not under my control. It feels like if it's not going to be one thing, it's going to be another. One woman might think I'm too short. Another might think I'm too hairy. Another might prefer a full head of hair. Another might prefer a different hair color. Another might prefer a different race. Another might prefer someone younger. Another might prefer someone more athletic. The list goes on and on and on.

            Another point worth mentioning: I'm pursuing single women close to my age. If you're younger and/or in a relationship, I'm not complaining about you, so don't take it personally. In many cases, older, single women remain older, single women in large part because they have unrealistic standards, e.g. they're holding out for a 6'2" surgeon who runs marathons as a hobby. Sure, there are plenty of women who aren't that picky or that superficial, as a result of which, by the time they get to my age, they're no longer single.

          • Max

            If you have that mindset, then yeah, you probably aren't gonna be successful. Maybe try not being down on yourself constantly?

            Also your last point is all wrong. Are you single because you've been holding out for a supermodel?

          • Robert

            Dating is not completely and purely logical and rational. There are feelings involved.

          • Tosca

            Uh, unless she can be everywhere in the world at the same time, no she DOESN'T have 3.5 billion other guys to choose from. I mean, that's just silly.

            anyway, the reasons what you've said is offensive are:

            -you assume that if an older woman is lonely, she's got unrealistic standards and is holding out for a handsome, rich doctor. You don't know that. She could feel as hopeless and unlovable as you do. But since you don't see women as as individually human as you yourself, I doubt you'll realize that.

            -you seem to think most people just sort of settle for what they can get, and real love is rare. With emphasis on the female half. Surprise, women don't like being told their love is a lie and that they'd drop their men if something better came along.

          • OldBrownSquirrel

            "you assume that if an older woman is lonely…"

            What I really said:

            "In many cases…"

            Also, I'm considering women who are at least nominally in the dating pool. Another stereotypical single, older woman almost never left her parents' house in Amherst. Such women aren't really part of the dating pool. Yet another stereotypical single, older woman is an elderly widow, part of a demographic from which most of the men have been removed. I'm not that old yet.

            "you seem to think … real love is rare"

            Yes, well, I'm recently divorced. That tends to bring a measure of cynicism with it. As I've said before, I'm in therapy.

          • Joy

            I'm glad that you're in therapy. I really am–if someone is willing to be honest and open and do the work, therapy can help immensely in unpacking the baggage we all carry to some extent.

            However, I'm going to add my voice to those who say you really, really should not be trying to date right now. First: the ink on your divorce papers is barely dry. That's a huge pile of luggage to work through right there without complicating things with a new relationship. Second: to be blunt, your attitude kind of stinks. Bitter, Defeatist, and Cynical with a Dose of Misogny are a heck of a lot more unwieldy bags to deal with than Short and Hairy. Lots of women don't mind (or even like!) Short or Hairy or both. But it's unkind and unfair to expect women to lug around the first three for you when they are as heavy as they are now.

          • OldBrownSquirrel

            "if someone is willing to be honest and open"

            If there's one thing I haven't been accused of here, it's holding back. 😉

            A lot of the things I'm saying aren't so much ideology as anxiety, and I'd love to be proven wrong. I realize that statements like "all the best ones are taken" are inherently insulting (though they aren't necessarily gendered; if I'm focusing on women, it's because they're the ones I'm interested in, and I'll readily concede that I'm hardly one of the best ones myself). Historically, I know that the best way for me to get out of such a rut is to convince myself that I'm wrong by finding proof — living, breathing proof — that I'm wrong, and I know I'm capable of putting on a happy face for the duration of a date, even if the subsequent lack of a second date puts me back under a cloud for a while. Therapy will probably help, but so long as dating remains terra incognito, it's going to remain a big, scary thing for me, and I won't be able to change my outlook without eventually confronting my anxieties.

          • fsghkgghsk

            man the problems are not your age or your height or your body hair. my ex left me and now is with another guy who is a lot less physically attractive than me, any girl agrees that. the problems are only your way of thinking. you are too negative, if you don't believe in your qualities no woman will believe either and therefore won't be attracted to you. it's not all about the body, damn! guys like women for their body..yeah but women don't see man the same way. change your lifesyle and your mind and i'm sure things will change in your favour but you need to be more open. i used to be very negative and it's a cycle, it affects your mood and subsequently you won't be ready to succeed. you have to believe there can be something good about yourself and forget the things that can't be changed because those things will only waste your time and slow you down from becoming a better version of yourself. you need to start now a new life and it doesn't matter how old you now, because you can't go back so don't think about the past. i took a very long time to get my first kiss or my first girlfriend but now i know that the problem wasn't my appeareance but my attitude. you need to have a life as well not just be obsessed with women or whatever. you had a lot of rejections and yes you will keep getting them because a lot of things need to be changed and it's not your body.

          • eselle28

            Another stereotypical single, older woman is a divorced single mother. Yet another stereotypical single, older woman has had a couple of long term relationships that didn't work out, or which ended when the man wasn't willing to commit to something more serious.

            There are certainly more of those types than women who have spent their entire lives living with their parents. Are those women completely free of issues and baggage? Of course not, but that's something you're unlikely to find in anyone who's past the age of 25 or so.

            I would suggest focusing your energy on therapy, because it doesn't sound like you're in the sort of emotional place where you could be a good partner – even a casual one – to someone else.

          • OldBrownSquirrel

            "Another stereotypical single, older woman is a divorced single mother."

            I realize this is a bit unfair, but "divorced single mother" now conjures images of my ex. Maybe that will fade, with time and therapy.

            "Are those women completely free of issues and baggage?"

            I'm acutely aware of how messed up people can be post-divorce.

          • eselle28

            That is your ex, but it's also the female version of you. I don't think people should be restricted to dating their opposite sex counterparts, but if you'd be unwilling to date someone who's more or less like you, I think that's a signal that you have some work to do before you're in a place where other people are going to find you a suitable person to date.

            At the moment, your view of divorced people is probably unrealistically skewed toward yourself and your ex, and where each of you are at in the process of moving on. I suspect that when you've healed a bit, you might have a more positive view of people who are similarly situated.

          • Robert

            You know, not everyone only ever wants the best and sees anything less as a stepping stone towards it.

          • OldBrownSquirrel

            I'm not saying *all* women are settling. Settling is a bare minimum, and women don't have to settle if they don't want to. There are plenty of women who are happy enough with their partners that nobody could fairly say they were settling. If there are several men expressing an interest in a woman, and she's not exclusive with any of them yet, she gets to choose which one she likes best. She's not going to pick her *second* favorite in that scenario, since she can just as easily pick her favorite instead, i.e. do better. I'm also not defining what "doing better" means; that's entirely up to her.

          • Tosca

            But that's everyone. You don't think men get to do the same thing? Because they do, despite whatever weird things you believe.

          • OldBrownSquirrel

            It's generally the men doing the approaching. A man might pursue the most desirable woman he thinks he has a chance with, and he might hold off on pursuing other, less desirable women unless and until he's figured out whether he has a chance with her… or he might date other women concurrently, holding off on exclusivity for as long as possible. There are similarities, sure, but there are some nuanced differences.

          • Amanda Marcotte

            If your strategy with women is, "Date me, since it beats being alone," I can guarantee you most women will say, "No, it doesn't." Especially if you're older. Most women who've been around the block a couple of times perceive men who are needy and don't have a lot on offer as kryptonite; they see them as men who just want to get someone in their house ASAP to do their laundry and have obligatory sex with them without offering much in return. You have to offer *something*.

          • Tosca

            Yes, there is definitely that aspect, too! If a guy isn't at least as awesome as my husband. you're darn tootin' I'd rather be alone. I don't even like picking up after my own son; why would I put up with it from a new boyfriend*? But whether a guy is as awesome has very little to do with his looks or "status", whatever the fuck that is.

            *One of the best pieces of advice I try to give young women when they get new boyfriends is, DON'T "practice wife" him. You know how a young woman will start doing her BF's laundry, picking up after him, cooking for him and minding his appointments and social calendar to "prove" that she'd make a "good wife (or GF)". I know I did it. But fuck that! Y'all are just dating, not married. He can wash his own damn socks like he did 2 weeks ago when you didn't even KNOW him.

          • Tim

            They'd be offering the 'obligatory sex' to them, wont they?

            But yeah, you're right. Women have higher standards. They don't date, have sex, and relationships just for the sake of having them. They don't want a man just for the sake of having a man. They have specific type of a man they feel is right for them. Until he comes along they'd rather be alone.

            We men? Many of us just want a woman to lay beside and make small talk with.

          • Mel_

            I think most guys find that if they pick their partners based on nothing more than "this woman is willing to have sex with me", the relationship is unlikely to be satisfying in the long run.

          • Gentleman Johnny

            That's not entirely true, Mel. Its just as likely to be unsatisfying in the short run.

          • Tosca

            "They don't date, have sex, and relationships just for the sake of having them. They don't want a man just for the sake of having a man. They have specific type of a man they feel is right for them. Until he comes along they'd rather be alone."

            Patently untrue. Haven't you ever heard of the "desperate single woman" stereotype?? It's more assumed that women want so badly to be with a man, ANY man, that we will snatch up the first one who comes along. That to find this all-important man who shall complete us, we should lower our standards and not be so damn uppity.

            It's usually only the feministy types among us who try to tell women, you are better off being alone! For all the reasons Amanda stated.

          • Tim

            You should be arguing with Amanda then, not me.

          • Tosca

            No. Because I agree that it's better to be alone. Whether you think some random woman's criteria are “too high” is none of your business. Whether she ends up alone and regretting is none of your business either.Unless this whole thing about how women are too picky and should lower their damn standards for you already is because you're lazy. It's easier to demand others lower their standards than it is to work on yourself and becoming a person worth knowing.Sent from my iPhone

          • Tim

            Shouldn't be a problem given there are so many desperate women out there who would take just about any man, as you paint the picture.

          • BiSian

            Nailed it Tosca.
            Come on dude, it's no concern of yours if Random Woman ends up alone because of her standards. That's her life, her decision that she'll have to deal with.
            But it's not about her is it? It's about you.

          • Gentleman Johnny

            We have a term for that: "having standards". Some guys have them, too.

          • Tim

            I guess there are more women who have them, then.

          • BiSian

            Buddy don't project your lack of standards to the rest of the male population.

          • kitbag

            Dude, do you understand how insulting that is? Are you seriously suggesting that if I was approached by someone who was, say, richer/taller/more ripped/better looking/had more hair/whatever it is you consider "better" than my husband, that I would immediately dump the LOVE OF MY LIFE for him? That I only got together with my wonderful husband because I didn't think that I would be able to get with a guy who was richer/taller/more ripped/better looking/had more hair/etc?

            Um, so how do you explain the fact that I have dated guys who were those things and yet I didn't stay with them, and then I chose to date and then marry my husband instead? Because, let me assure you, I wasn't measuring him up against this imaginary list of Guys I Could Get With when I hooked up with him – I was just attracted to him and liked what I saw of his personality. And I married him, not because I measured him as the best I could do out of the Masterlist Of Guys I Could Get With, but because finding someone who you love, and loves you back, and is someone who compliments you so well that if he were gay/a lady you would choose to be best friends with is really hard and really rare. I would be a fool to throw that away, no matter how much "better" I could/did do.

            Gagh, I understand you are saying this stuff because you are hurt yourself, and are on the defensive, but seriously, don't you see what cruel judgement you are passing on half the world's population? How is that ok?

          • OldBrownSquirrel

            I'm not defining the criteria for "better." That's up to *you*. You say he's the LOVE OF [YOUR] LIFE? Then, ipso facto, you don't think you can do better. Congratulations! You and I have no argument.

            I don't see what I'm saying as at all insulting or even controversial; it's close to being a tautology. I think it's being misunderstood, though.

          • kitbag

            So in that case, if the criteria for "better" is up to the individual, and in my case height/hair/etc didn't come into it, why don't you apply that to the women you come across? Why do you assume that you know why each one is rejecting you, and it is for age/height/hair/etc, and you are therefore undateable? If you really believed what you just wrote here, why are you carving out an exception for yourself?

            Because that attitude is hurting you, and it doesn't seem to be helping you get to a place where you can find a happy relationship (which is why you read this site, right?). It's that negative attitude you need to work on, not surgery to change your appearance or whatever else you have decided that all women want that you lack.

          • Amanda Marcotte

            Yeah, men who treat dating like it's a big game of Go Fish and you're always rating someone a 6 or 7 and biding time with them until you get a shot at an 8 end up alone. Wonder why? Maybe it's because women want to be seen as individuals who are uniquely valuable outside of tawdry rating systems. God forbid.

          • Tim

            Men aren't exempt from being rated. Women accept and reject men based on looks all the time. They are just less likely to attribute their attraction or the lack of it to looks. Does that make them better?

          • OldBrownSquirrel

            I'm not sure it's about patriarchy so much as it's about statistics. The hypothesis is that women don't like me, and every woman who shoots me down just increases the sample size, making the hypothesis that much more credible. I could say somewhat more optimistically that the proportion of women that's inclined to like me is small, and as the sample size increases, that proportion just appears smaller. Non-zero, sure, but increasingly small. It's only slightly less discouraging.

          • Trooper6

            Everything is so black and white and made the most negative possible with you.

            Take what you've just written, "the hypothesis is that women don't like me, and every woman who shoots ne down just increases the sample size, making te hypothesis that much more credible."

            You could choose to interpret a woman turning you down as proof that women don't like you in some sort of essential, unchanging way…but there are other theories that could emerge from your data. For example, it might not be you personally, but your approach. Or your attitude (which if it is anything like you display here, I wouldn't want to date–way too negative). Both approaches and attitudes can be changed. Or maybe the problem is that you are consistently asking out the wrong kind of woman, focusing on women who are less likely to be interested in you rather that the women who are more likely to be interested. You pre reject the women you don't find attractive (or whatever criteria) but don't treat your rejection of them as evidence of the messed up nature of men in general in the way you treat their rejection of you as evidence of the uniformity of all women. You completely ignore what women themselves have to say, for example, the ones who say they are interested in short, balding, older dudes. You basically call them liars by insisting what they say isn't true. Very attractive.

            Anyway, you say dating is impossible and you are going to die forever alone. You've said these things a lot. So if you really believe that, why are you still complaining? Accept it and move on to build the best life you can while being the confirmed bachelor you will be because no woman in the history of time will ever love a man under 5'7"–even though that is demonstrably untrue…but you aren't interested in true things, you are interested only in self pity and constructing a scenario where nothing that happens to you is your responsibility, but the fault of shallow women. So just embrace it, accept it, and move on–which means stopping complaining about it, also unattractive. I have things I could complain about, but I don't do it every post–because it is pointless, self-indulgent, egotistical, and supremely unattractive.

            You need to work on becoming someone who respects women and who is fun to be around. I recommend building up some really good friends you can hang out with.

          • OldBrownSquirrel

            Let's examine some of your straw men, shall we?

            "You pre reject the women you don't find attractive (or whatever criteria) but don't treat your rejection of them as evidence of the messed up nature of men in general"

            When have I said that I'm rejecting anyone? Granted, you could argue that I'm "pre rejecting" [sic] all the women I haven't asked out; it's equally valid for me to suggest that I've left them in peace, presuming they're not interested.

            "You completely ignore what women themselves have to say, for example, the ones who say they are interested in short, balding, older dudes. You basically call them liars by insisting what they say isn't true."

            I've never said that *no* women are interested in short, balding, older dudes. I have said in the past that *few* women are interested in short, balding, older dudes, and that the supply of short, balding, older dudes far outstrips the demand. And there are more issues than just my being short, balding, and older; geekiness carries much more social stigma for older generations than for younger ones. Sure, there are older women willing to date short, balding, older, geeky dudes. I'm quite aware of this; some of them are friends of mine. Guess what? They're generally dating someone already; the women who are single at my age are mostly the ones who have maintained high standards, perhaps unrealistically high standards, and are holding out for something better.

          • Robert

            There only needs to be one woman who is single, at your age and is at least willing to date short, balding, older, geeky dudes. Until you have ruled out literally every woman everywhere who is your age, you cannot claim that this woman does not exist.

          • Amanda Marcotte

            But nasty sexism, boorishness, and self-pity are so attractive. It must be his height!

          • Trooper6

            Shallow side note: Amanda Marcotte just commented on my post! *Squee!*

          • guest

            meh, Ted Bundy the serial killer had a small cabal of fangirls, and giving his victims, I say he was at least a tad misogynistic and boorish giving what he did to his victims, but he was good looking and charming and that made all the difference

          • Dr_NerdLove

            Yeaaah, the serial killer groupie phenomenon is a little more complex than that.http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolution-the-self/201204/why-do-women-fall-serial-killershttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybristophilia

          • Gentleman Johnny

            Translation: some portion of both the male and female populations are insane. Among that sub-population are attractive men who have committed brutal, misogynistic homicide and attractive women who believe that they can make such men better with the power of their love.

            Further, a national platform brings out all 300 people with 1 in a million conditions.

            Conclusion: If you're willing to take PUA to its logical conclusion and do it on national television, you'll get girls. . .from across the visiting room glass. I suppose if the goal is "do what it takes to get hot women" with no other qualifiers, becoming a serial killer is a valid tactic.

          • eselle28

            Josef Fritzl also has a small cabal of fangirls. I say he was at least a tad misogynistic and boorish given what he did to his daughter, but he…oh, wait.

          • Talbiz

            I'm not entirely sure you know what "hypothesis" means. Something you should look into is confirmation bias

        • Joy

          I've seen you and a few other guys mention height several times, and I really don't think it's the dealbreaker you seem to think it is. Most of the men I've liked have been taller than I am, because at averageish height for a woman, most men are taller than I am. But the last guy I really fell hard for was an inch or two shorter than I, a bit on the scrawny side, and frankly a little bit funny looking. He was also intelligent, insightful, and unfailingly kind, with a subtle quiet humor that gradually emerged once he got to know you.

          Being short would probably not affect my attraction to someone. Obsessing about being short might.

          • OldBrownSquirrel

            … which is why it's something I never plan to mention on dates, though if she's taller, the height difference will eventually become an elephant in the kitchen that must be acknowledged at some stage, if not dwelt on. It's mostly just a theory (one of many) to explain why some women might not be interested. OK, it's also the reason I've always been disinclined to express an interest in women more than an inch or two taller than I am: I expect to be shot down by them.

          • ai*

            There are women who don't want to date shorter guys, true, but there are a lot who are fine with it. I have one rule regards height, and that is that height can't be a problem. I'm fine with shorter guys as long as they have the self esteem to date me, even if I wear high heels.

            So, based on the height issue, I wouldn't date you, because clearly your self-esteem makes height a problem. It wasn't a problem with my ex, who was maybe an inch shorter than me, and had no problem with me in four-inch heels. He didn't expect to be shot down by me.

          • Anonyleast

            From what I've noticed, the women who do not care about height are not vocal about it when unprompted. However, the women who do not want to date a guy who is less than whatever height can be very vocal. Which is how it normally goes for moderates versus extremists.

          • Matty C

            Indeed. Know how many online dating profiles I've read where the woman says she can't date guys shorter than her? Quite a lot.

          • Matty C

            Which… don't get me wrong, they have every right to if that's what they want. Then again, they should probably realise they *might* be scaring off some guys who they'd really get along with and in that case, it might not be something that they want in their profile. I'm not even short and it turns me off just reading it.

          • Tosca

            I've mentioned several times here being into short dudes. I'm married, true, but I can't be the only one out there.

          • @TheDazzlingOne

            My husband is short and he is hairy. I married him because he is funny and smart and loyal and confident and a nerd like me.

          • OldBrownSquirrel

            You have reasonable standards, and you're married. I suspect there's a correlation there. Call me picky, but I'm not sure I'm interested in dating married women. 😉 My problem is the standards maintained by women who are single.

            I recently found a depressing article from eHarmony on dating over 40: http://www.eharmony.com/dating-advice/dating/debunking-t...

            "And before you say…but, Bobbi, these aren’t quality men. All the good ones are taken…check this out:

            If you live anywhere near a major metro area, and are looking for a man over 40, 5’8” or taller, college educated, non-smoking, making a higher than median income…statistics say that there are over 2000 of these guys within 20 miles of you looking for love online."

            Major metro area? Check. Over 40? Check. College educated? Check. Non-smoking? Check. Higher than median income? Check. 5'8" or taller? Oh, well. So much for that idea. Shall I part my hair behind? Do I date to eat a peach?

            (note to self: don't bother with eHarmony)

          • Tosca

            Sigh. Those are just HER standards. And you're cherry-picking. She also says the following:

            "2. Give him a chance.

            DO NOT tell me that in the first 10 minutes of meeting a man you can know that he is a potential suitor or life partner. If I hear this one more time….I’m going to burst.

            Unless he spits when he talks, smells, or is drunk; give him a chance. Quick judgments are often more about you than the man sitting in front of you.

            Quickly dismissing men is most often about self-protection and reliving past experiences in the present. I mean, after all, if every man you meet is unworthy then there is no risk you’ll actually start dating or get in a relationship! Yep, that’s a surefire way to avoid ever being hurt or rejected.

            (Listen, I was the master of this, but finally learned how I consistently self sabotaged. And when I saw it, and dealt with it, my life changed. Yours will too.)

            Here are your action steps:

            • Write your list of qualities, values, and behaviors that attract you and that you expect in a man with whom you spend time.

            • Review your list and decide: does this man exist? Are these qualities I’m looking for directly related to a man’s ability to make me happy? Are these truly requirements and worthy of dismissing a man who does not possess the quality? Out of this you will begin to refine your list of must-have’s, nice to have’s and who cares/what was I thinking.

            If you are serious about finding a life partner, or at least a man to have some fun with, letting go of the idea that there are no good single men for you is a first critical step.

            When your belief shifts, the good men will be there waiting for you. Ask any one of my coaching clients. After working on this for just a week or two, they “miraculously” see nice guys everywhere.

            What you believe is your truth. And what you put out and expect is what you get. I’d love to hear how this (pretty simple) shift works for you. Happy dating! "

            Sounds pretty reasonable. There are also numerous people in the comments calling out her 5'8" thing.

          • Joy

            Dude. You could start by not, you know, *insulting* single women. I consider my standards reasonable–for example, I don't care if a man is 6' tall and makes "a higher than median income"–and yet, myseriously, I am still single! I am clearly an anomaly!

            You seem to be operating under the bizarre assumption that every woman older than 30ish is *obviously* single because she is holding out for a tall, wealthy, successful Adonis (usually while being solidly average herself). Sure, some women have unreasonable standards. So do some men. But I don't think they're the majority. However, posts like these are one not-that-huge step away from telling someone "you clearly think way too highly of yourself and vastly overestimate your appeal…because if you didn't, you'd be in a relationship."

            I will also note that you seem to believe women are single because of women's too-high standards. And men are single because of…women's too-high standards.

          • OldBrownSquirrel

            Sorry, I didn't state that as clearly as I might have. My intent was to argue that the opinions of married women aren't an accurate reflection of the dating pool, not to attempt to characterize all single women.

            I think the proportion of the dating pool with unrealistically high standards increases over time; those with more realistic standards, or those who develop more realistic standards, tend to find people they'll be happy with. Those who maintain unrealistic standards hold out and keep looking. There's nothing gendered in that statement.

          • Tosca

            Even so, you fail to lump *yourself* into that pool. *Everybody else* is shallow and holding out, but you're somehow special? That's called Special Snowflake Syndrome, when you think no one out there could possibly be like you.

            All we're saying is it's not true. You aren't the only one.

          • OldBrownSquirrel

            There was a bit on "This American Life" about the pickup scene in New York City. Nobody has to sleep alone, so goes the argument. They just have to stay in the bar until closing time and drastically lower their standards.

            Objectively, anyone with standards has no foundation to criticize anyone else for having standards. If I'm not interested in dating a chain-smoking, morbidly obese, uncontrolled bipolar septuagenarian, I should shut up. I guess I'll shut up, then.

          • eselle28

            It seems like you're trying to avoid a pretty fair point with an extreme example. You have standards. Some of them are obvious things that most people would agree with. Some of them are are things that other people might not think are necessary.

