Text the word KISW to 77999 to sign up for the Rockaholic Text Club concert, event and info alerts click here. You'll rec up to 3 msg a week.Msg & Data Rates MayApply, Text STOP KISW to cancel, terms & conditions apply.
Yesterday on the show, we read an interesting survey that will make everyone question the mores of society.
Women today like you for your looks not your money.
Dr Marcel Zentner, a psychologist at York University and his team surveyed 12,000 people in more than 30 countries asking them to describe which traits they most valued in a potential partner.
He said, “Traditionally, women prefer wealthy men who have an ability to invest resources in any children. What we found was that as women because more equal, this preference declines, but men’s looks become much more important.”
Essentially when a woman doesn’t need a man to provide for them and their family, it’s when they become “shallow.”
This is bad news for men but I can also see this being bad news for women down the line was well.
I really hate that being attracted to someone you are biologically attracted as shallow. People are not shallow when they are wired to be visually attracted to a certain thing.
Here is the honest truth for ladies: Men go after women they find attractive and are in their league. Most men are not shallow at all. We take a look at what a woman is or isn’t and then determine if she is in or out of our league. It’s a natural thing we do and we don’t get any credit for it.
How many people have you heard say, “My partner is really ugly but this is all I can do,”?
When a guy approaches a woman, it’s because they are attracted to them and are in the same league.
Now, according to this new survey saying women are attracted to men because of their looks, I have to say that women who do this are the shallow ones. Women are not normally visual creatures and as far as long term relationships go, women who are with men based on their looks are going to have a miserable time. A short term thing is something else, but for a long term thing, a woman can’t rely on looks as her primary thing because he has nothing more to offer her.
What happened to the days when a woman was with a man because he treated her and her family great?
Those days are fading as evolution takes its course. If you look at how good we have it in our world over the last 50 years, the abundance this country has in money, food, and luxury, you will see it had to be just a matter of time. Women have adapted and evolved to now the driving force of attraction to men to be their looks, not their wealth.
Why are you denying women the same as men? If needing to be provided for is no longer a concern, and if the woman is confident in herself, why shouldn't she go after a man based on looks? Maybe that's all she needs from him. Besides, our society is so focused now on appearance (how skinny, muscular, etc), that is all which seems to matter to young women.
I'd like to read the study myself, as I think there is definitely more here than you are sharing.
Some more thoughts
I have to agree with "Times Change". The fact that women don't "need" men to take the entire load financially is a good thing, I believe. I think that men have an inner drive and need to provide for their families, but in today's world, thankfully they aren't expected to shoulder the entire burden alone. 50 years ago, the financial state of America allowed men to shoulder the financial burden alone, and well. Times have changed and this is no longer the case, and it didn't necessarily result from the rise of feminism and equality.
Also, and I speak from experience, having a partner you are not attracted to will kill your sex life, thus having the ripple effect of killing the relationship. I know that sounds harsh, but that's the truth. A dead or dying sex life will kill your marriage if one of the partner's is not physically aroused by the other. Woman have done men a disservice in allowing them to believe that looks don't matter so much for them. Actually, though we are not physically aroused in the same manner as men (we aren't ready to go simply by looking at an attractive man) we do have certain physical reactions when in the presence of a man we find to be sexually attractive. Those reactions predict whether or not we'd enjoy sex with the man. Have you ever gone down a slip and slide without water? Well, then you get my drift. If a man's looks aren't enough to begin to stimulate that reaction, then it's likely the sex isn't even worth trying. It's much better, in my opinion, for a woman to consider a man's looks along with the other factors that really matter. I firmly believe that considering looks as part of the whole package and even as a deal breaker is not shallow. Men have done it for centuries because they could, and now women are given that option as well. For some, it means being shallow. For others, it can mean having the freedom to choose someone who will not only provide financial security, but also sexual satisfaction, which is of course essential to the success and mutual enjoyment of a marriage. As a final note, I think it's important to remember that women's judge of looks will vary very widely. I'll use myself an a close friend of mine as examples -- most of the guys that we found to be attractive ( this was before she was in a relationship and before I got married) were not in any fashion considered to be attractive by our other friends. We both used to get teased for picking so-called "ugly" guys -- but we found our men to be arousing and satisfying.