Wednesday, August 15, 2012

If The Shoo Fits?

Through no one's fault but my own, I am a rather pathetic, washed-up character -- a man approaching 40, slaving away for $10/hour, and getting around on my bike after having to sell my car. Yet, I'm ever driven by my wants -- for pretty ladies in their early 20s. Do I have any hope?

--Seeking

It's tough attracting the ladies when you have transportation issues: "I'll be over at 8. Wanna run behind my bike, or would you prefer to balance yourself on my handlebars?" This might fly if you're 23 and parking your bike outside the drafty garret where you write mind-blowingly beautiful poetry or if your hobbies include shrinking your "carbon footprint" while snarling that the eco-posers tooling around in their Priuses are fouling the environment. Unfortunately, most hot young chickies willing to date a guy cresting 40 expect him to have achieved some status and position, and not a position paying slightly better than fast food. Still, if you can't substantially increase your income, you might increase your status by making a difference. You could start and run a humanitarian organization (like Robert Werner, who started BC Digital Divide, refurbishing donated computers and giving them to the needy). But, if you do this solely to get chicks, they'll surely see through it. Ultimately, this mostly has to be about a passion to help others, and not just to help others who are 23 and hot out of their clothes.

| Comments (111)

*

Comments

No.

Posted by: rm at January 10, 2012 7:17 PM

Maybe you could have a .0001 percent of a chance if she has really low self esteem and only sees you when she is drunk. Even then your chances are just about nil.

If you work at it a bit and try to get your life on track, you might just attract a woman in her late 40's or early 50's who is looking for a playmate. But be sure you are cute and in shape.

Good luck.

Posted by: Worthita at January 11, 2012 1:55 AM

Speaking as a girl in my early 20s, by and large we are not interested in middle age men. "Older" means 27, 28, 29. Forty is not even on the radar. A pathetic, washed-up forty-year-old with chronic low self-esteem who earns less per hour than an eighth-grade babysitter? Please.

LW, you need to adjust your expectations pronto, and you need to find some way, any way, to improve your self-image. Because if you think of yourself as pathetic, then why in the hell should anyone else be interested? It's like a 300 pound girl who is disgusted by her own obese body, yet expects movie star millionaire Prince Charming to see through all the layers of fat to her beautiful soul underneath. Yeah, that happens all the time...on the same planet where you get to date sexy 22 year olds.

Posted by: Shannon at January 11, 2012 3:16 AM

"Do I have any hope?" Difficult to say without more info. Are you at least not bad looking? Are you in good physical shape? Are you a funny guy? Are you much good in bed, and if not, can you work on it to improve it? Do you display confidence? Improve the things you can control. Show more confidence, even if you have to fake it. Look after yourself a bit better, since you're biking, eat right and keep yourself in decent shape. Try to be a bit more fun to be around, if you aren't currently (and have fun in the process ... try focus a bit more on just having fun than 'trying to bed a cute young chick'). Read up some 'player'-type books/websites to get tips on what works and what doesn't. Etc. Work with what you've got. Don't get all "oh I'm a loser". We all have good and bad qualities. You might not net exactly what you want (without paying anyway, though if you want to pay for a 23-year now and then to satisfy an itch, so what?), but by being the best 'you' that you can be, and maintaining some dignity and self-confidence, you can at least raise the bar a little of what you can expect to get.

Posted by: Lobster at January 11, 2012 3:41 AM

"Speaking as a girl in my early 20s, by and large we are not interested in middle age men. "Older" means 27, 28, 29."

Sure women say all sorts of things, which may by and large be true 'for most women', but I have a colleague who is close to 40 who is one of those 'player' types, and he regularly and consistently successfully chats up and beds early-20's women ... I've spent a fair bit of time traveling with him to various parts of the world, and have watched how he operates and seen 'with my own eyes' that he is indeed successful. And he isn't particularly good looking, he is of slightly below average height, is skinny and pale and not well built. He is not poor, but not really rich, but does overplay his claimed wealth. (Funnily enough, he doesn't even drive a car, and bikes around a lot .. but this makes more sense given he's European.) He has a certain combination of personality and skills that he appears to have honed over the years (with practice). He is extremely overconfident and egotistical to the point of arrogance, I would even say he's a narcissist. He is quite funny and good at making women laugh. He always has fun in the process, he genuinely enjoys it, whether it leads to sex or not. He also does things like surround himself with several women at a time in the process; this really presses womens' buttons, as women's attraction is partly based on what they perceive *other* women want (if a woman thinks three other woman are after you, she doesn't stop and wonder why, she instinctively assumes you must be something desirable and goes for you). Also very importantly, 90% of women are very much turned off by his whole approach, but he doesn't care, completely ignores those, and focuses on the 10% or so who lap it up like little puppies drinking milk ... and they are there ... in every corner of the world we've gone, every culture, at every possible type of occasion, it's the same pattern.

Now, I could never be quite like this (I'm not so much the 'fun' type), and probably neither the LW. But the point is that a LOT more than you think, is possible, and there are techniques (and personality traits you can work on) that anyone can employ to at least improve their odds.

"Because if you think of yourself as pathetic, then why in the hell should anyone else be interested?"

Yes, honestly, man up, stop thinking of yourself as pathetic. Even if you have to fake it in the beginning. If there's one thing that is a huge turn-off for women, it's perceiving that you feel you are 'below' them, showing weakness. By that measure, you should actually never (in general) ask a woman (except perhaps Amy) what you should do to improve your odds with women ... women will always give you the wrong advice, and the mere fact that you stoop to asking a woman casts you in a low light and they will just pounce on you, incorrectly and inadvertently re-affirming your perceived low self-image. Think strong confident manly thoughts, hang around men who act like men, and try absorb more dignified man-like behaviors.

(Sorry for long post)

Posted by: Lobster at January 11, 2012 4:02 AM

Got any musical skills? Women do seem to dig the guys in the band even when they're older and broke.

Posted by: Astra at January 11, 2012 5:10 AM

His odds are as good as mine. I've got a lottery ticket.

Posted by: MarkD at January 11, 2012 5:37 AM

I agree with rm. No.

Posted by: Patrick at January 11, 2012 6:41 AM

Women do seem to dig the guys in the band even when they're older and broke.

Yeah, as in, what do you call a drummer without a girlfriend?

Homeless!

o.O

Posted by: Flynne at January 11, 2012 8:11 AM

Save up some money and go to Thailand or the Philippines. Come back and repeat as necessary.

Posted by: ken at January 11, 2012 10:08 AM

When I was a hot early-20something, I saw the world the same way Shannon did. In clubs, when socializing, when being "set up," I focused on guys my age, with an upper boundary of late 20s. Twenty-eight was an Older Guy. Thirty-something guys who would hang out at our goth clubs and leer were a joke to us.

When I /was/ attracted to a guy in his 30s/40s, it was because I knew him in a context that lent him status--for example, work where he was a manager or school where he was a professor. He ran something or led something.

Amy's suggestion is solid.

I'm also going to throw in "community theater." A guy who gets roles and kills it onstage, or who runs tech, can sometimes attract much younger theater nerds. Even if he's broke. He has status within that community.

Any type of instructor (karate, pottery, cooking) has opportunities.

Fantasy role-playing (table-top games like D&D, live-action games, SCA) circles also have potential.

Posted by: Insufficient Poison at January 11, 2012 11:44 AM

Addendum: If it is obvious that you are partaking in those activities /just/ to chicken-hawk, and you have no real interest, it will have the opposite of the desired effect.

Posted by: Insufficient Poison at January 11, 2012 11:47 AM

@Lobster--You're right, I'm sure that it's not impossible for men in their 40s to date or sleep with women in their early 20s. And I'm speaking more to the preferences of girls age 20-22, so it's possible that the dynamic changes dramatic with 24, 25, 26 year old women (although that's not really early 20s anymore), or among different socioeconomic classes. I just maintain that it's not as common as middle-aged men would think/hope/feel entitled to.

