- Joined
- Jun 25, 2012
- Messages
- 14,115
- Reaction score
- 13,739
Jackman is my boy, but neither of them compare to Jason Momoa. Ijs.
Most of those sites have a female to male ratio of anywhere from 3:1 to 10:1. It's about the closest thing you can get to shooting fish in a barrel, but it's also basically prostitution, so there's that.The former part could commonly be true yes.
But on the whole income/social class dont matter too much. The important part is that is helps you within your league. Your league is determined by your face largely... and I guess for men in their 30s and 40s body matters even more since your average guy is out of shape and hence much less attractive on the whole.
Look at it this way... there's a reason rich men are fighting over girls on sugar daddy sites. If money/success attracted women THAT much then they could just go out, meet people and land a hot gf who wasnt being directly paid by them.
Yea but you cant use these to compare average people since most people have a pretty generic face that may be attractive but usually is not.Whatever. Most of the women I know would say Jackman is the better looking of the two. Craig attracted a ton of controversy when it was announced that he would portray James Bond.
Craig is short compared to the other Bond actors.
I thought Sean Connery was the best looking 007 when he was portraying the movies in the 60s. Pierce Brosnan was also looking good, although he looked too skinny in Goldeneye, the opposite of Craig, Brosnan had good looks, but was very skinny in his first film, a lot of people laughed when he took his shirt off and he had skinny arms.
I do not think Jackman is "generic" in any way except for that he portrayed Wolverine too much.
A lot of rich guys would prefer to just get escorts rather than do the whole sugar daddy thing. Hence why there arent as many men as expected on there. Also I guess there simply are more attractive chicks than rich guys lol.Most of those sites have a female to male ratio of anywhere from 3:1 to 10:1. It's about the closest thing you can get to shooting fish in a barrel, but it's also basically prostitution, so there's that.
Pretty much that. Women can be attractive at any income level, but the 1%ers are in limited supply.A lot of rich guys would prefer to just get escorts rather than do the whole sugar daddy thing. Hence why there arent as many men as expected on there. Also I guess there simply are more attractive chicks than rich guys lol.
What's interesting is that no one has mentioned Hugh Jackman's wife- she's overweight and average looking (has a nice face though) and he loves her to death despite being a handsome dude himself that could have his pick of women if he wanted.
Outliers along with celebrities... two groups of people we should not use to look at the 99%.He is good looking and really rich. Yep, he could do better than what he got in terms of looks but seems to have a very happy family.
What's interesting is that no one has mentioned Hugh Jackman's wife- she's overweight and average looking (has a nice face though) and he loves her to death despite being a handsome dude himself that could have his pick of women if he wanted.
Perhaps he's a mature person and not shallow.
Outliers along with celebrities... two groups of people we should not use to look at the 99%.
In society, hypergamy is pretty legit (for those who are <30 years old largely, even more so <25) and it is entirely based off of male attractiveness. At most ~20% of the male population gets with ~80% of the female population. It's essentially a product of women having endless options whereas men have little to none. For example on a dating site, an average woman gets like 80 messages a day while an average man will get 1 at the most. Now a very attractive man will get several messages daily and this leads to a minority of the men seeing a majority of the women on that site.
Outside of the internet this all holds true too and attractiveness is the one thing that 20% largely has in common with each other. Personality is far too subjective and is usually just a product of liking what that person offers.
Are you a first generation immigrant? I'm just curious because you seem very tied to traditional Japanese culture, but most Asian people I know don't really hold on to that kinda stuff (as what tends to happen to all 2nd/3rd/4th generation immigrants)There are some people who actually like monogamy and prefer a traditional family with kids. I honestly think today's pattern of people casually sleeping around does not bode well for society as a whole.
Back to the thread's main topic, I think Asian men tend to have a hard time in the American dating scene is because they come from societies with more traditional family structures, and most people in Asian countries usually do not "date", they get married and have a family. Some things that Western people do, such as show affection in public, many Asians prefer to do behind closed doors.
Are you a first generation immigrant? I'm just curious because you seem very tied to traditional Japanese culture, but most Asian people I know don't really hold on to that kinda stuff (as what tends to happen to all 2nd/3rd/4th generation immigrants)
And why perchance is casual dating/sex bad for society as a whole? Like I've seen this thrown out a ton by different people but I've never really bought it
I think you are talking about a specific subset of Asian men that really could apply to a lot of immigrants.Yes, and??? A lot of people of my background prefer a traditional marriage, something that is rare in America these days. This is the underlying reason why so many Asian men have trouble in the American dating scene.
