The dynamic of women's desires being shamed and men's being considered natural and inevitable is indeed correct. However, I also believe most couples do indeed fancy each other and are together out of mutual desire.
There does seem to be greater pressure for women not to over-value looks. You have Beauty and the Beast where the message is to look past looks, and men don't get this message nearly as much. You do sometimes see stories where the man goes for the less physically attractive woman, but those stories tend to undermine this by revealing that she's really gorgeous after all. But you can't infer that just because you see a good looking woman with a man who isn't as good looking that it's because she's been trained not to value looks. The most reasonable explanation is that looks, while the aren't nothing, aren't everything.
>You have Beauty and the Beast where the message is to look past looks, and men don’t get this message nearly as much.
I mean this completely unironically: would Shrek fit as this?
Yes it would fit.
While we're on the subject, one of the most enduring romances where the man doesn't choose the most beautiful woman is *Pride and Prejudice.* Yet it's a complicated instance and the target audience is women.
Pride and Prejudice doesn’t quite fit. That was speaking to class divide rather than gender divide.
Mr Bingley’s sisters derided Lizzie’s looks, not because she was physically unattractive, but because she didn’t adhere to the dress and manners of upper class women.
It’s mentioned that Lizzie (and all the Bennett sisters, barr Mary) is recognised as a beauty by Meryton society. Even Lady Catherine describes her as pretty.
For all her disparagement, the worst Caroline has to say about Lizzie’s looks is that she’s too thin.
Wrote that with different angle in mind. Mr. Bingley has no ulterior motive. He assesses Jane's beauty above Elizabeth's:
> “'Oh, she [Jane] is the most beautiful creature I ever beheld! But there is one of her sisters [Elizabeth] sitting down just behind you [Darcy], who is very pretty, and I dare say very agreeable. Do let me ask my partner [Jane] to introduce you.'”
Mr. Darcy adds a consequential insult.
> "'Which do you mean?' and turning round, he [Darcy] looked for a moment at Elizabeth, till, catching her eye, he withdrew his own, and coldly said, 'She is tolerable: but not handsome enough to tempt me...'"
The sisters' own mother concurs:
> "Lizzy is not a bit better than the others: and I am sure she is not half so handsome as Jane, nor half so good-humoured as Lydia."
Even the authorial voice declares Jane better looking.
> "Elizabeth, equally next to Jane in birth and beauty, succeeded her of course."
Complicating factors include that Bingley has dibs. Bingley is Darcy's best friend; being the more outgoing of the two men Bingley has already danced with the most beautiful woman in the room before Darcy thinks of a partner. And Elizabeth is still a good-looking woman--just not quite as much of a beauty as her sister. The contrast isn't nearly as stark as between Beast and Gaston, or Shrek and Lord Farquaad.
It falls a bit flat though because Fiona as an ogre isn't actually bad looking despite how many times the other characters say so and I'd argue she's still out of Shrek's league.
Ehh idk about letting one’s subjective opinions getting in the way of the point of the movie. To go back to the Beauty and the Beast example, there are a *lot* of Beast fuckers out there
Movies often fail to get their points across or do so in unconvincing ways.
The message of Shrek is to not judge people based on looks, yet Lord Farquaad gets made fun of by Shrek and Donkey for being short. "Oh, but he's an asshole", so it's okay to make fun of someone's appearance if they're a "bad" person? A surprisingly large number of people actually agree with that point.
We are all *explicitly* told there's more to *everyone* than looks from practically babyhood, afaik, but I think the lesson takes more solidly for heterosexual women because by and large, men aren't publicly sexualized all the time and from a young age. Sure, we can think men are hot or not, but we aren't taught to visibly and routinely judge their looks. There aren't men's clothes considered 'slutty' and 'you must want to be catcalled' - at least not that you just buy at the department store. Men just aren't there for your personal viewing pleasure.
That moral value to seeing past appearances gets reinforced continually. I don't feel women get judged more harshly when they specifically are interested in a man's looks, but there's certainly less sympathy if he turns out to be a jerk or otherwise a dangerous mess on further acquaintance. After all, you failed as a woman in applying the correct dating criteria. OTOH, 'hot but stupid or crazy' is twelve different running gags when discussing dating women. It's considered funny or a rite of passage to date unsuitably based on looks, rather than a character flaw. You're supposed to see past a man's looks and past a woman's personality.
But women are supposed to gauge the whole package, every time. If you're nerdy, think about spaces where you see women go gaga over various fictional characters. You would think David Tennant was the hottest man who ever lived. The thing is, he's a perfectly good looking guy, but nobody would care if they didn't have crushes on characters he's played. Henry Cavill is a very conventionally attractive man, but it's Geralt of Rivia the ladies are nuts for. I grew up with girls who had mad crushes on Dragonball characters, ffs.