            Just from what you've said here, you're not open to dating women who want to have children in the future, you're hesitant about dating single mothers, and there's a certain point at which you'd find a partner to be too heavy for you. I suspect you probably have a few others as well, just because most people do. Do you expect that your partner will have finished college? Would you date someone who was between jobs, or are you only looking for women who are currently working full time? Have you ever passed over a profile simply because you thought the woman was too unattractive?

            I'm not saying you need to give up any of these standards or that they're not things a rational person would care about. But I think you should at least acknowledge that you have them, and that there are some women out there who are resentful that men like you aren't interested in them. You're not the only reasonable person in a world full of picky, unrealistic women. You're also not unusually cursed by the fact that you're short and hairy. There are certainly women who care about those things, but all it takes is a glance at the rest of the site to see that there are guys who are tall and hairless who are still struggling to meet women.

  • fakely mctest

    Stories, yes! I feel like everyone loves a good story. In my experience, they don't even have to be super thrilling stories about high-flying adventures, but a little slice of everyday life, cleverly observed, is also fantastic. Realtalk: that's more relatable to people as well. Constantly telling stories about more aspirational things (cliff diving, shark punching, extensive foreign travel) can seem sort of braggy after a while and, when you're kind of swapping stories with people, it's good to give them more of a jumping off point.

    Along the comedy club lines, I'd also like to plug storytelling events, either as date scenarios or as places to go to watch people who aren't pros tell stories. Learn by watching and all that.

    The "makes me laugh" thing reminded me of the prologue from this This American Life episode: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/ep…

    • enail

      Yes, this is so true, everyday life makes for great stories. And giving others a jumping off point is very important; if it's just you trying to tell all the best stories without listening or giving an opening for the other person's stories, that's not actually much fun for the other person. Focus on having fun WITH them rather than impressing them with how fun YOU are.

  • Private

    While I respect what you do for feminism Doc, I admit I'm pretty sick of your articles that come off as "if you change your lifestyle you'll get those HOT women you always wanted." as an above poster stated. I don't want to hear the "everyone has certain fetishes, attractions" excuse. Lets be real..there is a pretty universal standard in beauty especially towards women. Articles like these appeal and work for men, but as women what the hell do we do? while yeah we need a personality the truth is women getting guys is on a looks first basis. I'm sorry to be harsh but as a woman..it's pretty insulting. If you disagree with me I would like a reply from the Doc himself on this issue as to why you may think I'm wrong. I've yet to see you address this issue 🙁

    • Tosca

      I think lifestyle changes and becoming more interesting can work for women, too. Due to our society, there will be men who judge based on looks alone, but not all men are like that. And truthfully, I'd rather know up front that a man rejects me because I'm not pretty, so I don't waste my time on him.

      But I totally understand where you're coming from here. It could just be the stock photos Doc chooses, which aren't of his making or his fault, but all the women pictured in these articles are conventionally "hot" and pictured as prizes for nerdy guys to win. Like that tuxedo pic, while I can see the humor, it just reinforces this mindset: Not only will you have TWO women hanging on you, but they'll be total hot hotties!!

      EDIT: And the bullying picture. Sigh. Women "stolen" from you by bullies. Not to mention, women can grow up bullied, too. I was.

      • Jess

        I think the bully picture was implying that the kid BEING bullied will grow up to steal the bully's girlfriend because he will be a nice fun guy, and the bully is a negative jerk. But I had to swish that one around in my head for a while too.

        • Mel_

          That was my interpretation too. Though it's still problematic to suggest that women can be "stolen" from one guy by another, like a possession.

        • Tosca

          Aside from the problematic aspect Mel mentioned, why do you (nerdy guy supposedly reading this article) even WANT the BULLY’S girlfriend?? Because bullies stereotypically date hot and/or popular girls? Because you want to fulfill some weird white knight fantasy? Hate to tell you, but a girl dating a bully is probably an asshole. Like attracts like.

          It’s a subtle girls-as-trophies mentality, plus assuming a bully’s GF is of more value than the nerd girl.

          • Jess

            Yeah, that was my lingering issue with it too.

          • Shajenko

            Why do you want the bully's girlfriend? SImple – to hurt him. To take from him. To cause him displeasure. It really has nothing to do with her at all.

          • Tosca

            Oh I know. She's just a prop then. Ugh, leave me out of your weird homosocial rivalries, guys!

          • Trooper6

            I'm thinking Tosca has read her Sedgwick, yes?
            I love Sedgwick!

          • Jet Spygul

            Lmao why are you guys taking the stupid picture so seriously? It was an interjection; a quick joke, then you move on to the actual content of the article. Nobody is suggesting that people should "steal" anyone's girlfriend in real life, nor that getting back at bullies should be the main focus of the nerds reading this article. It's meant to make you laugh for a few seconds and relax instead of panicking "oh man am I attractive enough for her" etc. Most people who read these articles are very worried about a whole slew of things or they're feeling stressed out, and the stupid jokes help put them at ease.

    • Clementine Danger

      I know you didn't ask me, but that's not the tone I got from this at all, not this post and not this blog. I mean, this is a blog about dating, for guys, with advice on how they can meet people and have a fulfilling love life. Of course it's going to be about what guys can do to have that. It's not written for us. And I trust the guys who read this to give their own interpretation to what they think an attractive woman is. If their definition of "attractive" is "supermodel hot", that's their problem.

      And the phrase he used in this post specifically is "sexy, intelligent, ambitious women". It's not the Doc who's honing in on one specific part, and he didn't even use the word hot. "Sexy" and "hot" aren't even synonymous. I don't see it here and I don't see it in the overall tone of this blog.

      As a woman, I'm not insulted. In fact I've learned a lot from this blog, even if (and I can't emphasize this enough) this blog isn't meant for me. It sounds like you want to speak for me, me being a woman, and I don't agree. I don't always agree with the Doc either, but that's for me to deal with. This isn't my space, it's his. As far as I'm concerned, there is no issue.

    • CmE

      While I agree that looks matter more for women far more than they do for men, the spectrum of what men find attractive is far wider than is frequently acknowledged. Most men do gravitate towards a norm, it is true ( subconsciously driven by fertility cues such as hip/waist ratios), but there are always outliers and this is a general rule, not an absolute.

      Attitude, personality, and presentation all really matter also.

      • Clementine Danger

        You guys should meet my friend Nell. Now, I don't want to be crass, but she's ugly. Cards on the table, if we're talking conventional standards of female beauty, she misses every single mark. She wouldn't mind me saying that either, because she knows it. She's also the biggest (pun intended) charmer I know. I swear she can get close to pretty much any guy she wants to. Before she got married, she ruled the dating scene. She's so awesome, us skinny symmetrically-featured girls were going to her for advice. It's crazy. I love her. Everyone does.

        I swear Nell is what happens when well-intentioned sheltered people make an after school special about the importance of confidence.

        • CmE

          I don't think that conflicts with what I was saying in the slightest.

          Attitude, personality, and presentation count for a hell of a lot, and the spectrum of what men find sexy is wider than frequently known. if Nell has big wide hips she has an edge over the flatline skinny girls because big hips set big bells ringing in the male subconscious, bells labelled "THIS WOMAN GOOD TO PUT BABIES INSIDE".

          My girlfriend isn't conventionally all that pretty; her breasts are too big for her body (no, I'm not complaining..) and her face is a rather odd shape. But she's confident, dresses in an unusual style that suits her down to the ground, has a wonderful attitude, gorgeous flowing hair, and overall takes what she has and maximizes it to achieve the greatest possible effect. It works wonders.

          When the package comes together she is drop-dread-blow-your-mind-away-beautiful. Pretty becomes an inadequate adjective.

          • Clementine Danger

            "I don't think that conflicts with what I was saying in the slightest. "

            I know. I was jumping in to support your point, not to refute it. I agree with you.

          • CmE

            Ah, ok. I see 😉

            BTW the waist/hip ratio thing is why your average man in the street is not all that sexually interested in your average catwalk model. Unlike fashion designers he wants some curves, not dead straight lines.

          • Clementine Danger

            No worries. I should have made that clear from the start anyway. It's just Nell, man. I'm so glad to know her. And that's only partly because she's my anchor when it comes to believing that looks aren't all they're cracked up to be.

            And I love the way you talk about your girlfriend. No particular point to be made about that. I just love it.

          • Marty Farley

            Okay, I know you're trying to help, but please please please stop with the "average man on the street wants curves!" If you're saying that men's tastes are so different, turning around and saying "Oh but real men want curves" is NOT helpful, because it shames girls without curves. It's just switching one ideal body type for another.

          • CmE

            The lizard brain preferences (fertility cues) of the human male are biological responses. They are not a matter for shame.

            Nobody should be ashamed because they don't match up what evolution dictates is attractive. That makes no sense whatsoever. People, men and women, have a value above and beyond their body type, for pete's sake.

            Should skinny men like me be ashamed because we don't match up, in the inner cavewoman's mind, to David?

          • Gentleman Johnny

            Oh, evo-psych! Yay! But, Mr. CmE, if only the fittest get to mate then shouldn't everyone be a wealth Adonis/Aphrodite?

          • CmE

            LMAO.

            No…that's not how evolution works. Just, ahem, think about why. Really should only take about 5 seconds.

            And stop putting up strawmen because this latest one is paper-thin.

          • Gentleman Johnny

            That's because its not a strawman. Its a satire. There's a difference.

            Oh! Oh! Aren't IT nerds the fittest now? I mean they're basically wizards who run the whole world. So they get all the girls, right?

          • CmE

            Successful satire normally makes an intelligent and coherent point in an amusing manner.

          • Gentleman Johnny

            Humor is so subjective.

            Anyone who watches Crash Course World History recognizes the tone of these as "me from the past", a gag about an undergrad version of the presenter asking hopelessly naive questions based on an oversimplified understanding of the subject. Now in this case I have issues with evo-psych as well, so I'm using that naivete to imply that the entire discipline is equivalent to an oversimplified undergrad understanding of how the world works. Sorry you missed it.

            Oh! Oh! Mr. CmE! Do gay guys look for good caregivers for their children or for good hunters and providers?

          • Thereal McCoy

            Catwalk models do not have "dead straight lines", and I think you know that. You are entitled to believe that some women are not attractive to men. That does not give you license to insult those women.

          • Patrick

            It's not insulting if dead straight lines are what those models *aspire* to.

          • Clementine Danger

            And I think you and I both know the body type CmE is referring to. My sister and my aunt are both runway models, and they do have a body type that's a lot less curvy than the hourglass I'm working with. That's not an insult at all, that's fact. Whether or not guys are attracted to that is debatable, that type of fashion comes and goes, but there's nothing there that warrants coming out swinging. Ease up.

          • Marty Farley

            Yes, but it is kind of hypocritical to say that men have diverse tastes, and then turn around and say "the real men on the street prefer curves." Either we're idealizing a body type (skinny, curvy), or we're saying men have wide tastes… which is it?

          • enail

            Well said, Marty. I think this knee-jerk reaction of 'men don't like skinny models, they like curvier women' is no more productive than saying 'men only like skinny models.' Can we not recognize that men are in fact pretty diverse in preferences?

          • CmE

            Think of "what men are attracted to" as a bell curve like IQ. Then it all starts to make sense.

          • CmE

            It's not idealizing. Rationally, no body type is any better than any other, barring health problems at the extremes of fat and thinness.

            But subconsciously, the male lizard brain sees fertility markers and it responds. This is fairly well-established.

          • Marty Farley

            Fine, then if we're going to sit here and say the male lizard brain responds to fertility markers, then we can't also claim men have diverse tastes. If you're saying, like you did above, that male preferences are bell curved shaped, then men DON'T have diverse tastes. It means most men's tastes fall pretty in line with each other, and that there are minority extremes. So then girls complaining that guys only really favor a particular look are, for the most part, right.

            You can't claim men like diverse looks, and then simultaneously claim most men prefer <this thing.> It just doesn't make sense.

          • Clementine Danger

            That line of reasoning would only make sense if he said that body shape was the ONLY point of data that determines attraction. He didn't, and it isn't. Body type has its influence. It is not the only influence.

          • CmE

            Yeah, it is very clear to me what the bell curve is of male body preferences.

            It is much less clear what percentage of attraction (if you can quantify such a thing) body curve constitutes for men as a whole, and what that graph would look like.

            I know that my own usual standards for attraction get completely thrown out of whack sometimes by certain things, none of which are body type related…I think?

          • Marty Farley

            He was the one that turned the conversation to body type by discussing curves. Saying "most men likes curves" is stating pretty plainly that men prefer a specific body type. Maybe not overall attraction or looks, but since body type IS part of physical attractiveness, it'd be rather coy to claim a lot of men prefer <this> body type but have diverse tastes in body types.

            It also depends on how you define "diverse." If all guys love long hair, but some like brunette and some like blonde, I don't really consider that diverse.

          • CmE

            Yes, that is what I was stating.

            I don't think I was being disingenuous in any way, considering just how many men there are in the world and how vast the range of their preferences is, even if most do fall within certain points on the bell curve.

            Your hair analogy…yeah, that's not how it is. A more accurate analogy is "all straight guys love hair, a majority prefer long over short" (for the guy out there with a fetish for bald women, sorry dude, I apologize to you now).

          • Marty Farley

            But that still doesn't show that "men's" tastes are diverse. If "men's" tastes are diverse, it means there wouldn't be a clear majority or pattern. Since by your own admission there IS a clear majority/pattern, it means "men's" tastes are not diverse.

            It's like using a bell curve to grade a class, and then saying just as many people got F's as C's. Just because a very small minority of men prefer Y, while the majority prefer X, does not make the taste of all men diverse; it means that if a deviant from the norm exists, it exists in a very small circumstance.

          • CmE

            As below:

            I think we have different definitions of diversity.

            If the majority population (say 70%) of City X is white, but there are reasonable black, Hispanic, Pakistani, SE Asian-descended minorities, I would call City X reasonably diverse.

            That's a reasonable analogy to what we're talking about here, no?

            And there isn't exactly a man shortage in the world, so while I wouldn't say there's someone for everyone, I wouldn't sweat it, either.

          • enail

            I think it's considerably less extreme than that – there may be a majority that prefers a certain type, yes, but the minority is not an insignificant one, even if the majority is louder. And, of course, there are many people who find more than one body type attractive.

          • CmE

            Or who prefer body type X but go for girl Y who has body type Z because her body is good enough and she has other awesome attributes that make her desirable.

          • Marty Farley

            Well now we're just probably just arguing meaningless details, but I still think it's ridiculous to say men's tastes are diverse while also claiming most men are attracted to this specific type. Just one or the other, please.

          • Robert

            Diverse does not mean that the preferences are uniformly distributed. It just means that a lot of different preferences exist. If all bar 1000 men in the world prefer 1 body type and each of those other men prefers a different body type (to each other and to the majority), that's 1001 different body types preferred. That's diverse.

          • Robert

            Oh, and therefore you are presenting a false dichotomy. We can claim that men's tastes are diverse while also claiming most men are attracted to one type without making a contradiction.

          • Gentleman Johnny

            it is unless you consider it like "in theory men prefer this sort of appearance on average. In practice, looks are not nearly as important a guy's romantic interest as all that."

            Forget the bell curve vs specifics for a minute. The reality is that most guys (in my experience) don't have a single point on the scale that's attractive. They have a very wide range of factors in body shape, hair, intellect, sense of humor, talents etc that all mix and match individually for individual guys to determine whether or not a particular woman is attractive to them. Its hard to imagine any but the most shallow guy going "we have compatible personalities, aspirations and interests but I just will not date a woman whose waist to hip ratio is above 2/3."

          • Max

            I think most guys are like me; nobody is only attracted to women who have x and y proportions, we have a pretty sizable range of attractive body types. "Curvy" is probably near the middle of most guys ranges, but we still find women who near one side or the other of the ranges attractive, also. The wide range is what the above posters are referring to when they say men's tastes are diverse. Yes, the majority of guys like curvy women, but a lot of those guys like other types of women, too.

            And we're just talking about physical attractiveness, we haven't even scratched the surface of attractive personality types, which I believe is even more varied.

          • Marty Farley

            If tastes are so diverse, then why does most advice say the same thing? "Be fun" "be confident" " dress to elongate your body and maximize your waist." (for women.)
            It doesn't make sense to me that if there is diversity in taste, there wouldn't also be diversity in advice…. and most advice across all the attraction-geared blogs/books/articles I read is essentially the same.

          • Robert

            Short, cynical answer: Because the advice is geared towards the majority of the target audience while those who differ from that majority get overlooked.

          • CmE

            Because people when giving general advice are trying to accommodate the preferences of the majority. Otherwise their advice is less likely to be successful.

          • Max

            Well those first two things are not inherent attributes; they are things that people can change. And being fun and confident is generally helpful in most areas of life. Everyone likes fun and confident(aka not insecure) people, not just single dudes.

          • CmE

            Diverse enough, I think, for all practical purposes. There are a lot of men out there. Despite most men's preferences falling within a band I could easily name plenty of men of my acquaintance who have preferences that are all over the shop.

            But are men's preferences equally distributed – no. Of course not. But we all knew that already.

          • Trooper6

            Actually, that isn't all that well established. I was just reading a report, I wish I could find it now, that notes that men and women in countries with more oppression of women tend to go with your "lizard brain" tastes–preferring more sexually dimorphism in their mates, and the sort of social traits you'd expect–women wanting older men with money and men wanting younger women with child bearing hips. But in countries where there is more social equality between men and women, those distinctions melt away and men and women like mates you are less extreme on the gender polarity.

            Also, we aren't lizards. We are sapient being with rational minds that continue to develop over time as we age. We do not have the same brain structure, social structure, physical needs, or environment as cave men.

          • CmE

            AFAIK research done globally has shown a fairly consistent preference for waist/hip ratios among men of all cultures with not all that much significant variation. I can drag the links up if requested.

          • Clementine Danger

            I'm interested in those, if it's not too much trouble.

          • CmE

            http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/18/magazine/18fob-…
            http://www.ehbonline.org/article/PIIS109051380700…
            http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hbe-lab/acrobatfiles/…
            http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&a…

            for starters!

          • CmE

            Even blind men display the same preferences as sighted men, and blind men haven't exactly been subject the blizzard of visual media the rest of us have all our lives.

          • Gentleman Johnny

            Keep in mind that WHR is not hugely variable. It doen't do from 4/1 to 1/4 in nature. OK, so the first one says its all about the .7 WHR. So that says (for starters) that a 36-25" figure is equally attractive to a 52-36" figure given the same height.

            Second: "In Peru, within a vast park whose core serves as a kind of societal preserve, because outsiders are almost completely barred, a pair of scientists with line drawings discovered that Matsigenka men don’t favor women with lower W.H.R.’s at all. Among a Matsigenka group living just outside the park and within reach of Western media and modernity, meanwhile, the researchers reported tastes in female forms to be more similar to those of Western men, and in a nearby area, among a tribally mixed population with yet more Western contact, male preferences were no different from those in the West. Culture, in this study, appeared to mold the shape of lust."

            Second article requires me to register. I don't love you that much.

            Third article shows that the bell curves are in fact significantly different with the rural Africans preferring a lower WHR than Americans, which is basically what Trooper said.

            Fourth article costs money. First section discusses WHR changes in Playboy models without specifying those changes. Parts 2 and 3 refer to American men, and ar ethus not cross-cultural.

            Collectively they do agree that American men prefer something close to this. I don't think that's a surprise to anyone. The question is whether that preference has a meaningful effect on their decisions of who to date.

          • CmE

            No, rural Africans prefer slightly higher WHRs than Americans (0.8 to 0.7, where the images presented range from 0.5-1.0). This is not significant when you factor in that local African women are likely to have slightly higher WHRs than your average American woman and the men are simply responding to what they are used to (nothing to do with the "backwardness" of Cameroonians).

            The Matsigenka results are anomalous to the overall data and particularly anomalous when compared to the Dutch study of blind men, which it seems you ignored.

          • Gentleman Johnny

            Third article, Tanzanians. Bell curve tops off at .6. So now we've got a fairly decent difference between two African cultures. But "men respond to what they are used to" IS significantly different from "everyone likes exactly the same thing".

            And yes, I ignored the blind men study because the methodology was (necessarily) significantly different from all of the others. It was testing for something different and it demonstrated something different. However its worth noting that with the exception of the .14 WHR difference in the mannequins, they were identical westernized ideals. How do I know this? You ever seen a mannequin that isn't?

          • CmE

            Wait, what?

            The Tanzanian Hazdas and the Cameroonian men are reporting near enough the same WHR preferences, not different ones as you seem to be implying.

            The Hazda data also shows that the actual WHR of Hazda women is slightly higher than than of actual American women, due to (the authors suggest) differences in diet and activities.

          • Gentleman Johnny

            Look at the Hazda charts again. Chart 1 "attractive", 47% prefer .6 or smaller on a chart that only goes down to .5 and up to .75. Chart 2 "healthy", 65% in the same category. Chart 3 "wife" 50%.
            http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hbe-lab/acrobatfiles/…
            page 6, results.

          • CmE

            No no. You are looking at "profile" WHR results; only when combined with "frontal" WHR (which this study also measured) do you get an approximation of the WHR men prefer as applied to real women.

            When it all boiled out the Hazda men came to a similar WHR preference to the Cameroonians.

          • Gentleman Johnny

            Oh, ok, so its not measuring the same thing as the other studies then, right?

          • CmE

            From the summary of link 3, comparing the preferences of Hazda and American men:

            ". Unlike the
            actual WHR of women, measured with a tape around the waist and the hips and buttocks, the WHR in
            frontal pictures excludes the buttocks. Because frontal WHR gives only a partial picture, we used
            profile views of women to measure men’s preferences for the profile WHR. Hadza men preferred a
            lower profile WHR (more protruding buttocks) than American men. Since Hadza men preferred higher
            frontal WHR but lower profile WHR, and since both contribute to the actual WHR, these results imply
            there is less disparity between American and Hadza preferences for the actual WHR of real women.
            We suggest men’s preferences vary with the geographic variation in the shape of women who have
            wider hips in some populations and more protruding buttocks in others."

            This in every way supports my conclusions: overall a template is preferred with relatively minor local variations due to culture and experience.

          • CmE

            http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-0…

            A rural community is Cameroon is surveyed here: the men report lusting after the 0.8 WHR female figures presented, which is barely any different to the 0.7 preference of your average Indo-European man, particularly given cultural influences.

            BTW women in Cameroon also dig muscles!

          • Gentleman Johnny

            OK, so we've now got a spread from .5-.8 in the studies you linked. Let's just run up what "hardly any different" means in this context using the "ideal" 36-24-36, 5'7" as a basis for comparison.

            .5 WHR
            Hips 36"
            Waist 18"

            .6 WHR
            Hips: 36"
            Waist 21.6"

            .7 WHR
            Hips 36"
            Waist 25"

            .8 WHR
            Hips 36"
            Waist 28"

            Looking at those actually written out, I'd be worried that anything under .8 is borderline anorexic. That's just me, though. My point is that you treat this ratio as if it has some huge number of potential values. Realistically 90% of all women everywhere are going to be between .5 and 1.5. So ever .1 is a 10% variation.

            All of these studies also exclude the fact that most men would rate a woman of the same height to be of different attractiveness if she was a 1.0 WHR and 10% body fat from if she was a 1.0 WHR and 30% body fat. We also don't know how that one performs cross-culturally. From what I've seen of in the studies that had examples, they tend to use an idealized western female form with the one variation. Falsification of the WHR preference would require several sets of body types with several sets of WHR's (say 9 choices instead of 3). These studies each prove only that a very specific body type is more attractive to a given culture than a second (and maybe third) very specific type with a single variation.

            So no, I do not agree with the premise that a .7 WHR is the universal definitions of something all men find attractive.

            Conclusion: all else being equal between two 5'7", 36-x-36 women, guys statistically tend to prefer a woman with a waist between 18 and 28" with men less influenced by Western culture tending to the outsides of the bell curve. . . yeah, I'm still not buying the 18" waist thing. . .