Even white guys seem to complain about things today, many missed the old days.
There are some people who actually like monogamy and prefer a traditional family with kids. I honestly think today's pattern of people casually sleeping around does not bode well for society as a whole.
Back to the thread's main topic, I think Asian men tend to have a hard time in the American dating scene is because they come from societies with more traditional family structures, and most people in Asian countries usually do not "date", they get married and have a family. Some things that Western people do, such as show affection in public, many Asians prefer to do behind closed doors.
Oh no I wasn't speaking in favor or against of it, I'm saying that hypergamy is a reality of society.
An attractive man will see multiple girls at once/within a short period of time and this on the whole means that most guys are largely left out (guys who arent attractive).
I've seen a lot of asian men exclusively want white girls. I doubt that asians have problems with non-white girls...
That is surely the reality, hypergamy and promiscuity are considered "normal" today. I see this as the end product of feminism, while it sounds strange to many, in more traditional societies sexual activity outside of marriage was a taboo, now its quite normal.
Sleeping around, and casual relationships are eclipsing traditional relationships that create families, emotional bonds and stability.
There are many friends of mine who are white who lament the loss of traditional families, the traditional emotionally fulfilling relationship, its no longer there.
Feminism has promoted misandry where men and boys are seen as bad. It has not created equality between the sexes, more it has created mistrust between them.
Well a lot of those things are the reality of society.
As for hypergamy, I'd be more likely to blame men. However with make up, revealing clothing etc etc women get endless attention which then creates an idea in their head that they are truly well above average in attractiveness. And im not trying to be rude, but that's just how it is. Endless facebook/instagram likes, endless compliments, endless tinder matches etc inflate egos and would do so for any person whether male or female. If you walk around thinking you're a 7/10 when you're a 4/10, then you'll quite simply demand nothing lower than a 7. Eventually it works itself out to the point where the girl is seeing a guy that's also seeing 3 other girls... hence the imbalance.
yep thats generally how it is... ive never had any trouble so i cant be bitter but i do fully understand the issues. A lot of women acknowledge it too however some still choose to blame men for their lack of success with women. That's where the whole "confidence and personality" thing comes from, it's also how PUAs made money. The reality is that it's all your face and that's largely out of your control.That is why people like Roosh have a point, feminism has just flat out ruined everything, its created a system where guys are just chasing women and the alphas get sex while the betas live alone. Its not surprising to me that he decided to leave the US and move to Eastern Europe. He has some ideas that I disagree with as he did not go to Eastern Europe to settle down but to game women over there for sex. So he winds up as a willing participant in a game that he himself does not like. I have no idea why he does not bother going back to his ancestral home country and settle down over there.
yep thats generally how it is... ive never had any trouble so i cant be bitter but i do fully understand the issues. A lot of women acknowledge it too however some still choose to blame men for their lack of success with women. That's where the whole "confidence and personality" thing comes from, it's also how PUAs made money. The reality is that it's all your face and that's largely out of your control.
Are you a first generation immigrant? I'm just curious because you seem very tied to traditional Japanese culture, but most Asian people I know don't really hold on to that kinda stuff (as what tends to happen to all 2nd/3rd/4th generation immigrants)
And why perchance is casual dating/sex bad for society as a whole? Like I've seen this thrown out a ton by different people but I've never really bought it
How many times have you heard/read men successful with women lamenting the lost of traditional values?
Hahahaha you make a good point thereHow many times have you heard/read men successful with women lamenting the lost of traditional values?
What is your definition of "success"? For me its having a wife and some kids to carry my family name, living together til old age and leaving the world together.
A lot of women want this as well. However more women are looking to have a relationship where each person is valued equally and don't want to be treated as a domestic fuk toy. Perhaps that's where you are having an issue.
Is that why you are so bitter?I actually have a girlfriend and we treat each other equally well. I was married once, and my ex-wife thought of me as a walking ATM.
Personally I would have been happier with having a traditional marriage that started earlier than I have been with the whole promiscuity thing. When I was younger, I really just wanted to settle down, get married, have a couple kids, etc. Honestly I'd trade all the sex I've had to go back and have a really awesome, successful, traditional marriage. Sleeping around and going to med school because I've got no kids to raise and thus nothing better to do have been my consolation prizes for not getting what I actually wanted in life.How many times have you heard/read men successful with women lamenting the lost of traditional values?
What do you mean by "traditional marriage" tho?Personally I would have been happier with having a traditional marriage that started earlier than I have been with the whole promiscuity thing. When I was younger, I really just wanted to settle down, get married, have a couple kids, etc. Honestly I'd trade all the sex I've had to go back and have a really awesome, successful, traditional marriage. Sleeping around and going to med school because I've got no kids to raise and thus nothing better to do have been my consolation prizes for not getting what I actually wanted in life.
Promiscuity in society at large tends to cause less stable marriages and a lack of marriages in general. This results in children from broken households in the former case, and, in the case of the latter, a lower likelihood of couples having children and thus lower birth rates for the nation as a whole. These lower birth rates eventually lead to unsustainable support structures as the number of elderly eclipses the number of young workers, and the society crumbles. There's a good deal of data out there showing that both promiscuous men and promiscuous women are far less likely to have a successful marriage overall. So basically, marriage is generally a net positive for society, as demonstrated by the effect of marriage upon children upon the financial status of those that are married. Promiscuity makes successful marriages less likely, therefore promiscuity is a net negative for society. I've only got a few minutes to write this, so I can't really get too depth, as I've got a quiz soon I'm kind of studying for.Are you a first generation immigrant? I'm just curious because you seem very tied to traditional Japanese culture, but most Asian people I know don't really hold on to that kinda stuff (as what tends to happen to all 2nd/3rd/4th generation immigrants)
And why perchance is casual dating/sex bad for society as a whole? Like I've seen this thrown out a ton by different people but I've never really bought it
Two people that get together young after having not slept around, that make a couple babies and the guy works while the woman takes care of things at home. It's how I was raised (albeit by my mother and stepfather, since my dad was a drunk that was hardly functional and my mother had to leave him for her safety) and it's kind of a nice cut-and-dry arrangement of life. Like I said though, it's really not a possibility for me anymore. Now I'm a totally different person, I've got a lust for adventure and couldn't ever settle down in any sense of the word. But I like to imagine that I'd have been happy with a wife and 2.5 kids and a dog, even if I know that'll never be me because now it could never satisfy me. Simple would have been nice, I guess.What do you mean by "traditional marriage" tho?
Well, what's wrong with traditional marriage arrangements between two consenting adults? I know you don't want to get into it, but I'm actually curious. From a happiness standpoint, I can provide you with several studies showing that traditional marriages are happier. I can get you plenty of research on kids from stable nuclear families versus those from divorced families versus single mothers that show the kids being both happier and attaining a higher level of education. I've got the research showing that the more sexual partners a man or woman has had, the less likely their marriage is to succeed. I mean, it's all out there. I'm not trying to be inflammatory, I actually just want to see where you're coming from. You know I'm willing to discuss things and politely disagree in the end should we find no middle ground.Yeah i vehemently disagree with you on pretty much every point. Not really interested in getting into it though
Well, what's wrong with traditional marriage arrangements between two consenting adults? I know you don't want to get into it, but I'm actually curious. From a happiness standpoint, I can provide you with several studies showing that traditional marriages are happier. I can get you plenty of research on kids from stable nuclear families versus those from divorced families versus single mothers that show the kids being both happier and attaining a higher level of education. I've got the research showing that the more sexual partners a man or woman has had, the less likely their marriage is to succeed. I mean, it's all out there. I'm not trying to be inflammatory, I actually just want to see where you're coming from. You know I'm willing to discuss things and politely disagree in the end should we find no middle ground.
Be happy you did get the sex at least! An endless number of men go through their prime years with little to no sex, then settle down for someone they arent even that attracted to in the end.Personally I would have been happier with having a traditional marriage that started earlier than I have been with the whole promiscuity thing. When I was younger, I really just wanted to settle down, get married, have a couple kids, etc. Honestly I'd trade all the sex I've had to go back and have a really awesome, successful, traditional marriage. Sleeping around and going to med school because I've got no kids to raise and thus nothing better to do have been my consolation prizes for not getting what I actually wanted in life.