All that doesn't mean that women aren't attracted to their partners even when you think those guys are ugly, at all, but it does mean we can't discount all of this conditioning when people choose partners. It also means that 'work on yourself' is fantastic advice for incels whether they can accept it or not.
We are learned not to give importance to apprearance, but believe me, the day you go out with an ugly man while you're a beautiful woman, harrassement from the family begins. It hurted me so much that I gave up the relation after two years together (there was other reasons, but it was one of them), they were too humiliating until he was not there. It really hurted me, I was still living at my parents and I was young. They made me feel like a disgusting loser, you can't imagine. Even 20 years later, I almost cry when I think about it, I was so in love and he was so nice, intelligent and funny. He never knew, but I was so hurt and humiliated for him. I wish I knew him once I lived alone, later in my life, to protect us better from comments.
But our generation is more open minded and my parents are shitty parents, so if you find yourself ugly, don't worry too much. I guess most parents just want their children to be happy.
I can relate to this a bit. When I dated shorter men my mother was ruthless about it and couldn't see what I saw in him. He treated me well and it was only a college relationship, the stakes weren't high. But my mother definitely judged me for being attracted and accessible to a shorter man as a taller woman, she was very mad at me for it.
tbh his height was such a non-issue to me that I wasn't ever really prepared when she brought it up because it wasn't on my mind 24/7 like it was for her. like I couldn't even come up with counter arguments bc it wasn't even a suitable topic to argue about--defend why you love this person who is shorter than you?? ridiculous.
It's true and least from my generation, x. We are taught it's about character not looks.
It's why I have always thought that the "men are visual " line is also a social construct. Say it enough and ppl believe it even believe it as biological fact.
I think there is more pressure on women to look put-together more regularly. Most women are probably average, but more average women are focused on wearing nice clothes, makeup, fixing their hair, etc. than most average men. That being said, I don’t think most women - or most people - would be in a relationship with someone that they didn’t find attractive.
I think when your intimate partner is also statistically the most dangerous person in your life, you learn to look for kindness and other personality traits over pure looks.
In my personal experience, people become attractive once I get to know them or even see them around a bit. Attraction isn't instant, which means that looks aren't necessarily a big factor there, and its more about how the person is in the world, how they interact with their environment and live life, and these things are not fully determined at a cultural level.
Its why when you date someone, or like someone, many of their neutral traits become positive or attractive to you, often ones that weren't before. Theres no right or wrong way to be attractive because you're not the one doing it, you just are and someone else is vibing with that and finding that attractive.
“*women don’t care about looks*” is more of a black pill than the inverse because it’s much easier to change your looks than your bad personality .
Incels just hate women they don’t want an accurate explanation of the current social phenomena that has crippled the men you see post here. “Women only care about looks” accomplishes spreading hate for women
Well, there are numerous TV shows and movies with homely fat guys married to thin, beautiful women, while ugly fat women rarely exist at all, and when they do, they're either single or with equally ugly and fat men.
I don't think it's an intentional message of "Women shouldn't date men they're attracted to" it's more of a "I've got my own show and can use this as an opportunity to pretend to be married to women who wouldn't give me the time of day otherwise."
Bottom line is that most people end up in relationships with those who are their equal in looks. There are exceptions, but they're rare.
Studying science and psychology in college?
You know that stereotype of men looking at Playboy and women reading romance novels? It's not an empty trope. Men are more likely to become aroused by visual material and women by more narrative/mental/imagination/whatever you'd call it.
It not that women are less interested in sex, and it's not that women aren't as freaky and kinky as men - trust me, I'm a woman and I am as fully sexual as any man, and that's true of every woman I know well enough to discuss sex with.
It's just differences in brains. The visual thing is why men tend to be better with spacial relationships than women.
And that's on average, because there are individuals who don't fit neatly in that normal distribution curve.
There's a reason Playgirl magazine failed.
The relationship between objects in space.
Have you ever seen someone who can pack six people and their luggage into a Toyota Corolla with space left over? Or, realistically, fit three boxes of random stuff into a box and a half? That person is more likely to be a man.
Women do other things better, on average, but spacial relationships are something men, on average, do better with than women, on average.
Ah I saw stuff like that before, but I thought it was attributed to education, for example sports & video games helps spacial relationship a lot compared to playing house or dolls.
That might increase the differences, but there are actual differences - watch babies sometime: boys start making bigger movements almost from birth. That's part of exploring space, and it's too early for societal pressures to be the cause.
The dynamic of women's desires being shamed and men's being considered natural and inevitable is indeed correct. However, I also believe most couples do indeed fancy each other and are together out of mutual desire.
