Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
I Have an Interesting Question...
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="RidgeHunter" data-source="post: 2849504" data-attributes="member: 4319"><p>There have been some studies that have been conducted that seem to show men see the most traditionally feminine women as one-night stand material and women with a more masculine face as marriage material. Interesting stuff, because I've seen results of a similar study that women view men with a less-square jawline as marriage material, and a more angular, traditionally attractive male faces as wham-bam-thank-ya-maam types.</p><p></p><p>They wonder if this goes back to people being conditioned to think more attractive partners are more promiscuous and more prone to infidelity. </p><p></p><p>When I was single I certainly used physical attractiveness as the first filter. It was a real simple 'would/would not' categorization*, tho. It was never OH MY I MUST PAINT YOUR BEAUTY AND FOLLOW YOU TO THE ENDS OF THE EARTH. A would was a would and all woulds go in the pursue category. No such thing as "barely a would" or a "solid would". All woulds are treated the same. </p><p></p><p><span style="font-size: 9px">*miscategorization of woulds and would nots often occurs when when inebriated and requires tactful revision the next working day. </span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="RidgeHunter, post: 2849504, member: 4319"] There have been some studies that have been conducted that seem to show men see the most traditionally feminine women as one-night stand material and women with a more masculine face as marriage material. Interesting stuff, because I've seen results of a similar study that women view men with a less-square jawline as marriage material, and a more angular, traditionally attractive male faces as wham-bam-thank-ya-maam types. They wonder if this goes back to people being conditioned to think more attractive partners are more promiscuous and more prone to infidelity. When I was single I certainly used physical attractiveness as the first filter. It was a real simple 'would/would not' categorization*, tho. It was never OH MY I MUST PAINT YOUR BEAUTY AND FOLLOW YOU TO THE ENDS OF THE EARTH. A would was a would and all woulds go in the pursue category. No such thing as "barely a would" or a "solid would". All woulds are treated the same. [SIZE=1]*miscategorization of woulds and would nots often occurs when when inebriated and requires tactful revision the next working day. [/SIZE] [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
I Have an Interesting Question...
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom