Women having difficulty finding men?

[lkanneg]

Yo, Lisa - PROOF, PLEASE!!!

I'll go along with that, too.

Aw, Sir Percy, surely it's not THAT unbelievable.  

My pic's on this message board someplace.  I can't find it.  It wasn't too long after I first started posting here...I was thinking that somebody else went to iVillage and somehow (I don't know how to do that) pulled my profile pic from there and put it on here.  However, I don't remember who it was or what the thread was originally about (not my picture, I'm sure   ).  I'll keep lookin.

[lkanneg]

Hah.  Found it.

http://standyourground.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6313&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15

[johnnyp]

Hah.  Found it.

http://standyourground.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6313&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15

Are you fishing for complements?  LOL

The picture is nice.

[lkanneg]

If that's how both parties view the sex they're engaging in, you're absolutely right.

Unfortunately men rarely have the benefit of believing when they have sex with someone it's a gift and not a degredation.

You seriously think men usually feel degraded after having sex?  Y'know, neither of us are men.  Maybe the men on this message board could chime in and clear this up for me.  If anybody's interested in responding:  do men, generally speaking, find sex degrading?  

This post is getting unwieldy; I'm going to split it up into several posts, if that's okay.

[lkanneg]

Hah.  Found it.

http://standyourground.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6313&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15

Are you fishing for complements?  LOL

Nope, I'm really not.  I practically never say anything to anybody about my appearance as a general rule--on the rare occasions that I do, it's usually depreciating.  However, in this one instance, it's relevant, because it gives me a perspective that not many have in regards to male-female heterosexual interactions .

[lkanneg]

The first category of fat and ugly men are those who are not drones; the second category of fat and ugly men are those who are drones.  Drones being, the jobless as opposed to the gainfully employed.

Well, first off most men are gainfully employed because they *have* to be to survive. Welfare just doesn't happen to men for some reason.

Second off, I haven't experienced this phenomenon.

First off, you're right in that single men aren't often on welfare.  Growing up, I knew plenty of men on welfare, but they were all part of a family unit, the entirety of which was on welfare.  Rather than welfare, you'll usually find your single jobless man living with (off) Mom and Dad.

Second off, maybe you've just never lived in the right...well, wrong...circumstances.  You will find plenty of these types in poverty-stricken, drug-ridden environments.

[lkanneg]

Er, they were unemployed.  Do you have a different definition of "jobless?"

"sufficently jobbed" would be a CEO, a surgeon, a champion snow boarder. These guys were clerks, salesmen and government employees.

TB, these guys were adults who, at the most, did the occasional odd job for cash.  Mostly they lived with either their parents or a girlfriend and spend all day in recreational activities, some of which were illegal (such as smoking pot).  They weren't clerks, salesmen, or anything else even remotely fitting the definition of "gainfully employed."

[Galt]

Rather than welfare, you'll usually find your single jobless man living with (off) Mom and Dad.

And -- rather than welfare, you'll find the married jobless woman living off the husband (who may have just found a job and moved out from mom and dad).

What I find interesting is that no one - and I really mean no one - ever looks at the effect of women leeching off men.  I'm not saying all women do it, I'm saying that no one ever considers or looks at what goes on in this regard.

Women "marry up" as a general rule (I think 80% or so - but then we have to remember the ward nurse who "marries down" by marrying the guy with the MD doing his residency for low pay in plastic surgery - yeah, we get the drift).

Men for the most part can't or won't "marry up".  They got to get doing their thing.  Like ya know?  Women statistically don't have to get anything going on, they have to get a husband going on.  Just not me.  LOL

[lkanneg]

And there is statistical evidence from another area of women's "oppression" that shows this isn't true. The workplace. In the workplace plain or ugly women suffer less compared to their beautiful counterparts then plain or ugly men. Why? Because of those beauty aids.

You think plain or ugly women suffer less compared to beautiful women than plain or ugly men do compared to handsome men because of makeup?  That's an interesting theory; can you provide some additional info?

http://typhonblue.livejournal.com/1604.html

Scroll down to the bottom to find some references.

Found this:
"Surely to some extent money buys beauty. The more you earn, the more you can spend on cosmetics, health care, and plastic surgery. And higher earnings can lead to higher self-esteem, which in turn leads to better eating habits. But Hamermesh, Biddle, and Cawley believe these effects are small, for several reasons. First, there's a limit to how much you can accomplish with cosmetics. Second, the correlation between wages and beauty is strongest among the young, who are the least likely to have benefited from health care and plastic surgery."

Doesn't seem to support the idea that makeup is much of a factor, does it?

[typhonblue]

If that's how both parties view the sex they're engaging in, you're absolutely right.

Unfortunately men rarely have the benefit of believing when they have sex with someone it's a gift and not a degredation.

You seriously think men usually feel degraded after having sex?  Y'know, neither of us are men.  Maybe the men on this message board could chime in and clear this up for me.  If anybody's interested in responding:  do men, generally speaking, find sex degrading?  