It's like, I'm sure we all know of overweight women who are happily married or extremely successful with men. But that doesn't change the fact that most men aren't attracted to fat women. And I'd guess that in most of these exceptions, the attraction is in spite of, not because of, the extra weight. Similarly, most girls my age aren't saying "wow, I really want to date a middle-aged man!!" but maybe they're looking for someone who's mature, confident, financially stable, established in their career etc and know that they're more likely to find that in an older man. But if you're 40 years old and don't have any of that going for you (ie the LW) then you're not bringing much to the table.

I don't know, there's just something about middle-aged men who expect to date 22 year olds that rubs me the wrong way. Probably the same way men feel about women who expect to date men who earn $150k+ a year, especially when they don't have anything going for them that would put them in the running for the top tier of the dating pool. Even if you fall into that income bracket yourself, it's still obnoxious and off-putting.

Posted by: Shannon at January 11, 2012 11:50 AM

"Also very importantly, 90% of women are very much turned off by his whole approach, but he doesn't care, completely ignores those, and focuses on the 10% or so who lap it up like little puppies drinking milk ... and they are there ... in every corner of the world..."

This is key. As Shannon says, most women that age won't be interested, but there will always be some percentage who will lap up the right lines and compliments like little puppies. They'll be needy, possibly crazy, and maybe not the best looking of the bunch, but they're out there. A guy just has to be willing (and/or narcissistic enough) to endure tons of rejection to find those girls.

Posted by: LS at January 11, 2012 12:34 PM

When I was in my 40s I decided I'd look better with a sweet young thing next to me. I was right, but ultimately the maintenance wasn't worth it. And, by the way, I was mostly dead broke.

Sure you have hope. Go here and spend a few days reading, then follow the advice. Get yourself in good physical shape, too.

Posted by: Mad Jack at January 11, 2012 1:11 PM

I don't know, there's just something about middle-aged men who expect to date 22 year olds that rubs me the wrong way.

Sexual attraction to young women is biologically encoded--no doubt--but to see it unbuffered by realistic expectations and pursued to the exclusion of other personal qualities is mortifying.

It's like the difference between a woman who wants a guy with decent career prospects vs. a woman who will only date guys who make "at least $250K."

Their targets should wonder, "What will happen when I get older / if lose my job?"

Posted by: Insufficient Poison at January 11, 2012 1:26 PM

First paragraph above should be enclosed in quote tags. Sorry, Shannon. I should have Previewed.

Posted by: Insufficient Poison at January 11, 2012 1:27 PM

Mad Jack, what's your type these days?

Posted by: Insufficient Poison at January 11, 2012 1:45 PM

He may hve better luck hooking up with a 20-year-old than a 30-year-old, as 30-year-olds are looking for husbands while many 20-somethings want cheap thrills. They might go with an older loser for the kink factor. Are you hot?

Posted by: NicoleK at January 11, 2012 1:52 PM

Insufficient Poison, I had the same experience at goth clubs in the late 90s/early 00s. The older guys at Manray (the Boston club) were not really my social/dating circle, though they were fun to flirt with.

Your suggestions for finding status within offbeat communities is rather brilliant.

Posted by: NicoleK at January 11, 2012 2:02 PM

Middle-aged and no cash, career, or car? Sign-on for a humanitarian project, as suggested, and you might be perceived as non-materialistic, rather than non-goal-oriented. Some chics dig that, although while in my early-twenties, I often perceived an older man hitting on me as rather creepy.

Posted by: Meloni at January 11, 2012 3:01 PM

Have you considered the priesthood?

Posted by: Radwaste at January 11, 2012 6:28 PM

Your odds ain't great LW, though as Lobster says it can be done. Project spendthrift behaviour and confidence. That doesn't have to be all that expensive by the way. Sign up for night classes at a community college and splash around a bit of money at the bar. Even with your income, you can probably look richer than them. Plus dinner can be cheap and cheerful - no lobster required here! And some girls do find older men attractive (if they have a good daddy complex going). You'll just have to trawl through a lot to find them. You won't get much out of it intellectually or emotionally - but it doesn't sound like that's what you're after.

Doesn't matter if it's all a house of cards - think well off, you'll look well off.

Posted by: Ltw at January 11, 2012 8:35 PM

Anyway, you might even get a career out of it. And seeking to better yourself will raise your status even before you earn...

Posted by: Ltw at January 11, 2012 8:40 PM

Have you considered the priesthood?

He's interested in early 20's women, not early teenage boys Radwaste!

Posted by: Ltw at January 11, 2012 8:42 PM

NicoleK, I have a growing suspicion we may have crossed paths in real life. I'm from Connecticut. I did Manray on occasion, but more often we did the pop-up New York clubs. Our "regular" haunt was a little place in New Haven. On goth nights, 30something guys who weren't even dressed for the scene would hog the bar, so you had to cross paths with them to get a drink. They were obviously there to gawk and try to pick up, which made them extra ridiculous to us.

Older guys who did dress for the scene also seemed out of place--like why is this 31-year-old dude shopping at Hot Topic and hanging out with college kids?

I understand that this has changed somewhat, because a chunk of our generation just never left the lifestyle.

Posted by: Insufficient Poison at January 12, 2012 6:49 AM

Consider women with daddy issues. That seems like your best chance.

Posted by: MonicaP at January 12, 2012 7:25 AM

It also depends on what he means by "hope". Hope to get laid or hope to have a relationship? The former is much easier than the latter. In general, it's not advisable to try to have a long-term relationship with that much of an age spread unless you're aiming to get your heart broken. It's tough enough for an older man to hold the interest of a 20-something girl if he's rich, but nearly impossible when he's poor.

Posted by: LS at January 12, 2012 7:36 AM

As Shannon says, most women that age won't be interested, but there will always be some percentage who will lap up the right lines and compliments like little puppies. They'll be needy, possibly crazy, and maybe not the best looking of the bunch, but they're out there. A guy just has to be willing (and/or narcissistic enough) to endure tons of rejection to find those girls.

THIS!!! And let me tell you something else, once the crazy, ugly, daddy obsessed 20 something gets her claws into you, you better be prepared to be a father. The first thing a girl like this is going to do is get herself pregnant. I have seen it. My dear brother in law married a girl just like this.

In her mid 20's she latched on to some old guy (under-employed and in his 40's) and got herself "accidently" pregnant not once but twice. After the second time, he kicked her to the curb. My BIL who is a nice, if somewhat lonely fellow, started dating her. Within 3 months, she and kids were living with him, by 4 months they were engaged, by 6 months she had quit her job bc "the other teachers weren't nice to her", at 9 months they were married. At less than a year of marriage guess what? Drumroll please! She is pregnant again!! Wow! What a shocker! Gosh, I couldn't have seen that coming!

Right now, we are just praying that we are wrong about her and that she is not a street rat crazy gold digger, but the signs are not good.

Posted by: sheepmommy at January 12, 2012 7:41 AM

IP, I went to New Haven once or twice circa 97, but mostly I stuck to Boston and Northampton. But we very well may have crossed paths, it is a small world!

And yeah, a lot of my friends from the scene are still in the scene in their mid-30s. So the scene has aged. It makes me think of back then when I'd see headbangers with big hair in their 30s and 40s. I wonder if there are a lot of new goths in their 20s (my guess is probably not, kids these days are into other things) and if so, what is their perception of these older people in clubs.

Most of my friends have moved on, though, and are now living more generic lives as professionals or housewives with families, though they may make appearances at Arisia, or bellydance, or whatever.

This seems to be this guy's problem. He hasn't really grown up. He's not got an adult job, he's not living as an adult, and he wants a non-adult girlfriend.

The problem is even if he finds his Wendy, remember, at the end of the book, Wendy grows up and she's not gonna want to prance around with Peter Pan anymore.

Posted by: NicoleK at January 12, 2012 7:55 AM

I've met quite a few guys like the LW. They think of the dream 20 year old like a lottery win. I blame the male rom-com movies which show hot chicks hooking up with guys exactly like the LW (i.e. The Nutty Professor with Eddie Murphy, for one). They're hoping to meet a girl who has no idea how hot she is, who is very naive, and has bad judgement.

Posted by: Chrissy at January 12, 2012 9:32 AM

"Do I have any hope?" Yeah but you may or may not like the results. You are either shooting for a girl with daddy issues or one looking for a little strange.

Girls with daddy issues are very very dangerous. Stay the hell away from them at all costs. That sweet nubile 20 something will turn into and aging, obese, hateful, blood sucker in the blink of an eye.