          • CmE

            Actually no one was saying that.

            Cross-culturally, when presented with WHR ratios ranging from .5 – 1.0, men congregate in .7-.8 range depending on culture, and the higher figures for African cultures are fairly easily explicable because pictures given frontally exclude the buttocks, whereas real-life WHR includes buttock measurements, and if you are used to larger buttocks than your average Indo-European is that is what you will prefer. When given profile pictures as well as frontal ones Hazda men reported the same lower WHR as Americans.

            "All of these studies also exclude the fact that most men would rate a woman of the same height to be of different attractiveness if she was a 1.0 WHR and 10% body fat from if she was a 1.0 WHR and 30% body fat." – which is relevant how?

          • Gentleman Johnny

            How is it relevant? You can't present .7 WHR as the end all and be all of attractiveness without taking into account the raw values. Photoshop a Playboy model to change the WHR slightly by bringing the waist out in two pictures and ask "which is most attractive" and you get an answer about that one person. Photoshop someone of a heavier build and ask "which is more attractive" and you may even get the same answer. Take three people of three builds, photoshop them all in the same way and ask "which is most attractive". Remove that picture and repeat. I'd be willing to bet that the first three picked are NOT three different women with the same WHR. All these studies proved is that guys prefer a particular WHR on Playboy models. Do they prefer the same WHR on other builds? We don't know.

            What these studies show is that one WHR range is more attractive than others. It does not demonstrate that this is the primary physical attractor. It does not demonstrate that this ideal WHR applies regardless of the person's overall build (wider hips, wider waist after all). It does suggest that men's choice of optimal WHR varies based on cultural factors including the average build of the local population and exposure to Western culture. You could probably bell curve the set of everyone in the world as being close to the American ideal but there are significant variations between population (20% is significant).

          • CmE

            No one was presenting any WHR as the be all and end all of attractiveness. Not me and certainly not any study authors. This is a complete strawman.

            Though facial symmetry studies have been done…but I wonder if any cross-culturally?

          • Gentleman Johnny

            OK, fair enough, then. Guess I lost track of the original premise.

            Given that the whole world had the same bell curve in these studies (which I still don't buy), though, it still says nothing about the attractiveness of the same WHR on other builds. See Playboy model example above.

          • Talbiz

            while I was in undergrad I learned about the waist-hip ratio, it is pretty universal, but that's the ratio, not height, bmi, weight, etc. The attractiveness of build still changes from culture to culture

          • Gentleman Johnny

            See its the latter part that I have trouble buying. Especially since the H in WHR isn't a single shape. The same H number can be any combination larger or smaller glutes and hip width. Then the ratio moves with larger or smaller baseline measurements. So every WHR had many, many varitations within that number.

          • Gentleman Johnny

            Yay! Contradictory analyses of facts not in appearance. CmE, Trooper6, sources please!

            Full disclosure, I'm more inclined to believe Trooper because it fits my own cultural biases about "backwards" authoritarian cultures.

          • Trooper6

            I'm having a hard time finding one of the original papers I read, this was all a bit the rage concerning the emergence of less dimorphic mate selection preferences coming out of Sweden a couple of years ago. However, here is one of the more famous articles on the opposite side of the debate than Buss and the other evolutionary psychologists:
            http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/anthro/faculty/fiske/f…
            "The Origins of Sex Differences in Human Behavior: Evolved Dispositions Versus Social Roles"
            by Alice H. Eagly and Wendy Wood

            and also (this one I don't know if everyone can get access to): http://pss.sagepub.com/content/23/10/1176.full.pd…
            "Stepping Out of the Caveman's Shadow : Nations' Gender Gap Predicts Degree of Sex Differentiation in Mate Preferences"
            by Marcel Zentner and Klaudia Mitura

            Generally this debate is being waged by evo psych guy Buss on one side (rape is genetic, and so is guys dating their secretaries) and socio-cultural scholars Eagly & Wood on the other (um…no it isn't). So if one is going to go the evo psych way, then one should read the other side.

            The three big Eagly & Wood articles are the one I lined above and these two:
            Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2005). Universal sex differences across patriarchal cultures „ evolved psychological dispositions. Beha- vioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 281–283.

            Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of men and women: Implications for the origins of sex differences. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 699–727.

            This article, which, again, I don't know if people not using university servers have access to, tries to work the middle and say that both positions are right:
            http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10508…
            "Sex Differences in Sex Drive, Sociosexuality, and Height across 53 Nations: Testing Evolutionary and Social Structural Theories"
            by Richard A. Lippa

            I wish I could find that stuff on Sweden though.

          • Gentleman Johnny

            Good, now read each other's documentation and critique. 🙂

          • Max

            I don't know what any of you are arguing about anymore, and I don't think you do either.

          • CmE

            And attraction is not a rational choice, as avowedly rational as we like to think our modern minds are.

          • CmE

            Overall, within men as a group, you find significant trends as to what the majority prefer.

            Individually preferences will be all over the place.

          • Thereal McCoy

            I do know the body type. It is curved. Saying they have "dead straight lines" is insulting. I'm disappointed to see you supporting such words.

          • Tosca

            I agree with you, Thereal McCoy. Let's not be hating on any body types, okay?

          • Marty Farley

            Yeah, my comment apparently disappeared, but I really, really wish guys would stop with the emphasis on "curves." Saying that "real men want curves" is insulting for girls who DON'T naturally have curvy bodies. Or for women who have "curves" but in all the wrong places. (I and my mother both suffer from small boobs-big stomach-small hips, so we do have curves, just not where they supposedly should be.)

            Saying "men prefer THIS", even if it's a departure from the accepted norm, is just trading one idealized body shape for another.

          • CmE

            I didn't say "real men", I said "your average man".

            No man actively chooses the body type that sets his lizard brain afire. He doesn't control that programming. It's just there.

          • Marty Farley

            I didn't claim he could, but then let's not flit around claiming men have diverse tastes in body shape. Either they do, or they don't. If you are claiming "the average man" prefer curves, and that "the bell curve" of men prefer curves, that is not displaying diversity, that is displaying a clear preference for a particular type.

          • CmE

            I think we have different definitions of diversity.

            If the majority population (say 70%) of City X is white, but there are reasonable black, Hispanic, Pakistani, SE Asian-descended minorities, I would call City X reasonably diverse.

            That's a reasonable analogy to what we're talking about here, no?

          • Marty Farley

            The point still is, if the majority are subscribing to a pattern, then to claim there's a "wide" diversity isn't true.

          • Robert

            Quoting myself from another part of the comment thread:

            "Diverse does not mean that the preferences are uniformly distributed. It just means that a lot of different preferences exist. If all bar 1000 men in the world prefer 1 body type and each of those other men prefers a different body type (to each other and to the majority), that's 1001 different body types preferred. That's diverse."

          • CmE

            In no possible world could that ever be conceived of as an insult, unless you somehow thought I was saying catwalk models look like corpses. For the record, I wasn't.

            Nice try with the backdoor ad hominem, though.

          • Thereal McCoy

            In this world, saying a woman has straight lines is insulting whether you use the modifier "dead" or not.

          • Jess

            I knew a Nell in college named Lina. Strangest features ever, and a real apple shaped body that she didn't carry well. She was never at a loss for male attention because her energy was remarkable and she was fun and crazy to be around.

            Oh hell, if Pancho Barnes can get married four times and have several hot young lovers, there's hope for any lady.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancho_Barnes

          • Vic

            Translation from womanese : " Lina was an easy lay."

          • onlyyevster

            Are you implying that I'm an easy lay too?

            Are you implying there is something wrong with not waiting an arbitrary amount of time before having sex with a man?

          • Tosca

            Don't you see?? Men have *very* exacting physical standards for women, because evolution! So uggos and fatties can't even HOPE to get male attention. Eeeeexcept if they're "easy". Then men will love them and flock to them and…wait…

            GRR THAT ATTENTION NO COUNT. IS ONLY BECAUSE SLUTTY SLUT SLUT. PUA SUPERPOWER IS READ MINDS OF ALL MEN.

          • onlyyevster

            I'm kinda in love with you right now.

            Screw my experiment, how about you come over, and I'll experiment on you 😉

          • Tosca

            Eeeeeee! When you coming to the Boston area again????

          • onlyyevster

            When I start earning a salary that allows me spending money outside of student loan repayment, rent, and food.

          • Tosca

            awwwwww, poop. I guess I'll have to go there, then. 😉

          • onlyyevster

            awesome! I'm in Rochester, NY. Only like 8 hour drive…

            Also, I hate to say this, but I think I just proved Vic's point. I think I just may be easy…

          • Trooper6

            Wait, I'm in the Boston area! I offer hangouts since we are both local!

          • onlyyevster

            Or the two of you could carpool here!

          • Tosca

            We should so do a Boston DNL meetup!

          • Trooper6

            I don't know about that. There are way too many sexist dudes on DNL for me to be overly excited for a DNL meetup. The Awkward Army meetup? Awesome! A DNL meetup? Oof, I could imagine it going so, so badly.

          • Gentleman Johnny

            Maybe I should drop a resume on Irrational after all. They're in Boston.

          • Gentleman Johnny

            To be fair, if we're talking "Standard" (whatever that is) definition of female beauty, breasts too big for her frame isn't so much a drawback as a requirement.

        • onlyyevster

          Hah! I kinda relate to your friend Nell. Even though I have trouble transitioning to long-term relationships, I have always been good at initial dating, even though I'm not really conventionally attractive (though I wouldn't call myself ugly by any means). I'm just chubby, with a big Jewish nose, and a loud voice that carries for two blocks. My roommate and close friend, on the other hand, is very conventionally attractive. She's petite, slim, with delicate features and a demure demeanor. However, I tend to bring home some very conventionally attractive men, much to her chagrin. Sometimes, it is a bit insulting how surprised she is at my dates.

          The big difference between us is, that I walk into a bar/party/social event, and I tend to be friendly with anyone who wants to be friendly with me, while she acts cold and aloof towards men she finds unattractive. She's not a bad person, and I don't think she's doing it on purpose, but she's always wondering why she is having such bad luck dating. I've tried to explain to her, these unattractive (to her) men often have friends that she might find attractive, but nothing holds as much weight for a man as an endorsement or a detraction from his guy friends. I try to explain to her, that part of being charming is being friendly to people who you don't necessarily think have anything to offer for you

          • CmE

            Why do you want a long-term relationship?

          • onlyyevster

            Are you the helpful commenter on my blog here, telling me to lose weight? http://blogsfeme.com/2012/06/05/but-i-wont-do-tha…

            If so, you're about to get a nice reply there in a minute.

            As for your question, I want a LTR (and I've had a few in my lifetime) because I enjoy that dynamic better than other types of relationships. I am naturally monogamous. I've never had the inclination to cheat when I was in relationships. I want a consistent person who I am very close with, and can talk to, and have weird kinky sex with. I want to be in love, and travel with them, and have them be a buffer for me with family, and be a buffer for them with their family.

            If you suggest FWBs to me, I will find you and handcuff you to something, and beat you silly.

          • Matty C

            This times a bazillion. Friendliness is such a turn-on, seriously.

        • Tim

          The pressure women face to look perfect comes from media and fashion industry…not from sexual preferences of heterosexual men.
          Some people try to conflate the two.

          On TV we are not supposed to tolerate average looking women. In real life those women have no problems attracting men, often better looking than themselves.

          But then again, the average woman is more concerned about whats on the magazine covers rather than the sexual preferences of most men.

          • Mel_

            I am curious to know who you think controls most media, if not men…

            Also, I really would like to see the guys who claim men are perfectly happy with average looking women to get together with the men who claim it's totally natural for men to ignore all but the most attractive women (since why would they want to pursue average women?) and discuss the matter between themselves. Y'all are obviously on completely different sides of this issue and yet you spend all your time trying to convince those of us in the middle rather than each other. I bet it would make for an interesting conversation! 😉

          • Tim

            So? whats the point here?
            The media pushes the beauty IDEALs.

            They say, porn is screwing up men' expectations of what women should look like, but then its women who say "Men are such pigs they would schtupp anything that moves and have no standards"
            I dont want to pay (or utilize my bandwidth) to see average looking people fucking, avg sized penises, avg looking women with avg bodies. But give me an average looking woman for sex any day.

            Men's preferences are not putting pressure on women. Most of it comes from media.
            If they were, why would average looking women, in the real world, GET APPROACHED by men for dating and sex? And I don't mean just END UP in relationships like poor ol average looking men.

          • Mel_

            I like how you claim it's women who say men have no standards and will have sex with anyone, when in another comment today you claimed that men find only 15-20% of the women in the world unattractive. Which means,*you* are saying that men are willing to sleep with just about anyone.

            Anyway, I know lots of average or even somewhat above average looking women who don't get approached by men. I have never been approached by a guy for a date (in person) in my entire life, even when I've gone out dressed up and with make-up on, and I think I'm at least a little above average. I even tried to show interest to a few different guys when I was in my teens and was either ignored or made fun of. In my experience, men don't approach all women, they approach the women they find particularly attractive, and/or the women who are particularly outgoing and flirty. Which leaves the not quite so attractive, more reserved women without anyone approaching them, and often not even getting much attention if they attempt an approach themselves. Sure, maybe guys would be happy to sleep with those women if the women went over and said, "hey, let's have sex", but that doesn't exactly make a person feel like they're attractive, when they know guys don't even find them attractive enough to be worth interest unless sex is immediately on the table.

          • Jet Spygul

            Hmm I think that's pretty much true "men who approach women cold," but believe it or not that only accounts for the super confident awesome dudes who can just approach a girl cold and instantly build attraction, or the douchey-overconfident-shallow guys who you don't want anyways. So you're not missing out. Also you never considered the fact that you were so attractive that dudes straight up were afraid of approaching you.

          • Jet Spygul

            true for**

          • OldBrownSquirrel

            Tim: "The pressure women face to look perfect comes from media and fashion industry…not from sexual preferences of heterosexual men."

            Mel_: "I am curious to know who you think controls most media, if not men…"

            Tim's point is that there's a strong profit motive behind convincing women that they need to look *perfect*, and it's not closely tied to what men *who aren't trying to sell them things* actually want. Just because a women's magazine says that men want women to look a certain way doesn't make it so. I'm afraid you're conflating "the men who run the fashion industry" with "the men who are asking women out" as "the patriarchy," but sometimes there's a meaningful distinction. Most women *aren't* dressing to impress Charles H. Townsend.

          • Mel_

            Okay, I take your point. But the thing is, I have seen regular men picking apart the looks of even women who are famous for being attractive, making fun of women who are less than totally gorgeous (especially if she's overweight), making comments about women's looks when the woman's looks aren't even the focus (e.g., news story about a woman politician or lawyer or whatever, unless she's beautiful, there will always be comments from guys saying, "I wouldn't f*ck her" and so on), etc. I've also seen multiple guys right here commenting on this blog talk about how they don't want to settle for an average woman, they want a "hot" woman or whatever. Just a few weeks ago there was a guy claiming that guys find average women attractive… who then qualified that to define "average" as a woman who wears make-up and stylish clothes whenever she goes out. (Which, if you know many women at all, is not exactly average–most women I know do not wear make-up and especially stylish clothes on a daily basis unless they work in a field that demands it.)

            So I don't think it's surprising that many women think that not just the media, but actual guys want them to look that way. The impression given, by many men themselves, is that men will settle for a not-totally-hot woman, but given the choice, he'd always rather have a hot woman regardless of personality etc. And that if a hotter woman came along and expressed interest, he'd drop his less-hot girlfriend/wife (which leads women to feel they don't just have to be attractive to get attention, but to keep themselves as attractive as possible to keep their boyfriend or husband interested and stop him from leaving). Would you disagree with that? (Not with whether that's actually true, but with whether there are many men who present the situation that way.)

          • OldBrownSquirrel

            Sure, there are men who present the situation that way. The "I want the hot one" approach is probably most common among PUAs, really. There are hot people flirting with each other in bars and going home with each other, and I'm actually inclined to suspect that they all suck (and not in a good way) in bed, the men and the women alike, because all they have to do is *look* good, and future partners are easy enough to come by.

            Back to your comment, I'd add that, with respect to folks my age (and older), many women are inclined to see the real competition, especially in the context of maintaining the loyalty of their current partners, as *younger* women, that it's no longer about 9s and 10s at that point but about 29s, and they see cosmetics (especially things that promise to make the skin look younger), hair dye, surgery, etc. as ways to compete with younger women. It feels like fashion per se is more something that younger women (who don't feel threatened by age) and older women (many of whom have largely given up battling age) use to compete with each other.

            For my part, I'm inclined to see a "hot" woman, with extensive makeup, fashionable clothes, fancy hairdo, etc. as high-maintenance, and I'd *much* rather date someone far less fashion-conscious, especially if they had *brains*. Frankly, I'm much more attracted to women who wear comfortable clothes and less make-up, all other things being equal.

          • eselle28

            "For my part, I'm inclined to see a "hot" woman, with extensive makeup, fashionable clothes, fancy hairdo, etc. as high-maintenance, and I'd *much* rather date someone far less fashion-conscious, especially if they had *brains*. Frankly, I'm much more attracted to women who wear comfortable clothes and less make-up, all other things being equal."

            I think most men feel the same way. However, all things aren't equal. A woman who puts a lot of effort into makeup, hair, and clothing looks more attractive than a woman who hasn't covered the blemishes on her skin and has her hair in a ponytail. When a lot of guys picture the "relaxed" woman, they're picturing a woman who's naturally attractive enough that she doesn't benefit much from those things rather than the way the same woman would look if she removed her makeup and opted for an easy to deal with hairstyle.

            Granted, it's not to the same extent as women make it out to be, but I do think the naturally beautiful woman who doesn't need any of those perks and who also doesn't waste the man's time or money on grooming is actually a less attainable ideal than the traditionally "hot" woman. (It's kind of like wanting a "hot" guy who doesn't get obsessed with lifting or do "girly" stuff like worry about his hair or his clothes. A few people can pull it off, but it's pretty hard to find in the wild.)

          • Mel_

            This point reminded me of this illustration, which someone shared in a similar thread on another article: http://www.happyplace.com/15639/an-honest-look-at…

          • eselle28

            Seems about right. I think the thing that doesn't necessarily come across to people is that "natural" makeup involves at least as much cost and effort (and sometimes requires more skill) than the full face 'o makeup.

            As a member of the Pale People Pack, I kind of wish that my no makeup under the eye shadows were more socially acceptable, but they usually just make people think I need a nap.

          • Mel_

            Yeah, I'm so not trying to say that most men really think that way. I actually believe that most average men are quite happy with an average woman. I'm just saying there are quite a few very vocal men who try to make it sound like all men care only about hotness.

            And I think most average women are also quite happy with an average man. 🙂

      • Gentleman Johnny

        If only supermodel build women and wealthy, high status men got dates, the human race would have gone extinct ages ago. 90%+ of the people you know had a father who wasn't rich and a mother who couldn't win Miss America. Yet somehow those two people managed to get together and have sex at least once.

        If I have any quibble its that "Sexy, intelligent" is redundant.

        • Gil

          Then again a lot of men and women never left any descendants. I suppose you could be pedantic and mention how a lot of people died in infancy. Even so it is said that humanity has descended from 80% of womanhood and 40% of manhood.

          • Mel_

            Yes, that's said by a single person who was making huge assumptions about the implications of one DNA study that looked at a grand total of 73 people's genetic history: http://echidneofthesnakes.blogspot.ca/2013/02/we-…

            Which is an incredibly small sample size. And even if it bore out for the general population, it proves nothing about *why* this is the case. For example, death at infancy is probably equal between genders, but you could argue that it's likely lots more men than women died in battle or hunting incidents before they could have kids (especially considering in many early cultures women were expected to start having kids as soon as they hit puberty, whereas their partners were often older), while the main cause of death for women (before or after illness) has been childbirth, which often meant the baby survived even if the woman didn't. I don't see that "women go mainly for a certain select type of men" is a better or better-evidenced theory than "more women than men survived long enough to pass on their genes."

            We also don't know to what extent ancient women were making their own choices based on personal preferences vs. being forced into sex/marriage with whoever some authority figure chose, which certainly happened in many early societies (and continues to in some societies even today).

            In other words, there are far too many variables and that one study is far too limited to draw any conclusions about women's inherent sexual preferences.

          • Gentleman Johnny

            It is said that the red star heralds the rebirth of magic in the world. So the fuck what? Seriously, Gil, worthwhile sources.

    • Number 4

      I can relate to you there somewhat. I'm a woman who gets plenty overlooked if not outwardly dejected because I'm not Kate Upton by any stretch of the imagination. I'm smart, I'm funny, I'm GREAT at banter….and it works well over the phone/online but the minute they meet me in person, you can see their interest deflate like a balloon in a kid's birthday party >_<. Not that you would want to hook up with someone who'll outward lose interest because you don't look like a Victoria's Secret model but is there any advice for us who are 4-5s? Because short of plastic surgery we're probably not going to look like 10s.

      • Tosca

        The only advice I can really give you is to have plenty of current, honest pictures of yourself online. It means you might get less interest up-front, but at least for the ones you DO get, you KNOW they know what you look like and like it!

        • LillyAnn

          That's a great rule for online dating in general. Girls and guys alike. Flattering? Absolutely. Misleading? You can't actually fake what you look like in person. Just own who you are and find someone who digs it.

      • CmE

        If online dating, have honest photos.

        Rigorous diet and exercise for your weight and skin. Most guys prefer longer hair over shorter, if well-maintained. Smile radiantly and breathe confidence and seductive interest. Find a dress style that your (male friends) agree really works for you and maximizes your assets.

        I have never known a woman's form not be enhanced by a well-fitting corset (steel-boned).

        It is perfectly possible to up SR. We can't all be 10s (I never could, lacking the frame and height to add sufficient musculature), but most people can put the effort in to get up around a 6.5/7 with proper work and maintenance.

        I completely believe Dita vT when she says she looks better now at 40 than she did at 20. Facially she's actually not all that attractive (but you have to look really closely to notice), and her body probably wasn't anything too special back then…but my god she's a master of presentation and maximizing what you've got.

        • Number 4

          Thanks for the reply fellas. I do post a current photo online (and its not photoshopped, lol). I think I look the same regardless. Maybe they feel like they can overlook the fact once they talk to me, but then in person realize, maybe they really can't? Just a theory.

          I'll try that corset though, for fun if anything else 😛

          • Clementine Danger

            Corsets are fun. I own some, and I hope to one day own more. They do absolutely jack to help my waistline, or breathing, but they do make me feel all fun and pretty. It helps loads. Plus, if that doesn't work out, there's always steampunk cosplay. Either way you win.

          • LillyAnn

            Going a little further down this rabbit hole; the best dressing advice I ever got was even if it's just a standard bra and panties (though I love the corset or even a slip) get well fitting base clothing (bra, undies, tank, etc). You may think no one can see what's underneath, but I've seen 00 jean size girls look pretty terrible because they wore undies that gave them a weird ass muffin top.

            Not only do your lines looks smoother, but if you feel confident in just your lingerie, whatever it may be, it really radiates through whatever else you wear.

          • Jess

            Don't let your concern of "Oh no, now they're going to meet me in person and they won't find me beautiful," sabotage you.

            It may not be your looks, but that negative insecurity coming through in expressions in your face you can't see, and the way you're carrying yourself.

            Find something about the way you look that you LOVE and concentrate on flaunting that.

        • fakely mctest

          Alternatively: wear your hair at whatever length makes you happy and wear the clothes you think you look good in. I'm sorry, the whole "dressing for men" tone of the first paragraph really gets under my skin. If you want to make changes and they're changes you're happy with, that's awesome, but it seems like you're talking about costuming and I can't think of anything that would make me feel more awkward and horrible.

          Also: in what alternate universe is Dita von Teese NOT "all that attractive": http://celebsnetworth.org/wp-content/uploads/2013…

          • enail

            No universe I've ever been to!