You know I'm not some hard-line traditionalist. I largely agree with you. The thing is, we were addressing what was best for society, not individuals, and I was presenting data that would explain why someone would believe that promiscuity is a negative thing for society. If you look at the data objectively, promiscuity is bad for society and traditional marriages are good from a socioeconomic and utilitarian perspective. I'm not saying that it is the only option, just that the data bears it out as the best option if one is looking at macro-level policy and disregarding individuals. I'm speaking from a policy level, not a personal one. It's not that there's anything morally or ethically wrong with promiscuity or anything else you brought up, I was just dealing in cold, hard numbers.You have to understand one of my core beliefs as a human being is sex positivity. I believe that my reason d'etre is to be a sex educator. That's part of the reason I'm becoming a physician is to have the credentials to do that on a broad scale. I believe that promiscuity is a bullshet concept and that sexual practices have nothing to do with someone's worth, that kinky individuals can raise children just as well as vanilla folks, that marriages work well between people who have had a large number of sexual partners or a small number. I believe in these things the same way I believe that the sun will rise each morning. I'm not saying traditional marriages are wrong, I just don't see them as an ideal.
I'm not interested in studies and I'm not particularly interested in debating this. There is literally nothing you can say to change my mind about these things.
I know she's happy because she and I talk and she says she's happy. 11 years in, she's still posting the "ZOMG I LOVE MY HUSBAND!!!!" posts on FB. So far as happiness, it could be correlated with religion and social support networks, that's entirely plausible. And these studies aren't being conducted by biased institutes- it's a series of studies conducted by the University of Virginia's National Marriage Project (started at Rutgers, later moved to UV), which has been looking into what works and doesn't work when it comes to marriage. Who is subjectively happier, who has more sex, what factors lead to women being happier (the major focus on most of the studies thusfar has been on the feelings of women toward their marriages).I'm not saying you can't be monogamous and sex positive obviously. I just don't see monogamy/vanilla/low partners as some sort of universal ideal. It's an option that I don't see as particularly superior than other options.
And I personally think a lot of that data is skewed because I'm not sure how they are measuring happiness. Certainty lots of low partner couples stay together longer but I think a lot of that has to do with religion not happiness. I think the best prediction for a happy marriage is probably age, education level and socioeconomic status. But that's my theory.
Also a lot of what you are saying sounds like N=1. I think a lot of us have what if exes (i have a few) and I really would question how do you really know she is happy? You of all people should know that marriage isn't always sunshine and unicorn farts. You don't know if you would have been happier with her and I don't think it's fair to use that to make judgements about the institution as a whole. Perhaps that it has been used to subjugate women for thousands of years gives me more pause. I chose to go into it aware at least.
How can you justify your beliefs if you can't defend them against evidence? How can you win hearts and minds if you are confronted by the fact that there is no scientific data that backs your opinion and it is based entirely on your subjective beliefs about right and wrong?Like I said I don't care about statistics (statistically it's most likely that I'll die by suicide, that's not something I particularly give a damn about) I don't care to debate this. I told you want I think.
Listen I didn't want to debate this with you right now because we are friends and I don't particularly like engaging in shet like this but at this point you've been pushing my buttons enough for me to go off. I didn't want to do this and I sure as **** didn't ask for it.How can you justify your beliefs if you can't defend them against evidence? How can you win hearts and minds if you are confronted by the fact that there is no scientific data that backs your opinion and it is based entirely on your subjective beliefs about right and wrong?
I'm not asking you these questions just to mess with you, nor am I attempting to debate you just for the sake of argument. At this point I don't even want you to bother addressing anything prior to this post, and just answer the two questions above. You're going to be a damn leader someday, whether you like it or not, someone that is looked to to be a voice for your community and your beliefs by virtue of your training and the niche area in which you someday would like to practice. Or you could just crawl under a rock and not represent your beliefs, or defend them in the same way that a religious zealot does ("your data doesn't matter! I know the truth and nothing you say will change my mind!"). But these aren't the best way to forward your cause, something I'm certain you are aware of. Ah well, I'll let it go. I just hate when feminists and progressives break down in the face of data by either disregarding it or refusing to acknowledge it. You can't ignore evidence in the name of "progress" because there might very well be some things worth saving and learning from in the practices that humanity has established via social evolution over thousands of years. There's a reason the LGBTQ community fought so damn hard for marriage, after all.
I think you misunderstood my tone by a wide margin. I apologize, and I'm sorry I didn't just drop it. I wasn't insulting you, though it seems you took it that way. I was trying to give you a "come on, I know you can do better than this, you're freakin' TP" more than anything in my last post. I never, ever insulted you in any of the other paragraphs, though I can see how that last one would have offended you.Listen I didn't want to debate this with you right now because we are friends and I don't particularly like engaging in shet like this but at this point you've been pushing my buttons enough for me to go off. I didn't want to do this and I sure as **** didn't ask for it.
I gave you my ******* justifications several comments ago, yet you kept wanting to debate points that I haven't even made. Look at what the things I wrote first. Here I'll even quote them for you in case you are too lazy too look it up for yourself:
You have to understand one of my core beliefs as a human being is sex positivity. I believe that my reason d'etre is to be a sex educator. That's part of the reason I'm becoming a physician is to have the credentials to do that on a broad scale. I believe that promiscuity is a bullshet concept and that sexual practices have nothing to do with someone's worth, that kinky individuals can raise children just as well as vanilla folks, that marriages work well between people who have had a large number of sexual partners or a small number. I believe in these things the same way I believe that the sun will rise each morning. I'm not saying traditional marriages are wrong, I just don't see them as an ideal.
Look at what I'm saying. I never said that being kinky, being monogamous, being married, being straight any of those have to correspond together. No effing shet you can be kinky and in a monogamous relationship with kids. Those are some of the exact people I want to try and fight for. I don't believe that statistics can adequately justify saying that monogamous, vanilla marriages are better for society because there are just too many variables. I do think that kids tend to better when raised in two parent married households in no small part because of all the benefits of marriage that the US govt gives married couples. I don't particularly think that all of those advantages are fair, but whatever I'll keep cashing my tax rebates. The reason why the gay community gives a **** (too much of a **** if you ask me) about marriage equality is because of the equality bit. It's not fair to give benefits to heterosexual couples while penalizing gay ones. Duh.
I also think you are missing context for the "promiscuous" thing because those people tend to experience high levels of stigma. I don't think that makes having lots of sexual partners makes someone unhappy, I think dealing with slut-shaming makes people unhappy. Since we live in a society that's oddly puritanical and that shows. That's not something that can really be accounted for in statistics and therefore I'm not surprised that it shows up that those who have high numbers of partners have more unsuccessful marriages. It also could just be because they didn't want to get married. There are a lot of unaccounted for factors here.
You also brought up the concept of choice earlier. One reason why those who have higher satisfaction in marriage is because they freely went into that relationship and got what they wanted. People feeling forced to settle down with kids (or to be single) are probably going to be less happy than those who made a conscious choice. Again I think that religiosity does have a factor as well especially for the length of marriages as many religions still aren't so cool with the divorce thing.
I don't hate marriage. I see benefits to it, but I am concerned about the overvaluing of it to the expense of other less traditional types of relationships. As a female I am still expected to get married and squat out some kids regardless of if I have a career or not. That's bull****. It's also bull**** that the number of partners someone has is thrown around as the end of society as we know it. Stigmatizing people because they are having more sex than you (seriously I've never seen a set definition of promiscuous, for some it's more than 1 for other's it's more than 100) doesn't make them flawed or dysfunctional or mean guarantee that they are going to have relationship problems.
In summary - I don't believe that any statistical study can adequately control for all the variables involved human relationships and you can kindly go **** yourself with a broom. Don't talk down to me. Just because you are older doesn't make you particularly wiser. I didn't ask for advice about how to be an activist and I don't particularly give a **** if you think I'm a good one or not. But congrats you got me to break down and lay it all out for you. Congrats big internet man I hope you feel ******* happy you dingus.
I have actually lol... personally i dont care much though. I just think that sexual inequality is at an extreme all time high and this is causing problems among men (psychologically).How many times have you heard/read men successful with women lamenting the lost of traditional values?
Anyone who is Asian and complaining that their ethnicity is keeping them from getting women should watch this every morning when they get up, and stop whining and being a loser. Bruce Lee is the badass of badasses, stood 5'7" and was Asian.