If you could find a job in some place like Las Vegas you could become the Mike Tyson of the broke college girl. In Vegas college girls seem to engage in a competition of who can do the nastiest, weirdest, raunchiest or most scandalous thing of the group. Fucking a 40 yo bike messenger is the JV version of skinny dipping the Belagio Fountain. As only one results in an arrest record.

Posted by: vlad at January 12, 2012 11:10 AM

As someone who practices family law, I'm constantly amazed at the number of young, not bad looking (maybe not quite pretty, but at least a solid average) women who are some how willing to bed down with (and, very frequently, get knocked up by) somewhat older men who have absolutely nothing going for them.

I have some ideas about how the LW could get those idiot women, but I'm not going to share them, at least unless he can show me a vasectomy scar. World's already caring for enough of these people's children.

Posted by: Lyssa at January 12, 2012 12:24 PM

I have some ideas about how the LW could get those idiot women, but I'm not going to share them, at least unless he can show me a vasectomy scar.

I love you, Lyssa.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 12, 2012 12:26 PM

WTF are people givIng this guy advice??

I live in a college town, there are always a few of this type around looking to score a naive coed, and theyre always immature losers. Normal men can't even relate to a girl in her early twenties. It takes a man who still thinks like a 21 year old to pick one up.

Posted by: KurlyQ at January 12, 2012 1:47 PM

KurlyQ I AGREE WITH THIS: Normal men can't even relate to a girl in her early twenties.

Um, YEAH

* Lobster: Your not-so-baffling lucky friend explanation could've been pared down to this: "He is quite funny and good at making women laugh."

Women love funny guys. LOVE THEM. Women who aren't funny especially. And, no matter how hard you try, you cannot fake being funny. There is nothing more repulsive than a guy loudly forcing jokes and getting his "look at me!" all over you when he isn't actually funny. Besides reeking of approval-neediness, it can come off as immature, which subconsciously doesn't very well lend your image to "provider" (in my personal opinion). If you're smart enough to be funny, then use that. Women love that. If you don't, just try to go the other way and try to act mature.

"... women will always give you the wrong advice," that's not true. Being "dignified," as you said, is hot, but "manly?" Women don't give a shit. Confident and manly ARE NOT THE SAME THING. And "acting" will always be just that. Acting.

Posted by: M at January 12, 2012 4:29 PM

There have been several comments about the LW's "expectations". His letter expresses none. He does not display the arrogance these comments assign to him, but rather simply states his preference. It is clear from the tone of the letter that he EXPECTS nothing.

Posted by: Treadwell at January 13, 2012 11:41 AM

@Ltw... the goth "scene" has been around since the late 70s. Most of the 30-somethings you saw when you were in college probably just never left it, either.

Posted by: jj at January 13, 2012 11:59 AM

Yeah that's probably true. There was a huge resurgence in the '90s though.

Posted by: NicoleK at January 13, 2012 1:54 PM

There have been several comments about the LW's "expectations". His letter expresses none.

His expectation is that he can be an undercapitalized 40-something guy and get 20-year-old hotties. Not likely to happen.

And I've had quite the correspondence with this guy. He expects everything and never mind what he has to offer.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 13, 2012 2:29 PM

Guy needs to read up on game and have his non-existent SMV pounded into his head.

I'm in my 40s and making good money, have a house, a car, etc. And I certainly don't have the SMV to pull 20-somethings.

Underemployed at 40? Dude, you're not even high enough up the ladder to score a 45 year old fattie with 2 kids and a drug problem.

Posted by: brian at January 13, 2012 5:33 PM

@M: '"... women will always give you the wrong advice," that's not true.'

Yes, it is. If you want to score with the ladies, the absolute last thing you should ever do is ask a woman for advice. But if you do for some reason, be sure to do the opposite of whatever she says.


'Being "dignified," as you said, is hot, but "manly?" Women don't give a shit.'

So? Who gives a shit that you don't give a shit? Becoming more manly and less washed-up is something a man does for himself.


'Confident and manly ARE NOT THE SAME THING.'

That's why I wrote them separately, otherwise it would have been tautology, but thanks for the redundant observation.


'And "acting" will always be just that. Acting.'

No, it isn't. It's a case of 'fake it till you make it'. An under-confident man can and should fake confidence, consciously, until it becomes a self-reinforcing practiced habit, eventually seeping into the subconscious and becoming part of who you are. In fact, this is one of the only ways for an under-confident man to develop confidence, if he wasn't properly instilled it with from a young age. "Faking" confidence is about practicing holding the mindset of confidence --- and the more you practice it, the more natural it becomes, and the more it becomes part of who you are --- and having that mindset is the definition of confidence. (And it can be self-reinforcing, because it gets results ... when you initially attempt to fake confidence, you really do see that people respond to you better.) Women can have fake breasts and can fake orgasms, men can fake confidence. Trust me, a lot of the confidence you think you see in confident men is practiced and conscious. Will it ever be as perfect as someone instilled with confidence by a solid male role model as a child? No. But it doesn't need to be. It's about being and becoming the best 'you' that you can be. Your comments that basically attempt to trash the LW and put him down and stop him from trying to better himself, are a good example of exactly what I said - never ask a woman for advice on these matters - she'll perceive it as weakness and just trash you. LW, if you ask for advice, ask it from someone who knows what they're talking about AND who actually wants to help you and can envision you being helped.

Posted by: Lobster at January 14, 2012 6:31 AM

"the absolute last thing you should ever do is ask a woman for advice"

Again to clarify, except people like Amy, who is a trained and experienced advice consultant, of course.

But the average woman - well, even if she doesn't trash you and tries to give you good advice, at best she is likely to give you some useless advice, some nonsense like 'just be yourself' or 'buy a girl flowers' or 'be romantic' or whatever.

Posted by: Lobster at January 14, 2012 6:56 AM

Honestly, it depends on what woman you ask. You can't lump us all together. Amy gives great advice to guys, but some women give terrible advice....just as some men give women terrible advice, but I wouldn't say ALL men would give me terrible advice.

You guys do some weird stuff when dating. My girlfriend really likes this guy that just contacted her online. Yet, he spent a good part of their first conversation last night discussing his ex (No!), telling her all she wanted from him was sex and they had it 5 times a day (No!), that she broke it off with him because he doesn't make much money (No!). Then, to top it off, he sent her clips of him playing guitar and singing songs (No!).

Yet, she's still going to go out with him because he's cute, and it's clear from his nervous ineptitude that he really REALLY likes her. All the wrong things he's doing just proves that he's not a player (she called him "adorkable"). Sometimes, it's better not to be too smooth, especially if you've got cute and fit going for you.

Frankly, you only need "game" if you've got nothing else.

Posted by: LS at January 14, 2012 9:42 AM

No offense Brian, but you probably come off like their dad. Guys in their 40's can get younger women, but a lot of it is attitude and good looks help immensely. Thinking that home ownership is going to impress them is indicative of the wrong mindset. Though I agree with your larger point, the average schlubby balding pot bellied middle aged man is basically invisible to women under 40.

Also deliberately targeting girls in their early twenties is skeezy. It's about dominance. Women in their later twenties and thirties are just as attractive and have a lot more to offer.

Posted by: Jim at January 14, 2012 12:24 PM

@LS 'All the wrong things he's doing just proves that he's not a player ... Frankly, you only need "game" if you've got nothing else'

Personality-wise, very few men are really cut out to be 'players', for various reasons --- but, very few men wouldn't benefit at least somewhat, and improve their own 'batting average' (so to speak) - and even improve their actual relationships - by reading up on it. Think about why you might want to steer this poor LW away from something that would likely help him, and maybe you'll have a glimmer of what I mean.


@Jim 'Also deliberately targeting girls in their early twenties is skeezy. It's about dominance. Women in their later twenties and thirties are just as attractive and have a lot more to offer.'

Pfft. Women in their thirties may be better in that they're a lot more mature, but 'just as attractive'? That's pushing it a bit. Unless you mean 'the attractiveness of the whole package' as opposed to 'physical attractiveness', but then you're being diplomatic.

Posted by: Lobster at January 14, 2012 12:54 PM

"Think about why you might want to steer this poor LW away from something that would likely help him, and maybe you'll have a glimmer of what I mean."

If that's your way of saying, once again, that, as a woman, I would give him bad advice, then it's just not true.

I'd have to look at him first. Is he overweight, puny, etc? A guy can read up on being a player all he wants but for a lot of them it's simply not going to work.

My best advice for any guy - at least those who want a physically attractive mate - is to get into shape. Actually, that would also be my advice for any female. It doesn't matter at all if you can mutter your best Mae West or Monroe line if you're physically unattractive.

Only one guy that I know of has taken that advice to heart - after realizing that he'd become a short, pot-bellied (though financially well-off) prospect to the beautiful women he wanted - and, after a few months at the gym, he ended up with many hot chicks. The rest would rather complain about how hard/unfair it is, while living in denial about what they actually bring to the table.

Posted by: LS at January 14, 2012 1:50 PM

@Jim - No deliberate targeting here, I know I have no chance of getting anything other than "You're older than my dad." and that's pretty creepy.

I also know that I would much rather look at 22 year olds than 42 year olds.

But I also have no unrealistic expectations of my market value, and the best I can hope for is far below what I'm willing to accept.

The important thing is that a man has got to know his limitations. And a 40+ man who is not Tom Cruise is not going to score the 22 year old cutie.

Posted by: brian at January 14, 2012 2:22 PM

@brian you probably could get a 20 something, if you didnt have any scruples about it. There are plenty of emotionally vulnerable girls out there. That's who guys like the LW are targeting.

Posted by: Jim at January 14, 2012 7:03 PM

I am very certain LW can score young 20s gals. He will seem, at first acquaintance, more mature than the young guys in their early 20s.

I'm not saying they are the best and brightest and emotionally healthy young ladies, but they are out there.

There's nowt as queer as folks.

Posted by: LauraGr at January 14, 2012 8:35 PM

"My best advice for any guy - at least those who want a physically attractive mate - is to get into shape."

That is also good advice, I'll second that.

Posted by: Lobster at January 15, 2012 7:41 AM

Sorry, wrong. If you want a MATE who's a woman, you'd better get in fiscal shape, first and foremost.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 15, 2012 8:13 AM

Is the LW looking for a MATE?

For girls in their early 20's , looks and attitude are going to play a bigger role than income. It's not until women start thinking about settling down that they get so mercenary.

Posted by: Jim at January 15, 2012 8:56 AM

Actually, listen to Townsend's talk on my radio show. You're quite wrong, Jim. Status matters. I just read a chapter in his new book that discusses this in great detail but he gets into it a bit on my radio show.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/amyalkon/2012/01/09/advice-goddess-radio-amy-alkon

Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 15, 2012 9:01 AM

"Sorry, wrong. If you want a MATE who's a woman, you'd better get in fiscal shape, first and foremost."

Sure, a guy shouldn't be bankrupt or have no job, no money, but realistically, this applies to what women want in their wildest dreams - some millionaire to sweep them off their feet and take care of them - and most women over 30 at least have accepted that this isn't likely to happen, so they downgrade this expectation somewhat (unless they're super hot and can actually pursue millionaires).

Then, you also have those women, like me, who had the millionaire and found out it kinda sucked - that a guy with a good heart, who is fit, and makes a decent living is far better than the type A narcissist who typically has the fat wallet.

At any rate, most guys can't be millionaires, or even above middle-class, but they CAN work out and get into shape. And they'll attract many more women that way. It's an equalizer.

Posted by: LS at January 15, 2012 9:25 AM

I didn't say that status doesn't matter. Money doesn't matter as much for women that age. Otherwise they'd all be dating older guys with money. Boys their age are usually broke.

Also it's obvious that looks matter. Probably not as much as it does for men, but when you look at couples it's evident that for most, they're about the same on the looks scale.

Posted by: Jim at January 15, 2012 10:08 AM

I've dated really rich guys and I could conceivably have "landed" one, but that was never my goal. What matters to me is that somebody has done something with their life -- that they've achieved status and become accomplished within whatever their sphere is. My boyfriend is a literary researcher, and he's built his career out of nothing. He's very, very loyal, a wonderful person, highly creative, extremely smart, a dogged and innovative problem-solver, and makes me laugh and surprises me with his thinking and surprises me in general all the time. Oh, and I can always count on him to do the right thing, the kind thing, the classy thing. I have tremendous respect for him and admire the hell out of him. I wrote sometime last year that you need to have a crush on your partner as a human being. I feel that way about my boyfriend and about all my friends.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 15, 2012 10:15 AM

That's why I can never understand why you push the financial aspect, Amy. I mean, maybe you're just telling guys to get some kind of status - a career like Gregg has - rather than money in general, but I think it often comes off to guys as if they should be financially well-off or they won't attract women. Yet, I think there are a lot of women out there (like us) who just want a nice guy, with reasonable financial goals and stability, who treats them well.

And, truth is, there are a lot of guys like that out there - many more than are rich - but unfortunately, a sizable percentage of them are also out of shape. So, I think sometimes women think, "Well, I can have the out of shape, unattractive guy with money or the out of shape, unattractive guy who's poor....mmmm...easy choice!" But if the poorer guy was fit and nicer than the richer guy, he'd have just as good a chance, if not better, of getting that woman.

I mean, for instance, where I live, firemen can have their pick of hot women. They make decent money but they're not filthy rich, yet they tend to date women in the same attractiveness league as the millionaires do, purely because they're buff and in shape.

Not all women are golddiggers, but almost all women would prefer a fit guy.

Posted by: LS at January 15, 2012 11:07 AM

Because you cannot be 40 and broke and get girls. I don't need a rich guy but I'm not going to date a guy in a menial job who makes $11/hr at 40 and can't afford to pick me up in a motorized vehicle (one with a hood and doors).

Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 15, 2012 11:10 AM

That's cool but you're not 21. One of the reasons that older broke guys want to pursue 21 year old girls is that they don't think like older women and don't have the same expectations.

I've got an ex BiL who is a living example of this. Good looking guy in his late 30's, has always worked in bars and restaurants so he doesn't make much. I doubt that he's ever dated a woman over thirty. He could probably get one but his income is going to force him to settle for someone a lot less attractive than the women he's been used to.

Posted by: Jim at January 15, 2012 12:26 PM

That's cool but you're not 21. One of the reasons that older broke guys want to pursue 21 year old girls is that they don't think like older women and don't have the same expectations.

They want men to have status. They want the guy in cool frat or in law school, not the freshman in undergrad. I just read a chapter of Townsend's next book (in progress) on this, and he's done a lot of research on this.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 15, 2012 12:40 PM

Well, it's entirely different things when we're talking about young girls who are just looking to play around and more mature women who are looking to settle down. I agree that status comes into play once the biological clock kicks in, but that's more around late 20s/early 30s for the current generation.

Then, there's a period where status is very important because of childrearing and the expectation that the partner will help keep the children housed, fed, and clothed, etc.

But, after that period, status goes back down in importance for a lot of women. They've learned that qualities such as loyalty and kindness are much more important. Not that any woman wants a deadbeat, but plenty of women I know would date a cute bartender (and have).

Posted by: LS at January 15, 2012 2:04 PM

Yeah, but Insufficient Poison had a good point about alternative status.

For example, the promoter of one of the goth nights I used to attend was a non-rich, short, 40-something and he got plenty of play from hot young things. Because he had status -within that scene-.

All IPS ideas were good.

Posted by: NicoleK at January 15, 2012 2:05 PM

Through no one's fault but my own, I am a rather pathetic, washed-up character -- a man approaching 40, slaving away for $10/hour, and getting around on my bike after having to sell my car. Yet, I'm ever driven by my wants -- for pretty ladies in their early 20s. Do I have any hope?

While you don't have much hope for a date with a pretty woman in her early 20s (and probably not much hope for a date with any woman in her early 20s), you have even less hope of finding a woman like that to marry. Women may be willing to date, and sleep with, a guy who's making $10/hour as long as he's hot, but hardly any will be willing to marry him, no matter how hot (and nice) he is.

Feeling pathetic and washed-up certainly isn't a quality that is going to attract a lot of women but I can speak from personal experience that it's also not going to repel all women (although you may have better luck with women your age and older.) I have a friend who's 50, who has his own house painting business but just ekes out a living doing it, and feels pretty pathetic about himself, yet he has had some attractive women interested in him because he's: (a) good-looking, (b) tall, (c) interesting and (d) genuinely nice. Now, none of these women have been in their 20s or 30s. Most have been around his age and one was ten years older. And I'm not sure that any of them were interested in marrying him. But they did date him and did sleep with him.

Posted by: JD at January 15, 2012 2:10 PM

Not all women are golddiggers, but almost all women would prefer a fit guy.

LS, I made this point to Amy in a blog thread a week or so ago. I said that while a man's looks probably don't matter to women as much as a woman's looks matter to men, women do care about a man's looks.

That's why I can never understand why you push the financial aspect, Amy. . . I think there are a lot of women out there (like us) who just want a nice guy, with reasonable financial goals and stability, who treats them well.

I wouldn't put "like us" there. You may be happy with a nice guy with reasonable financial goals and stability, who treats you well but Amy clearly stated that she requires status/achievement/accomplishment. Both of my brothers are exactly the kind of guys you describe. They are married, have good relationships and each of them have three wonderful daughters. A lot of women would probably be happy to be with guys like them. But, I certainly wouldn't call them "accomplished" in their fields (insurance and banking) and, because of that, they wouldn't appeal to a woman like Amy.

Posted by: JD at January 15, 2012 2:37 PM

JD, I think you missed something, or else I did. Amy chose Gregg, although Gregg doesn't make a lot of money (I'm assuming). He's accomplished in his field, which is a field she admires (this is important). A guy can be equally competent in another field (insurance or banking) as long as he finds a woman who appreciates being the wife of an owner of an insurance agency or the local bank manager.

But I don't think that's very hard! It probably wouldn't fly for those women who've lived in big cities and were educated in liberal arts (writing, art, etc). They might find those jobs too boring or mundane. But there are still women out there who would view those jobs as high status.

Actually, one of the hottest women I've ever met married the local bank president, 20+ years her senior. For her, he was a catch. She may not have realized that on the entire world's open market, she probably could've grabbed a millionaire, but in our small town, he was prize enough.

So, my point is that status is largely subjective. Brian has pointed out many times that it depends on where a guy lives, and I think that's very true. If you live in a place where everybody has a high level of education, then that will be "high status". If you live in TX, where almost nobody has a high level of education, yet they may own an oil well or a cattle ranch, then that is "high status".

And, as Nicole points out, if you're 22 and admire music, then the lead singer of a band or someone who promotes them has high status.

Posted by: LS at January 15, 2012 5:32 PM

LS, what Amy wrote was: What matters to me is that somebody has done something with their life -- that they've achieved status and become accomplished within whatever their sphere is.

A guy can have -- to use your phrase -- "reasonable financial goals and stability" but that doesn't mean he's going to have "achieved status" or "become accomplished."

My brothers are certainly competent in their fields but the one in insurance is not the owner of an agency and the one in banking is not a manager. But their wives didn't care about that. Their wives were fine with the fact that they had jobs, made a decent income and were good men. A woman (like Amy) with a need for status/accomplishment in a man, would not have been interested in them.

Posted by: JD at January 15, 2012 6:40 PM

Some women cannot get high status men and know it. If a 4 and an 8 get together, it's not likely to last.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 15, 2012 6:45 PM

It's true, and generally insurance agents or bankers aren't going to get women who are "10"s. All I'm saying is that if a guy lacks peak status in his job (assuming, of course, he has a job and a vehicle other than a bike), he can make up for that by getting a buff body.

Sure, maybe he still won't get a "10", but he may get an "8", whereas before he'd only get a "4".

Women are visual too. Most don't like to admit it (except to their closest friends) for fear of seeming shallow, but they are.

All things being equal, a woman is going to choose a nice, muscular body and firm butt over an out of shape guy. And, of course, things aren't equal - there are guys out there who can buy women - but being in peak shape gives the average guy a fighting chance.

Posted by: LS at January 15, 2012 6:59 PM

Case in point: A friend of mine is a successful artist, so he has status within that world, which always got him hot women in the past. And, being an artist, he's extremely visual, so having hot women is important. But, over the years, he let himself go physically - he's short too, which was a strike against him - until he began to find it difficult to date women of the level of attactiveness he wanted.

I told him "Frankly, you're looking for the "10", but you're letting yourself go to seed physically", and he took it to heart, got back into the gym, and the last I saw him he was with a hot blond.

So, even among guys who have status, it only goes so far. If a guy is happy with a "4" or "6", who has a great personality, then that's easy, but if a guy wants the hottest women, he either has to make millions or be in prime physical condition - ideally both, but for most guys it's an either/or situation.

Posted by: LS at January 15, 2012 7:19 PM

LS, you said exactly what I've always felt, that looks matter to women too, but most won't admit it because they don't want to appear shallow. The difference between men and women isn't that looks matter to men and they don't matter to women. The difference is that men will freely admit it and women will try to downplay it.

Back to your comment about a lot of women just wanting "a nice guy, with reasonable financial goals and stability, who treats them well." I understand women not being interested in a guy who's not "financially fit." What I find interesting is that, in addition to that -- and in addition to a guy being nice and fun and smart and treating them well -- a lot of other women need to have this status/achievement thing in a man. If I met a woman who, for example, had a prestigious position in her field, I'd admire her for her accomplishment but it's not something that would be this huge sexual turn-on for me.

Posted by: JD at January 15, 2012 8:57 PM

I've always felt, that looks matter to women too, but most won't admit it because they don't want to appear shallow.

Women, across cultures, prioritize men who are tall and symmetrical (otherwise looks do not matter much -- per studies, not per JD's opinion).

I don't care if a guy's handsome (Gregg happens to be darling); he just has to be 6'2" or taller and not skinny.

People's preferences for looks (or tallness) are not "shallow." That's just a silly thing people say. Being attracted to somebody matters A GREAT DEAL. It is not "shallow" to have someone you are attracted to. It is essential.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 15, 2012 9:00 PM

Lyssa: As someone who practices family law, I'm constantly amazed at the number of young, not bad looking (maybe not quite pretty, but at least a solid average) women who are some how willing to bed down with (and, very frequently, get knocked up by) somewhat older men who have absolutely nothing going for them.

When a woman says a man has "nothing going for him", she typically means that in terms of status/income. If these men, in fact, had "absolutely nothing" going for them, it's not likely they'd be attracting much younger women. It may be that these guys are attractive or sexy or charming to these younger women and that, while the women wouldn't want to marry the guys, they like sleeping with them.

Posted by: JD at January 15, 2012 9:25 PM

not per JD's opinion.

You forgot "and LS's opinion" ("Women are visual too.")

Posted by: JD at January 15, 2012 9:53 PM

I don't really understand how they'd study whether looks matter to women, other than self-reporting, and, as I said, women tend to downplay looks when directly asked.

When I was dating, I never dated an overweight guy, and I, like most women I saw online, stated they wanted someone "fit and active" or whatever the euphemistic checkbox was for "don't be overweight". There was also the height checkbox, which almost all women checked at a certain point, usually "5'10" or above", and few men checked it (though some did, either because they liked really tall women or were short and wanted someone shorter).

On Match.com, you were even able to search by height and fitness, which I often did. It was important to me, and I don't mind saying so.

But my girlfriend just went online for the first time, and she was hesitant to check those boxes. I told her if she didn't, she'd get hit on by tons of short, chubby guys she wouldn't be interested in, which she readily agreed, yet there's this thing about not being shallow that women go through.

It's not "nice" to eliminate guys solely on looks, as we don't want them to eliminate us on that basis, but realistically, we all do. I agree with JD - men just have an easier time admitting to it.

Posted by: LS at January 16, 2012 4:52 AM

Actually, what I believe happens is this: Women can separate their feelings of attraction from their financial needs/goals.

If a woman is struggling financially, and it would benefit her to be with a wealthy man, she can totally dismiss the other side of her - the physical desires she may have - in favor of what is "best" for her long-term.

Men can't do that. A guy could meet a woman who might be the best thing for them - funny, warm, able to help further his career, etc - but if he doesn't feel an attraction down there, it's a no go (as Patty Stanger always says, "The dick does the picking").

Women, on the other hand, pick with their heads, which doesn't always work out so well. I've know so many women who dismissed their physical needs to marry for financial security. Years down the road, they're miserable and lustfully eyeing other guys, if they don't actually have affairs.

A woman doesn't need perfect physical chemistry -we're not as particular about that as men - but there still has to be a physical spark or the relationship is usually doomed.

Posted by: LS at January 16, 2012 5:14 AM

Women, across cultures, prioritize men who are tall and symmetrical (otherwise looks do not matter much

Height and symmetry are part of how a person looks. In fact, symmetrical features supposedly create what we find "pretty" or "handsome" in a person.

I don't care if a guy's handsome (Gregg happens to be darling); he just has to be 6'2" or taller and not skinny.

If a guy has to be 6'2" or taller and can't be skinny, then looks matter to you. ("Looks" means the way a person looks -- i.e. their physical appearance, not just their facial features.)

People's preferences for looks (or tallness) are not "shallow." That's just a silly thing people say.

I (and I'm sure LS) agree with you, that caring about looks is not "shallow." The reason we both used that term is because that's how a lot of people -- in particular, I would argue, women -- characterize or perceive caring about looks.

Being attracted to somebody matters A GREAT DEAL.

I couldn't agree with you more. That's exactly what LS & I are saying.

Posted by: JD at January 16, 2012 10:19 AM

"And I've had quite the correspondence with this guy. He expects everything and never mind what he has to offer."

Very well, then. But it is not evident in the edited text you chose to quote in the article.

Posted by: Treadwell at January 16, 2012 10:55 AM

I don't really understand how they'd study whether looks matter to women, other than self-reporting, and, as I said, women tend to downplay looks when directly asked.

There probably are ways to study it other than self-reporting but I'd agree with you that, when it comes to any self-reporting, women would probably tend to downplay how important looks are to them (while men would not.)

As I've said many times, I'm not arguing that looks matter just as muchto women as they do to men. I've no doubt that studies would show looks don't matter as much to women. I'm just arguing that the degree of difference isn't as much (or might not be as much) as people conventionally think, that women care about looks more than they say they do.

There was also the height checkbox, which almost all women checked at a certain point, usually "5'10" or above", and few men checked it...

I think many women see it as perfectly acceptable for women to have a height requirement for men, but then consider it "shallow" for men to have a weight requirement for women. I also think that, when it comes to a woman being taller than a man, while some men may be uncomfortable with that difference, it's mainly women who have the problem with it. (I believe the same thing is true with a woman earning more money that a man: some men can't deal with that, but it's mainly women who have a problem with it.) The last woman I was really interested in was my height, 5'10". It didn't bother me one bit but she told me, early on, that she had "difficulty" with me not being taller than her.

It's not "nice" to eliminate guys solely on looks, as we don't want them to eliminate us on that basis, but realistically, we all do. I agree with JD - men just have an easier time admitting to it.

Thank you. And yes, we definitely eliminate people on the basis of how they look. We may not require people to be "handsome" or "pretty" but we do need to them to be attractive to us in some way. Many a man has heard "I really like you but let's just be friends, OK?" from a woman because she thought he was a great guy but wasn't physically attracted to him.

Posted by: JD at January 16, 2012 11:05 AM

women tend to downplay looks when directly asked.

Women talk about cute/hot guys all the time.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 16, 2012 11:09 AM

Actually, what I believe happens is this: Women can separate their feelings of attraction from their financial needs/goals. If a woman is struggling financially, and it would benefit her to be with a wealthy man, she can totally dismiss the other side of her - the physical desires she may have - in favor of what is "best" for her long-term. Men can't do that.

I think you're on to something there, LS.

Women, on the other hand, pick with their heads, which doesn't always work out so well. I've know so many women who dismissed their physical needs to marry for financial security. Years down the road, they're miserable and lustfully eyeing other guys, if they don't actually have affairs.

Or they divorce the guy and walk off with a nice chunk of his money and then marry the hot guy they always wanted. That's one significant difference between a woman marrying a man for his money and a man marrying a woman for her looks. The guy doesn't get a chunk of the woman's beauty. Heather Mills walked away with -- ka-ching! -- £24.3 million from Paul McCartney; he didn't walk away with her one good leg.

Women, of course, don't always pick their heads. Many a woman has married a "bad boy", or someone who has shown signs of abusiveness (or other negative qualities), because she was "in love" and her heart trumped her head.

A woman doesn't need perfect physical chemistry - we're not as particular about that as men - but there still has to be a physical spark or the relationship is usually doomed.

Yes. Again, I believe the difference is one of degree.

Posted by: JD at January 16, 2012 11:34 AM

"Women talk about cute/hot guys all the time."

Yes, but few will admit they must have one as a partner, despite the fact that they'll reject guys for being too short, for instance.

Women tell themselves that they aren't as shallow as men, that looks don't *really* matter. And they often genuinely believe this or try to convince themselves of this.

For instance, my girlfriend has been seeing a guy who is well off. He's 10 years older than her, but he looks A LOT older. She's been telling me for weeks that she's "struggling to find him attractive" because he's really nice, fascinating...and, did I mention, well off?

She'd like to feel something for him, so she's given it a go. As we've often seen here in Amy's column, women believe passion may just magically develop if they wish for it hard enough.

But this morning she called to say she was having a "coyote ugly" morning - wishing she could knaw her arm off just to get away from him. She had tried being physical with him and felt absolutely nothing.

That's the difference with men and women. Guys will look at a woman, say, "I just don't feel it" and move on. A woman will look at a guy and say, "I just don't feel it, but maybe if I really get to know him..."

The fact they're willing to give the relationship a chance makes them believe they're less shallow, but the usual outcome is that they're just as shallow, only too afraid to call it when they should have - before it'll really hurt the guy.

Then comes the "why don't we just be friends?" talk.

Posted by: LS at January 16, 2012 12:14 PM

despite the fact that they'll reject guys for being too short, for instance.

In the looks department women care mainly about height. Looks just do not matter as much as they do to men and it isn't about being "shallow" but about the very important business of being sexually attracted to the person you're with. Men, likewise, are not "shallow" for wanting beautiful women. They evolved to want them because what we consider beautiful are signs a woman is fertile and healthy.

As in all things, there are tradeoffs, and some women will go for a short man with money, or some men will go for a beautiful woman who's kind of a bitch. It is not "deep" (as in, the opposite of shallow) to go for somebody with a beautiful personality who you are not sexually attracted to or not that sexually attracted to. It's asinine and ultimately mean to that person.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 16, 2012 12:47 PM

LS, I find you to consistently be one of the most insightful people here.

But this morning she called to say she was having a "coyote ugly" morning - wishing she could knaw her arm off just to get away from him. She had tried being physical with him and felt absolutely nothing.

That's the downside of being a wealthy guy. You're going to attract a lot of women, of course, but some (and perhaps many) of those women are going to be like this woman. I wonder if he has any idea how unattractive she finds him?

That's the difference with men and women. Guys will look at a woman, say, "I just don't feel it" and move on. A woman will look at a guy and say, "I just don't feel it, but maybe if I really get to know him..." The fact they're willing to give the relationship a chance makes them believe they're less shallow, but the usual outcome is that they're just as shallow, only too afraid to call it when they should have - before it'll really hurt the guy.

Above, I mentioned the last woman I met and was really interested in, the one who was 5'10" and had "difficulty" with me being the same height. Prior to meeting her, I'd always just moved on if I didn't feel an attraction on the first date, as you noted guys tend to do. But with her, it was different. We met on a blind date and my initial reaction was disappointment when she showed up. But I had such a great time talking with her, and loved her droll sense of humor, and we had a lot in common, so I decided to see her again. On the second date, I still wasn't that enamored but, once again, we had such a great time that she started to look more attractive (and sexy) to me. And, after a few more dates, she began to look really attractive to me. It was quite something to experience that transformation. I remember thinking "how did I ever find her not attractive?"