          • Clementine Danger

            She asked for practical tips in a dating context, so that's what she got. Not everything has to be a battle. I used to wear my hair down. Now I put it up sometimes, because someone told me it was pretty. Someone told me I have nice legs once, and now I wear more dresses and heels. It's no big deal. I do look better in a summer dress than I do in a sweater with holes in it. I hardly think I'm caving under the pressure of unrealistic expectations by trying out things other people tell me work for me. No harm in trying something new. I know I was perfectly happy in my old jeans and sweater with holes in it. To my own great surprise, I'm even happier in a summer dress and heels, and I'm glad I put up with some initial discomfort when people gently pushed me to try something different. It worked out great for me. I like my look better now. I didn't expect that to happen, but it did, and it wouldn't have happened unless I took some feedback.

          • fakely mctest

            Fair enough, which is why I put in the bit about being happy with the changes. Some people don't care so much about clothes or like to play around with tons of different looks; for others they're a more static or individual form of self-expression. As always it depends on the person.

          • Tosca

            Agreed. I’d rather just be myself (not sloppy by any means, just not bent-over-backward, balls-to-the-wall dressed and coiffed!). Even if that means less attention.

            All that shit is effort, man. Effort and time and money, and eventually I’m just gonna end up being myself anyway.

          • CmE

            Obviously don't do anything you feel idiotic doing, but if you're trying to hunt men laying a few snares for your prey, baited with an attractive scent, is a wise strategy.

            I mean, I could schlep around all day every day in my mountain clothing and be super-comfortable, but no woman ever finds that stuff attractive. My girlfriend is no exception. So I have to put some reasonable effort into my appearance.

            I don't really need to develop my body either as I do, barring emergencies, but chicks dig muscles and my girlfriend is certainly no exception. I love working out, and in all fairness would do it anyway, but getting and staying sexy is a very decent incentive.

          • Gentleman Johnny

            Chicks dig scars, too. . .

        • Shajenko

          "Most guys prefer longer hair over shorter, if well-maintained."

          It's weird – I do prefer longer hair (by which I mean shoulder length or more), and yet I know a number of women who I think look hot with their short hair. It's really a matter of whether it works for a particular woman.

          • Gentleman Johnny

            That's because there was evolutionary pressure for "hard-to-get" women to have long hair, so men could grab them by it, drag them back to the cave and mate more easily. Easy girls look good with short hair because they don't need to be captured. See, I can play the ev-psych game too!

            (Also, this is another example of satire)

          • Shajenko

            Or because short hair requires the use of tools (a knife at the very least), and without them we ALL have long hair, male and female alike.

    • Tea

      I don't think you can really generalize in either direction and say that men pick women solely on looks anymore than you can say that women pick men solely on looks. If you go out into a Walmart on a crowded day, how many women do you see who don't fit traditional standards of beauty, who may very well be the opposite of traditional standards of beauty, shopping with their husbands or boyfriends? (this exercise works with men as well).

      • Tosca

        True, soooo many different faces and body types find love all the time. It's something people can remember when they feel like all the models of the world pair up and leave everyone else lonely.

    • Marty Farley

      I mentioned something like this in my post up above, but, yeah, sometimes the "sexy women as prize!" kinda pokes at my tender spots. I try not to take it too seriously when coming from the Doc, because the perspective of the Less-Than-Physically-Attractive, Average-Personality woman just isn't usually acknowledged in media. A lot of times it feels like the whole women who exist are either Physically Gorgeous or Ugly But Fabulous. Not a whole lot of room for us average uglies. BUT can we really blame anyone for forgetting we exist if we're such a hidden minority?

      I 100% relate to you, but I think it's also a battle over our sensitivities we have to fight and struggle to overcome on our own. Guys are often going to talk about wanting "the best" options, and we're just going to have to suck it up and deal with it.

      • Mel_

        To be fair, it's not like women usually discuss how they can land an average ugly guy. Women want to be with sexy, smart, fabulous people too–the "best" they can find.

        (Although I totally agree that *in the media* average guys get a lot more attention and are shown in a positive light a lot more often than average women.)

        • Marty Farley

          Yeah it's that second part…. about how average guys are given more attention and shown in a positive light…. that probably pokes at me the most.

          I guess women talk about it, too, but the word "sexy" for women and men conjure up different meanings. At this point in history, when you say a man is sexy, it's usually implying something about his confidence, his allure, his je ne sais quoi. When you say "sexy" to describe a woman, it almost always implies looks or physical appeal.

          Me myself, I don't want a sexy guy per say. I want someone…. well, like me. I think a "sexy" man would probably get on my nerves after a while. 😛

        • Jess

          But then you also get the media portrayals of the average guys as clodding dolts, that happen to be with hot smart women. I don't get it. I hate that.

          • CmE

            It's nerd revenge wish fulfillment fantasy by scriptwriters.

          • onlyyevster

            I hate that too. I would love to see the likes of Tatum Channing fall in love with Rachel Dratch, for her personality.

          • Mel_

            I hate the fact that you pretty much never see a woman who isn't pretty darn attractive in TV shows or movies, full stop. Unless she's a bit character whose main function is to be an unattractive/goofy contrast to the attractive women around her. It's impossible to see a hot guy with an average woman when average women apparently don't exist in TV land. 😛

          • Marty Farley

            In the words of Nostalgia Critic, the old stereotypes are slowly changing…. to be replaced by brand NEW stereotypes! I have seen a few actresses who are "Hollywood Ugly" that we are meant to identify with, because they aren't "pretty" and they're quirky and have fabulous personalities. But the shows undercut this by making these sorts of girls come across as delusional; they're ugly, they just don't know it.

            Me, I'd just like to see *average* people find love. Ya know, people who aren't stunningly beautiful or amazingly charismatic. Just kinda middle of the road on all aspects. I think the only movie that comes close to this is "Bridget Jones's Diary."

          • Max

            Unfortunately, the only place you can find that is literally everywhere else on the planet that isn't movies or TV.

          • Clementine Danger

            British TV. I'm not even kidding. Apparently there's talks about doing a American version of Misfits, and that just made me laugh so hard. The idea of that show cast with Hollywood Average people is hilarious.

            Anyway, you do see a lot more average-looking people in British TV. European TV in general, actually, but I'm not going to go so far as to recommend Flemish TV shows and movies. If they need average-looking or ugly characters, they cast average-looking or ugly actors. The whole Hollywood Ugly phenomenon seems like it might be an American thing.

          • Trooper6

            This is very, very true. The British don't tend to hew as strongly the tyranny of "perfection" as Americans do. Compare, for example, the people on the British soap Eastenders with people on any US soap. Day and night. There are a lot more "real" looking people there.

    • Beth

      I agree. While I do appreciate what the Doc is doing for feminism (a lot!!!), every time he emphasizes getting those hotties/cuties/sexy chicks it feels like a bit of a slap in the face.

      • Max

        The way I see it, "hottie/cutie/sexy" are all pretty subjective. Everyone's hot/cute/sexy to someone. So he not just talking about supermodels when he says that.

    • Vic

      The fact is there isn't much you can do, unfortunately. For the biological reasons that the Doc mocks (but does not refute) – sperm is cheap and eggs are expensive, men overwhelmingly value physical attractiveness and women overwhelmingly value status.

      A guy can learn game and charisma in order to make himself more interesting. (As an aside, I think the Doc misses the mark here. Women don't necessarily want "fun", they want "interesting." When a woman says "That guy is hot," what they actually mean from a male perspective is "That guy is interesting.") A girl can do a bit, but clothes and makeup are not going to turn a 5 into an 8, ever.

      It's not fair that it's much easier for men to make themselves much more attractive to women than vice-versa, but that's the way things are, have been, and always will be.

      • Tosca

        PPPPBTH. When I'm checking out a guy's ass and shoulders and crotch and the way his lips pout just a little and are slightly moist and enjoying the lovely, manly scent wafting off him as he walks by, I'm NOT thinking of sex at ALL. I'm thinking that he is INTERESTING.

        /sarcasm.

        Dude, science is "interesting". My favorite blogs are "interesting".

        Hot men are HOT. Sex: women like it too.

    • Tim

      To answer Privates question.

      firstly, NerdLove might be trying to give the impression that his advice is aimed at ordinary looking/ugly guys who want to score hot chicks and aim higher than their league; but believe me, that mostly happens in Judd Apatow movies. In reality many average looking guys even struggle to attract average looking women.

      Secondly, you are concerned that physically unattractive women cant do anything to improve their dating/sexual prospects. There is truth in it. But you don't realize that there the proportion of physically unappealing / ugly women is much lesser than that of men. There are much fewer women who are considered physically unattractive. If 15-20% of young women are unappealing/ugly, then 50-60%% of young men are considered physically unappealing or ugly.

      Women actually assess men's looks very harshly. This survey reveals that an average woman considers 80% of young men to be physically unappealing. Meanwhile most men see a reasonable degree of physical appeal in most young women.

      • Mel_

        What survey? If you're going to claim sources, it would help to actually reveal what they are. I know I certainly don't consider most of the men I see around me physically unattractive.

        I wonder if perhaps you are conflating "I don't find this person attractive enough to want to go out with him based on looks alone” with "I find this person outright unattractive". Just because I wouldn't call someone good looking doesn't mean I think they're bad looking, just all right. And considering women seem to value personality traits over a particular standard of physical attractiveness most of the time, it makes sense that a guy might have to be particularly striking for them to find him appealing without any sense of his personality. Clearly women don't find 80% of men completely unappealing, considering nearly half of the men in North America have found women who not only dated them but married them (and are still married to them).

        Anyway, I'd much rather be with someone who's dating me for more reason than my being among the 80-85% of women around him he found not-unattractive. It's not exactly flattering to think that the average guy might be equally happy with any other of the majority of women in the world, that he's only with whoever he's with because she was available and at least decent-looking.

        • Tim

          here..
          http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-looks-and-…

          Why do you only look at the ENDING UP part, btw?

          • Mel_

            I don't understand what you mean about only looking at the "ending up" part. My point was that clearly women find a much larger percentage of men than you claim appealing enough to marry (which means, y'know, they also found them appealing enough to date in the first place) and that being dated for no reason other than not being completely unattractive does not make a woman feel like she's really been chosen so much as settled for, which isn't an enjoyable feeling.

            By the way, you might want to actually read that article in more detail. For one thing, I don't know exactly how they phrased the question, but it appears that the respondents were not asked to rate photos based on "most unattractive" to "most attractive" but from "least attractive" to "most attractive". Just because women rated most men as less attractive than the guys they found most attractive, doesn't mean they found those guys actually *unattractive*. Which is supported by the data, given that the women also generally sent messages to men in the "less attractive" side of the range. Why would they "approach" those guys if they found them outright unattractive?

            Also, the data there completely contradicts your argument that guys are totally happy to date average women. It shows that while men rated more women as "most attractive" and fewer as "least attractive", unlike the women, they mostly message the women they find particularly attractive. To quote: "Site-wide, two-thirds of male messages go to the best-looking third of women."

            So what I'm seeing is that *in practice* (which is a heck of a lot more important than in theory), women are much more likely to approach men they see as physically average than men are to approach women they see as physically average. According to the survey you consider so telling, anyway.

      • OldBrownSquirrel

        Obviously I can't see the survey, but intuitively, I'm inclined to agree. Many women will reject a large proportion of men for being too short; men will generally reject a much smaller proportion of women based on height. Many women will reject a large proportion of men for being "excessively" hairy; men reject a much smaller proportion of women for innate hairiness; granted, many men are put off by hirsuteness secondary to PCOS and the like, but that's a fairly small proportion of the female population, and it's actually pathological. I'll concede that most men prefer women who shave their legs, armpits, etc., but given how much more hair many men typically have, I'd argue that the burden of the smooth-bodied ideal falls disproportionately on men. Moving beyond young men, don't forget androgenetic allopecia; hair loss is much less common among women. There are just so many more ways for men to be unattractive, and many of them are very common.

        Other unattractive traits (obesity, bad skin, bad teeth, etc.) don't differ much between men and women, though women are in a better position to cover up bad skin with makeup if need be. Beyond obesity, variation in figure (thin vs. either muscular or curvy) is enough of a matter of personal taste as not to matter much.

        • eselle28

          Women are judged more harshly for being obese than men are. We're also judged much more harshly on age and signs of visible aging.

          Men are absolutely judged harshly on height. Your focus on hairiness seems to be a personal issue, to be honest, since that's something others rarely mention and it's something you've previously stated makes you feel insecure. I would generally agree that men have more traits that might be objectionable to specific women, but the flipside of that is that many of those same men will find women who don't mind their particular weaknesses and who instead care more about other ones. Women who don't tick off the categories that are most important to men can really struggle.

          • Tosca

            Yeah. Notice how Tim said YOUNG women, which usually means college-aged. I'd be put out to pasture!

          • Tim

            Notice how Tosca didn't notice that I ALSO said YOUNG men.

          • Tosca

            You're still full of it! You claimed that OVER HALF of all young men are physically unattractive.

            All young men. A small sliver of the general male population, and more likely to be in the primes of their lives. Over half are *objectively* unattractive, and will have an almost impossible time attracting even average/ugly women? While according to you, only 15-20% of young women are unattractive.

            Don't you think -and I may be going out on a limb here- that the reason you see 50-60% of all young men as unattractive is because YOU ARE A STRAIGHT MAN and your perceptions are being severely influenced by your own preferences?? Do you think maybe just a little?

  • Paul Rivers

    "they tend to focus on the most obvious aspects of what supposedly makes men attractive: looks and material wealth, with “status” following third."

    I read a wide variety of stuff, but I haven't heard any pickup even claim that money was what you needed in at least 5 years- in fact, every "game" or pickup artist blog / author almost always repeatedly talks about how money doesn't matter – as long as you have enough money to buy clothes that fit you and have your own place (so enough money to support yourself).

    • CmE

      Condensed: some people do marry for money. But on its own, it never turned anyone on.

      It's occasionally frustrating that despite how frequently the Doc borrows from the pickup community, he also frequently attributes things to it that he just simply made up out of his own head.

      • enail

        He didn't attribute this to the PUA community, just to men in general (presumably not meaning all men, of course). Pickup artists and game weren't mentioned there.

        In the comments on this blog, I've seen several guys post about women being attracted by money, but those are not usually the guys who say they're pickup artists.

    • eselle28

      Note that the article said "men" and not "PUA sites." There are absolutely guys who like to complain about women seeking men who have material wealth, or who make bitter comments after every suggestion that those things don't matter if you're good-looking or rich. I've seen it here, elsewhere on the internet, and in person.

    • Clementine Danger

      Just to give you some background: my boyfriend is a herpetologist and I'm an aspiring video game designer. We are going to be devastatingly poor. Just to illustrate the point that for me, money isn't an object, but I can see why it would be, without falling back on the blackhearted gold digger stereotype. Three reasons.

      1) The things money can buy. I'll readily believe that there are a lot of people for whom money is the goal, not a tool to get to a goal, but let's not kid ourselves. A lot of the things we want for ourselves require money. I know it's not a nice thing to say, but a person with money doesn't just bring cash to the table. They bring opportunities for a life you might want for yourself. That can be very enticing, and not just on a practical level.

      2) We live in a materialistic, capitalist society. We see rich people as successful people who have their shit together. Just look at some of the movies you've seen in the last three years. If anyone comes in here claiming that Tony Stark would be just as cool without the "billionaire" part of the cool, handsome, brilliant, confident billionaire job description, I will fight them with my fingernails.

      3) The overlap between money and a certain lifestyle. Not going to lie: before I plummeted to way below the poverty line, I lived in a pretty wealthy family. It was nice. I liked it. I don't care what anyone says about rich people, they were just people. It's a "clique" just like any other. There's just certain subcultures people feel at home in more than in others. I don't like the club scene or the business scene. I do like the nerd scene and the upper class scene. I felt at home there, and I knew how to talk and behave. I'm going to miss it.

      So, no, wealth has never been a deciding factor for me. Not even for a fling. But I can certainly imagine someone who isn't the stereotypical money-grubbing villain being attracted to it.

      • Gentleman Johnny

        Best of luck with the video game designer work. I'm out in the Bay Area getting into the tech industry myself. Oh, and if you can handle Boston, definitely drop a resume/portfolio on Irrational. They're pretty explicit about looking for a certain mindset more than they the number of AAA titles you've shipped.

        • Clementine Danger

          Irrational? Really? That's the dream right there. I'd be happy as a clam just making the coffee there, but maybe it's time to aim a little higher. It's not exactly the easiest industry to break into. I'm thinking of going back to college to brush up on my… everything. If you happen to know of any good programs in that sector, let me know.

          It's starting to look more and more like everything I've ever wanted is in Boston. So I guess it's a good thing I'm moving there anyway.

          • Gentleman Johnny

            For me it was the Bay. I can't imagine moving to Boston even for Irrational (one of my two dream assignments) anymore. There are just so many exciting resources around here outside of work that you just can't get anywhere else. Anyway, here's the relevant piece from their website:
            "Irrational Games is always hiring for the right candidate! If you are a talented programmer, artist, designer, QA tester or manager and you believe that you have something unique to offer us, please apply. We will seriously consider your application even if we don’t have a specific vacancy in your area of expertise listed. We are primarily interested in recruiting people who can demonstrate their understanding of how to create great games whatever their level of experience in the industry. "

          • @camharr

            Most companies will consider a cold drop, particularly with a good cover letter and/or portfolio (as relevant). Best chance, however, is good resume + networking in person. Go to trade shows, go to conventions, ask questions, join the IGDA and its mailing lists….

            Best of luck, Clementine! If I can ever answer any questions, feel free to poke me at my Twitter (the account I'm logged in with).

            Signed,
            Member of the games industry 🙂

          • Clementine Danger

            Actually, I have many questions! But I'm not on Twitter. I hate to ask this, but is there some other way I can contact you? I promise I'm not a creepy stalker, I just really need some help and advice.

          • Matty C

            Wow! Was just talking about Irrational at a LAN two days ago…. Have a mate who works there but couldn't remember the name of the company at that moment.

          • Gentleman Johnny

            Now I really want to collaborate with Clem and Yev. Make a demo reel (or game in this case) as a pitch to Irrational. Maybe get your pal to put in a good word. 🙂

          • Gentleman Johnny

            Clem, are you on the Doc Nerdlove forums? I want to drop you and Yevster a message and see if we can get a demo going.

          • Clementine Danger

            Yeah, I'm Devilfish over there. Although I will say right off the bat, the rest of the year I'll probably be busy with a transcontinental move and a wedding and assorted madness. Got a lot on my plate.

          • Gentleman Johnny

            Don't worry, me too. I'll be weekends-only until at least June. We can calibrate accordingly.

      • onlyyevster

        I want to be a game developer! We should team up and put out an indie title!!

        • Gentleman Johnny

          Can I play, too? No time until June, though. Say, what about Interactive Fiction (aka text adventures). I've got some good resources for programming in Inform7.

          • onlyyevster

            Absolutely! I'll code with you anytime! *wink wink* *nudge nudge*

          • Gentleman Johnny

            Cool. I start coding school next month. When I'm done I should be able to stumble through coding Java apps.

          • Matty C

            Have you guys seen Adventure Game Studio? A cool engine for doing old-school Sierra/LucasArts-style stuff. AGS in particular has a very vibrant community and many high-profile indie titles under it's belt (The Blackwell series, Gemini Rue, Resonance, the King's Quest 1-3 remakes, etc) and it's free too.

          • Gentleman Johnny

            I thought that was more Ultima 1-2 top down sprite based. Haven't seen the newer version. I like Inform7 and Interactive Fiction in general because I'm a much better writer than visual artist.

  • McGee

    i think more importantly than being fun is being comfortable with who you are, while doing your best to communicate as yourself with people who are not like you.

    for example im a comic book nerd, so when someone who is non nerdy asks about my interests, i first joke about myself to make them feel like we are not from different worlds. i can for example say "well im a nerd as you can probably tell.. so i spend my time alone playing with action figures. haha just kidding, but i do have a bunch of dorky interests." and then i tell them about it, and maybe follow it up with something like "haha, i suppose it was a couple of years since you read a comic book yourself?" and then the conversation flows forward and they can relate a little.

    another thing i learned is to examine deeply when people seem to dislike something about me or something i do. it forced me to try to understand a lot of different personality types and try to understand how to deal with them. its a very long process but its part of learning how to not be socially awkward i guess….

    when it comes to women im successful i think and i think the reason is because of a couple of things i learned (this may or may not help others so keep in mind when reading)

    the first thing is to dare to be forward about my intentions but without pressuring women. for example ive talked to them like theyre a friend and if we had a good connection i say "you know im gonna do something really forward here but i think youre really cute and cool. would you feel weird if i took your number?"

    if they say they dont mind with a soft, sweet, happy or sensual voice, or if they laugh at you like youre silly for thinking that you offended them, then theyre probably interested. but if they hesitate or look like theyre trying to figure out what to say then it might be good to keep in mind that they might not be interested, or they havent figured out what they think about you yet or they were surprised by your question. at that point its probably good to joke it off….

    and another rule with girls i have is that when i go on a date with them and im attracted to them and want to kiss them, i always ask if they would feel offended if i asked if i could kiss them.

    again the same rule applies here. if they tell you they dont mind in a way that makes you feel like they would like it, i slowly go for a kiss and see if they respond in a good way. but if they hesitate or show any sign of being confused or uninterested or not knowing what to say, i assume theyre either not interested or want to take things a bit slower. and i joke by saying that im probably too forward, and say that i hope i didnt offend them in a nice and friendly way.

    one thing thats good to think about is to be prepared for the no and knowing how to joke it off and move forward to not create a bad situation

    anyway these are some things that helped me but may not apply to others.

    • McGee

      about the kissing… i meant to say that i always go for the kiss at the end of the night even if it feels really awkward. i prepare myself mentally for a no and get ready to joke it off, but i have a rule to always go for it, unless she has shown signs of not liking me.

      • LillyAnn

        *facepalm* You ask permission to kiss them? I know you think you're being respectful, and sorry if this seems harsh, but in my circle, if you have to ask? The answer is no. If you're feeling it, she probably is too. And if she's not, she'll let you know.

        • Clementine Danger

          Agree to disagree. I like it, and I do think it's respectful. Goes to show there's no one thing that works on everyone.

        • Kaz

          I've been in a situation where I really really *really* wish the guy had asked to kiss me. I was incredibly confused about what I wanted (perils of growing up asexual when nobody tells you that's an option), but I'm pretty sure that if he'd asked I'd have asked him to hold off until I got my head on straight. But he just went for it instead of asking, and it turned into an encounter that was pretty traumatising for me and utterly destroyed our friendship.

          Maybe in 99% of the cases it's straightforward, but that 1% can be a real killer. I am all in favour of people asking permission to kiss.

        • McGee

          a lot of girls can be a bit shy or unwilling to make the first move, and even if theyre not shy i dont think its worth potentially making someone feel assaulted. the perfect kissing moment doesnt always happen so i dont think its realistic to stick to the old idea that speaking about things ruins the mood.

          also in my own experience ive found that asking the girl for a kiss makes her heart raise a little and creates some excitement and tension. i find it very nice.

        • Anonyleast

          Intimate physical contact? You bet your ass I'm asking so I don't violate her boundaries by just assuming.

    • Clementine Danger

      "well im a nerd as you can probably tell.. so i spend my time alone playing with action figures. haha just kidding, but i do have a bunch of dorky interests." and then i tell them about it, and maybe follow it up with something like "haha, i suppose it was a couple of years since you read a comic book yourself?" and then the conversation flows forward and they can relate a little.

      I used to do that too. If it works for you, I'll be the last person to tell you to stop, but it never did for me. It's probably just the way I talk, but with me it came off as way too self-deprecating and apologetic. Made me look like a self-hating geek, and I kind of was. Nowadays I just say what I mean. Fly that nerd banner high. "I'm really into sci-fi. Yeah, like Star Wars, I love Star Wars. You know this show called Firefly? Oh my god, you're going to love it, it's brilliant! It's just a whole new take on the genre…" And you're off. (Let them get a word in too, obviously. I personally need to be careful not to geek-rave.) There's no need to apologize for being a nerd. It's who I am. Geek stuff makes me happy. Happy people are fun.

      I know the Doc wrote about this before, but I can't seem to find it right now.

      • CmE

        Self-deprecating humour is a national pastime here in the UK, and I hate it. It so rarely comes across well from anyone and nearly always fake, forced – or, if sincere, self-hating.

        Would The Most Interesting Man in the World self-deprecate habitually? James Bond? Dita von Teese? Angelina Jolie?

        Blehhh.

        • Gentleman Johnny

          He once told a self-deprecating joke that crashed three national economies. He is
          The Most Interesting Man In The World.

          More seriously, though. We can't all be James Bond intense and most iterations are a little stodgy, to say the least. For some people, its easier to be Chuck (in a good way).

        • AFC1001

          I like it much more than the Americanised chest-thumping self-aggrandisement that we're all supposed to aspire to these days, but maybe that's because it's the closest thing I've got to a talent.

      • McGee

        well thats why i mentioned confidence first and connecting with people second. i dont think youre going to come across well if youre not completely confortable with yourself and your role in society. 🙂

  • LeeEsq

    Part of me really doubts this. Not about the money and status part but about the fun part.* I've been told by several people in wildly different contexts that I'm witty, a good conversationalist, and fun to be around. Men told me this. Women told me this. The people and contexts have been so different I have no reason to believe they are lying. Especially since some of them have said some brutal things about other aspects of me. At the same time, women do not seem to view me as romance material. I've seen how heteorsexual women look at men they are attracted to and for the most part can't recall being looked at in that way. There is something about me, something that I'm having a very difficult time placing that is really working against my romance life.

    *Although I think that lots of people, men and women, are really dishonest about their more superficial dealbreakers.

    • fakely mctest

      I think you're really working hard to find the unifying theory of rejection, but chances are there isn't one. People are different. They have different preferences and desires. I couldn't say why people haven't seen me as second date material in the past, but my reasons for declining a second date tend to be really varied.

    • Mel_

      You've mentioned before that you don't think you make a great first impression, that people need time to get to know you before they really appreciate you. It's quite possible that friends and people you've met in more relaxed circumstances see this fun side, but it isn't coming out that much on first dates, where there's more pressure and you haven't had time to get comfortable with the other person.

    • eselle28

      Most people have some superficial dealbreakers. I don't think it's very controversial to admit that. I think the error that's being addressed in the article is focusing on one or two traits that a man must absolutely have (usually ones that the guy in question doesn't possess) to have any success with women, when in reality, women do consider those one or two traits but also value a number of others. Since almost no one can find a mate who's gorgeous and wealthy and funny and passionate and fun, there are a lot of opportunities for people to compensate for weaknesses.

      I suspect Mel is right that your fun side might not be coming out on dates. In addition to the things she mentioned, it sounds like your anxiety is coming across to women and that they're responding in comforting ways rather than in ways that indicate attraction. I think you'd be better supplementing online dating with trying to make some new acquaintances and then asking out women who you've met a few times but who aren't close friends. I know it's a slower process than you'd like, but what you're doing now isn't leading to quick results either, and sometimes trying more than one thing at a time leads to a better chance of success.

      • LeeEsq

        The thing is that I don't think that my anxiety is coming across on dates anymore. I've been on enough of them that I really don't feel anxious any more, just kind of tired and unexcited about date number x that will probably lead nowhere. Like the date I had last week where travelling to and from the date took longer than the actual date.

  • Sim

    This article is spot on. Fun is attractive – it means someone is not self-conscious or embarrassed about being who they are. Seeing someone really enjoy something automatically makes you feel like you're enjoying it, too. If a guy is obviously having a great time talking to me, I'm much more likely to be interested in him than one who's obviously just trying to figure out if I want to go do the beast with two backs.

    Also, "unexpected" fun can make a date infinitely hotter. There's a modern art statue in my old town where you can make music by running around the inside of it and hitting the metal walls/floor. A friend of mine took me to it at 2 am, and we ran around coming up with beats and music for probably half an hour. It was so much fun, especially because it was surprising and spontaneous. That may have been the turning point in our friendship, since I ended up dating him only a couple of weeks later. Although it didn't work out, we're still friends because of how fun he is to be around.

  • LillyAnn

    Sorry can't even finish article until done nerdgasming over Monkey Island XD

    SO MUCH YES.

  • LeeEsq

    Sorry for any griping on this thread or in past threads. My life has been frustrated by a series of expected and unexpected expenses recently and its not helping my general mood.

    • Gentleman Johnny

      Recently?

      I'm not trying to criticize, Lee. It just seems like there's always some major issue in your life that's keeping you down. We all have them. Its how you deal with them that matters. You can let it paralyze you or motivate you.

      • LeeEsq

        Honestly, its the sequester thing thats really making my life a bomber. I had to get a new pair of orthodics (sp?) for my feet recently, which cost quite a bit but were necessary least I need expensive surgery in the future. There were a bunch of others reasons why February and the previous months was expensive but basically I had to spend money now in order to avoid spending more money in the future. The sequester thing directly effects my paycheck because I represent immigrants and can't really afford a shut down of the Federal government or cuts to immigration without really hurting financially. I have savings but really hate going into them unless I have to.

        • LeeEsq

          And while I'm at it, I've been on more dates in the past year than I've ever been on in my entire life and my social life has improved greatly but my lack of getting even a second date is frustrating beyond belief. I am lonely and and bluntly more than a little horny and would like a bit of an indication that things are going to improve soon when I still have time for a relationship.

          • OldBrownSquirrel

            You're doing better than I am these days. I haven't had a first date in close to twelve years.

  • Dave

    Yes, and so much NO. This article had a mild point but it loses it in the nuances and reality.

    The prize for being interesting and fun is not a partner, but to have activities that mean you don't need a partner. A partner provides a shared future/goals together and hopefully regular sex – everything else (and sometimes including the sex) you can get from friends/other people. Having had a quick look at 'building an attractive lifestyle' and 'five places to meet women' articles other people have already pointed this out.

    If your goal as a man who fancies women is to find a woman, and as is implied (and criticised above) a 'hottie' you need to be specific about the activities you do – they have to be the right activities, with plenty of opportunity to talk with available people outside from that activity.

    There is little real difference between what PUA advocate and the above article, other than it's a bit more toned done and nerdy. If you're spending all this time being Oh So Fucking Fun you're probably not actually pursuing the things that truly interest you.

    Let's break it down :

    More activities=more people to meet=more things to talk about when you do meet someone interesting
    Find things that will intrigue your potential partner but require no effort on their part (this is not you being 'fun' – this is a purely calculated move)
    You have to choose things that are likely to be popular. Otherwise you'll be happy yourself, but it may not be a draw for a possible partner.
    This is basically a game, and the article above is a list of tactics. It may be dressed up so that's not immediately apparent, but it doesn't stop it being true.

    A warning though – there is a flipside to this. Assuming you construct a lifestyle that is satisfying, interesting and you may even be a 'fun' guy or gal yourself – this will lead to meeting more people, and will probably lead to some offers of a relationship. Job done, right? Wrong – aside from the fact that there may be red flags raised by the person offering a relationship by the time you've constructed an interesting lifestyle yourself, that may be precisely what you expect from the person offering a date. Available, compatible, interested in you *and* interesting isn't necessarily common.

    Anyone can do more activities, meet more people and find more to talk about. Not everyone can do 'fun' *particularly* if it's at odds with what they'd actually like to do. At least be honest it's largely about the former, and not the latter.

    • CmE

      Interesting.

      I met my girlfriend at university in class, which is of course the perfect meeting ground. I do have to sympathize with people without such opportunities as I benefited from at that time, who would rather not be doing activities where you are likely to meet women, but want/need to play that game to get laid or find a partner.

      For sure if I was single and stuck exclusively to tennis, Magic the Gathering, poker, and working out (my major hobbies) I would remain single for an awful long time.

    • enail

      I feel like I'm not quite following your whole argument here. Certainly, I agree that fun things should be there own reward and one doesn't get a partner as a prize for doing fun things. But I'm not sure in what circumstances 'fun' would be at odds with what a person would actually like to do – how do you define 'fun'?

      I also don't quite get what you mean by this bit: "aside from the fact that there may be red flags raised by the person offering a relationship by the time you've constructed an interesting lifestyle yourself, that may be precisely what you expect from the person offering a date."

      • CmE

        I think he means that "fun" activities where you're likely to meet women and that are attractive to women might not be all that interesting to you. So rock climbing might be an awesome way to meet women (spoiler: it is), but I might have no interest in rock climbing, or in rock-climbing-esque activities. I might prefer to sit in the casino playing poker all day for my living, or at my local games store in the evenings after work doing MTG drafts with the boys. That to me is the epitome of "fun".

        I don't know how valid this argument is as a criticism, but I think this is what he was getting at….

        • eselle28

          I can understand that argument, and I can't honestly recommend looking for partners at hobby groups where you find the activity in question insanely dull. I can't speak to dating, but I've attempted to make friends by joining knitting and crafting groups. I find I do better with people elsewhere. I'm not at my best when I'm bored and frustrated, and it's hard for me to find people who I have things in common with or show people what's interesting about myself when the main subject of conversation is something that bores me. I've bumped into some of the exact same girls I met at those groups doing theater activities, and I had a much better connection with them there, when the starting point was something we both liked.

          That being said, I don't think there are many people whose interests are so terribly gendered that there's nothing they can find that both men and women tend to enjoy, and it's worth it for people to consider if there are any activities that they'd like that aren't so terribly gender-centric. In your case, I'm sure you've found that there are plenty of women who enjoy bars and gambling.

      • LeeEsq

        What I think that Dave is saying is that if you are a "fun" person but your idea of "fun" isn't exactly popular than it might not really help your dating life. To use a personal example, I really have a fun time partner dancing. I especially like the ballroom dances of waltz, foxtrot, ballroom tango, and Viennese waltz, and quickstep. Partner dancing is not really the world's widespread activity even if there has been somewhat of an upswing in possibility. If I'm on a date with a woman and she asks what do I like to do for fun and say that I like to partner dance, she might feel that if she might be impressed. Alternatively it could be turn off, a woman might think that I'd expect her to learn how to dance so we could do it together.

        • LeeEsq

          Continuing, if I gave a more mainstream answer like going to basketball games would help more. A lot of people think watching sports live is fun. Its certainly a more mainstream form of entertainment than partner dancing. Its certainly less of an investment in time and even money than dancing, which isn't the world's cheapest hobby, especially if you want to do it well. So liking going to basketball games could help more than liking partner dancing because a potential partner will be able to have fun with me with less of an investment.

          I'm actually kind of agnostic about whether I'd want a girlfriend to learn how to dance. There are plenty of dancers, professional and amateur, that I know that are in successful relationships with non-dancers. At the same time dancing is really fun and it would be nice and romantic to do with with a girlfriend or wife. What would be a definite deal breaker is if she asked me to give up dancing. Thats a big no, no. I want to dance until I can't physically do it anymore.

        • Gentleman Johnny

          Except the article really isn't about choosing lifestyle activities. Its about the way you socialize with other people once at those activities. The premise is that attractiveness is determined by personality, especially things like sense of humor, active listening, genuine interest in other people and the ability to make them feel good about themselves. That's just as useful for meeting people in Magic tournaments as it is in white water rafting. So. . .yeah, apples and oranges.

          • CmE

            Ok, but you will meet no single women in Magic tournaments. Literally a big fat zero here in London. You will barely meet any women period, who are perhaps a 3% minority (and that's a very optimistic number).

          • Gentleman Johnny

            No article is all things to all people. Check the links for the actual article about choice of social activities with plenty of women in them.

          • CmE

            Ok, but I think OP's point (not saying I agree with his analysis) is that he might not find the social activities than draw plenty of women fun.

          • Mel_

            The weird thing is, this article isn't even about going to lots of social activities where you'll meet plenty of women… It's mainly about developing a fun attitude and taking pleasure in the things you enjoy so that when you *do* meet women (in whatever situation, whether it's a generally fun one or not) you'll be able to show that fun side of yourself. So count me among those puzzled by the OP's comment.

          • Dave

            I disagree. I believe the article is precisely about going to lots of social activities. Every single point above has the subtext of 'go to lots of different events, talk to plenty of people'.

            I think there may often be a large difference between focusing on what you enjoy (whether this is solitary or involves lots of people) and what is most likely to be perceived as being 'fun'.

            For a series of dating columns aimed at the less than successful at dating, it somewhat irritates me there appears to be a lot of thinly veiled subtext that may not be obvious to others.

          • LeeEsq

            I'm just trying to interpret what Dave is saying for Enil. I know that isn't the purpose of the argument.

        • enail

          Oh, so it's about appealing to the broadest range of people possible? To me, I'd think that it's better to focus on being 'fun' with things that you actually enjoy; you might have fewer people who jump at those activities, but they'd be people more suited to your personality. Like a person who either would like to partner dance herself, or who isn't particularly into it but thinks it's cool that you do it would probably be a better match for you than someone you'd meet if you said you like to do whatever the activity most popularly considered 'fun' is.

          Of course, I think it's also good to widen your range of interests and improve your ability to express your interests in a way that more people can find fun. Sometimes people get stuck on a very limited idea of who they are, what they're capable of enjoying and who they can connect with.

          • LeeEsq

            I don't think thats quite what Dave was trying to say. What I think Dave was trying to do was present DNL's advise in more cynical terms. Basically, PUA version of the column. While DNL was trying to give dating advise based on being a fun person in terms of personality and liveliness regardless of your actual interests; Dave is saying that it doesn't work that way. In Dave's worldview, at least thats in my reading, even if you are a fun person, you might not pick up a woman if your version of fun isn't exactly popular it can function as a giant turn off rather than a turn on.

          • Mel_

            I'd disagree with that idea (if it is what Dave is saying). I mean, unless your idea of fun is serial killing or something. Yes, if your version of fun is nerdy things, that might be a turn-off to some women… but those obviously aren't the women you should be dating. There are lots of nerdy women for whom a guy who's only enthusiastic about sports and partying would be a turn off. I don't think there are many hobbies and interests that *no* women find remotely interesting if the guy is enthusiastic about them. Which is why attitude is key.

          • Dave

            Yes, but you still have to meet your partner! Whilst to be pedantic, there are no activities that no women find remotely interesting, there are quite a number where the gender balance is incredibly skewed in one direction.

            If there's a very small dating pool finding a partner is hard, because compatibility and deal breakers haven't even been added into the equation.

          • Mel_

            Dave, it seems to me that the problem you're having is you're expecting this to be a "how to meet women" article when it's actually a "how to become a person women are more likely to find attractive" article. No one is saying that all you have to do to meet women is have fun. But if you have a fun attitude and enthusiasm for things in your life, even if those pursuits are mainly solitary or in areas where you don't meet women, when you *do* go out for the purpose of meeting more women your attitude and enthusiasm will make you more appealing. I'm not sure why that's so hard to understand? I'd much rather talk with a guy who's enthusiastic about a hobby I don't personally engage in than a guy who's unenthusiastic or negative about a hobby I do enjoy.

            DNL has other articles that focus on the where to meet women part of the equation.

          • CmE

            I think he's saying that for some people meeting women is considerably less fun in the process than other stuff you could be doing.

            Personally, I think this is called compromise.

            Yes, my dream girlfriend would sit up all night playtesting new Modern decks with me, but that's never going to happen, and I'm wonderfully contented with my actual girlfriend, who just smiles and lets my mates and I get on with it.

          • Dave

            The issue is that's not how this is presented. Take the paragraph 'Small wonder that they were so consistently successful.'. The clear overriding theme is 'do this, you'll find women'.

            The truth is as you state, but I don't think everyone would see it this way. It may be that I'm splitting hairs here, but for someone offering dating advice I see sophistry rather than more direct advice.

            I'd also argue about 'more appealing' – more appealing than having *nothing* interesting about you, yes, but in some cases having passion for the 'wrong' subjects is only marginally better than having no interests at all.

            The real advice here is, unsurprisingly, to meet lots of people and have enough activities you've carried out in the past so as to offer the largest possible chance of producing a topic you both find interesting. Now, that does work, and it works well for finding friends and hopefully one of those will develop into a relationship.

          • Gentleman Johnny

            You know, if the guys in geek hobbies made the environment more inviting to women, that wouldn't be a problem. Go to an anime con sometime. You don't have to buy a ticket, just walk the halls. You'll find a much better male/female balance. This represents a tectonic shift in anime culture. Pre-Internet, anime was largely a solitary, basement dweller hobby. In the 90's we often joked that you could find the anime con in your city by following the smell. With the advent of the Internet and the rising popularity of cosplay, the entire community became more conscious of hygene and social interaction. It was part of the overall mainstreaming of all things geek but its been very rewarding to watch and I'm not even much of an anime fan.

          • LeeEsq

            I kind of agree with Dave on this. While the gender balance in nerdy activities is a lot better than it was in the past, it still leans heavily male for a variety of reasons. One is that a lot of nerdy men are very ambiguous on how the feel about there being women in the community as we discussed very recently on this blog. If you're into an activity the leans heavily towards a gender you feel no attraction to than you are going to need to look elsewhere for dating partners or really compete/get lucky.

          • LeeEsq

            Also, a lot of people don't like dating in their hobby communities for the same reason that a lot of people don't like dating people they meet at work. The sacred principle of "don't shit where you eat." A lot of the dancers I know, amateur and professional, are in relationships with people who don't dance at all and never gave it a try.

          • Mel_

            I don't think that's actually true (about the gender balance) any more. Maybe in certain areas of nerddom, like FPS video games and RPGs, but there are tons of female anime fans, SF and fantasy book and TV show fans, etc.

            And again, you can have some activities you do for fun, and some you don't find quite as fun that you do to broaden your social circle. Your enthusiasm for the former is still an assets when it comes to the latter.

          • CmE

            My local live gaming scene (not just Magic, 40k, Warmachine, D&D as well from what I can see) are comfortably 95 % plus male.

            Poker is also heavily male-dominated as well, again probably around 90-95%.

          • Mel_

            I'm not sure what your point is? I acknowledged that certain areas (particularly many types of gaming) are still male-dominated. But most women who love manga or writing Star Trek fanfiction aren't going to see a guy's different but equally nerdy interests as a problem. Remember, I'm not talking about activities you do to meet people, but what you can talk about enjoying when you do meet people in whatever context.

            And… I wouldn't call poker a nerdy interest. James Bond plays poker. It's generally portrayed as a pretty "manly" pursuit.

          • CmE

            Poker is massively nerdy especially at higher levels because it's so math-orientated. I mean your average 2+2 strategy forum is just a bunch of nerdy guys interacting, by which I mean they flame each other mercilessly all the time, do equity math, and occasionally stick photos of semi-naked women up. It is that crude. I am not exaggerating.

            Not all the good players are savant Stu Ungar types, but really quite a fair few are.

            No normal person who isn't a complete fool is going to view nerdy interests as a problem. They don't have to be especially nerdy themselves.

          • OldBrownSquirrel

            Alyssa Bereznak either isn't a normal person or is a complete fool. You're familiar with that story, yes? She went on a date, organized through OK Cupid, with Jon Finkel, a champion Magic: The Gathering player and poker player, and wrote about what a huge nerd he was on Gizmodo.

          • CmE

            Yes, yes, almost everyone who plays magic seriously heard about that one when the story broke.

            I mean obviously a complete fool, and a rather cruel one at that.

            Just bad luck for Finkel, but he runs pretty good at life, and while I'm sure it hurt I don't think he was deeply wounded or anything. At the end of the day he is a big shot and she is not. Which one came out smelling of roses again?

          • OldBrownSquirrel

            Finkel seems to have bounced back — media reports are that he got plenty of date offers in the aftermath — but it read like an online dating horror story to me, and probably to a lot of other geeky guys.

            (preemptively acknowledging obligatory Margaret Atwood quote about what men fear when dating vs. what women fear when dating.)

          • CmE

            Horror story is all relative. When you're Jonny Magic and people write books about you and you're worth 7.5 billion dollars or whatever then eh, who cares if some idiot spouts off on the internet.

            I'm guessing that's why he didn't seem too crushed.

          • LeeEsq

            I think Wired had the best take on the article, it was written because it made good copy. They were right, people still remember it.

          • eselle28

            Alyssa Bereznak isn't a normal person. For starters, she's a blogger, but beyond that she's had a very odd life if you read any of her other writing.

            That being said, yes, there will be people who react negatively to nerdy interests. I've had men react negatively to mine. I find it easier to just be upfront about being a big dork, but even then there will be some people who ignore it or don't get it. But, here's the thing: it's ultimately not that big of a deal. You might go on a date now and then with a woman who doesn't like or respect you're interests. She'll decline an offer of a second date, and at absolute worst will tell her best friend about how she was bored. That's not fun, but I think it's worth it as a price of admission of dating.

          • Marty Farley

            Agreed. I don't always agree with the "you need to like yourself before others like you," but in the world of dating sometimes you'll run across people who just don't get you on any level. Those are the times where liking yourself is vitally important; you need to just be able to shrug, say "My stuff's cool," and go on your merry.

          • eselle28

            Yup. And if you think about it, would you really want to date that person anyway? If someone has so little respect for your interests that they'll reject someone they otherwise like due to that factor, what would it be like to date that person?

            I know a few people who married people who disliked and resented their hobbies, and the end result seems to be either having to give up everything your spouse doesn't enjoy or having to constantly fight over whether that hour or two on Saturday afternoon is a worthwhile way to spend time.

          • Marty Farley

            Right. I don't think it's necessary to like everything your partner likes; heck, you can actively dislike them! But you have to accept that THEY like them. If you can't do that, the relationship will probably bend under the pressure.

            The good news is, I think the number of geeky women is growing exponentially, so I think geeky guys shouldn't have TOO hard of a time finding someone who likes or even just tolerates their hobbies.

          • OldBrownSquirrel

            "The good news is, I think the number of geeky women is growing exponentially"

            I'm afraid that's only really true for younger generations, though.

          • OldBrownSquirrel

            I'm considering becoming something of a closeted geek on my online dating profile. I figure I might actually get a first date that way, even if I don't get a second.

          • eselle28

            Well, you may want to try both versions. Since you haven't started dating, I'd suggest being open about it at first and seeing if you find someone appealing that way. I'd note that the women who would be most compatible with you might respond well to that profile, and badly to an attempt at a mundane one. If it doesn't work, you can always experiment with taking some geeky traits out.

          • OldBrownSquirrel

            I've tried sending polite, well-written messages and gotten polite, well-written rejections, so that approach doesn't seem to be working. I suspect that I'm just putting too much out there, and women are able to figure out that I'm not what they're looking for without actually having to date me, and I'm not getting any real feedback on what the problem is. I figure I might have better luck getting first dates, if not second dates, if I'm more of an enigma, and first dates might at least provide me some feedback on what the problem is. "It was all going fine until I mentioned Star Trek…"

          • Gentleman Johnny

            Have you tried the other way yet – over the top campy nerd-dom? It'd take a bit of work to convey properly in text and I'm not promising you could make it work but if you can get someone to laugh with you about your interests instead of at you, you've made a connection.

          • OldBrownSquirrel

            My profile's kinda like that, actually, and I'm wondering whether that's putting women off. I get the impression that the number of women born before about 1980 who are willing to consider dating geeks was always small, and the number who are single is vanishingly small.

          • enail

            There's a thread in the forums for critiquing online dating profiles; you could get some opinions there.

          • Trooper6

            OldBrownSquirrel, you and I are in the same age range. Actually, you and I seem to have a lot of superficial physical similarities. But I'm not nearly so doom and gloom.

            Location, location, location. I am in academia, there are lots of single geeky women here.

            You have to realize that there are different communities of people. The people are out there. You just have to find them.

            You just aren't going to be attractive to many of them because you are in a messed up attitude space at the moment. You say you can hide it easily, but you'd be surprised at how many people can pick up on self esteem issues, bitterness, cynicism, and poor attitude about women.

            Work on yourself, give yourself time to heal.

          • Joy

            I was born before 1980 (though admittedly not by much), I am a never-been-married single woman, and I consider a degree of geekiness not a flaw but a really nice bonus. We aren't unicorns; we do exist. 🙂

            If you're running into a lot of women who seemingly have no tolerance for your interests, my suspicion is that either your peer group/geographic area/etc. is particularly geek-unfriendly, or it's more to do with the way you're presenting yourself and your interests than what those interests are. I live in the Midwest–a very nice area of the country, but not exactly Geek Mecca–and I've never experienced the amount of derision you seem to expect as a matter of course. People may not share or understand some of the things I'm enthusiastic about, but their reactions mostly range from bemused tolerance to interest to the occasional (and awesome) "oh, me too!"

          • Gentleman Johnny

            You know, this whole conversation is starting to make me wonder. . . is the whole "fake geek girl" phenomenon a result of men being unwilling to be up front about their geekiness for fear of ostracism? Therefore geek guys assume any woman who publicly defines herself/her interests as geeky must be fake because no one who really was would fly their geek flag proudly? I think I might be onto something here.

          • OldBrownSquirrel

            This doesn't follow. If anything, it seems to me that geeky men have more to fear socially from flying their geek flag than geeky women, since geek-tolerant women are still relatively scarce, but that's never stopped geeky men. If there's a social stigma associated with something — and I'm going to draw an analogy to homosexuality here — that doesn't lead you to question the sincerity of people who are out of the closet; rather, it leads you to question whether people in the general population who aren't out are actually closeted, i.e. whether perhaps they're fake "normal" people. Nobody questions that Dan Savage is gay, but people wondered whether Manti Te'o was (it appears not) after he was revealed to have a "girlfriend in Canada."

            I have two explanations for the "fake geek girl" accusations:

            1) Some geek guys who are insecure about their masculinity (perhaps as a result of homophobic bullying during their adolescence) have a vested interest in certain geeky interests being seen as manly. This is most evident in comic book fandom, where female cosplayers, with their curves and their sewing, are perceived as threatening to make fandom feminine.

            2) A variation on the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, with some sour grapes mixed in. Men clumsily approach women at cons, convinced that "real geek girls" would fall for them in a heartbeat. When that doesn't work out, these women are dismissed as "fake geek girls" on the supposition that "real geek girls would sleep with someone like me."

            One might argue that the second point might apply to me, but I haven't hit on a woman at a con in close to twenty years (I have fond memories of making out with a woman I met at a mid-nineties GenCon). I'm mostly complaining about the shortage of available women on OKC who either share or are willing to tolerate my interests, plus speculating that women who rejected me without explanation (not that they owe me one) were turned off by the excessive geekiness of my profile.

          • Gentleman Johnny

            Just speculation in my case. I just started to notice that there's a lot of. . .anxiety among a lot of guys in being public about their interests. I know from experience that it can have a sort of echo chamber effect. When all your friends have to hide their geek interests, it makes you even more self-conscious about it.

            I'm not saying it absolutely is true that geek guys have been taught that no self-respecting geek discusses their interests in non-geek company and therefore distrusts anyone who does. I'm not saying geek guys are inherently jealous of anyone who has the confidence to be open about their geeky interests. Its more like I suspect a common thread and can't quite put my finger on it.

          • CmE

            Oh, and Bond only plays poker in the movie because of the poker boom.

            In the book of Casino Royale he's playing baccarat chemin de fer, the French variation.

          • Tosca

            Exactly. My husband and I have some equally nerdy interests (like love of Star Trek), but certainly not all. He's into scale models and military history and math, while I love the internet and writing and drawing fantasy and sci-fi. I'm *much* more of a gamer than he is. And even with the aforementioned Star Trek, he was into it so much that he went to conventions as a boy, whereas conventions give me hives and I'd much rather express my love differently.

          • OldBrownSquirrel

            I get the impression that the gender balance is much better in the LARP community. The inclusion of costuming in any aspect of fandom seems to help.

          • Gentleman Johnny

            Off hand, costuming does seem to help balance things out at conventions and in the steampunk scene, too.

          • OldBrownSquirrel

            The gender balance is still an issue for older generations. The overwhelming majority of single women my age see me as unacceptably nerdy based on my interests. Many younger women don't have such a problem with guys with nerdy interests, but they see me as old, ergo creepy.

          • Tosca

            Then you'll just have to deal with it like the previous generation's male nerds. My dad's been nerdy his whole life, but neither of his wives nor any of his old girlfriends were. But it was cool. My dad does his hobbies and joins groups of like-minded nerds to get the social aspect, then comes home to my step-mom.

            It's more about finding a woman who is cool with you doing your thing, than a woman who is sooo into nerdery.

          • Marty Farley

            Ehhh, I do kind of see Dave's point (if this is Dave's point like you said.) I have yet to meet a straight man, even on the Internet, who thinks sewing is fun. I personally think it's tons of fun. I am very enthusiastic about it. But even with my enthusiasm, it seems to be a turn-off for all heterosexual guys.

          • enail

            I know a couple, though I agree they're pretty rare.

            But as Mel says, 'fun' in this article isn't so much about how you meet people as how you interact with them when you do – and I think there are plenty of heterosexual guys who aren't interested in sewing who could still think you more fun because of your enthusiasm for sewing, if you can talk about it in an engaging way that's accessible for someone outside the hobby.

          • LeeEsq

            I really don't know about this, that people who aren't interested in a certain hobby would find people who are into that hobby fun because of that person's enthusiasm. I think DNL is wrong. What I think might actually happen is that Person A is attracted to Person B. Person B is enthusiastic about something that Person A couldn't care less about but Person A will simply find Person B's enthusiasm endearing because of the attraction. If Person A wasn't into Person B than Person's B enthusiasm wouldn't do much for Person A.

          • eselle28

            A modified model: If Person A isn't attracted to Person B at all, Person B's enthusiasm isn't going to do much either way. If Person B is only moderately attracted to Person B (which I think is a really common situation, at least for those of us who hang around the average or below-average part of the looks spectrum), Person B's enthusiasm can be attractive. Of course, it's even better if Person B has interests that Person A enjoys and can relate to, but even a different set of interests will come across better than finding out that Person B is a dull blob.

          • Marty Farley

            I wish there was a way to field-test either stance. Like I said before, I've been enthusiastic about my more obscure passions and been met with less attraction. I feel like enthusiasm has to be at least somewhat shared; they don't need to be as into it as the other person, but they need to at least be able to relate to it.

          • Clementine Danger

            Try the cosplay community. Half the guys there are into sewing.

          • CmE

            Well, I don't think of sewing as fun, but like most straight men I've never tried, so that doesn't mean much.

            Overall sewing mania would be a decent-sized plus though. I mean that's just too heart-warming and cutesy. Aww 😉

          • Dave

            I think sewing is fun but a) I'm bi (even if i do prefer women) and b) my other hobbies take precedence over sewing and knitting.

            In an ideal world with vastly more free time I'd do more sewing that's not just about clothes maintenance.

          • OldBrownSquirrel

            I think sewing is one of those hobbies than men can respect and appreciate without actually sharing. It may not be something you have in common, but no guy in his right mind is going to reject a woman just because she's into sewing. I've dated several women who were into sewing and avidly chased after several others (all many years ago), so by that metric, it was hardly a turn-off for me.

          • Marty Farley

            Well I think the key there is if she's into other stuff. The central idea is that you just need to be passionate about SOMETHING. I am passionate about many somethings, but few of them are somethings shared by men. Men have, by and large, not been interested, because there is nothing I am passionate about that they can relate to. Thus the idea that you just need to be passionate about a hobby may not be the whole story.

          • OldBrownSquirrel

            Most of the women I've known who were into sewing I met through shared geeky interests, and their sewing often extended in geeky directions: cosplay, steampunk, LARP, SCA, etc. While some in the comic book community have been hostile to cosplayers (partly, I suspect, because they're seen as feminizing a fandom that some want to preserve as characteristically masculine), those other nerdy communities in which costuming has long been more widely practiced hold people who can sew in high esteem.

          • eselle28

            My brother-in-law does! He says he finds it relaxing. That being said, it does tend to be something women like more than men.

          • Gentleman Johnny

            You teach me, I'll have fun with it. Even if its just work, its making something cool. Making something cool is fun.

          • Meyer N Gaines

            I see this advice a lot, that tells people "just be yourself" and don't worry about what women think, because there are some that will like you. Well, it doesn't work like that. If I looked only for women who accepted my hobbies and accepted me for my race, I would be waiting for eternity.

            But what if I were to make going to the club a hobby? Suddenly my prospects look up a little!

          • enail

            If you enjoy going to the club and like the sort of people you meet there, that sounds like a great plan! I do think having an extremely narrow set of hobbies and activities can make it hard to find people to date, so it's good to branch out into other pursuits.

            However, there are plenty of women who like Asian guys with nerdy hobbies, so I don't think those two factors are your problem in and of themselves.

          • Dave

            There is a balance of appealing to a broad range of people, yes.

            The real problem I have with this article is that it really *isn't* about being focused – it's about widening your exposure to people and disguising this as 'fun'. Passion for an activity/subject comes from being focused, but it's not necessarily a good way to meet people. At least be honest about it.

            Passion comes from focus, but a 'fun' person comes from presenting the right image, about the right activities to a viable dating pool.

      • Dave

        What I mean by that is twofold – first what LeeEsq has outlined.

        Second, that to be harsh – if your life is a bit lacking socially you might accept a fairly wide range of people that offer a date or relationship.

        If you've made the effort to fill your life with interesting, fulfilling activities then the bar for your partner is (in my opinion) raised. If I'm devoted to a couple of hobbies, frequently going out with friends and often looking for new activities I expect precisely the same from a partner – it is not my responsibility to inject all the interest into a relationship.

  • Jack Braithwaite

    Being someone who is on the Autism spectrum, I find it incredibly difficult to have a conversation with a stranger let alone be funny and interesting enough to have a woman romantically interested in me. I'm able to make my mom and the two friends that I have laugh but that's because we share the same politically incorrect sense of humour that very few people have. Being that I'm physically unattractive, will be living with my mom after graduation, will start balding soon, and am mentally defective I fear that I will continue to be alone with few/no friends and unwanted by the rest of society.

    • enail

      I'd suggest trying to get to know people more through activity groups or classes; try and find things you'd enjoy doing that naturally have a certain amount of interaction with other people. That way, you can practice conversation in small doses leavened by activities, without the intense pressure of trying to have conversations with complete strangers out of the blue.

      A politically incorrect sense of humour can be tricky, especially if you nave a hard time judging other peoples' reactions, but if there are some people who like your sense of humour, I'm sure there are others. Start cautiously when you bring out your more edgy humour and watch to see if the other person responds with similar humour.

      You sound pretty hard on yourself; try not to beat yourself up so much – it doesn't help anything, and it's just mean! Being on the autism spectrum does not make you defective! And there are plenty of attractive bald people – just ask Patrick Stewart!

      • Jack Braithwaite

        Being a university student enrolled in classes and having participated off and on in various groups for the past four years, I can say that this tactic has allowed me to gain many acquaintances but no real friends or even a girlfriend for that matter. I'm worried that because of my disability and the fact that I'm 22 and never had sex or a girlfriend I will be undesirable to women.

        • Robert

          22 is too early an age to be considered an upper threshold of undesirability for anyone who's out of college.

          • Tosca

            And it's also too young to be worried about living with your mom. Every single freakin 22 year old I know still lives with their mom. In fact, it's weird to be that young and NOT living with your parents, especially in this economy.

        • enail

          Take heart, there are plenty of people who've been in your situation who've gone on to have sex/girlfriends. Browse through this site, there are some articles that talk about being a virgin and dating.

          Maybe it's time to start trying to turn some of those acquaintances into friends? Or if your acquaintances include a girl you like, you could ask her out. The only way to get more comfortable with these things is to try them!

        • Dave

          If it helps I didn't have sex or a partner until a fair bit later than 22. I have since considerably caught up on both regards, although I'm not great at long term relationships.

          Keep at it, try new activities and don't be afraid to drop activities if you think there's other activities you'd enjoy more – otherwise you can waste a lot of time.

    • Gentleman Johnny

      If that's what you want, go for it.

    • Tosca

      You are not unattractive. You're pretty cute, actually!

      Bald means NOTHING. One of the hottest guys I know is bald as a cue-ball.

    • Jack Braithwaite

      It would be awesome if the Doc wrote an article about meeting women/friends once you've graduated from college/university. I'm not sure if he's knowledgeable about dating for people like myself with mental/physical disabilities, which sucks because there's very few resources out there that covers this topic.

  • CmE

    Link No.3 is evidently cross-cultural – basically the same rules apply across cultures, local variations apply as you would expect.

  • McGee

    heart race, not raise ^

  • LeeEsq

    This is an attempt to distill Dave's point, which I think is kind of more spot on the DNL's point in this article and more true to real life. DNL and people taking is side are advocating that if you have interests and passions and convey this with appropriate enthusiasm and wit, you will come across as a fun person and be more attractive to potential partners as adult. Using me as an example, I'm into partner dancing. Under DNL's theory if I convey this in the right way and demonstrate my skills a bit, I could come across as a fun and therefore attractive person.

    Dave, and I think he is right about this, thinks this is not the case. Dave's approach and theory is a bit more cynical. What Dave is saying is that you need to go to activities where you have a better chance at meeting potential partners. Dancing has a good gender but the age range is a bit off for me. I like ballroom dancing more than salsa but the average age of a woman in a ballroom dancing is a bit too high for me to date. In salsa, the age range tends to work more in my favor. That means if I want to meet women in a more appropriate age range, I'd have to take the right classes. Dave also stated is that the activity had to be intriguing/popular and require no effort on the partner's part to participate in. If I go on a date and talk about dancing, there might be a good chance that this could function as a turn off. The woman might think "oh great, he'll expect me to learn dancing" or that I'm strange for having such a weird hobby. A more mainstream form of "fun" is more attractive because its less of an investment or weird.

    • Tosca

      The problem with any argument, either Dave's or DNL's, is that truthfully, finding a partner is down to a fair bit of luck. It really sucks, and is out of our control, but there it is. DNL just takes a more positive approach, designed to maximize your chances, while Dave is more cynical and arguably more realistic.

      BUT, so many stars have to align the right way. Think about it: even if you, say, join a new group to either expand your horizons and possibly meet a woman, many things have to happen to result in a long-term relationship. Many things that have nothing to do with who you are, but are merely down to chance. Like:

      -There has to be a woman at said activity, or someone who might know her.
      -if she is there, is she single?
      -if she is single, is she interested in dating at all?
      -if she is interested in dating, is she interested in dating YOU?
      -if she is interested in dating you, are YOU really interested in her?
      -if you're both interested, do your personalities mesh?
      -if they mesh, do they continue to mesh over time (rather than peter out into disinterest on either part)?
      -if they mesh over time, are you both of you wanting a long term relationship?
      -if you want a LTR, are you compatible sexually? long term goals? Do you want the same things? do you get along?

      Congratulations, you have arrived at Long Term Relationship! For now. 😉

      But people get hampered up by those first few things, and that's NO ONE'S FAULT! It's just bad luck.

      Personally, I'd rather take DNL's approach, only because it leaves you less time to feel sorry for yourself.

      • LeeEsq

        Tosca, I agree that getting into a relationship involves a fair amount of random chance but I don't think that you have to go through the entire list. Plenty of people enter into relationships by only reaching in the part about mutual interest rather than going further.

        • Tosca

          Yeah, it doesn't have to tick all those, but I'd say the first 5 are still pretty important.

    • enail

      For the first part of Dave's approach, DNL also encourages this. It's just not what he was talking about here.

      For the second part, yes, this makes sense if you want to maximize the number of people who will find your hobby appealing. But if you only ever talk about the most generic parts of yourself for fear of alienating others, the people who would really like those aspects and be more compatible with you may well think you're not their type and move on.

  • Vic

    The Doc still doesn't understand the relationship between money and status. Women are not after the former, necessarily, but rather that latter. The monied beta herb will never pull the quality of women that the semi-employed alpha scoundrel will. Now, money is often a correlated with status, as the psycho-social dominance ("game") women crave can often translate to financial success, but it's not a necessary condition of it.

    • Max

      lol nope

      • Vic

        lol smart reply dood

    • Talbiz

      you still don't understand that you're not going to change anyone's mind here and we aren't going to change yours so you can probably take-off and it would save everyone time and energy

    • Gentleman Johnny

      Are we still using the circular definition of status as "whatever women in a given subcluture are attracted to"?

      • Vic

        Status in this context can be roughly defined as psycho-social dominance.

        • Gentleman Johnny

          Are we still using the circular definition of psycho-social dominance as "whatever women in a given subcluture are attracted to"?

          Because, to me, dominance means explicitly your ability to have a particular group perform in accordance with your will. I'm pretty sure we agreed previously that that isn't what you mean.

    • McGee

      why is everyone downvoting vic?

      even if he is coming from a negative viewpoint, isnt it fair to objectively discuss things?

      • Vic

        Objectively discussing things hurts people's fee-fees and could crumble the ramparts of pretty lies they've fortified their egos with. So no.

      • eselle28

        I think people have reached the point with Vic where they're no longer sure he's arguing in good faith.

        • LeeEsq

          On the internet its really hard to tell the difference between trolling and a cynicism. Dave I think is genuinely cynical because of the amount of detail in his argument. The tone and wording of the posts suggest that Dave sincerely believes in what he is saying. Vic's wording and tone are too outrageous and poorly argued to convey sincerity. This might be because Vic is a poor writer and a sloppy reasoner. Or it might be because Vic is a troll.

          • Vic

            Neither trolling nor cynicism. Just taking the Red Pill.

      • Gentleman Johnny

        It is. Its also fair to display your opinion of those things, positive or negative. No one's deleting his posts. No one's saying he shouldn't be allowed to say what he's saying. They're expressing disagreement with his opinions and/or way of expressing them. Free speech has to apply to everyone or it doesn't apply to anyone.

      • Beth

        "Objectivity" is a word (generally white) men use to silence the anger of the groups they're socialized to oppress. Your's and Vic's "objectivity" is colored by a lifetime living in a society set up to cater to your whims.

        So you can both shove it.

        • Tosca

          And it's easy to be "objective" all the time when your not the gender that gets likened to mindless herd animals.

    • Beth

      Oh my god take your antiquated nineteenth century gender constructions and go fuck yourself. (I'm not one of those feminists who "plays nice," downvoters)

  • James

    I'm in a similar situation as Jack, except I'm in my 30's, I'm high on the Autistic spectrum (Aspegers syndrome). I find it difficult talking to total strangers, especially women I find attractive, although after I get to know people I find it easier to talk to them. I also don't think of myself as being physically attractive and I'm short (5'6"). I'm not really comfortable in myself and have very low confidence. I haven't had a steady girlfriend and never had sex.

    Being in my 30's I really feel the need to find someone. I'm more interested in finding a steady girlfriend but I admit that the sex thing comes into it as I kinda want to get it over with to feel more like a man. I feel that the longer I wait the harder it will get (no pun intended). I've tried online dating without much success. I find it hard to meet new people, partly because of my shyness but also because of a lack of a social group. My friends at work all have partners and all the people they know have partners so it's difficult to meet any single women that way. All that leaves me with is speed dating, which I find an incredible dauting prospect, spending lots of money on an introductions agency or attempt to ask out a cute girl on the street and hope she doesn't laugh in my face.

    Anyway, I guess this comes back to the article. If you're a shy short guy with low self esteem who finds it difficult conversing, how do you meet women and get to show your fun personality that they might find attractive? Surely when you approach women they will judge you based on appearance (looks, height, build, clothes)?

  • LTP

    I take Dr.Nerdlove's point, but frankly there was a lot of equating of "having fun" with extroverted activities. I think laddering in Starcraft 2, or reading a good novel, or reading my favorite political writers is far more fun than anything listed in the post (and most of the activities listed just sound exhausting, not fun). I guess I can be funny and good conversationalist, but ONLY with people I've know for months and am comfortable with.

  • Tim

    "more often than not LOOKS are not even in the top 5 of what makes a man attractive"

    I've always been interested in what world women live in; what lens do they see the world through; what’s their perspective and sense of reasoning; and what exactly are they referring to when they claim looks aren't even in the top 5 traits they want in men?

    The men who get a lot of attention from women; the men who are approached, pursued and chased the most by women; the men who are the subject of women’s crushes; the men who are deemed ‘desirable’ by women; the men who have a lot of women interested in them; the men who have a lot of dating opportunities; men who have sexual relationships with a lot of women; are barring exceptions, almost always good looking.

    How does ‘looks’ not come up in the top 5 desirable traits in men?
    It really perplexes my understanding.

    • BiSian

      You're confused because you are thinking of women as some monolithic entity.
      Some women are less interested in physical appearance than other factors. Some women are attracted to men outside of the conventionally attractive model. Some women will swoon over underwear models and then date chubby guys with back hair. And some women place things like an interesting personality, responsibility, sense of humor, or being really good in bed (not the same as physical appearance) above looks. Some don't.

      • Tim

        I'm NOT looking at women as some monolithic entity.
        I'm only looking at a HOLISTIC picture. Try to understand the difference.

        You say SOME women value looks, some don't. Why haven't the ones who do, affected the results of the survey's women take? Are there very very few women who place high value on looks?

        • Mel_

          If you look at the article DNL links to when referring to the top 5, you'll see that's based on an informal survey he did, and the reason "attractive" didn't make the top five was because every woman had a different idea of what physical traits were attractive to them. Some liked lots of hair, some none. Some liked thin, some teddy bear types. Etc. But most of them liked the same aspects of personality–confidence, passion, etc. So what that means is not that women don't care how guys look, but that you can't find one particular look that will be appealing to a majority of women, since their physical tastes vary so much. Also, many women report their their physical attraction to a guy is partly dependent on certain personality traits (e.g., a guy with the exact same look will be found attractive if he acts confident and unattractive if he acts insecure).

          Which means it makes more sense, if you want to improve your dating chances and you're already keeping yourself at least clean and well groomed, to focus on the factors a majority of women *do* find appealing: not specific physical traits, but personality traits.

        • eselle28

          If you want my completely unsubstantiated guess, there are a lot of women who place a medium value on looks. But since most people have more than five traits that they find very important in a romantic partner, other traits are ranked even more highly.

          I'm not sure where I'd rank on the scale of caring about looks. I wouldn't consider dating someone who I wasn't sexually attracted to (well, I wouldn't do it again), but I've dated lots of guys who are average-looking or not particularly conventionally attractive. That being said, I do know women who would be willing to get to know a man quite well while they see if attraction slowly develops, so I'm not at the absolute bottom of "cares about looks" metric. Despite that, looks wouldn't necessarily make my Top 5 list, either.

          • Tim

            You haven't explained how is it possible that looks don't rank in the top 5 yet the men who have the greatest number of dating opportunities and sexual partners are almost always good looking.

            So why the discrepancy?

          • eselle28

            The men who have the greatest number of dating opportunities have more than five good traits. After all, there are a lot of people out there. Those who are regularly very successful with the opposite sex are often a combination of funny and confident and passionate and attractive. Of those, the ones who are respectful have the best luck keeping women around. As for intellectual curiosity, I would have to say that's a function of the Doctor's fanbase. This sort of material is going to attract more women who have that trait themselves and who seek it in their partners.

            And this seems to line up pretty well with what I see in real life. Guys who are attractive and have lots of other things to offer do pretty well, guys who are average in a lot of them can find partners but not as many of them, and people who have one or more serious deficiencies often struggle. I'd say that last one includes men who are reasonably attractive but who are shy and boring – or at least most nerd groups usually have one guy like this who rarely gets much attention from women, to the confusion of his friends.

          • Tim

            Youre not following me here..

            Its true that men who have the greatest number of dating opportunities and sexual partners,may have more than 5 desirable traits, but the common trait among the vast majority of them is good looks. (or being atleast relatively attractive)

            Clearly, the men who are good looking (and have average fun-factor / niceness) are getting more attention and dating/sexual opportunities than men who are ordinary looking but are VERY nice / respectful / funny / responsible.
            How is it possible if respectfulness / funny-factor / responsibility rated higher than looks in those surveys?

            The only explanation is that looks are more important to a larger number of women but they are not acknowledging that on surveys.

          • Mel_

            Tim, I answered this question in my response to your initial comment, which for some reason you've chosen to ignore to keep harping on the point with Eselle. Do you disagree with what I said? Here, I'll copy and paste it so you can find it incredibly easily:

            If you look at the article DNL links to when referring to the top 5, you'll see that's based on an informal survey he did, and the reason "attractive" didn't make the top five was because every woman had a different idea of what physical traits were attractive to them. Some liked lots of hair, some none. Some liked thin, some teddy bear types. Etc. But most of them liked the same aspects of personality–confidence, passion, etc. So what that means is not that women don't care how guys look, but that you can't find one particular look that will be appealing to a majority of women, since their physical tastes vary so much. Also, many women report their their physical attraction to a guy is partly dependent on certain personality traits (e.g., a guy with the exact same look will be found attractive if he acts confident and unattractive if he acts insecure).

            Which means it makes more sense, if you want to improve your dating chances and you're already keeping yourself at least clean and well groomed, to focus on the factors a majority of women *do* find appealing: not specific physical traits, but personality traits.

            To rephrase to address your continued questioning: It's not that women don't like attractive men, it's that how women define "attractive" varies so much that it's not a meaningful measure. The women taking the survey didn't say things like, "I like guys who are attractive", they say, "I like guys who are tall and dark-haired" or "I like guys who are cuddly with beards". They acknowledged that looks played a role, it was just *different* types of looks for different women.

          • Tim

            Its not just this informal survey. There have been countless surveys that have given the same result that women do not place Physical attractiveness / good looks in the top 5.
            http://www.menshealth.com/mhlists/most_desirable_…
            .
            http://www.stevenaitchison.co.uk/blog/12-qualitie…

            You can do a survey rite now asking a million women, if you could, and I'm willing to bet that 'looks' would rank very low on the list.

            ****

            Now you're just twisting things here.

            Why do you PRESUME they didn't put "attractive" in top 5 because they have a different idea of what physical attractiveness is?

            ****

            Finally, regarding the point that I'm harping on with Eselle,
            I'm actually saying that the men who have the greatest number of dating/sexual opportunities are good looking in the conventional sense. Handsome, good fit physiques, tall etc. They are obviously not teddy the bear types.

          • Mel_

            Okay, you edited this comment while I was replying, and now there's a deleted comment, so this is rather confusing and I missed some of this.

            I'm not twisting things. I don't "presume" they didn't put attractive in the top five, because that's not how the survey DNL's referring to worked. He asked women on Facebook and Twitter what they find attractive in men, and then he complied a list of the most common answers. To quote that article, where he talks about the physical side of things: "While men gripe and moan about how only men with washboard abs and rock-hard pecs can get the ladies, the responses to my informal poll were about as scattershot as one could get. Some women adore bald men, others get weak in the knees for long hair and others will only date men with short hair. Some want their men clean shaven, others love facial hair with the passion of a thousand suns. Some women loved big burly men while others like skinny nerd-boys who look like the kid they could’ve met at Hebrew school." And it continues.

            Here's the link, which he also linked to above, if you want to confirm: http://www.doctornerdlove.com/2012/10/what-makes-…

            And I know what you're saying, I just don't actually believe that it's true. I know teddy bear type men who are very popular with the ladies. You're making assumptions without any data to back them up. Maybe a conventionally handsome man who's also charming, funny, and passionate will have more dating opportunities than a less conventionally handsome man with the same qualities, but in my experience a not so handsome man who's charming, funny, and passionate will have more dating opportunities than a conventionally handsome man who's dull and humorless. So it seems to me being charming, funny, and passionate matters more in the long run.

          • Tim

            Mel, Joy, Bisian

            Allow me to narrow down on the "looks conundrum". I really intend to understand what exactly you mean by "women have varying tastes"

            So you all are trying to suggest that a nerdy-faced thin guy, a fat bald guy, and a conventionally handsome, tall, well built guy; all have roughly the same odds of being found hot by women; since as you suggest women's definition of physical attractiveness varies so much?

            Put it differently, are you suggesting that women's assessment of the stated types men would be something like…

            The conventionally handsome, tall guy with good physique being rated attractive by 35% of women
            the chubby balding guy rated attractive by 35%
            while the other 30% rate the thin nerdy-faced guy as most the most attractive type.

            Please let me know if that is what you mean by "women's definition of male beauty varies so much"

            Because I doubt its like that. Its going to be more like
            80-90%% of women rating tall handsome fit guys as most attractive
            5-10% rating bald chubby guys as most attractive
            5-10% rating the thin nerdy faced guys as most attractive

          • BiSian

            Well considering I haven't conducted extensive surveys of the female population, I can only speak of my experience.
            I find SOME tall guys attractive.
            I find SOME fit guys attractive.
            I find SOME chubby guys attractive.
            I find SOME bald guys attractive.
            I find SOME thin guys attractive.
            I find SOME nerdy guys attractive.
            For me personally, I don't have a type. I like many different types of men, and I cannot give a detailed breakdown of the physical characteristics that turn me on.

          • Tim

            Is it likely that out of 100 nerdy faced, scrawny guys you only find 10% attractive,
            and out of 100 fat balding guys you only find 10% attractive
            But out of 100 conventionally handsome, tall and fit guys you find 3/4ths of them attractive ?

          • BiSian

            Yes Tim, please tell me more about my sexual preferences.

            But seriously, I'm not going to answer that because a) it's impossible for me to answer given the limited info, and b) you're not discussing this in good faith. I don't need to argue with your self-pitying ideas about women's preferences. Peace bro.

          • BiSian

            Okay I also must point out that this is an article about learning to be a person who interests others and gets along with many people because, surprise, people find that attractive. Get over your obsession with all those guys who are hotter than you and move on with life, please. It will be healthier for all involved.
            And because I can't not be snarky, I'm going to end with a quote from the amazing Tosca: " from where do you even pull these numbers? Your ass? It's your ass, isn't it? "

          • Tim

            As I said, I don't have a problem with the advice itself. Its that the tone of article is such that it purposely downplays the importance and advantage of having conventionally good looks to men. Dr Nerdlove could have easily done w/o that. And it seems that people here, women in particular, are really appeased when the unmistakable importance/advantages of having good looks to men, is downplayed. A

          • Gentleman Johnny

            Dwelling on looks in dating is like dwelling on taxes in income. You can't do much about it (basic hygene/deductions) so its better to pay attention to what you can do something about (being a better conversationalist/getting a better job).

          • BiSian

            And as everyone here has been saying, this is generally true for most women. So no, I can't give you a percentage of women who will be automatically attracted to your body type.

          • Mel_

            Tim, you're missing the most important part of my comment. You were complaining about "being attractive" not being listed in the top five traits women look for, and I explained why it wasn't, quoting from DNL's article, which was the source for those "top five" traits. If you take issue with his reasoning, you should discuss that with him. But I still think that personality is more important than any specific physical feature, even if it's a conventionally attractive physical feature that 80-90% of women would generally like, because, as I said:

            Maybe a conventionally handsome man who's also charming, funny, and passionate will have more dating opportunities than a less conventionally handsome man with the same qualities, but in my experience a not so handsome man who's charming, funny, and passionate will have more dating opportunities than a conventionally handsome man who's dull and humorless. So it seems to me being charming, funny, and passionate matters more in the long run.

          • Tim

            Mel, my issue right here is only with your claim that women's definition of male beauty varies significantly. I just want to know what exactly it means.

            If the Ok-Cupid survey says that, on average, women find 20% men physically attractive, then as I've reasoned above, there is going to be a significant overlap in that 20%. So male beauty isn't all that variable/subjective afterall.

            ***

            And please why do good looking men automatically get dull boring humorless personalities? What happened to an average/regular personality? Why do you feel the need to attach negative personality traits to good looking men in order to downplay the advantage of good looks?

          • Mel_

            Tim, if you actually bothered to read my comments, as I've said more than once now, *I* didn't make that claim. I'm going by what DNL reports–that when he surveyed women, they had very different ideas of what they found physically attractive in a guy. He gives examples of this. I quoted some of them. I have you the link to the article where you can find more. You can even go to his Facebook page and go back through the history to find the original survey and its responses. What more do you want from me, exactly?

            And as I also pointed out, the OK Cupid survey didn't ask women to rate men on attractive vs. not-attractive, but on more attractive vs. less attractive. Just because they only considered 20% of men in the upper half of attractive, doesn't mean they found the other guys unattractive. And again, as I've pointed out, most of the women were messaging the guys they'd ranked in the lower half, so clearly they either didn't find them unattractive, or they were interested in the guys despite finding them unattractive, either of which disproves your claim that women are only interested in particularly conventionally attractive men.

            Finally, I used dull and humorless because it was a counterpoint to being charming and funny. I also think that a charming, funny, passionate guy who's just okay looking is going to have more women interested in him than a conventionally handsome man who's got just an okay personality, because I've seen that as well.

            I'm not going to repeat myself again. If you still don't understand the points I'm making after I've said them twice, you're obviously just not interested in listening.

          • Tim

            Then why didn't the men rate the majority of women "less attractive"
            Clearly, the men rated 80% of women as "atleast somewhat attractive" or "attractive atleast to some extent" While the other 20% as totally unattractive. I dont see why women would mean different things when rating men.

            And by "messaging" they meant being in contact with. They didn't mention who initiiated the messaging. In online dating, men do most of the initiation.

          • Mel_

            I don't know why there was a difference in how men and women rated attractiveness–there could be all sorts of reasons. But I just checked the survey again to confirm, and it says right there that by messaging they meant had *sent* a message, not just received one. Most women were messaging a wide range of men, primarily in the low to middle range of what they'd rated as attractive, and most men were only messaging the top third most attractive women. I think actions matter a lot more than random numerical ratings, and the data shows a clear willingness of women to consider and even pursue men they don't necessarily think are the most attractive. Much more than the reverse. It even says in the article, re: one of the graphs, "This graph also dramatically illustrates just how much more important a woman’s looks are than a guy’s.". Even the article you're sourcing disagrees with you.

            You really need to be more careful in your reading. If you can miss the fact that I'm quoting when I outright say I'm quoting as well as using quotation marks and linking to the source, and misread the article you're using as proof this badly, it suggests to me you're far more concerned with arguing what you already believe than paying any attention to facts. I don't see any point in continuing a conversation with someone who's acting that closed-minded.

          • Tim

            The messaging pattern and rating pattern are not comparable. Although they are on the same graph. They are completely separate

            For instance, a woman may have rated 100 men on that study but only sent messages to 3 guys. Some women who rated men may have sent none. But the results of both are 'averaged' and shown on the same graph.

            The point is that most men cannot expect to be messaged in online dating and its pretty useless. The least attractive rated women still get more messages than most men. So based on that I'm disregarding the messaging pattern.
            http://jonmillward.com/blog/attraction-dating/cup…

          • Tim

            yup, it wasnt your claim. I didnt see the quotes.
            I've asked this question again below. If youre interested in clarifying it you're welcome. I can see many ppl supporting that claim/view here, though.

          • Mel_

            Yes, because as I keep saying, most women do not look for generic "good looks" or "attractiveness". They may have specific types they find more attractive than others, but they don't necessarily see that as "attractiveness" so much as "personal taste", so they don't call it that on a survey.

            Oh, and by the way, again, you should probably try *reading* your sources before you use them as proof. The Men's Health survey was specifically of "character traits", which means attractiveness wasn't even an option (that's a physical trait, not a character trait). And the other link, not only was it not a survey at all (it was just his memory of various women he's talked to), but he includes "attractiveness" on the list, and says the list is in "no particular order", which means he could very well think "attractiveness" would be in the top five if he ranked them.

          • eselle28

            The men's health one actually had four different sections, but I'm curious how the questions were phrased. A lot of the attributes seemed to be very focused on long term relationships, and I think that sometimes people focus on slightly different traits when they're thinking about their husbands or what they'd like in their future husbands than when they're deciding whether or not to go out with (or go home with) someone.

          • Joy

            Exactly. It's important to me that I think the person I date is good-looking. Note that I did not say he must be attractive according to some objective universal standard–but that I find him to be appealing.

            And what I find attractive is not going to be what every woman finds attractive. I really love long hair; many of my friends have strong negative reactions to long hair on men. I know women who like facial hair; I don't much care for it in general and strongly dislike full mustaches in particular. If you put me in a room with my three closest friends, showed us pictures of a number of different men, and told us to put them in attractiveness order, I guarantee you we'd all rank them differently.

          • Tim

            ok so lets search for surveys.

          • Mel_

            I've tried to post this twice and it keeps not showing up–maybe it will later if the spam filter caught it, but I'll mention it again without the links because they're probably the problem.

            I did a google search for "what women want from men survey" out of curiosity, and on the first page found two examples of women mentioning physical qualities among things they considered important, either in general or specific ("killer smile"). So your thesis that women rarely admit that they find physical traits attractive has been disproven.

          • eselle28

            Oops, sorry. I hadn't realized you'd started replying before deleting. I did it because it seemed very redundant, was replying to a deleted comment, and was cluttering things up. Didn't mean to make matters worse!

          • eselle28

            I think that the common traits are good looks, confidence, and being funny and fun. I've already said that I think respect is more important to keeping relationships rather than starting them or finding sex partners, and nowhere did I list nice or responsible (are you trying to shoehorn in a Nice Guy argument here?) as being the most attractive qualities, so I'm going to leave those out of the discussion.

            In my experience, men who are very good-looking but who are only average in terms of confidence and being funny and fun do roughly as well with women as men who are average-looking but who are extremely confident and funny and fun. If you think the opposite, then we simply have differences of opinion and experience.

            The "surveys" we're all talking about are responses to Doctor Nerdlove on Facebook and Twitter.

          • Tim

            Men who are very good looking with avg funny/fun do much much better than
            avg looking men who are very funny/confident. (barring rich men and celebs incase the Dr drops in with his argument)

            The former get way more attention from women and dating/sexual opportunities,
            Most importantly the dynamics of dating/sex are very different for them, in that, they are actually approached and pursued by women; as opposed to being the pursuers in the case of the latter (avg looking v.funny/confident) Which again tells us who is more 'desirable' and worthy of pursuit.

            And Mel, im talking about men who are conventionally goodlooking.

          • eselle28

            That doesn't line up with my experiences. None of the men I'm thinking of are famous. We may just know different people.

            The approached by test seems a little odd to me, though. Women who have winning personalities aren't generally approached by more strangers than women with boring personalities, either. I mean, you don't really know that someone is confident or funny until you've interacted with them a bit. Most people who are approaching are going to be basing it mostly on looks (which, actually, is a good argument for women who are charming making the first move rather than waiting for men to talk to them).

          • BiSian

            Ditto eselle. The men I know who are the most successful with women are normal looking. Not superhot, not ripped and muscled with chiseled jaws. But they are fun to talk to, confident, interesting people. The women who date/go home with them obviously find them attractive. But they aren't my type; I don't find them physically attractive.
            And that's a point I want to reiterate. What women find attractive differs greatly depending on the woman. We are not a Hive.

            Tim, what is your purpose here? You keep insisting that women must be more interested in physical appearance than DNL's data (or other surveys) suggests, and that good looking men are divinely blessed with romantic success.
            Are you trying to make some larger point about how only "10's" can be successful with women?

          • Gentleman Johnny

            You made your claim. The Doc and I claim that average or less than average looking men with winning personalities do much better than great looking asshole bricks. My evidence is over in the Alphas article, although I can provide you more. Doc's is in his articles. Where's yours?

          • Tim

            why do you feel the urge to say “asshole pricks” …hmm?

            I resisted the urge to utter “Obese, deformed guys with awesome personality/sense of humor” didn't I?

            So why can't you also stay within reason and stick to comparing Average looking guys with Winning personalities & Good looking/hot guys with Average personalities ? can you do that?

            And yeah, I’m saying that the former do much better with women than the latter.

          • Tim

            correction: the latter do much better than the former.

            ****

            Average Looking guys with Winning Personalities (ALWP) do reasonably well with women, I acknowledge. They have success with SOME women. But their appeal is limited to a much smaller number of women vis a vis good looking guys with average personalities (GLAP)

            I've been in several social situations and if there are 15 women, I've always seen that the ALWP has 2-3 women interested in him while the GLAP guy (even with a reserved nature) has 8-10 women interested in him.

            More women would be interested in dating or having a flings with the GLAP. More women would agree to date or have a sexual relationship with him if he offers, w/o any conditions.

            Have you seen the opposite?
            Is that how you were defining "success with women"?

            What constitutes a 'winning personality' and whether it can be pulled out of the ass or not is a separate issue we can discuss later. Lets stick to this first.

          • Gentleman Johnny

            It wasn't a typo "asshole bricks" as in "dumb as a. . ."

            We've both moved to "all else being equal" elsewhere, so I won't get in a back and forth on that here.

            And yeah, I’m saying that the former do much better with women than the latter.
            Agreed. You do say that. I claim the opposite. Lacking evidence we're at an impasse.

          • Dr_NerdLove

            Somebody's never heard of Henry Kissinger I see. Or Gene Simmons. Or Samual Pepys. Or Pierre Trudeau, Alain Prost, Fisher Stevens or even Ron Jeremy.You keep bringing up “men with the most sexual partners” but you've yet to actually back that claim up.In other words: citation needed.

          • Tim

            These are all famous people and celebrities. These are exceptions. Do you really have to commit this straw man logical fallacy? Its pathetic that this passes as a valid argument on your forum.

            In any case do you even realize that its a 'superficial trait' of them that got them the sexual opportunities rather than one in the top 5 mentioned by women in the surveys?

            Cmon man, you can do better than that.

          • Gentleman Johnny

            Well duh. If I said "someone doesn't know" and listed my average looking friends who have great luck with women because of their winning personalities you wouldn't know them, making them useless as examples.

          • OldBrownSquirrel

            I suspect we know about how exactly much tail Pepys was getting in no small part because *we're reading his freaking diary* ("boinked the maid again yesterday"), not because he was necessarily getting more action than anyone else.

    • Tosca

      This whole argument assumes that looks are a zero-sum game. In my immature days, I too thought "hot" girls got all the attention, leaving poor average girls and ugly girls out, no matter how charming their personalities. But the truth is that sure, extremely good looks might get someone more attention, but it doesn't mean average/ugly folks get NONE (or, close to none, if you want to be pedantic).

      I don't think anyone here is arguing that good looks mean nothing and aren't an advantage. They just aren't *everything*. And in my life, how awesome-looking you are has very little to do with the success of your LTRs and your romantic happiness.

      Now, it seems like maybe you are asking "why do women SAY looks don't matter when I see hot guys get all the action (thereby proving their actions don't match their words)"? My personal theory growing up a girl is that women are discouraged from judging a man solely on looks, and we get told we value a man's "soul" or inner beauty, and not his appearance. We get told women aren't "visual" and don't enjoy sex on the same level. Men want sex, but we should want relationships! And women who brazenly seek sexy men and sex LIKE men are called whores. So is it any wonder women's actions will tend toward seeking sexually stimulating, attractive partners, like a man (or any human, really), but her words won't match?

      I'm no sociologist, but it's an interesting question.

      • Tim

        I cant agree more with your last paragraph.

        • Tosca

          Why not? I'm going to pull rank on you here. I actually grew up a girl in this culture. These are all messages we get.Sent from my iPhone

      • Tim

        I dont have a problem with the NerdLove's advice in this article.

        My only contention is that he says "The most attractive quality in a man isn't looks" when, as you say, hot guys are clearly getting "more action" than others. Why is it necessary for him to say this?

        • Gentleman Johnny

          OK, but everything else being equal, does the hot guy get "more action" than the charming, witty guy who treats women like people?
          I wouldn't normally use the last one in an "all else being equal" but apparently some women have the experience of this not being standard issue.

          • Tim

            Charming witty guys who treat women like people get a lot of action if they're atleast relatively attractive (better looking than 70% of guys in the conventional sense). If they are average (median) in looks they'd get action with much fewer women and would usually be better off with steady dating and relationships. Thats what most average looking guys with winning personalities, you talk about earlier, do. They usually do good in steady dating and relationships, rather than Flings, hooking up, casual relationships, FwB etc.

          • Gentleman Johnny

            OK, now that we've established that all else being equal, looks trump personality, can you back it up with something? Because several of us have experiences quite contrary to your observation. In fact the article we're discussing takes a directly contradictory position.

        • Tosca

          He said its not the MOST attractive aspect. Like I said before, not a zero-sum game here, folks.Sent from my iPhone

          • Tim

            "how awesome-looking you are has very little to do with the success of your LTRs and your romantic happiness"

            Is that the issue then? You and other people here are defining "success with women" differently than me?

          • Gentleman Johnny

            Normally I don't but for purposes of this conversation I am. No one says looks are meaningless, only that other things are more meaningful. Given that all of these aspects are average, proportionately increasing any one produces more "success with women" than increasing looks.

            Being far on the negative end in the looks department decreases "success" but being on the negative end in conversational ability hurts it more.

          • Tim

            I dont think you understood.

            She and some other women here are defining "success with women" as being in steady relationships, While I'm defining "success with women" as having a high number of sexual/dating opportunities, a high number of women willing to date or have sex.

          • Tosca

            I saw this after I replied below.

            The problem with defining success with women as ONLY this is twofold. First, by your definition, a married guy getting lots of regular sex isn't successful. But he's having lots of sex…so I'm not sure what makes your definition more "real". Is it the validation of being able to attract all kinds of strange?

            The other problem is a woman out there might really like you one day, but you are so focused defining your success as being able to pull tons of strange that you look right over her. So, in your struggle to attain 100s of sex partners nets you ultimately…zero. So then you get more and more bitter and your tunnel vision closes and you bemoan the fact that "no women" go for you.

            I don't understand this mindset. It's the ultimate "cutting off your nose to spite your face".

          • Tim

            So we can agree that the variety of sex partners, the promiscuity, the spontaneity, the flings etc is not for the majority of men.

          • Tosca

            I don't know what “we” are agreeing on. *I* agree that's it's not the majority of men, but apparently *you* don't!

          • Mel_

            Tim thinks you're saying the majority of men *can't* get that. What you're actually saying is the majority of men wouldn't define that as the only version of success, yes?

          • Tosca

            Exactly. If that were *most* men's *only* vision of success, why would most of the men I encounter in my daily life be married? Or have girlfriends?

            I swear this mentality is so disconnected from reality. If life were really as these guys said, hardly any man would get married or have a girlfriend. Why would they, when there are so many different, willing babes out there to learn the cheat codes for?? 😉

          • Tim

            That is a separate debate that how would the dating/sex/relationship lives of men would play out if they had more sexual opportunities. So lets leave the "how many men share this vision of success" debate for some other day.

            But you haven't told me, whats objectively wrong with this "vision of success"?
            You say "So, in your struggle to attain 100's of sex partners nets you ultimately…zero." what is the 'struggle' part you're referring to?

          • Tosca

            The struggle is you, here whining that only hot guys get all the hot poon and validation in life.

            And don't bore me with that old PUA "chestnut" of "oh that happily married man is lying to himself and if he had OPPORTUNITY he'd dump his loving wife" blah blah. You realize that when you say things like this, it's like you're claiming that men don't really need love, right? Just sex sex sex! Love is for betas! Don't fool yourself, ladies: your husbands only pretend to love you!

          • Tim

            I didnt say ONLY hot guys get ALL the poon.

            I'm saying the guys who get a lot of sexual opportunities are mostly good looking (in the conventional sense) and that's ok. I'm not complaining. And that doesn't mean other men cant get any. I'm just observing how big of an ego problem people have here acknowledging this reality.

            Its been documented as well… the probability that a promiscuous man is physically attractive is very high (and also higher than the probability of a promiscuous woman being physically attractive)

            ****

            "oh that happily married man is lying to himself and if he had OPPORTUNITY he'd dump his loving wife"

            "you're claiming that men don't really need love"

            You seem to do this a lot… taking, what someone said to the logical extreme and make them seem stupid. Where did you pull that "men would dump their loving wives or men don't need love" from?

            I'm saying the dating/relationship landscape would be different if men could attract more women / more easily. As I said, that would be a separate debate.

          • Robjection

            If you've dated/had sex with one woman, then you have had success with women. Not that this is the only way to have success with women but it is one way.

          • Tosca

            Well, I'm not sure. Who has more “success with women”? The man who marries his high school sweetheart (and only sexual partner) and is happily married for 40 years? Or the one who has lots of sex with different women, but has a hard time finding a lasting relationship.It depends on your priorities. But a lot of guys into PUA seem to think that only the second scenario counts as success. I think there are lots of definitions.

          • Tim

            I go with this definition because it is a truer reflection of a man's desirability to women.

            Are people here reluctant to use this definition because they know that this kind of success requires good looks, the importance of which they have downplayed to death on this website?

            Even NerdLover's tagline says "Helping Nerds get THE girl"

          • Mel_

            Having sex with lots of different women is a reflection of a man's *sexual* desirability. Not his romantic desirability or relationship desirability or whatever.

            You seem to be taking issue with the content of the article because you misunderstand the aim of this website. It's Doctor Nerd*Love*, not Doctor NerdLust; it's a dating and relationship advice blog, not a casual sex advice blog (although casual sex comes up from time to time because that is *one* aspect of dating). DNL is talking as though relationships and emotional as well as physical connections are the goal because that is the goal of the majority of his readers. Getting annoyed at him for it is like picking up a book on video gaming and getting annoyed that it focuses on gaming as a whole and not just strategies in first person shooters.

            If you want advice catered to people for whom casual sex with a variety of partners is the primary goal, there are tons of websites and blogs that focus on that. Why don't you go find them instead of complaining that this particular blog isn't shaping to your will?

          • Tim

            Would you still have taken issue with this if I had said…
            “a large number of dating AND sexual opportunities is a reflection of a man’s desirability to women” ?

            Why do you view “casual sex” and “relationships” on extreme ends?
            In reality there is a lot in between.

            You ignore that a guy might be having sex with a lot of women because a lot of women are actually interested in dating him.

            sexual desirability and romantic desirability are not necessarily mutually exclusive in men. Men who are having sex with a lot of women are usually also dating a lot of women or atleast have the opportunity to date a lot of women.

            If these men are perpetually single it could be due to many reasons – perhaps they are holding out for someone particular; perhaps their relationships didn't work out; or they found it difficult to sustain a relationship. Its NOT due to a rarity of women willing to date them.

            You can see my previous posts. I have mentioned mentioned “dating AND sexual opportunities” together.

          • Mel_

            "Why do you view “casual sex” and “relationships” on extreme ends?
            In reality there is a lot in between."

            Um, you kind of answered your own question there. I view them at extreme ends because there's a lot in between. I never said there was only one type of casual sex and one type of relationship and that is all that exists in the world. In fact, I specifically noted that casual sex is just one part of the many elements that can be involved in dating. 😛

            Anyway, I missed that your original definition included dating, not just sex. But a woman being willing to go on a date with you still doesn't say anything about your long-term romantic or relationship desirability. As with casual sex, it only shows that you can present yourself in an attractive way in the short period of time it takes to get someone's initial interest. I'd say that holding that interest and being able to continue to be attractive to someone over time, when you can't always be putting your best face forward or playing games, is just as good a measure of overall desirability (which should include both short term and long term interest) as the responses you get in the on a first meeting. A guy who can attract a few women, but those women become deeply devoted to him and he has a few very intense and enjoyable long term relationships, it seems to be is just as well off (if not better off, because you generally are going to have better dates and sex with someone you're comfortable with and who knows your tastes well) as someone who can attract lots of women for one night stands and short-term dating but never settles down.

            Sure, there might be some men who constantly date around because they're picky, and it's always them turning down longer term relationships with the women, but if they've never attempted a long term relationship then we really don't know whether they'd be successful in that part of dating, do we?

            None of that changes the fact that this website focuses on all aspects of dating, relationships, and love, not just the initial moment of getting a date/ONS, and that when you take into account long term attachments as well as initial attraction, according to the women DNL asked, certain personality traits are more important to them than any particular element of physical appearance. You asked if the problem is that people are defining "success with women" differently than you. The answer is yes, we are. It's fine that you define it differently, but that doesn't make us or DNL's article wrong.

          • Tosca

            "I go with this definition because it is a truer reflection of a man's desirability to women."

            Citation sorely needed. ALL women are not more attracted to the man who makes a point of having lots of sexual partners because it validates him or something. Are some? Sure. I know I'm not, and most of my friends aren't. We don't need guys to be virgins or anything, but constantly competing with every other woman out there is tiring. And even if a man like that "chooses" us one day, the next day he'll move onto greener pastures. So what would be in it for me to bed a guy like that? To say I did?

            I know PUA literature might have something in it about how us bitchez be hardwired to fight other women for one man and the more loved he is by other women, the more irresistible he is, (because I guess that means he hunts the most mammoth or something) but this is a hideous reduction and stereotyped BS.

            "Are people here reluctant to use this definition because they know that this kind of success requires good looks, the importance of which they have downplayed to death on this website?

            Even NerdLover's tagline says "Helping Nerds get THE girl""

            LOL. Ain't no devious downplaying going on. This is just real life. *Most* regular folk aren't tolling clubs, trying to score a different babe every night. Even the stories guys tell here and on the forums: it's almost always "how do I ask HER (specific girl) out?" Or they ask how to get better with women, because they want a girlfriend someday.

          • Tim

            Youve based this entire reply on the assumption that I meant "men who sleep around become desirable to women"
            When in fact it is the other way round "Desirable men get to sleep with a lot of women"

            So if a man gets to sleep around with a lot of women, it must be because he is very desirable to begin with.
            Do you get this simple logic? Or do you still need to twist it around ?

          • Tosca

            I reject your "logic".

            There's lots of reasons people IRL may have lots of partners. They might have low standards. They might be really fun and charismatic. They might be really hot, or have cultivated a rep as a good lay. It could just be stupid chance, too. Maybe they are looking for a LTR but end up finding more casual partners.

            In my life, there's lots of great, dare I say desirable, people who don't have hordes of lovers knocking down their doors.

            With a little something called maturity and perspective, which you seem to lack BTW, you realize that the world is far more complex than the hot jock who gets all the cheeleaders and therefore wins at life.

          • Tim

            "*Most* regular folk aren't tolling clubs, trying to score a different babe every night."

            Who’s talking about having casual sex with random strangers?

            I’m talking about "sexual relationships" with a lot of women. It could be a guy having sex with women he is casually dating, it could be flings, affairs, short term relationships, it could be FwB, it could be a variety of types of arrangements

            Why do you only highlight ‘one night stands with complete strangers’. Because it belittles the whole thing in a “Eww, drunken one night stands with random strangers, who the hell wants that anyway” kind of a way?

          • Gil

            Yeah "helping nerds get the girl . . . but not really".

    • Tim

      ..

  • eselle28

    Both of those seem pretty true to me. Thankfully for all of us who are in the average range!

  • Tim

    "While men gripe and moan about how only men with washboard abs and rock-hard pecs can get the ladies, the responses to my informal poll were about as scattershot as one could get. Some women adore bald men, others get weak in the knees for long hair and others will only date men with short hair. Some want their men clean shaven, others love facial hair with the passion of a thousand suns. Some women loved big burly men while others like skinny nerd-boys who look like the kid they could’ve met at Hebrew school."

    Hi Dr NerdLove
    I just want to ask you a very simple and straightforward question regarding the above paragraph

    Since, as you suggest, women's definition of male beauty / physical attractiveness varies so much, does this mean a nerdy-faced scrawny guy, a chubby bald guy, and a conventionally handsome, tall, well built guy; all have roughly the same odds of being found hot by women?

  • Tim

    Mel, Tosca

    being married or being in a steady relationship is not a good definition of having “success with women”

    One guy may have only had 1 or 2 gf’s in his lifetime, that he got after a lot of pursuit and effort, before he goes on to marry one of them.

    Another guy dates, has flings, affairs, casual sex, FwB and a variety of relationships with over 50 women and then goes on to marry one woman.

    The "destination" for both men is the same. But the "journey" is clearly different.
    Some people wrongly insist that both men are equally “successful with women” because they only consider the “destination" part, not the “journey”. But one’s love/sex/dating life is more like a journey than a destination.

    Even a guy who is seriously ugly can end up marrying a woman. Because out of all the women on this planet only one has to find him attractive or just acceptable for a long term relationship / marriage.

    • Mel_

      Tim,

      Being *happily* married or in a steady relationship is a perfectly good definition for having "success with women". Your problem is that you're making a whole lot of unfounded assumptions.

      You're assuming that all men who have lots of flings and casual sex end up happily married. There are lots of men who are unable to maintain a steady relationship well, as evidenced by the high divorce rates. And there are lots of men who never settle down at all. So the "destination" is not the same for all men, and only men who are in happy long-term relationships have actually reached that "destination". You have no way of knowing whether any man currently not in a happy long term relationship can reach it.

      You are also assuming that a man who doesn't have lots of flings and casual sex before getting married had to put a lot of time and energy into attracting that one woman. If what that man wants is to find one woman he really loves and who returns those feelings, and he isn't interested in casual dating and sex, then he's most successful if he finds that one woman quickly rather than having to date a whole bunch of women he's not really happy with before finding her. I can assure you, for example, that my husband is very happy to have met me in his early twenties and not to have continued having to date women he wasn't completely hitting it off with, even though many of those women were happy to date and have sex with him (and he hadn't been with anywhere near 50 women yet). And he didn't have to put in a lot of "pursuit and effort" to "get" me–he messaged me online, we chatted a bit, I agreed to go out as soon as he suggested it, and we just kept seeing each other. Pretty much as easy as can be.

      Finally, you're assuming that the "journey" is everything that happens before you meet someone you want to commit to, and that once that happens, the journey is over. I would argue that all of life is a journey, and the course of any good relationship includes continuing discoveries and excitement that you share with each other. Personally, I would rather have shared those experiences with the same guy than have spread them out across 50 different men.

      Why are you placing priority on the number of women over how happy the man is with those women? Why is quantity so much better than quality to you? Why are you insulting men who choose to settle down early by suggesting they only do so because they have no other options, rather than acknowledging that many men enjoy being in a committed relationship with the right person? And why are you placing priority on casual relationships over committed ones? I'm not saying that committed relationships are the *only* sign of success, only that they're a sign equal to casual relationships. You are the one insisting that there can only be one measure, and that measure has to be based on quantity of casual encounters.

      For someone who keeps accusing the rest of us of having problems acknowledging "reality", you seem to have a pretty narrow definition of "reality" yourself.

      • Tosca

        "Why are you placing priority on the number of women over how happy the man is with those women? Why is quantity so much better than quality to you? Why are you insulting men who choose to settle down early by suggesting they only do so because they have no other options, rather than acknowledging that many men enjoy being in a committed relationship with the right person? And why are you placing priority on casual relationships over committed ones? I'm not saying that committed relationships are the *only* sign of success, only that they're a sign equal to casual relationships. You are the one insisting that there can only be one measure, and that measure has to be based on quantity of casual encounters."

        Yes, this is exactly my bugbear with this whole situation.I know plenty of guys (and women too!) who are very happy playing the field and do not want to settle down any time soon. I'm not sitting here saying everyone SHOULD settle down or want to. But Tim, you ARE saying the opposite. That men who settle down are settling because they have no options, they don't really want it, etc. If I can acknowledge that there are people out there who will never settle down, and be ok with that, why can't you acknowledge that not every man is like YOU?

        The PUA dudes I've talked to here seem to steadfastly assume that their POV is every man's. Or it should be, otherwise he's a supplicating, beta pussy who'll one day be stuck raising some asshole's kids for him. That's more a Vic thing to come out and say, but the implications are still there.

        It would be like a true gold-digging type woman, from an online community of fellow gold-diggers, coming onto a dating advice column for women and saying, "Come on ladies, you know the wallet's the only thing that matters, don't fool yourselves! Oh, you married a poor guy who you 'love'? Gee, sorry you couldn't find a rich man, honey. OR maybe you're lying and he has a portfolio somewhere, because marrying a man for any other reason is ludicrous! Guys, don't kid yourselves, she's only after what you can buy her, no matter what she tells you."

        Also I cast a cynical eye at PUA because it IS there to sell and make money. Happily married/attached men who are cool with themselves don't make them any money. But sow the seeds of doubt, and maybe he'll start to feel like he could do better than his current GF. Then, he'll need YOUR help, won't he? Make that nerd who just wants A girlfriend feel like he's not man enough if he's not bedding at least 50. Suddenly he is buying all the books and going to seminars to learn game, even though he's a romantic introvert who would probably be happier finding one girl. Insecurity sells shit!

        • Tim

          Tosca, Mel

          It’s not helpful to have a rigid dichotomous view that there are either men who are predisposed to committed relationships and finding one perfect woman, or those who are predisposed to wanting multiple partners and never settling.

          Our experiences, observations, circumstances, self-assessment and opportunities; these are some of the major factors that shape our outlook and strategies regarding dating, sex and relationships; both, on a conscious and subconscious level.

          Consider these possibilities..

          A guy who has had very few or no woman interested in him in his life, is likely to develop a different outlook regarding relationships than a guy who has had many. Once a woman does come along he is likely to make more effort to like her and overlook her flaws. He may go on to marry her and have a fulfilling happy life. But perhaps, if he had more opportunities he wouldn't have overlooked her flaws, lost interest quickly and moved on to another one who better matched his tastes and ideals, and repeated the process for a long time.

          A guy who has struggled to attract women and get dates might realize, perhaps subconsciously, that the most feasible way for him is to hold on to a woman once he gets the chance because it might be years before another opportunity comes up. This guy may also go on to have a happy fulfilling relationship with that woman. But perhaps, if he had more opportunities and could attract more women easily, he would not have put that effort to hold on to the woman in question and let her drift away after a short term relationship.

          Perhaps, the nerd who just wants a gf, knows subconsciously, how competitive the dating/sexual marketplace is. He realizes he hasn't got the looks, physique, charm, confidence and outgoing nature to attract women for sexual relationships on a regular basis and moulds his expectations accordingly. He realizes having a long term committed gf is the most feasible way to go for him. Surely, he’d be happy once he gets a gf.

          Why can't happiness come AFTER one has made compromises, experienced disappointments, and accepted their limitations?

          Can women always get the guy of their dreams? But many of them go on to have happy fulfilling relationships with the men they end up with. That seems like a good analogy to me.

          Ofcourse there are men who, despite having all the opportunities in the world, only desire committed relationships with one woman; just like there are men who, despite struggling to attract women and having no opportunity, are still averse to relationships. But that doesn't mean the factors I've stated earlier don't mould the tendencies, behaviors, strategies, and expectations of the most of us, to a great extent.

        • Tim

          I've seen men of all age groups, happily married or in LTR’s, whose eyes pop out and jaws drop upon hearing the sexual escapades of the perpetually single good looking stud/player in the group/vicinity. You can sense their envy when they acknowledge ‘what a lucky bastard he is who’s living the ideal life’ and their sighs tell you how they wish they’d have done that.

          But most of them laugh it off, realizing life is about compromises and you can't have the life you expect or desire. Most of them don't dwell upon that or harbor any resentment.
          Most of them love their gf’s and wives too, and won't cheat them or dump them even for a steady supply of convenient pussy, NOW.

          I don't know what to conclude from that but Its a lot more complicated than the picture you paint when you ask the question “So if men had more opportunities they’d dump their loving wives?” I think that's a wrong question to ask. Perhaps many of them wouldn't get to that stage in the first place. Perhaps they would get to that stage much later in their lives after playing the field. at age 37 instead of 27 maybe?

        • Tim

          I've seen men of all age groups, happily married or in LTR’s, whose eyes pop out and jaws drop upon hearing the sexual escapades of the perpetually single good looking stud/player in the group/vicinity. You can sense their envy when they acknowledge ‘what a lucky bastard he is who’s living the ideal life’ and their sighs tell you how they wish they’d have done that.

          But most of them laugh it off, realizing life is about compromises and you can't have the life you expect or desire. Most of them don't dwell upon that or harbor any resentment.
          Most of them love their gf’s and wives too, and won't cheat them or dump them even for a steady supply of convenient sex, NOW.

          I don't know what to conclude from that but Its a lot more complicated than the picture you paint when you ask the question “So if men had more opportunities they’d dump their loving wives?” I think that's a wrong question to ask. Perhaps many of them wouldn't get to that stage in the first place. Perhaps they would get to that stage much later in their lives after playing the field. at age 37 instead of 27 maybe?

        • Tim

          “ If I can acknowledge that there are people out there who will never settle down, and be ok with that, why can't you acknowledge that not every man is like YOU? “

          I can acknowledge that. But you're not acknowledging the existence of a 3rd group here…a sea of young men who don't really want a big relationship or atleast aren't ready for them yet; and would just like to have sexual relationships with a few women w/o emotional involvement and complications; but who don't have the opportunity to do so.

          I don't see the majority of young men entering adulthood dreaming about finding the one particular girl for a long term relationship or marriage, either. I don't see them actively searching for ‘the one’. Its more like they are just looking to pull ‘girls’ and many of them just end up in relationships due to circumstance.

          You talk about PUA brainwashing . But you forget how much social, institutional, familial pressure there is on both men and women to get into a lifelong monogamous relationship. Unless you believe monogamy is the gold standard and the default model of human sexual behavior.

          Regular convenient Sex, physical intimacy are huge incentives for most men to get into relationships in the first place. They are not the only reasons but they are huge incentives.

          At the end of the day what we fundamentally need is sex, intimacy and companionship. And in this day and age we’d be kidding ourselves if we think a big relationship or marriage is required to fulfill those needs. People are already doing it. Marriage in particular, is more of a social and economic arrangement and a vehicle/system to raise children.

      • Tim

        Mel

        You're equating success with happiness and that's not a wrong perspective. (Although there are a few problems with this I've discussed later). I’m equating success with validation of a man’s desirability/appeal to women in general.

        Being happily married or in a LTR provides no direct evidence of a man’s desirability/appeal to women at large, for the purpose of romance, love-making and sex.

        And its simply because the way things are, many men are chosen as husbands/LT partners because of their redeeming qualities like loyalty, honesty, being caring, a good father, provider, supporter etc. Being happily married often has little to do with qualities that are required to attract a lot of women. And the qualities that are required to sustain a relationship are not the same as qualities required to cause attraction.

        It’s even possible for sexual desirability to be lower down on the priority list of a woman, when looking for / choosing a husband. She could've compromised on physical and sexual appeal.

        Ofcourse many LT relationships and marriages are not calculated decisions. And they blossom out of lust and love. But even in that case, at the most, being in a happy relationship or marriage, validates a man’s desirability for only ONE woman.

        Is that validation necessary in life? Is it more important than happiness? I don't know if we’re debating that question.

        • Mel_

          Tim, this whole discussion started because you took issue with DNL saying that being physically attractive is not necessarily in the top 5 traits that make men successful with women. You are arguing that successful should mean "desirable to women in general" as indicated solely by how many women that man has hooked up with. However, that is not how the article or this blog defines successful. The usual dictionary definition of success is that you have accomplished what you *wanted* to do. Some men may want to have lots of women attracted to them at first glance; some men may want to have a specific type of woman attracted to him and not care what the others think; some men may want to find that one special person and casual interest from women he's not impressed by doesn't factor in. Different people have different goals and desires, and feel validated by different things. I'm not sure why you find this so hard to understand.

          Yes, what the article says may conflict with your definiton of success. Oh well. You need to live with the fact that not everything you read is going to have the same approach to the world as you do, and that other people are allowed to have different approaches than you do, so having that different approach doesn't make them wrong. As I said before, if you want to read articles that focus solely on success as defined by numbers, there are lots of other websites that define it that way where you can read and discuss without feeling affronted. So why don't you go there?

          • Tim

            I thought I already moved past the 'definition of success' debate. and more concerned with 'desirable to women in general'.

          • Mel_

            I don't know, in the comment I was replying to you were still going on about defintions of success:

            "You're equating success with happiness and that's not a wrong perspective. (Although there are a few problems with this I've discussed later). I’m equating success with validation of a man’s desirability/appeal to women in general."

            So now you're concerned with "desirable to women in general", which it appears you define as something along the lines of "being able to have as many women as possible be willing to go on a date/have sex with you." So again, you are using a very limited definition. A man can have qualities that make him desirable as a fling, desirable as a dating partner, desirable as a husband.. but not necessarily all at once. Sex, romance, intimacy, emotional connection, etc. are all parts of dating and relationships, and all based on a variety of qualities, with some but far from complete overlap. The men the most women consider desirable or attractive for casual sex are not all the same men the most women consider desirable or attractive for dating long term. You're again prioritizing physical desire over emotional desire, and brief connections over longer-lasting ones, and I think both should count.

            If what you're trying to argue is that being conventionally physically attractive means that more women are likely to be physically attracted to you, I'd agree with you. Technically, that's what "conventionally physically attractive" *means*, so I'm not sure why it even needs to be said. What I disagree with is that you seem to be making romantic desire and success all about physical attraction when it's clear there's a lot more to it.

    • Robjection

      "Even a guy who is seriously ugly can end up marrying a woman. Because out of all the women on this planet only one has to find him attractive or just acceptable for a long term relationship / marriage."

      And if being in a long term relationship / marriage is what makes the man happy, why can't that count as a success? Especially if the same man would not be happy with flings, affairs, causal sex, FwB or anything like that.

  • Pingback: How To Be Charming — The Good Men Project()

  • eselle28

    Ugh. Aside from the visceral reaction, I note that the women featured on your Facebook aren't textbook examples of "modesty."

  • Anonimo Igor da Silva

    This is BS. The moment a rich, powerful and high status guy wants your girl, you're done.

    Plain and simple.

About Dr. NerdLove:

Harris O'Malley (AKA Dr. NerdLove) is an internationally recognized blogger and dating coach who gives dating advice to geeks of all stripes. Making nerds sexier since 20011

Remember: Dr. NerdLove is not really a doctor. [Read More …]

Connect With Dr. NerdLove

  • Email
  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Tumblr
  • Twitter

Like Me on Facebook

Become a Dr. NerdLove Patron!

Join The Dr. NerdLove Newsletter

Keep up with the latest news from Dr. NerdLove! Don't miss out on the newest releases, convention appearances, speaking engagements, special offers and more!

Latest Tweets

  • Teen Wolf: where it can seem like they're about to go full Turbo Teen and you just kinda accept it. About 7 hours ago
  • IT CAME FROM INCOMING SEARCHES: “Sleeping drunk alcohol masturbation gum in her face” That is… remarkably specific. About 8 hours ago
  • Wednesday Open Thread: Good News Edition https://t.co/2f8nhIAPu7 Yesterday at 9:52 pm
  • One of the hardest parts of this job is when you have to apply the Chair Leg of Truth to someone who can still be saved. Yesterday at 9:36 pm
  • Follow Dr. NerdLove on Twitter!

Out Now!

My new dating guide, New Game + is available at Amazon.com , iTunes and everywhere books are sold.

Categories

Our Sponsors

Our Sponsors

Recent Comments

Popular Posts

Become Someone Worth Dating
683
Ask Dr. NerdLove: Do I Come On Too Strong?
371
Ask Dr. NerdLove: Should I Admit That I’m A Virgin?
244
Post Mortem: When “Being Nice” Becomes A “Nice Guy”
212
Can Consent Be Sexy?
175

Archives

Tags

ask dr. nerdlove attitude be a better person body language boundaries break-ups break up cheating communication confidence dating Don't Be A Creeper emotional abuse emotional intelligence fashion flirting Learn From This level up lifestyle long distance relationships male privilege masculinity Meeting Women nerds and male privilege non-monogamy oneitis online dating podcast positivity rejection relationship maintenance relationships self-esteem self-improvement self-limiting beliefs self-validation sex skills talking to men talking to women the basics the friend zone troubleshooting virginity what not to do

Copyright © 2017 · Metro Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in