This post is getting unwieldy; I'm going to split it up into several posts, if that's okay.

Re-read what I said.

Women believe sex is something they give to men. (Thus elevating men's status via the gift of sex.)

Men believe sex is something they take from women. (Thus degrading them in the process. If you take something, doesn't the person you've taken from have less?)

The more sex a woman gives, the more degraded she becomes.

The more sex a man recieves, the more elevated a man becomes. But at each transaction he feels like he is taking something from her and "sullying" her. Most men are compassionate so probably feel like they should compensate the woman somehow (if they buy into this dynamic). The ones who aren't (and buy into the dynamic) relish the degredation.

But what if this whole system is an artificial construct designed to get men feeling guilty and in debt to women for a mutually pleasurable and beneficial act?

[typhonblue]

Found this:
"Surely to some extent money buys beauty. The more you earn, the more you can spend on cosmetics, health care, and plastic surgery. And higher earnings can lead to higher self-esteem, which in turn leads to better eating habits. But Hamermesh, Biddle, and Cawley believe these effects are small, for several reasons. First, there's a limit to how much you can accomplish with cosmetics. Second, the correlation between wages and beauty is strongest among the young, who are the least likely to have benefited from health care and plastic surgery."

Doesn't seem to support the idea that makeup is much of a factor, does it?

I'm reading that it says that health care and plastic surgery are unlikely to be factors in the differential between the income of ugly vs. beautiful people.

Make-up, which young people still use frequently, could account for the 5% bonus ugly women get in the income department compared to ugly men. But, of course, cosmetics can't do everything, so ugly women are still penalized 5%.

Now... if cosmetics have nothing to do with the fact ugly men are penalized more then ugly women, then it becomes even more mysterious.

Perhaps people feel free to harsh on ugly men, but not on ugly women?

[Galt]

I think, lkanneg, that women marry up, and they have been doing that since apes turned into humans and were able to think about storing food or other things.  That's how it is - and, worse, I think that the trade-off was pretty much sex for stuff that men produce (like building them a hut, LOL).

So now we get to the present day.  I don't really know how to comment on the figures involving who uses Mary Kay cosmetics, and L'Oreal (you're worth it - as long as stupid pays for it) or Chanel or all the rest.  Actually, I know how to comment on it, but I don't want to get a warning.

Anyway, cosmetics and clothes seem to me to be a bit more important to women.  That may be backed up by figures on who spends money on what.

And from my point of view, that confirms who does what.  The guy who majors in electrical engineering and then gets an MBA gets along OK. Or the guy with an MD.  A woman without any degree who is cute can get more money than any of the above if she plays it right.  Look at the stewardess who married Lee Iococca right after his wife died - she wouldn't even move in with him.  He finally just had to pay her $3 million after taking 9 months of her crap - and got used up the wazoo.

But she's got more money than some dupe who decided to take the straight route and provide something to society with electrical engineering or law. I personally don't find that aspect of society entirely amusing - and these women (and there are a WHOLE lot of them) should at least be called on what they are.

[lkanneg]

Oh heavens, I've observed so very many things on so many different levels it'd take multiple pages of monologing for me to share them all.  Pick a category to do with male-female interactions either on a social level or in the workplace.

Well, as an eligable attractive (but not skinny woman) I'd imagine you'd be able to describe your experiences in a word: miserable.

By your own logic, of course, you should be scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of dates due to your non-slenderness, if you even get asked out at all.

Now, now.  Here we go again...no doubt I am opening myself up to more accusations of compliment-fishing but, in this one instance, the issue is relevant, so:

I'm not "attractive."  I'm beautiful.  <wince> social conditioning is now activated and pinching and beating me about the head for saying so, but...I'm not "skinny."  I am "slender," except for my bust, which is large, and my bottom, which is not large but is definitely well-rounded.  

Given my logic, I should be swamped with men.  

[Galt]

I'm not "attractive."  I'm beautiful.  <wince> social conditioning is now activated and pinching and beating me about the head for saying so, but...I'm not "skinny."  I am "slender," except for my bust, which is large, and my bottom, which is not large but is definitely well-rounded.  

Well, you apparently don't suffer from low self-esteem.

[typhonblue]

Oh heavens, I've observed so very many things on so many different levels it'd take multiple pages of monologing for me to share them all.  Pick a category to do with male-female interactions either on a social level or in the workplace.

Well, as an eligable attractive (but not skinny woman) I'd imagine you'd be able to describe your experiences in a word: miserable.

By your own logic, of course, you should be scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of dates due to your non-slenderness, if you even get asked out at all.

Now, now.  Here we go again...no doubt I am opening myself up to more accusations of compliment-fishing but, in this one instance, the issue is relevant, so:

I'm not "attractive."  I'm beautiful.  <wince> social conditioning is now activated and pinching and beating me about the head for saying so, but...I'm not "skinny."  I am "slender," except for my bust, which is large, and my bottom, which is not large but is definitely well-rounded.  

Given my logic, I should be swamped with men.  

And, given your logic, are you?