I think she felt the same way (disappointed, or certainly not smitten) about me at the beginning but, unfortunately, she didn't become more attracted. I definitely sensed her lack of attraction, told her I sensed it, and that's when she copped to having "difficulty" with me being her height. I said that if she didn't feel an attraction, and the height thing was an issue for her, I didn't want to continue seeing her and she protested, saying that she really liked me and wanted to continue seeing each other. I think she was doing exactly what you mentioned, too afraid to call it when she should have.

Posted by: JD at January 16, 2012 1:10 PM

Looks just do not matter as much as they do to men.

I agree with you on that, and I'd bet that LS does too. Once again, I've never said that I believe looks matter as much to women as they do to men.

Where I differ with you is in the degree. I believe that the difference in how looks matter to women compared to how they matter to men is less than what you believe (and less than what is conventionally believed and less than women will admit.)

Here's an interesting paper I just found from The Wilson Quarterly:Looks Do Matter. While the author says "men everywhere . . . are more concerned about women’s looks than women are about men’s" (which, again, we all agree is true) he also notes "Researchers, in fact, have found that people of both sexes tend to prefer averageness in members of the opposite sex" so it's not as if men need to have a pretty woman and women are cool with an ugly man.

Also, this part was interesting...

To scientists, a convenient marker for physical attractiveness in people is symmetry... The researchers add that more symmetrical men have handsomer faces, more sex partners, and their first sexual experience at an earlier age, and they get to sex more quickly with a new romantic partner. “Moreover,” they tell us, “men’s symmetry predicts a relatively high frequency of their sexual partners’ copulatory orgasms.”

Those orgasms are sperm retaining, suggesting that symmetric men may have a greater chance of getting a woman pregnant. It doesn’t hurt that the handsomest men may have the best sperm, at least according to a study at Spain’s University of Valencia, which found that men with the healthiest, fastest sperm were those whose faces were rated most attractive by women.

Posted by: JD at January 16, 2012 1:29 PM

By the way, Amy, thank Gregg for the spam filter tweak he devised.

Posted by: JD at January 16, 2012 1:31 PM

By the way, Amy, thank Gregg for the spam filter tweak he devised.

Believe me, I have!

Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 16, 2012 1:38 PM

It's very simple and, I hope, effective for you in keeping spam out.

Posted by: JD at January 16, 2012 1:46 PM

It's great. People just need to remember to answer the question. Gregg scolded me for wanting to change them for fun -- but I'm tempted.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 16, 2012 1:49 PM

A woman will look at a guy and say, "I just don't feel it, but maybe if I really get to know him..." The fact they're willing to give the relationship a chance makes them believe they're less shallow, but the usual outcome is that they're just as shallow, only too afraid to call it when they should have - before it'll really hurt the guy.

LS, a follow-on thought to this... You said that the "usual" outcome is that a woman is not going to end up feeling it if she doesn't feel it initially. While I'd agree with you that's probably true, in cases where a woman decides to continue seeing a man even though she doesn't feel it initially, I wonder what percent of the time she experiences what I did: someone becoming attractive (indeed, very attractive) as you get to know them more.

Posted by: JD at January 16, 2012 1:58 PM

Gregg scolded me for wanting to change them for fun -- but I'm tempted.

My inner Loki says do it!

Posted by: JD at January 16, 2012 2:01 PM

Here's an interesting study I just found.

It says: University of Iowa sociologists Christine Whelan and Christie Boxer...analyzed results of a 2008 survey of more than 1,100 undergraduates at the UI, the University of Washington, the University of Virginia and Penn State University, comparing the results to past mate-preference studies. Since the 1930s, researchers have been asking college students to rank a list of 18 characteristics they'd prefer in a mate from "irrelevant" (0) to "essential" (3), allowing for a comparison of mate preferences dating back three generations.

"Good looks" was one of the 18 characteristics. In the 2008 survey, men put it in the "important" category (2) and women put it in the "desirable" category (1), and this is what I would have predicted, that men put more emphasis on good looks than women but only marginally so. If men valued it far more than women, then it should be separated by two or three degrees instead of just one.

In addition to that making sense (to me), some of the other things do too, like both women and men saying that chastity and similar political background are unimportant, and that mutual attraction and love, dependable character and emotional stability are essential.

On the other hand, one thing strikes me as very odd about the results. Men have "good financial prospect" as a desirable characteristic but it's not on the women's list at all (although women do have "ambition" as an important characteristic and "ambition" is essentially code for "good financial prospect.")

Posted by: JD at January 16, 2012 5:48 PM

Asking people what they prefer straight out is a bad way to figure out what the real deal is. Also, there are sociologists with solid methodology (and I have not read their study, nor do I have time to do so), but sociology tends to be the shit methodology capital of academia, in my experience.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 16, 2012 6:22 PM

Amy, aren't you somewhat contradicting yourself? If "Enrique" who is an attractive 6'1" guy earning millions of dollars per year in a high status job had asked you out before you met Gregg, you would have turned him down as he did not meet your 6'2" criteria. That seems to me like valuing looks far more than money / power / status - as a small decrement in a guys looks just can't be made up by any amount of money / power / status to you. And like you most women seem to have "height requirements" in what they want in a man.

PS - Scientists have created dry water.

Posted by: Snoopy at January 16, 2012 6:31 PM

Asking people what they prefer straight out is a bad way to figure out what the real deal is.

I'm not saying I completely buy those survey results, Amy. As I said, it strikes me as very odd that "good financial prospect" is absent from the women's list. But it illustrates what I believe is true about the relative difference in how men and women value looks.

Posted by: JD at January 16, 2012 6:55 PM

And like you most women seem to have "height requirements" in what they want in a man.

Snoopy, one of my best friends (from my first job in Seattle) is gay and he now lives in D.C. A few years ago I was telling him about this height thing that women have and he didn't believe me. A few days later he called me and said, "I had no idea. I just asked the women in my office and they all said they had to have a guy taller than them."

There are, of course, exceptions -- another of my best friends is my height (5'10") and is married to a woman who's an inch or two taller -- but I suspect they're extremely rare.

Posted by: JD at January 16, 2012 7:09 PM

Again, as I've written, research shows that women prioritize two things in looks in men: tallness and symmetry. (Symmetry they probably don't know they're looking for -- but in both men and women, it's a sign that a person doesn't have parasites, hasn't suffered serious infections, etc.)

Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 16, 2012 7:25 PM

Lobster:

I didn't say I didn't give a shit about men being manly. I said women didn't. That is my personal opinion, which I thought was clear from the lack of citation and fact that I oh, wrote it. It is a generalization. I will admit that.

Btw - are you f***ing kidding me with this ?

"Think strong confident manly thoughts"

Uh, how about get some training for a real career or improve your life in any way so you don't have to fake it? You never once suggest it might be a good idea for this guy to actually better himself or his situation. Just fake it, huh? Yeah, blow up that hot air balloon. Don't do anything crazy like look for a better job, get a certification, join a gym/learn martial arts/ANYTHING that will build up your actual confidence. Are you sure you're not a woman? Your advice is so vague and floofy (not a word)

Re: supposed tautology avoidance - read your writing, you didn't mention "confident" and "manly" separately - you didn't use the word confident at all. What I am saying (didn't think I needed to spell this out) is that confidence is attractive, manliness frequently is mistaken for confidence, and it would be counterproductive and a waste of effort to work on being manlier instead of more confident. Think of the opportunity cost. Time's a wastin'.

"Your comments that basically attempt to trash the LW and put him down and stop him from trying to better himself, are a good example of exactly what I said"

I wasn't trashing the LW. I was trashing on you and your advice, and I'm sorry. Sorry especially if it hurt your feeilngs.

Posted by: M at January 16, 2012 7:27 PM

Again, as I've written, research shows that women prioritize two things in looks in men: tallness and symmetry

And, as The Wilson Quarterly article said:

To scientists, a convenient marker for physical attractiveness in people is symmetry... The researchers add that more symmetrical men have handsomer faces...

Posted by: JD at January 16, 2012 9:50 PM

"you didn't use the word confident at all."

Huh? Um, OK, except in that very part that you quoted - wtf?

"I was trashing on you and your advice, and I'm sorry. Sorry especially if it hurt your feeilngs"

Lol - you didn't hurt my 'feeilngs', not sure why you think it should hurt my 'feeilngs' that you have some reading skill issues and that you want to give poor advice to the LW.

Posted by: Lobster at January 16, 2012 11:59 PM

"I didn't say I didn't give a shit about men being manly. I said women didn't."

So you are in effect suggesting women are equally attracted to wishy-washy emasculated sycophantic pussies, and that a man who displays 'masculinity' it's irrelevant? Riiiight. This proves my exact point: LW, that's the kind of drivel you should ignore, as it will just lower your odds. M, don't take it personally - women just can't help themselves in making incorrect claims about what a man should do to improve his odds.


"how about get some training for a real career or improve your life in any way so you don't have to fake it?"

Well duh, that's a given, and I didn't mention it because - apart from being obvious - it had already been brought up (firstly by the letter writer himself, who is acutely aware that his income is an issue, then be Amy who again seconds that he attempt to improve his income, then by Worthita who suggested he "you work at it a bit and try to get your life on track" ... then about a hundred other people mentioned income, because it's so obvious ... but yes, I could have redundantly and pointlessly repeated the same point I suppose, but why.


"You never once suggest it might be a good idea for this guy to actually better himself or his situation"

Not once, except when I for example agreed it would be a good idea for him to get into shape? You oughta read a bit closer there. And, see above, just because I didn't mention it, doesn't imply I disagreed with it, though simply leaping conclusions might seem entirely reasonable in your worldview, I don't know.


"research shows that women prioritize two things in looks in men: tallness and symmetry"

Sure, but you can't do much to fix these things. Short of doing a Gattaca, you can slightly improve appearance of height through a combination of things like shoes, posture and haircut but only to a limited effect. All any of us can really do in life is focus on the things we can change and/or improve.

Posted by: Lobster at January 17, 2012 12:20 AM

"Again, as I've written, research shows that women prioritize two things in looks in men: tallness and symmetry"

Well, what are "looks" then?

Isn't this just symantics? Women can use the term "ambition" as code for "financial success", but it's the same thing. And if women are impressed by height, then that is also a part of how a man looks, so looks are important.

Also "not being skinny" is a component of looks. What it all means is that women want big guys.

Sure, maybe they don't care as much about what color his eyes are, as long as he's tall and muscular, but that still shows women desire a certain look, and in a way it's even worse because guys can't change their height, whereas women can dye their hair, get boob implants, and use makeup to enhance their facial features.

Yet, mostly what I've heard from guys is that they don't care as much about a pretty face as a great body, so it would seem that both genders have a physical look they desire that has less to do with facial features than body frame.

Posted by: LS at January 17, 2012 5:13 AM

And if women are impressed by height, then that is also a part of how a man looks, so looks are important. Also "not being skinny" is a component of looks.

Touché, Mme. Belleâme!


and in a way it's even worse because guys can't change their height

That's what I've always thought. If a woman would be more appealing to men by losing weight, she can lose weight. I'm not saying it would be easy, but it can be done (in most cases.) Guys, on the other hand, can't gain height to be more appealing to women.

Posted by: JD at January 17, 2012 11:34 PM

Okay LW, here's your ticket: become a doctor. 
Then you can be 63 years old and have sex with 22 year old women.

Posted by: JD at January 18, 2012 12:08 AM

Women really only care about height (and symmetry).

Look, I get that you haven't read on this, so why keep trying to pontificate. Men evolved to care about women's looks because what we consider beauty are the signs that a woman is a fertile, healthy candidate to bear a child. Men PRIORITIZE women's looks. Women prioritize men's ability to provide and their willingness to stick around to do so. I just wrote about this today, and not because I pulled the information out of my butt but because I've read the research on it.

It is not just women's weight but their shape that is essential. There are also many other features which I've written about which matter -- youth, clear skin, neotenous (youthful) features like big eyes and full lips. I've written about this a great deal. Try reading me. I read a lot of research; I don't just toss out baseless opinions.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 18, 2012 12:09 AM

Women really only care about height (and symmetry).

Sigh. Once again, height and symmetry comprise part of how a man looks. Therefore, women care about looks.

Also once again, I am not saying that women care about looks JUST AS MUCH as men do (and I don't believe LS is saying that either.)

Yes, men place a higher priority on looks than women do. But it's not as if looks are unimportant to women. I believe that studies and research show that men place a higher priority on looks than women do. Not once have I ever disputed that. What I want to know is: what's therelative difference in priority?

That University of Iowa study may be flawed but it at least gave a sense of what that relative difference may be, with men saying good looks are "important" while women were one degree/level below, saying that good looks are "desirable."

Posted by: JD at January 18, 2012 12:39 AM

No, I'm not saying women prioritize looks as much as a man's ability to provide, although I believe this is changing in cultures where women are able to support and provide for themselves.

All I'm saying is that there is very little difference if a man finds an hourglass figure appealing and a woman finds a non-skinny, tall man appealing.

These are universal, and, for women, it goes along with the protect and provide thing - studies show taller men are more financially successful.

And women clearly do prioritize height. That is very obvious on the online sites, where women outright declare their preference for tall and men are left having to fudge an inch or two.

So, men prioritize looks, as far as youthful features and small waists, etc, which are linked to fertility, and women have evolved to prioritize strength and height, which are linked to masculinity (and possibly better sperm counts/fertility?), as well as the ability to provide and protect.

Caring more about the wallet only came about once there WERE wallets! Before that, looks were the only way for either gender to guage the suitability of a mate, so while I agree looks now take a backseat with women, compared to the more blatant signs of security and status, like cash, cars, houses, etc, they still matter.

Things haven't changed as much for men. The same feminine features signal fertility. What changed in the modern age is that money became the way to achieve security, rather than just big strong muscles.

But if we were to go back to a more primitive state - a "Mad Max" type scenario - I guarantee looks would resume being the main status cue for women.

Posted by: LS at January 18, 2012 5:35 AM

According to ev-psych, men put a priority on the looks of women because physical attractiveness is a marker of fertility and health (while women put a priority on the resources of men because those resources will help ensure the survival and success of their kids.)

But I fail to see why women shouldn't also desire "fertile" (i.e. potent) men and healthy (or at least disease-free) men, and if physical attractiveness is a marker of fertility and health then it seems reasonable that women would also want men who are physically attractive.

Refer back to that bit I posted from The Wilson Quarterly article. It says...

It doesn’t hurt that the handsomest men may have the best sperm, at least according to a study at Spain’s University of Valencia, which found that men with the healthiest, fastest sperm were those whose faces were rated most attractive by women.

If that's true, if the most handsome men do have the best sperm, then male attractiveness is a marker for potency in the same way that female attractiveness is a marker for fertility.

Posted by: JD at January 18, 2012 12:24 PM

What changed in the modern age is that money became the way to achieve security, rather than just big strong muscles.

Exactly. Way back in the day a guy needed brawn and endurance (and probably cunning too) to bring down a mastodon to feed his cave hottie and their caverats. These days, all he has to do is throw wads of money around at Whole Foods and he can buy a mastodon (organically-raised, of course.)

But if we were to go back to a more primitive state - a "Mad Max" type scenario - I guarantee looks would resume being the main status cue for women.

True. Melania would dump Donald for Dog the Bounty Hunter faster than you could say "celebrity apprentice."

Posted by: JD at January 18, 2012 1:07 PM

Amy: Again, as I've written, research shows that women prioritize two things in looks in men: tallness and symmetry

LS: Well, what are "looks" then?

LS, I think this is the key difference between you & I and Amy. We see height and symmetry** as important components of "looks" whereas Amy does not seem to.


**and, once again, let me point out: "The researchers add that more symmetrical men have handsomer faces."

Posted by: JD at January 18, 2012 1:23 PM

I don't know about this being the impossible dream some here seem to think; when I was in my early 30's I hooked up with a number of girls who were college-age (19-22). At 38 I was going with a 21. When I was 47 I had a fling with a 22-yo while vacationing. Maybe they weren't 10's but definitely 6-8's. I'm not rich, movie-star handsome, supremely self-confident, or a smooth-talker, so in the right circumstance it isn't as remote a possibility as Shannon and others are implying.

Posted by: zagman at February 15, 2012 11:54 PM

No comments: