Poll for men

[work in progress]

Notice how your two affirmations don´t contradict.

Most men want a 36 24 26 women for sex and would love it if she actually has a personality and they can do more together than have sex. But for the sex the requirement you just described is the first and foremost quality.

Those that don´t subscribe to what I said above obviously exist! They are called minority and most often than not, simply "exceptions" (and there is nothing wrong with that! )

I don't know if what you say is correct, but if it is, that is a sad statement about how shallow and superficial modern society is today!

But, on the contrary...as discussed in previous threads on this topic, even in basic psychological testing of men from a range of age, racial and income demographics, we do have some fundamental physical preferences that we find attractive in a woman...like the already mentioned hourglass figure - which just happens to be a good indicator of fertility and birthing capability for some reason)....how we rate women we do not know on a one to ten scale depends greatly on the perceived personality characteristics we see in a stack of random photos of women who were asked to pose for pictures exhibiting both positive and negative emotions. In short, the women who look sullen or unfriendly get ranked lower than if they are smiling and appear to have an engaging personality. That should indicate that most men do respond to other cues besides the physical features when they try to evaluate how attractive a woman is.

 

[Me Myself]

I don't know if what you say is correct, but if it is, that is a sad statement about how shallow and superficial modern society is today!

But, on the contrary...as discussed in previous threads on this topic, even in basic psychological testing of men from a range of age, racial and income demographics, we do have some fundamental physical preferences that we find attractive in a woman...like the already mentioned hourglass figure - which just happens to be a good indicator of fertility and birthing capability for some reason)....how we rate women we do not know on a one to ten scale depends greatly on the perceived personality characteristics we see in a stack of random photos of women who were asked to pose for pictures exhibiting both positive and negative emotions. In short, the women who look sullen or unfriendly get ranked lower than if they are smiling and appear to have an engaging personality. That should indicate that most men do respond to other cues besides the physical features when they try to evaluate how attractive a woman is.

Sure! things that can be immidiately modified by the woman if she is in good mood, like in this experiment.

I dont see anything sad in such superficiality, we are talking about an action that is very basic not at all that deep, which is sex for sex´s sake. We are not talking about a deep and involved relationship. If men saw mostly body for that, then I would say it is sad.

 

[dust1n]

Sure! things that can be immidiately modified by the woman if she is in good mood, like in this experiment.

I fail to see how this qualifies as an experiment, or even a thought experiment. What exactly are you testing here? What's the control? What's the hypothesis?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I fail to see how this qualifies as an experiment, or even a thought experiment. What exactly are you testing here? What's the control? What's the hypothesis?

The framing of the questions....I don't know how to put it. I only know a few men, honestly, who would believe that a woman is already ready to have sex with you and all you have to do is pick between reading something they wrote or their pictures.

Add to that, the visual fantasy is being so misused and misunderstood as a query into human sexuality here. What I'm seeing is an assumption that men want to bang a hot chick, end of story, and that to go beyond how or why men want to bang a hot chick, or how to define a hot chick, or to define the basis of desire in men overall, or to go by locker room talk to give weight to the OP....I don't know. It's just so bizarre.

It would be like asking me if I knew 1,000 people wanted to pay money to my business, and they already committed to paying and have paid, would I rather choose who will be my customers based on how they look or what they write. The entire premise is ridiculous.

 

[DreadFish]

I assumed the point was to see how many people, out of those who participated in this thread, preferred pictures (as in, physical attractiveness) to determine choice of sexual partner, vs those who might choose something more personality based to determine a sexual partner.

Though it is not the best way of finding out those stats.

 

[Koldo]

I assumed the point was to see how many people, out of those who participated in this thread, preferred pictures (as in, physical attractiveness) to determine choice of sexual partner, vs those who might choose something more personality based to determine a sexual partner.

This is also what i understood.

 

[Me Myself]

I assumed the point was to see how many people, out of those who participated in this thread, preferred pictures (as in, physical attractiveness) to determine choice of sexual partner, vs those who might choose something more personality based to determine a sexual partner.

Though it is not the best way of finding out those stats.

Yes, that was the idea.

I know the 10 lines paragraph isn´t the best representation of personality, but I also wanted to limit that because I wanted to see if such a limited exposure of personality would be enough to turn a man on sexualy.

Even when the woman may have a great personality it would rarely be so to be recognised as such. I wanted to make a paralel to the minimal time a woman has to appear in a commercial and look hot to associate the sexuality to a product. Which wouldn´t be easy to do if you cannot look at the femañe´s body at the comercial. Not imposible surely, but far less effective more often than not in the sexuality department.

I am thinking on another poll soon though.

 

[dust1n]

The framing of the questions....I don't know how to put it. I only know a few men, honestly, who would believe that a woman is already ready to have sex with you and all you have to do is pick between reading something they wrote or their pictures.

Add to that, the visual fantasy is being so misused and misunderstood as a query into human sexuality here. What I'm seeing is an assumption that men want to bang a hot chick, end of story, and that to go beyond how or why men want to bang a hot chick, or how to define a hot chick, or to define the basis of desire in men overall, or to go by locker room talk to give weight to the OP....I don't know. It's just so bizarre.

It would be like asking me if I knew 1,000 people wanted to pay money to my business, and they already committed to paying and have paid, would I rather choose who will be my customers based on how they look or what they write. The entire premise is ridiculous.

Pretty much. Even if I was willing to answer the question, the situation is so far out there and bizarre that's even hard to imagine the situation so it's so far away from reality. But, ya, it is very telling that the ultimate goal here either way is to be banging some chick, who I guess just wants to bang you for some unspoken reason...

Sounds more like a prostitution ring with the line-up. It's like you paid already and now you just want to either do it, or you need some self-affirmation that you aren't a total *********, or the writings just help you get off in general...

 

[Me Myself]

Pretty much. Even if I was willing to answer the question, the situation is so far out there and bizarre that's even hard to imagine the situation so it's so far away from reality. But, ya, it is very telling that the ultimate goal here either way is to be banging some chick, who I guess just wants to bang you for some unspoken reason...

Sounds more like a prostitution ring with the line-up. It's like you paid already and now you just want to either do it, or you need some self-affirmation that you aren't a total *********, or the writings just help you get off in general...

If you are incapable of imagining it, by all means don´t participate.

Most people were able to imagine it, but it is okay, everyone is different.

 

[dust1n]

If you are incapable of imagining it, by all means don´t participate.

Most people were able to imagine it, but it is okay, everyone is different.

Oh, I CAN imagine it, if I suspend my complete disbelief. I really don't know why I would want to imagine it.

SO, what are the results of your experiment? Was the non-mentioned hypothesis supported by the newly acquired evidence?

 

[DreadFish]

I wanted to make a paralel to the minimal time a woman has to appear in a commercial and look hot to associate the sexuality to a product. Which wouldn´t be easy to do if you cannot look at the femañe´s body at the comercial. Not imposible surely, but far less effective more often than not in the sexuality department.

Though it's only distantly related, your comment about sexuality in commercials instantly reminded me of this Bill Hicks routine about sex in advertising.

It may be off topic, but it is for the humor, for the lulz!

(The particular part it reminded me of starts at 1:18 and goes to 2:20).

[youtube]LcefX9TPlkY[/youtube]

 

[gseeker]

Paragraph because a picture alone wont tell you how much fun the girl might be in bed.

 

[Me Myself]

Paragraph because a picture alone wont tell you how much fun the girl might be in bed.

And the paragraph will? o.o interesting.

Thanks for participating