Survival for hundreds of thousands of years has made modern women naturally wired to look for the best available genes to pass onto their descendance. It´s scientifically proved that being handsome is pretty accurately correlated to good genes and sends a quick message to a woman without the need of much exploring (or DNA testing). Any disguise or lie is easily detected by a woman. The woman might choose another ugly or plain man as her life companion because he´s a better provider, but will always be inclined to mate with the better genes at her own risk.alden wrote:
The more fascinating question is whether woman are naturally programmed to favor ugly or plain men as opposed to the handsome.
An interview with Bernhard Roetzel
-
Noble Savage
- Posts: 240
- Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2010 8:36 am
- Location: State of Nature
- Contact:
“But the sound of the clock had not died away when Germain announced, “His excellency the Count of Monte Cristo.” . . . He had not heard a carriage stop in the street, or steps in the antechamber; the door had itself opened noiselessly. The count appeared, dressed with the greatest simplicity, but the most fastidious dandy could have found nothing to cavil at in his toilet. Every article of dress—hat, coat, gloves, and boots—was from the first makers. He seemed scarcely five-and-thirty. . . . The count advanced, smiling, into the centre of the room, and approached Albert, who hastened towards him holding out his hand in a ceremonial manner.”alden wrote:And men who are “too well dressed” are generally working “too hard” to cover that weakness up in raiments. A woman will suss that out in a nanosecond.
-
HristoStefanov
- Posts: 145
- Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2014 9:38 am
- Contact:
How do you even dare to try to figure our what women want or like? 
A woman's mind is something non-deterministic. You get different outputs on the same input.
One moment she would like someone elegant and chick, in a different moment you would like someone "plain and ugly".
Today she might not like you. Then you could meet her again in a couple of months, she might not recognize you and like you very much even though we wear the same clothes and act identically as couple of months ago. Same input - different output.
It is random, guys. Or connected with the day of her hormonal cycle or some other crazy variable.
A woman's mind is something non-deterministic. You get different outputs on the same input.
One moment she would like someone elegant and chick, in a different moment you would like someone "plain and ugly".
Today she might not like you. Then you could meet her again in a couple of months, she might not recognize you and like you very much even though we wear the same clothes and act identically as couple of months ago. Same input - different output.
It is random, guys. Or connected with the day of her hormonal cycle or some other crazy variable.
-
Noble Savage
- Posts: 240
- Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2010 8:36 am
- Location: State of Nature
- Contact:
If it were, we wouldn’t have the same types of heroes show up again and again in literature and other works of art.HristoStefanov wrote:It is random, guys.
99,99% of those heroes are for men and imagined by men.Noble Savage wrote: The same types of heroes show up again and again in literature and other works of art.
Women do not fall for heroes. They fall for handsome charming men, most times short of heroic traits.
-
Noble Savage
- Posts: 240
- Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2010 8:36 am
- Location: State of Nature
- Contact:
A cursory glance at the covers of romance novels, written for women, depicts dramatis personæ who are certainly more than charming handsome men. Certainly, women might not fall for the same types in real life, but the ideal lives on, even if in the mind only. This is exactly why menswear derives either from 1. military uniforms or 2. sportswear, both evoking heroic physical performance; or at the least 3. clothing hinting at advanced intellectual, political or commercial pursuits, suggestive of the power to command or influence others through wit or financial acumen; but this later quality is not of mass appeal.hectorm wrote:99,99% of those heroes are for men and imagined by men.Noble Savage wrote: The same types of heroes show up again and again in literature and other works of art.
Women do not fall for heroes. They fall for handsome charming men, most times short of heroic traits.
Indeed, witness people like the Great Gatsby, who though he had “made it in New York” still couldn’t seduce Daisy no matter how many bespoke (or MTM?) shirts he tossed around. Besides, he couldn’t resist trying too hard with a pink suit.alden wrote:But among her many talents, a woman is the most sophisticated “affectation-meter” known to man. Not even Hewlett or Packard or both of them combined could construct a scientific measuring instrument as sensitive to fakery and fraud. It is an innate sense, an instinct for survival, this ability to sense weakness in potential mates. And men who are “too well dressed” are generally working “too hard” to cover that weakness up in raiments. A woman will suss that out in a nanosecond.
Last edited by Noble Savage on Tue Nov 21, 2017 8:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
HristoStefanov
- Posts: 145
- Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2014 9:38 am
- Contact:
It does not matter if the words come from the quill of a man or a woman.
This is because women do not act accordingly to their words.
A woman can describe the ideal partner with a set of traits and then in real life, she can choose a man with a totally different set of traits. Thus literature does not provide us useful insight on what women want, regardless of the sex of the author.
In my view, the solution for us men is to take it easy. Do everything as YOU think it is right. And women will sometimes react positively and sometimes negatively. Just take it easy and don't get upset when a woman reacts on your actions negatively. And don't twist your mind with analysis if the problem was in your tie. Tomorrow she could react differently. Just hold your course calmly through the storm.
This is because women do not act accordingly to their words.
A woman can describe the ideal partner with a set of traits and then in real life, she can choose a man with a totally different set of traits. Thus literature does not provide us useful insight on what women want, regardless of the sex of the author.
In my view, the solution for us men is to take it easy. Do everything as YOU think it is right. And women will sometimes react positively and sometimes negatively. Just take it easy and don't get upset when a woman reacts on your actions negatively. And don't twist your mind with analysis if the problem was in your tie. Tomorrow she could react differently. Just hold your course calmly through the storm.
This thread has turned into Freud's question to Marie Bonaparte: "Was will das Weib?"
The question is the problem. In my experience, what makes for a successful start to a relationship (and to its continuance) is your interest in the woman—as an individual, a whole person. Curiosity about what interests her, her ideas and activities, her taste, and so on. There's no other formula, since no one likes to be thought a stereotype. Wouldn't you bristle if somebody (say, Cosmo) laid down the law about what men like and women applied it to you?
Displaying this interest requires some pre-requisites and some self-knowledge. First, your interest has to be real. As noted above, insincerity will be instantly perceived. It will be interpreted as confirming that you're more interested in your own ends, and thus manipulative. So if you're not really intrigued by someone, don't pursue it. If you find her physically attractive, she will perceive this instantly as well, so there's no need to perform it.
Second, in order to convey this interest, you have to be in contact with the woman. Perhaps online at first, but always eventually in person. That means you must be comfortable in your own skin and be presentable (clean, groomed, and reasonably put together in some style—your choice of and the condition of your shoes may be surprisingly important). That allows you to get close enough to even start the conversation.
Beyond that, as you engage in the rhythm of mutual discovery, you begin to learn what she likes. And different individuals like different things. Sometime at different times (picnic vs. cordon-bleu). And she will begin to discover your interests. Where there are overlaps, or intriguing new things to try, you have a reason to go on. Sometimes people (men and women) surprise themselves by liking something in an individual that they had not thought they liked in general, or in others. This can change their settings, so to speak. The more intrigued they become, the more open they become to new experiences.
What greater compliment could there be than to be thought of as being of inexhaustible interest and fascination? I once knew a woman who said, "I want to be worshipped" and that's really what she meant. Many men are preoccupied with displaying strength, power, brilliance, wealth, style, and/or their own ideas. These are all fairly visible at the surface. Having them is only a drawback if you seem more interested in them than in the individual woman. I've known more than one woman who passed up brilliant matches in favor of relationships or marriage with unprepossessing men who were kind, supportive of the woman's success and fulfillment, never bored with them, and never needy. The men knew themselves well enough to be comfortable in their own skin.
If and when, during that process of discovery, you reach the point when you realize you'll never tire of that particular woman, she will very likely have reached the same point with you.
The question is the problem. In my experience, what makes for a successful start to a relationship (and to its continuance) is your interest in the woman—as an individual, a whole person. Curiosity about what interests her, her ideas and activities, her taste, and so on. There's no other formula, since no one likes to be thought a stereotype. Wouldn't you bristle if somebody (say, Cosmo) laid down the law about what men like and women applied it to you?