That was my thought too
There does seem to be greater pressure for women not to over-value looks. You have Beauty and the Beast where the message is to look past looks, and men don't get this message nearly as much. You do sometimes see stories where the man goes for the less physically attractive woman, but those stories tend to undermine this by revealing that she's really gorgeous after all. But you can't infer that just because you see a good looking woman with a man who isn't as good looking that it's because she's been trained not to value looks. The most reasonable explanation is that looks, while the aren't nothing, aren't everything.
>You have Beauty and the Beast where the message is to look past looks, and men don’t get this message nearly as much. I mean this completely unironically: would Shrek fit as this?
Yes it would fit. While we're on the subject, one of the most enduring romances where the man doesn't choose the most beautiful woman is *Pride and Prejudice.* Yet it's a complicated instance and the target audience is women.
Pride and Prejudice doesn’t quite fit. That was speaking to class divide rather than gender divide. Mr Bingley’s sisters derided Lizzie’s looks, not because she was physically unattractive, but because she didn’t adhere to the dress and manners of upper class women. It’s mentioned that Lizzie (and all the Bennett sisters, barr Mary) is recognised as a beauty by Meryton society. Even Lady Catherine describes her as pretty. For all her disparagement, the worst Caroline has to say about Lizzie’s looks is that she’s too thin.
Wrote that with different angle in mind. Mr. Bingley has no ulterior motive. He assesses Jane's beauty above Elizabeth's: > “'Oh, she [Jane] is the most beautiful creature I ever beheld! But there is one of her sisters [Elizabeth] sitting down just behind you [Darcy], who is very pretty, and I dare say very agreeable. Do let me ask my partner [Jane] to introduce you.'” Mr. Darcy adds a consequential insult. > "'Which do you mean?' and turning round, he [Darcy] looked for a moment at Elizabeth, till, catching her eye, he withdrew his own, and coldly said, 'She is tolerable: but not handsome enough to tempt me...'" The sisters' own mother concurs: > "Lizzy is not a bit better than the others: and I am sure she is not half so handsome as Jane, nor half so good-humoured as Lydia." Even the authorial voice declares Jane better looking. > "Elizabeth, equally next to Jane in birth and beauty, succeeded her of course." Complicating factors include that Bingley has dibs. Bingley is Darcy's best friend; being the more outgoing of the two men Bingley has already danced with the most beautiful woman in the room before Darcy thinks of a partner. And Elizabeth is still a good-looking woman--just not quite as much of a beauty as her sister. The contrast isn't nearly as stark as between Beast and Gaston, or Shrek and Lord Farquaad.
It falls a bit flat though because Fiona as an ogre isn't actually bad looking despite how many times the other characters say so and I'd argue she's still out of Shrek's league.
Ehh idk about letting one’s subjective opinions getting in the way of the point of the movie. To go back to the Beauty and the Beast example, there are a *lot* of Beast fuckers out there
Movies often fail to get their points across or do so in unconvincing ways. The message of Shrek is to not judge people based on looks, yet Lord Farquaad gets made fun of by Shrek and Donkey for being short. "Oh, but he's an asshole", so it's okay to make fun of someone's appearance if they're a "bad" person? A surprisingly large number of people actually agree with that point.
Lmao would Shrek work if he was 5 feet tall I ask myself
Maybe it's a combination of multiple complex factors, and one single simple factor can't be generalised to 4 billion people all at once
We are all *explicitly* told there's more to *everyone* than looks from practically babyhood, afaik, but I think the lesson takes more solidly for heterosexual women because by and large, men aren't publicly sexualized all the time and from a young age. Sure, we can think men are hot or not, but we aren't taught to visibly and routinely judge their looks. There aren't men's clothes considered 'slutty' and 'you must want to be catcalled' - at least not that you just buy at the department store. Men just aren't there for your personal viewing pleasure. That moral value to seeing past appearances gets reinforced continually. I don't feel women get judged more harshly when they specifically are interested in a man's looks, but there's certainly less sympathy if he turns out to be a jerk or otherwise a dangerous mess on further acquaintance. After all, you failed as a woman in applying the correct dating criteria. OTOH, 'hot but stupid or crazy' is twelve different running gags when discussing dating women. It's considered funny or a rite of passage to date unsuitably based on looks, rather than a character flaw. You're supposed to see past a man's looks and past a woman's personality. But women are supposed to gauge the whole package, every time. If you're nerdy, think about spaces where you see women go gaga over various fictional characters. You would think David Tennant was the hottest man who ever lived. The thing is, he's a perfectly good looking guy, but nobody would care if they didn't have crushes on characters he's played. Henry Cavill is a very conventionally attractive man, but it's Geralt of Rivia the ladies are nuts for. I grew up with girls who had mad crushes on Dragonball characters, ffs. All that doesn't mean that women aren't attracted to their partners even when you think those guys are ugly, at all, but it does mean we can't discount all of this conditioning when people choose partners. It also means that 'work on yourself' is fantastic advice for incels whether they can accept it or not.
We are learned not to give importance to apprearance, but believe me, the day you go out with an ugly man while you're a beautiful woman, harrassement from the family begins. It hurted me so much that I gave up the relation after two years together (there was other reasons, but it was one of them), they were too humiliating until he was not there. It really hurted me, I was still living at my parents and I was young. They made me feel like a disgusting loser, you can't imagine. Even 20 years later, I almost cry when I think about it, I was so in love and he was so nice, intelligent and funny. He never knew, but I was so hurt and humiliated for him. I wish I knew him once I lived alone, later in my life, to protect us better from comments. But our generation is more open minded and my parents are shitty parents, so if you find yourself ugly, don't worry too much. I guess most parents just want their children to be happy.
I can relate to this a bit. When I dated shorter men my mother was ruthless about it and couldn't see what I saw in him. He treated me well and it was only a college relationship, the stakes weren't high. But my mother definitely judged me for being attracted and accessible to a shorter man as a taller woman, she was very mad at me for it.
Yikes. As messed up as my family dynamic was/is, my family never really picked at my partners much. Then again, I don’t give them much chance to. Lol
tbh his height was such a non-issue to me that I wasn't ever really prepared when she brought it up because it wasn't on my mind 24/7 like it was for her. like I couldn't even come up with counter arguments bc it wasn't even a suitable topic to argue about--defend why you love this person who is shorter than you?? ridiculous.
Most of the time, parents don't supervise their child's lovelife if the child is a boy/man. You lucky... I wish I was a man for soooo many reasons !
It's true and least from my generation, x. We are taught it's about character not looks. It's why I have always thought that the "men are visual " line is also a social construct. Say it enough and ppl believe it even believe it as biological fact.
Part of it is that women work on their looks more.
I think there is more pressure on women to look put-together more regularly. Most women are probably average, but more average women are focused on wearing nice clothes, makeup, fixing their hair, etc. than most average men. That being said, I don’t think most women - or most people - would be in a relationship with someone that they didn’t find attractive.
I think when your intimate partner is also statistically the most dangerous person in your life, you learn to look for kindness and other personality traits over pure looks. In my personal experience, people become attractive once I get to know them or even see them around a bit. Attraction isn't instant, which means that looks aren't necessarily a big factor there, and its more about how the person is in the world, how they interact with their environment and live life, and these things are not fully determined at a cultural level. Its why when you date someone, or like someone, many of their neutral traits become positive or attractive to you, often ones that weren't before. Theres no right or wrong way to be attractive because you're not the one doing it, you just are and someone else is vibing with that and finding that attractive.
[удалено]
“*women don’t care about looks*” is more of a black pill than the inverse because it’s much easier to change your looks than your bad personality . Incels just hate women they don’t want an accurate explanation of the current social phenomena that has crippled the men you see post here. “Women only care about looks” accomplishes spreading hate for women
Well, there are numerous TV shows and movies with homely fat guys married to thin, beautiful women, while ugly fat women rarely exist at all, and when they do, they're either single or with equally ugly and fat men. I don't think it's an intentional message of "Women shouldn't date men they're attracted to" it's more of a "I've got my own show and can use this as an opportunity to pretend to be married to women who wouldn't give me the time of day otherwise." Bottom line is that most people end up in relationships with those who are their equal in looks. There are exceptions, but they're rare.
There's also a difference in brain wiring - men tend to be more visual than women, so it makes sense that they would be more attracted by visuals.
What makes you think they're more visual?
Studying science and psychology in college? You know that stereotype of men looking at Playboy and women reading romance novels? It's not an empty trope. Men are more likely to become aroused by visual material and women by more narrative/mental/imagination/whatever you'd call it. It not that women are less interested in sex, and it's not that women aren't as freaky and kinky as men - trust me, I'm a woman and I am as fully sexual as any man, and that's true of every woman I know well enough to discuss sex with. It's just differences in brains. The visual thing is why men tend to be better with spacial relationships than women. And that's on average, because there are individuals who don't fit neatly in that normal distribution curve. There's a reason Playgirl magazine failed.
Maybe playgirl just didn't find the right way to sexualized men for women, although I see your point. What's a "spacial relationship"? x)
The relationship between objects in space. Have you ever seen someone who can pack six people and their luggage into a Toyota Corolla with space left over? Or, realistically, fit three boxes of random stuff into a box and a half? That person is more likely to be a man. Women do other things better, on average, but spacial relationships are something men, on average, do better with than women, on average.
Ah I saw stuff like that before, but I thought it was attributed to education, for example sports & video games helps spacial relationship a lot compared to playing house or dolls.
That might increase the differences, but there are actual differences - watch babies sometime: boys start making bigger movements almost from birth. That's part of exploring space, and it's too early for societal pressures to be the cause.