Posted on 12/18/2008 12:33:02 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Los Angeles, CA – A new study in the journal Personal Relationships reveals that women prefer mates who are recognized by their peers for their skills, abilities, and achievements, while not preferring men who use coercive tactics to subordinate their rivals. Indeed, women found dominance strategies of the latter type to be attractive primarily when men used them in the context of male-male athletic competitions.
Jeffrey K. Snyder, Lee A. Kirkpatrick, and H. Clark Barrett conducted three studies with college women at two U.S. universities. Participants evaluated hypothetical potential mates described in written vignettes. The studies were designed to examine the respective effects of men’s dominance and prestige on women’s assessments of men.
Women are sensitive to the context in which men display domineering behaviors when they evaluate men as potential mates. For example, the traits and behaviors that women found attractive in athletic competitions were unattractive to women when men displayed the same traits and behaviors in interpersonal contexts. Notably, when considering prospective partners for long-term relationships, women’s preferences for dominance decrease, and their preferences for prestige increase.
“These findings directly contradict the dating advice of some pop psychologists who advise men to be aggressive in their social interactions. Women most likely avoid dominant men as long-term romantic partners because a dominant man may also be domineering in the household.” the authors conclude.
“women prefer money.”
That must be why I was so smitten with my teacher-to-be boyfriend-turned-hubby who was saddled with student loans.
“Some women are really in a beauty competition with other women. They try to 1) make other women envious of them, and 2) destroy that which makes them envious. It isn’t about rich doctors with money driving Porsches as much as it is about pissing off other women.”
I have noticed this with some women - but then again - I’ve noticed this with some jerky guys too.
That would certainly explain why guys with bad teeth and neck tattoos get laid alot.
You're right, and Crumb himself used women as throwaways on achieving success. (He did have one particular quirk in determining how attractive a women was: he found the most desirable (to him) women were the ones with very prominent i.e. large posteriors.) It works both ways. If you are a relatively unattractive wallflower type, your prospects are a lot less than than the popular, athletic, or in-crowd types. Facts of life.
ping!
DR. LAURA:
“Honey... one day you will need a man to protect you and defend you... and if you do not marry a real man... you will not have one”.
LLS
Words to live by
“Obviously some women do, but, like you, I believe many women are in a competition with other women between themselves.”
These generally would be the ladies caught up in designer labels as opposed to simply picking styles that flatter them.
Now sometimes there is the genuine appreciation for a designer’s talent, and quality of clothing.
But you will see an obsession to buy stuff just because of the name and not necessarily how it looks.
When that happens it is usually competition w/ other women, because men just don’t give a rip about whose name is on the label.
No. I don’t think that’s what the article is saying at all. Just the opposite.
Here’s my take: Women prefer men with prestige, which means men that are successful in business and social interactions. These are unlikely to be limp-wristed and kicked around by others.
My interpretation (and experience) is that the men who are excessively pushy and swaggering when dealing with women are those who are failures in other areas of their lives. Women sense this and do not like it. Men who are successful in the world at large, don’t need to make up for their inadequacies by being obnoxious and pushy with women.
Most women like strong men, men who are secure in their masculinity and their prestige, strong enough to treat a woman nicely and behave like a gentleman.
I think the word aggressive has been warped into a bad thing. If aggressive means picking fights or hitting a woman over the head and dragging her back to the cave, then no, it’s not attractive to women. If aggressive means taking the initiative, flirting, asking a woman for a date, pursuing a career, playing sports, leading (a company, a boy scout troop, a sports team, ...), defending his family, serving in the military, building things with his hands, exploring the world (physically or intellectually), standing up for what’s right, etc., then it’s very attractive to a woman.
The women who prefer $$ are not the ones you really want. The best women are the ones who prefer a sense of humor. Luckily, that is a lot of them.
So true. I wish I had realized this when I was in my late 20's.
I thought so too, when I heard her say it.
LLS
That’s one of the problems…
I’d say that “college women” of 2008 are emotionally and intellectually *inferior* to junior-high girls of 1940.
Very naïve, despite their “education” and overall pretty hapless. Probably 35% of them would be good for a quick, easy hit - then ignore them like the other 65%.
Anyway, you might notice that the study (studies?) starts out mentioning “mates” and later muddies the water with “long term relationship” or such…
Just watch a random episode of Maury Povich and you’ll see a lot of “women” that have chosen “mates” that are *other* than their “long term relationship” as they have inexplicably become pregnant by someone *other* than their husband/fiancée, etc.
Incidentally, what cracks me up is the number of sluts that test more than *five* different guys and *still* can’t figure out who the daddy is - but I’m sure all of them were well-respected by their peers on some level.
I will bet that Crumb, as a nerdy high school guy, was only interested in dating the homecoming queen or other beauty queen types. If he found them to be shallow due to the fact that they were uninterested in him, I think he should first look at his own shallowness. Did any girl who was not Playboy material have a chance with him? He expected them to appreciate his good qualities and “inner beauty” when he could not appreciate theirs?
I think many of us who were not either beauty queens or star athletes had similar high school experiences with dating (or lack of it). Most of us grew out of it. Those of us who are lucky manage to find partners who grew out of it, too!
Sure there are guys and gals out there who are still shallow. Plenty of men over 50 are only interested in dating women in their 20s. But would you really want a guy like that? Many women are only interested in dating Brad Pitt. Do you really want a woman like that?
It would be interesting to see a profile of the “university students” used in the study. It appears to have a severe sample bias.
The number one attraction in relationships is that “We are attracted toward personalities who are similar with persons who we have unresolved conflict.” It’s a soul cleansing thing. It’s the reason most women marry their father and most men marry their mother. Problem is in these relationships, when we get close enough to begin experiencing true intimacy, we are comfortable enough to allow our unresolved conflict to surface and we hate the person and have no idea why. Thus marriage can be defined as that dance where we find a comfortable distance where we can tolerate but still be close enough to be in the relationship!
The irony is that women who have conflict with their mother tend to marry submissive men while men who have conflict with their father marry submissive women. That is unless a gay relationship is intellectually acceptable, in which case they will look for the conflict personality for a relationship. Even in gay relationships, one is masculine dominate and one is feminine dominate.
It’s the personna projected by the person, not the gender.
Crumb had-has weird sexual quirks, to put it mildly. He loved women with huge rear ends. And he had a shoe fetish. He idealized women in some respects, but disliked them in others. He's a typical nationalize everything leftist, but hates feminists and rock and roll...especially Bruce Springsteen. He confessed that he didn't find skinny women attractive. In short, he was a mess. Which he readily admitted in his comics which were mostly autobiographical.
I haven't read anything by him since he moved to France over ten years ago, but I doubt he's changed much. An award winning documentary was made about him (called "Crumb") in the nineties shortly before he moved to France.
To all who disagreed with me, ok, I would never try to dominate your thinking! Merry Christmas.
Incoming ........... head for cover!
I couldn’t be with a man who was more girly than me. No way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.