Displaying this interest requires some pre-requisites and some self-knowledge. First, your interest has to be real. As noted above, insincerity will be instantly perceived. It will be interpreted as confirming that you're more interested in your own ends, and thus manipulative. So if you're not really intrigued by someone, don't pursue it. If you find her physically attractive, she will perceive this instantly as well, so there's no need to perform it.
Second, in order to convey this interest, you have to be in contact with the woman. Perhaps online at first, but always eventually in person. That means you must be comfortable in your own skin and be presentable (clean, groomed, and reasonably put together in some style—your choice of and the condition of your shoes may be surprisingly important). That allows you to get close enough to even start the conversation.
Beyond that, as you engage in the rhythm of mutual discovery, you begin to learn what she likes. And different individuals like different things. Sometime at different times (picnic vs. cordon-bleu). And she will begin to discover your interests. Where there are overlaps, or intriguing new things to try, you have a reason to go on. Sometimes people (men and women) surprise themselves by liking something in an individual that they had not thought they liked in general, or in others. This can change their settings, so to speak. The more intrigued they become, the more open they become to new experiences.
What greater compliment could there be than to be thought of as being of inexhaustible interest and fascination? I once knew a woman who said, "I want to be worshipped" and that's really what she meant. Many men are preoccupied with displaying strength, power, brilliance, wealth, style, and/or their own ideas. These are all fairly visible at the surface. Having them is only a drawback if you seem more interested in them than in the individual woman. I've known more than one woman who passed up brilliant matches in favor of relationships or marriage with unprepossessing men who were kind, supportive of the woman's success and fulfillment, never bored with them, and never needy. The men knew themselves well enough to be comfortable in their own skin.
If and when, during that process of discovery, you reach the point when you realize you'll never tire of that particular woman, she will very likely have reached the same point with you.
Thank you, Noble Savage. I'm not familiar with these novels. I will have to take a look.Noble Savage wrote: A cursory glance at the covers of romance novels, written for women, depicts dramatis personæ who are certainly more than charming handsome men.
There you go again. These are clothes designed by men evoking traits desired by men. Women do not fall (not even in their minds) for guys in a British warm, rugby jersey or power suit, unless they are also handsome and charming (and with a little dose of mystery, I would add). Once again, "falling" doesn't translate into "life choice", it's more like just desire for his genes.Noble Savage wrote: This is exactly why menswear derives either from 1. military uniforms or 2. sportswear, both evoking heroic physical performance; or at the least 3. clothing hinting at advanced intellectual, political or commercial pursuits, suggestive of the power to command or influence others through wit or financial acumen; but this later quality is not of mass appeal.
I am conditioned to react to quotes from The Count of Monte Cristo, especially that one. Worth noting that Monte Cristo, on which I did a thesis, is fundamentally an arriviste novel, and the Count himself an arriviste's dream or daydream. He does everything right and has entrée into society without ever having first set foot in that society. He never comes across as trying too hard, yet he literally knows everything about the society and people he is trying to ingratiate himself with. A neat and impossible trick.Noble Savage wrote:“But the sound of the clock had not died away when Germain announced, “His excellency the Count of Monte Cristo.” . . . He had not heard a carriage stop in the street, or steps in the antechamber; the door had itself opened noiselessly. The count appeared, dressed with the greatest simplicity, but the most fastidious dandy could have found nothing to cavil at in his toilet. Every article of dress—hat, coat, gloves, and boots—was from the first makers. He seemed scarcely five-and-thirty. . . . The count advanced, smiling, into the centre of the room, and approached Albert, who hastened towards him holding out his hand in a ceremonial manner.”alden wrote:And men who are “too well dressed” are generally working “too hard” to cover that weakness up in raiments. A woman will suss that out in a nanosecond.
As to what women want, from my very limited personal experience confidence and charm win out over looks every day.
There are many well meaning, reasoned, rationale explanations and anecdotes here as to what might make a (well dressed) man appealing to a woman, but I think that the pendulum has turned and that such innocent explanations are no longer adequate when swimming in the treacherous tides awaiting the unsuspecting and so, offer this quote to you:
"I think that men will have to give up their precious erections."
Relations have nothing to do with it, nor clothes, kindness, or genuine interest. No.
Rather, gentlemen, this quote from 1976 by the radical feminist Andrea Dworkin as presented by The New York Crimes recently illustrates the reality. Clothes are not important. You can surrender those right now.
(I cant find the link. But it is an opinion piece from the New York Times, dated November 25, 2017, entitled The Unexamined Brutality of the Male Libido by Stephen Marche)
Indeed, look at what happened recently to the formerly esteemed 75 year old American broadcaster on channels CBS and PBS - Charlie Rose.
Now Charlie did not believe in the superficiality of clothing in seduction and so, dispensed with them, allegedly occasionally parading naked in his NYC home in front of his young female interns, hoping to focus on his personality and charm, rather than the superficialities of clothing, position and wealth.
Bravo, I say, Charlie. But not everyone agreed.
"I think that men will have to give up their precious erections."
Relations have nothing to do with it, nor clothes, kindness, or genuine interest. No.
Rather, gentlemen, this quote from 1976 by the radical feminist Andrea Dworkin as presented by The New York Crimes recently illustrates the reality. Clothes are not important. You can surrender those right now.
(I cant find the link. But it is an opinion piece from the New York Times, dated November 25, 2017, entitled The Unexamined Brutality of the Male Libido by Stephen Marche)
Indeed, look at what happened recently to the formerly esteemed 75 year old American broadcaster on channels CBS and PBS - Charlie Rose.
Now Charlie did not believe in the superficiality of clothing in seduction and so, dispensed with them, allegedly occasionally parading naked in his NYC home in front of his young female interns, hoping to focus on his personality and charm, rather than the superficialities of clothing, position and wealth.
Bravo, I say, Charlie. But not everyone agreed.
-
Noble Savage
- Posts: 240
- Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2010 8:36 am
- Location: State of Nature
- Contact:
That’s precisely the point, he seems to know every trick in the book, including the one which was the point of the post: dressing simply.rjman wrote:I am conditioned to react to quotes from The Count of Monte Cristo, especially that one. Worth noting that Monte Cristo, on which I did a thesis, is fundamentally an arriviste novel, and the Count himself an arriviste's dream or daydream. He does everything right and has entrée into society without ever having first set foot in that society. He never comes across as trying too hard, yet he literally knows everything about the society and people he is trying to ingratiate himself with. A neat and impossible trick.
Dear Michael:alden wrote:The day Helmut Berger walked stark naked from the pool into the living room of the house he shared with my girlfriend while we were having coffee is a great example. He was handsome. He was an Adonis. He was a star. But what made it all beautiful was his ease born of a completely shameless acceptance and celebration of self. Be like Helmut!
[...]
RJ I hope you don’t mind that I took the occasion of your excellent post to ruminate a bit on Style. Hope to see you again soon!
Some of my e-friends will poke fun at me, but I learned an enormous amount from you, not least from your introduction to the Groupe des Cinq. I again hope you'll excuse my linking outside this forum to post a response of sorts to your post above about how far we can take innate style. "What's wrong with a cowboy in Hamburg?"
http://nomanwalksalone.tumblr.com/post/ ... can-friend
Your American Friend (hatless),
RJ
PS: Happy holidays; I have a bottle of Selosse coming because you recommended it so it's all. your. fault.
Dear Rjman,
excellent, I tip my hat to you
Cheers, David
-
Screaminmarlon
- Posts: 920
- Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 7:56 am
- Location: Milan, Italy
- Contact:
Great article!rjman wrote:
http://nomanwalksalone.tumblr.com/post/ ... can-friend
Your American Friend (hatless),
RJ
PS: Happy holidays; I have a bottle of Selosse coming because you recommended it so it's all. your. fault.
Making champagne like it’s a pinot noir from Bourgogne often gets awesome results
-
- Information
-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests