Not to me, either - but it is to a lot of women.
... and I'm not just talking about men with a lot of money ie visibly rich men. I think a lot of women go for men who have enough money to be comfortable. I think if they lost their jobs and/or money, you wouldn't see those women for dust.
Ah, yes, the old saying, "when poverty walks in the door, love flies out the window."
Money without all those other personal qualities I mentioned in an earlier post isn't remotely sexy. I suppose it might be to some, les goûts et les couleurs etc etc, but definitely not to me.
Guys, These ladies are really baring their souls. Pay attention, we have much to learn!
When I was at uni in Germany I had 2 Swiss friends (blokes) from Lugano who always went around together, because that way they could talk Italian & not German. One was very tall & looked like a classical statue - traffic-stoppingly gorgeous (literally: I saw cars stop so people could gawp!!) the other looked pretty much like a leprechaun. Guess who had all the girls after him? Yep, the leprechaun. The other one, though completely beautiful, was a dull boy, nice but very dull. So much less attractive after 5 minutes.
A friend of mine was a tough little guy, even smaller than myself. He hated big men and took an instant dislike to them, which often landed him in big trouble. He told me that one of the greatest moments of his life was when he saw two short guys getting out of a van with "British Karate Association." painted on the side. The guys may have been short, but they were as wide as they were tall and it gave him a lot of satisfaction to see the crowd part to make way for them as they approached.
The answer to your question is that size is important, but there is nothing as sexy as money! If you don't have either and you meet a woman who likes you, you are a lucky man and have found a real treasure.....
I think if we are looking at what initially grabs our attention rather than getting to the point of 'knowing them.- mind you, I'm deadly serious when I say I would have loved to have spent an evening with Sammy Davis Jnr. The man was talented, intelligent and funny - I smile just thinking about him.
Shorter men must get fed up of 'apparently' not attracting attention initially. If this starts when they are young men, which it will, and their taller mates are always getting the girls' initial attention then you can see how it would build to be a 'problem' in their own minds?
I think physical size isn't really relevant - I'm more interested in things like brains, honesty, kindness, curiosity, humour, charm... (I think most people are, aren't they, really?) I think a real Adonis lacking those qualities wouldn't get more than a quick look, the way you might look at a beautiful object, and that there are plenty of plain-looking men and women who are far more attractive. Blokes of any size who strut about being 'ard and try to impress physically by eg standing too close to you or 'squaring up' to other men come over as thick, insecure tossers to me, just as do gay-bashers (worried about the closet door flying open I always think), xenophobes (stupidity, again) and probably lots more.
I have met people whom I found terrifically attractive because of a whole combination of things and looks were definitely not top of the list. Obviously, tastes differ but, speaking entirely personally, I'd go for personality over looks any day, especially in a long-term partner, simply because personality endures and develops and looks fairly rapidly cease to be noticed, at least by me.
Obviously an Adonis with a marvellous personality and a brain the size of a planet wouldn't be turned away were he to turn up at my door with a pot of massage oil saying hello I'm your Christmas present, (he'd be even less likely to be turned away if he's also clutching a bar of Lindt 70% black chocolate and the sequel to Wolf Hall & Bring Up the Bodies ;-) ).
Right.
Yes, Norman, I too understand that women are attracted to men of a bigger stature. And I can see the logic in this.
Are women in reality attracted to 'taller' men (note I don't say 'bigger') and I would, if I'm being honest, say, yes.
However, I think this has a lot to do with the fact that they simply stand out - literally head and shoulders sometimes, above other men. More so, than a heavier man who is quite tall. You notice them.
(I've actually thought about this quite a lot before!)
But, it can happen in other scenarios - and I think this makes my point quite well. My ex was 6 foot 3. And when he was younger he was forever getting picked up by the police at football matches, this is in the days when there was usually trouble, for doing absolutely nothing at all. And he said it was because they noticed him. Now I don't think most policeman are looking for a mate at football matches, so we can presume he was at least someway correct.
Now, on the other hand, we have the 'larger' gentleman. Wider. Now, my take on this, because I am not, USUALLY, attracted to the larger gentleman (and I have had several who were friends who I liked) I think because, rightly or wrongly, due to them being overweight I perceive them as being a little on the lazy side. I don't mean that they never shift from the sofa, but I mean that, given the option they will watch tv rather than go into the garden or do something interesting. And, I personally, don't like sitting watching tv. So I generally consider them unsuitable as potential partners.
So now we are onto the chaps of more diminished stature - and my dad was one of them.
This depends on the physique that goes with the stature. I once had a blind date with a guy who was really, really nice and intelligent - a really nice bloke. And he was not tall. But he was weedy with it. And I couldn't help but keep thinking that pushing my lawnmower would probably put him in hospital. Again, you see, it's the whole life-style thing and matching up.
But I know of other gentlemen below average height, who I think, 'Hmm. Nice little mover.' Think of all the blokes who are considered to be on the small side. Sammy Davis Junior - nobody would ever consider that man to be 'typically' attractive - but he was! Robert Downey Jr is only 5ft 8in - Iron Man. Tom Cruise 5ft 7in. Davy Jones (Monkees) 5ft 4in. Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter) 5ft 5in. Need I go on?
So, the tall guy, who looks physically fit will initially attract more attention. His physique is just as important (fit looking) because it gives the impression he can 'compete' that he is 'organised' that he has some measure of 'self discipline'(whether he can or not is a different matter) Look at how many UK politicians look fine when going in to an election. And if they get in they turn into flaccid lumps of lard with wide necks. Blair did it. Cameron is doing it. Brown just can't stick to the diet.
So, I do think you need to look a little outside the box and past initial impressions. Personally, I tend to be more attracted to the smaller, less heavy man - even though my ex was tall (but you just get a crick in your neck looking up all the time)
Anyway, food for thought - and yes, some shorter men can appear very aggressive and I do think it's a case of attack being the best form of defence.
Brian, in my roundabout way I suppose I was trying to find out how much equality exists in the female mind. Not being a female I am truly interested, as in a very quick poll around three or four women the (totally unscientific), the consensus favoured bigger rather than smaller.
I was not my intention to put down small guys, and I too know some lethal ones, and just for the record from bouncer days, the vast majority of the trouble makers were short guys who seemed to have something to prove which bigger guys didn't seem to have as a concern.
I seem to recall reading something somewhere about women seeking the 'best reproductive mate' which apparently if obscurely to me indicated a big guy. But that is not the point. I did pose the question directly to the women as an interesting point - to me at least. But it isn't an important one, so I am not that bothered as I gave up trying to even remotely understand women eons ago.
Yeah, I'm a rough dude, Brian, and I express myself in my crude, uneducated fashion. But I do know that economics isn't a science, except to those who dabble in that particular field. It isn't a science, because it is not possible to set up a controlled, repeatable experiment, since we do not have access to parallel worlds, nor are we able to travel backwards in time. Let's call it a speculative philosophy..........
Mike has roughly answered it. There is always an activity for each available labour unit (worker or potential worker). However, since the Industrial Revolution we have been refining mass production to the point that, for example, a production line car takes only 14 hours human labour input although the intended minimum life of such a vehicle is roughly 10 years (usually more years on the road at present). So we produce surplus cars, other consumer goods through to food and so forth. If output is regulated to reduce surplus less industrial labour is required, that knocks on to less administration and services, less people in even the finance sector and civil service as well since circulation of money and taxes are regulated as well. But populations grow and the surplus is slowly allowed to trickle out to them in times of prosperity to be reduced again during economic depressions.
That labour force control is the real reason children were taken out of the factories and not some kind of early health and safety thing as popularly believed. It is what I believed to until I had worked for the ILO and got deeper into it. The present Bangladesh (and elsewhere) exploitation of child labour business is about high demand fashion goods produced by the lowest labour to contribute to maximising profits. So lay adults off and employ cheaper children. Anyway, what we call unemployed is call labour surplus by economists because that is what it really is. In the UK there are something in the order of 40 million working age adults, about 10% are unable to work because they are ill, injured, giving birth and other good reasons. The other 15% are economically inactive (the euphemism we social scientists use in economics speak), around 12 million people, for whom at present just over there are a bit over 8 million posts open. However we do the sums it leaves us with three to four million people for whom there is no work because they are surplus to output needs.
Mike says it less scientifically but I am saying the same in our gobbledegook with a few numbers to make it easier to see. The intent of 'employment welfare' was to provide the safeguard against people going to the wall but it has never worked. Ironically, the USA's workfare with a payment equivalent to a living wage was the original plan. It never happened and now the mess is unresolvable.
Can we keep personal comments out of this thread please? Thank you.
Can always remember where something is if it stays put in its first place, but if for some reason I move it or shove it into another pile, then that's fatal. Lost forever :)
I entirely agree ;-) NOBODY goes near my desk!
Yeeesss!!!!
I was given a bit of advice once by a nice man wanting to help me out; he started to explain something & then said it was complicated & in order to understand the thing I should do was read a particular report, I might find it a bit difficult but if I got through it I'd understand the situation properly...
I had written the report in question.
nod & smile, nod & smile, nod & smile.
I don't want ANYBODY touching my piles of dross :)
I can't imagine anyone liking that sort of task - so it gets shared equally. I tidy up as & when something bothers me, if it is my mess I clear it up, if it is someone else's mess they can tidy it up, we live in a micro-society and the rule is not to bother other people. I don't really understand someone who makes a mess & then complains it is there & expects someone else to sort it out (eg my ex-husband who was capable of creating vast amounts of mess & then complaining bitterly & offensively that nobody had tidied it up....)
I could have written that article years ago!!!!
Tch! I've not finished it yet but if I get to a bit where she points out that men sit and stare intently at you while you are talking and they nod consistently in agreement - which actually means they aren't listening to a word you are saying and are simply waiting for you to shut up so they can give you the benefit of their opinion, I'll spit!
I'm going to give you a specific example of how that happens.
I was at someone's house and downloaded my emails. I had one from a (top) cognitive scientist thanking me for something and the email was actually headed, Dear Karen, You're Right.
I sat there and read out this email to a bloke who sat there nodding and smiling while I spoke. The email itself was agreeing with the fact that in a specific situation an illness could not be concluded as being cognitive.
Two months later the same bloke (the nodding and smiling one) sat me down so he could explain how the previously mentioned specific situation would, quite possibly be, cognitive.
It took me 2 weeks to get angry I was so gobsmacked.
Reminds me of the question they ask in Ireland, "Is this a private fight, or can anyone join in?"