What do girls/women look for in men?

[Math Is Hard]

Nah, see, in this case, he's already stuck with her. The beer is just an anesthetic. Buying a guy a beer merely serves to remind him he may shortly need to rely on such tricks himself, and highly counterproductive.

Unless, of course, you buy him a lot of beer. Then it doesn't matter.

Gee, if you need an anesthetic to make your mate tolerable, then for Pete's sake, break up!
My idea of a perfect mate is having someone you can come home to at the end of a crappy day and just put your head on his shoulder, and vice versa. I'll make up some snacks and he'll go rent a funny video and we'll commiserate a little and have some laughs. Ultimately, it's me and him against the world, not against each other.

 

[zoobyshoe]

This is the part you're not understanding, because you're assuming some Hollywood version of what women are supposed to consider good-looking applies across the board. It doesn't.

No. You've completely missed the point of the whole cognitive dissonance issue. I am not looking to hollywood to find what women are attracted to. My method is to watch who they end up with.

And, I don't understand why you're trying to tell Evo why she chose the man she did? She's the one who knows her own feelings and views, not you. If she says looks are not important, and it was because of his intelligence and ability to talk about the things she enjoyed talking about, why can't you just take her word for it?

Cognitive dissonance.

You're doing the same thing Twisting_Edge was doing earlier in this discussion, assuming women can't think for themselves or explain their reasons for choosing the men they choose,

How are you getting from remarks directed specifically at Evo to "all women"? I specifically said I believe Evo is the exception here, and that other women I talk to say looks matter.

and that somehow your perception of some guy's looks are more important than her opinions.

This so completely mischaracterizes what I am saying that it's as if you skimmed my posts without having understood a word. I'll say it again in case you're in the mood to actually read it this time:

If we want to find out who women are attracted to, don't ask them, watch who they go home with (in this case: who they marry).

And, you bias your choices above by throwing in "handsome." Every woman has a different definition of handsome. For me, a short flabby guy with glasses and slightly balding is more handsome than a tall guy with a full head of perfectly styled hair and a flashy white smile who looks like he spends way too much time in the gym.

I do admit that looks play a role for me at some level, though it depends on how I meet someone...if I'm just out and in the mood to meet new people, and am actively looking to talk to new people, I will seek out those who have a certain attractiveness in their appearance, but that would NOT be anyone looking like Evo's ex-husband. I don't find that attractive in the least bit...he looks too much like a Ken doll and not a real man to me. I'll pick out a guy who's a little shorter, a bit stocky, a bit bald and not trying to hide it (no baseball caps, no comb over attempts), neatly dressed but not done to the nines (that means he could be wearing khakis and a polo shirt, or even jeans and a t-shirt, as long as it wasn't some raggedy, stained thing with holes in it...I'd be turned off by someone who is too overdone with silk shirts and diamond cufflinks type stuff, because that would signal to me that he's superficial, even if he isn't). Basically, the looks I go for are the ones that say "I'm not a slob, I don't need my mom to dress me in the morning, but I'm also not pretentious and superficial." For things like weight, I don't want someone so overweight that they get out of breath with just a little exertion, but a bit of flab says, "I'm real." I'd go bonkers with a fitness fanatic, so that look is not attractive to me. But, more importantly, I notice mannerisms. If a guy is too stiff or too slouchy, I notice and am not interested. If he appears confident and casual, comfortable with the people he's with, laughs with them and seems easy-going, that's what really catches my attention. I lose interest quickly if he seems too boisterous, or easily irritated, or seems to be ignoring the people he came with, or I see him hitting on every woman in the place as if he's god's gift to women. There's a lot to body language when looking at someone across the room that tells me far more than body shape or size.

However, if I meet someone by happenstance, and am not necessarily looking, or hadn't yet noticed them, then a great conversation will lead me to ignore appearances entirely. Likewise, if a guy is attractive in appearance to me, and we start talking and he can't hold up a conversation, or can't talk about anything but sports, then it doesn't matter how good looking he is, I'm going to completely lose interest.

Your way of assessing men, I believe, falls pretty well into the way the dynamics end up happening in practise that I brought up before:

Now, it is quite true that many women (and men) weigh the desirability of looks vs other things and find that the other things end up being much more important in the long run. So, wisely, they sacrifice looks as a priority and shove them down the list to the level of a mere preference.

Your reaction to the pic is very much like most people's reaction to many photos of models, which is that, the purely physical attractiveness is belied by an undesireable attitude you wouldn't want to get mixed up with.
It's not the body that's turning you off, but the personality that almost certainly comes with it.

What I'm saying is that, given a wonderful personality, would you choose the handsome model or the ugly model. I'm guarranteeing the personality is the same in both cases and is one you'd like. You can't choose the uglier one based on the notion he'll be more "real" because the purpose of the exercise is that he won't be. They're both equally "real". The only difference is that one is of excellent physical proportions, of good stature, has a nice pleasant face. The other is short, balding, and overweight.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Gee, if you need an anesthetic to make your mate tolerable, then for Pete's sake, break up!
My idea of a perfect mate is having someone you can come home to at the end of a crappy day and just put your head on his shoulder, and vice versa. I'll make up some snacks and he'll go rent a funny video and we'll commiserate a little and have some laughs. Ultimately, it's me and him against the world, not against each other.

So straightforward and simple.

 

[Astronuc]

And now for something completely different -

Social Birds

Flashback to high school. Were you part of a social group, or at least did you desperately want to be? Or maybe you just preferred to be alone. Scientists at the University of California, San Diego are studying birds to better understand why certain people flock together and others prefer the life of a loner. They found the secret lies deep in our brains.

The researchers traveled to South Africa to find the perfect subjects: a group of closely related waxbills and finches that are similar in all ways but one - some species are territorial, and live in colonies of about 100, and the rest are solitary, living alone or with a monogamous mate.

They found that birds that live in groups have high concentrations of a neuron called vasotocin. . . .

The scientists believe vasotocin plays a similar role in humans. Though they don't know why some of us have more neuron activity than others, they hope these findings could one day help alleviate shyness and lead to a cure for social anxiety disorder. But they warn we are a long way from being able turn a misanthrope into a party-going socialite.

Groups And Grumps: Study Identifies 'Sociality' Neurons
I think Moonbear would appreciate that article.

 

[Astronuc]

My idea of a perfect mate is having someone you can come home to at the end of a crappy day and just put your head on his shoulder, and vice versa.

That's kind of a basic function of being a spouse. There is that, but there is also going for walks together, watching sunsets or stars together, . . . . It's nice to have someone to weather storm, but don't forget to enjoy all the good times too.

 

[Astronuc]

For example: it is not socially acceptable when in the company of some guys, for a guy to openly admit to any attraction to a woman who is "overweight".

When I was a first-year university student, I met a woman who was a junior. She was, by most standards overweight (heavy set), but I found her attractive AND she had very nice personality and was interesting to talk to. I told some of my male friends about her and I got all kinds of criticism. I told my 'friends' I didn't care what they thought about the matter, I liked the woman for many reasons, and her size was not an impediment. Unfortunately, she was interested in a football player, so she was not interested in dating me. We just interacted on a friendly basis.

Bottom line - I like what I like regardless of what anyone else thinks, and I have never been concerned about 'social acceptability'. My wife like to point out that I am 'aberrant', or maybe that's abhorrent.

 

[twisting_edge]

What I'm saying is that, given a wonderful personality, would you choose the handsome model or the ugly model.

The ugly model isn't always the worser choice, depending on who you are at the time. Without exception, every relationship takes some degree of effort to maintain, and you won't always have the energy for it. All other things being precisely equal, the ugly one will have a higher exit barrier, and you'll have an easier time through such rough spots.

I used to be completely non-jealous until I noticed the degree to which people (both men and women) allow themselves to be manipulated, and even seek out situations in which that will happen. It's a normal part of life and so continuous it's hardly noticable. It's not something you can take a vacation from without some degree of consequences.

BTW, I would love to see someone to claim they've never been manipulative. Infants cry, and they get fed. It's the most primitive, simplest form of manipulation, and it's been literally drilled into every single person as a matter of life and death since almost the instant they were born (they usually take a few minutes to clean the kid up first).

Consciously or not, all people seek that out to one degree or another. They were born into it, and it is all they've ever known. The only ones who don't seek it out are hermits, and I find even their motives suspect ("look at me: I really don't like you").

 

[twisting_edge]

Gee, if you need an anesthetic to make your mate tolerable, then for Pete's sake, break up!

I assume you are directing this comment at the couple in that ad, not to me specifically. My comment on the matter emphasized the "this" for a reason. I figured Evo might've had something to say on the matter otherwise, and have a sneaking (and doubtless utterly unfounded) suspicion such commentary would have fallen somewhat short of her usual, pleasant self.

(Note: I still do sarcasm from time to time, this parenthesized note intrinsically being a good example. I fear I will need to take the fifth if asked precisely which portions of the remainder may share the trait.)

 

[Hurkyl]

Infants cry, and they get fed. It's the most primitive, simplest form of manipulation,

Is it? It doesn't seem to fit the dictionary definition.


And even if you're technically right, you're entirely on the wrong track; it would be like accusing someone of racial discrimination simply because they noticed your race -- while your accusation is technically correct, it has absolutely nothing to do with what is usually meant by the phrase, and certainly the person doesn't deserve the negative connotation associated with the phrase.

 

[Moonbear]

BTW, I would love to see someone to claim they've never been manipulative. Infants cry, and they get fed. It's the most primitive, simplest form of manipulation, and it's been literally drilled into every single person as a matter of life and death since almost the instant they were born (they usually take a few minutes to clean the kid up first).

Consciously or not, all people seek that out to one degree or another. They were born into it, and it is all they've ever known. The only ones who don't seek it out are hermits, and I find even their motives suspect ("look at me: I really don't like you").

Talk about completely distorting a definition! Manipulation means you have put a conscious effort into it. Crying because you're hungry and helpless to feed yourself hardly seems like manipulation. If you're using that broad of a definition, no wonder you're worrying about everyone being out to manipulate you.

manipulation, use
exerting shrewd or devious influence especially for one's own advantage; "his manipulation of his friends was scandalous"

http://www.wordreference.com/definition/manipulation

Sorry, but I've only manipulated guys under this other definition:

1 handling, manipulation
the action of touching with the hands or the skillful use of the hands

 

[JasonRox]

And would you marry a woman based on nothing but her silhouette from across the room?

Oh no, but it's the idea of physical attraction I'm talking about. That's all.

 

[Moonbear]

Oh no, but it's the idea of physical attraction I'm talking about. That's all.

But that's the point. At the beginning of this thread, we pointed out that young/immature women do often go for the physical attraction first...the "cute" or "hot" guy (but you'll have a hard time finding women who even agree on what "cute" or "hot" is...this is good if we go out together so we're not all hitting on the same guys ). But, as we get older/more mature, appearances are less important, and other traits that indicate he will be a stable partner become more important.

So, to summarize, if you just want someone to "play" with, and aren't at all interested in a serious relationship, that sort of immaturity in dating works well based on physical attraction alone. If you're interested in finding a more serious relationship, dating women with potential to marry someday (I'm not talking making a committment on a first date, but just starting in the right places to make it more likely that will happen), you really have to TALK to the women. Someone who has matured to the point of being in the mindset of willingness to "settle down" is not basing those decisions on physical attractiveness, but what's below the surface.

I don't really think it's all that different for guys. When you're young and out to have fun, you may date a lot of women chosen by physical attraction, but when you're ready to start settling down, if they don't have anything between their ears, you're going to get bored quickly and move on. Who would want to come home after a long day at work to someone who glazed over with disinterest when you tell them about your day and has nothing better to discuss than the latest soap opera or how Nancy botched her manicure at the salon?

 

[twisting_edge]

And even if you're technically right, you're entirely on the wrong track; it would be like accusing someone of racial discrimination simply because they noticed your race -- while your accusation is technically correct, it has absolutely nothing to do with what is usually meant by the phrase, and certainly the person doesn't deserve the negative connotation associated with the phrase.

Try coming up with a rigorous definition of what constitutes "manipulation as the word is usually meant". Every definition eventually hinges solely on two value judgements: conscious intent and maligned interests. Neither criteria is even remotely clear.

The broad category of phenomena under the heading of "manipulation" in this context would be something along the lines of, "establishing a situation intended to create a specific response in another person." You can play with the words all you like, but that works well enough for now. I would agree what is usually meant by the word (with it's negative connotation), is a narrow part of that, based on conscious intent. But that is where the big trouble comes in. The little trouble is easier, so I'll get that out of the way first.

Some guy is not very attentive. His girlfriend would like him to be a little more attentive. So he puts in the extra effort to pay more attention when she is around, just to avoid dificulties. We all know relationships take a little effort, the guy is to be commended, right? What if it is a first date and he is pretending to be something he simply isn't? Most people would have more of a problem with that. So there is a problem with disparate interests: when everyone's interests line up (the first case), it's suddenly no longer called "manipulation", even though it is precisely the same behavior. This is the littler problem, but on an absolute scale, it's still huge: most people can't even clearly determine what their own interests are. An individual usually has a mass of conflicting interests all on their own. When you add another person into the mix, it turns into a real rat's nest.

The bigger problem is the assumption of conscious intent. If done deliberately to provoke a specific reaction for selfish ends, everyone agrees it is evil. But think again of the infant, who is (almost by definition) innocent. Does the infant cry deliberately when it is hungry? It may start as instinct, but infants definitely learn what works and what doesn't. Where do you draw the line between deliberate and unconscious action?

People continue to behave almost exactly the same way all their lives. When I get ticked off, I tend to withdraw for a bit. I prefer not to deal with issues until the mood passes. I'm more open to seeing the other side then. People often misinterpret my withdrawal from an argument as some form of punishment (and no, explanations don't always work). Sometimes they try to be conciliatory.

Surprise, surprise, surprise: once that pattern is established, I find myself getting sullen (as opposed to thrashing the matter out right then & there) a lot more often. I don't do it deliberately or consciously, and I stop whenever I notice, but there is no question it happens. Anyone who thinks they never unconsciously modify their behavior in response to stimuli is quite simply wrong. Pick any number of psych PhDs you like, put them all in a room together, and that is probably the one thing they will all agree on.

At what point does that behavior of mine become "manipulation"? I meet her in a good mood, she brings up an outstanding issue that has been bothering her, and I am given a choice: I can either ignore it right now, knowing it will blow over, and then deal with it in a few moments; or I can respond right then and possibly spoil the entire evening for both of us. Most people would prefer the first choice. But what I am doing can also be explained as putting her off now because I know if I do that I'll get my way later. It's precisely the same motivations, and precisely the same actions. I've just described them differently in this paragraph.

The truth is I probably do neither of those things: I probably just respond one way or the other without thinking, even though my motivations remain identical. I honestly prefer not to think things like that through all the time, for obvious reasons. But isn't that willful abdication of responsibility also my responsibility?

I am now ready for everyone's concise defintion of "manipulation as that word is usually meant." I know I could certainly benefit from such a definiton.

P.S.: Apologies for the length of that, but I got interrupted by a phone call. It became a little unfocussed as a result.

 

[Moonbear]

I've already provided a precise definition. The situations you describe are NOT all the same. "Devious intent" does not exist in all of them. That is the key part of it...dishonesty. If you pretend to be someone you're not just to get your way, that's manipulation. If you just make a stronger effort to show who you really are, that's not manipulation at all, that's just working at a relationship. It's not at all the same behavior. Some manipulative people can get away with it for a long time, but it never works forever. People start to notice the inconsistencies.

Examples of manipulation:

I have absolutely no interest in sports, so I tend to look for guys who are either also uninterested in sports or who only have a mild interest (content to check the scores in the sports section, and would choose going out to dinner with me over staying home to watch the game). So, if I meet a guy who is a sports fanatic, and he finds out I hate sports, but is really physically attracted to me and wants to sleep with me, if he pretends to also dislike sports, and avoids watching them around me, acts like he's interested in a long-term relationship when he's really just interested in sex, that's manipulation.

A guy who also dislikes sports and emphasizes that to help keep my attention isn't being manipulative, he's communicating something we have in common.

Another classic example of manipulation: a woman meets a wealthy guy who loves to lavish gifts on her, but she finds him completely boring. She pretends to be interested in him, talks about getting married someday, yet will never commit, as long as he keeps giving her expensive gifts.

Not manipulation: a woman meets a wealthy guy and they have everything in common. He enjoys giving her lavish gifts, and she accepts (perhaps with some protest). He proposes, she accepts, they get married and live happily ever after.

The difference in those examples is intent. In the first, she has no intent of marrying the guy, doesn't really even like him, but it suits her to pretend to like him to get lots of gifts. The guy may also be manipulating her in return (sometimes it has to be mutual to last so long), thinking he can keep her around and buy her affection if he keeps giving her gifts.

In the second example, she really loves the guy, has every intention of marrying him, in reality, whatever he buys her will end up still being his as part of their shared assets once married, and he can afford it. He gets genuine pleasure of seeing her smile every time he gives her a gift, and knows it's just a token of a much greater, genuine affection.

Now what I think you're having problems with is that from the outsider's view, you can't tell the difference, it all looks the same, a couple together with one lavishing gifts on the other. And, that's true, from an outsider's perspective. Intent is always hard to prove. However, over time, it starts to show through. In the first example, they'll just keep postponing that engagement or marriage ceremony indefinitely, making lots of excuses why the timing isn't right or that she's just not ready for committment yet, or they get married and then divorced when he discovers her boyfriend on the side, etc. In the second, they get to live happily ever after.

Yes, it sucks to be the victim of manipulation, but if you assume that everyone is out to manipulate you, and nobody is honest in their relationships, then you run the risk of avoiding the perfect woman for you because you are too distrustful of people in general to believe it can be true.

Mature people (and again, there is no magic age of maturity...some are mature already as teens, others don't ever mature) are honest in their relationships, because they know there is no value whatsoever in being dishonest. It only finds you the wrong people so you will be forever unhappy with them. If you're honest, you may date less people because you're not going to waste your time or others' time dating those who you know outright are incompatible, but those you do date are more likely to turn into a long-term relationship...if that's what you are seeking. There's also nothing wrong with just saying, "I'm not looking for a long-term relationship, I just want to date many people and have fun without any intention of committment." That sort of honesty avoids picking up someone for casual sex and having them start planning a wedding a month later (and honesty on their part is also required so they don't have their heart broken when you run far, far, far away when you discover they're already shopping for bridal gowns when you told them you had no interest in long-term committments).

 

[zoobyshoe]

The ugly model isn't always the worser choice, depending on who you are at the time. Without exception, every relationship takes some degree of effort to maintain, and you won't always have the energy for it. All other things being precisely equal, the ugly one will have a higher exit barrier, and you'll have an easier time through such rough spots.

I'm having a really hard time understanding what you're saying. Does this paragraph mean the ugly one, being less desirable, will have a harder time finding a new companion and so, will stay in the relationship rather than risk having no relationship?

I used to be completely non-jealous until I noticed the degree to which people (both men and women) allow themselves to be manipulated, and even seek out situations in which that will happen. It's a normal part of life and so continuous it's hardly noticable. It's not something you can take a vacation from without some degree of consequences.

Here again your drift is not particularly clear to me. Are you saying that people in relationships occasionally set themselves out hoping to be seduced into a side fling?

BTW, I would love to see someone to claim they've never been manipulative. Infants cry, and they get fed. It's the most primitive, simplest form of manipulation, and it's been literally drilled into every single person as a matter of life and death since almost the instant they were born (they usually take a few minutes to clean the kid up first).

Consciously or not, all people seek that out to one degree or another. They were born into it, and it is all they've ever known. The only ones who don't seek it out are hermits, and I find even their motives suspect ("look at me: I really don't like you").

Your main point is: all people try to manipulate others at one time or another?

I'm not sure I've understood you correctly or not. Are my paraphrases accurate at all?

 

[twisting_edge]

A guy who also dislikes sports and emphasizes that to help keep my attention isn't being manipulative, he's communicating something we have in common.

Sure he is. What if he also wants only sex? He's only emphasizing the fact he doesn't like sports in order to increase his chances.

Another classic example of manipulation: a woman meets a wealthy guy who loves to lavish gifts on her, but she finds him completely boring. She pretends to be interested in him, talks about getting married someday, yet will never commit, as long as he keeps giving her expensive gifts.

There's every chance she tells herself she doesn't know why she stays with him. Men and women do that all the time. "He's just not worth it," she says to herself every night, "and I don't even want this stuff." Yet she keeps going back to him anyway. This is far, far more common than the more deliberate variety. Most everyone has had those moments. The only question is what they do about it. What about those people who suspect it really is the gifts bringing them back, but who deliberately avoid thinking about the issue because it's painful?

I wrote a much longer comment on the issue, but suspect most people's eyes would glaze. I can drop a copy in my journal. But that second excerpt is the true crux of the matter, and where you are slipping up.

It seems to me you feel the ends justifies the means. If the outcome is pleasant for all concerned, then poof it magically ceases to be manipulation in your examples. But manipulation can actually lead to good results. Everyone does it all the time, as I wrote earlier.

The truth is that people do things for a wide variety of reasons, reasons they often do not even know themselves or are in denial over. And, yes, I think that is still "manipulation". The case above is a classic, but it was a lot more classic after I got through with it. Who hasn't said, "I don't know why I keep doing this," at some point in their life?

Answer: only those who haven't yet got around to noticing they do some pretty stupid things in their lives. There's usually still time for them.

 

[GeoMike]

Sure he is. What if he also wants only sex? He's only emphasizing the fact he doesn't like sports in order to increase his chances.

How is it a sure example of manipulation? It is completely dependent on a hypothetical qualifier you added.

EDIT: Sorry to jump into the middle of this, but it is a fascinating discussion.
-GeoMike-

 

[twisting_edge]

I'm not sure I've understood you correctly or not. Are my paraphrases accurate at all?

Your paraphrases are all spot on, but I sometimes fail to adequately spell out the connections.

Part of the question postulated that the ugly and the pretty were otherwise identical. They are equally likely to jump ship of their own volition. But once you introduce the possibility of them being manipulated by outside influences, that becomes almost entirely irrelevant. If the pretty one gets 100 offers a week, and the ugly one only a single offer, the pretty one becomes 100 times more likely to decide to split than the ugly one is.

But that does not allow for is the fact the pretty one is used to that level of traffic, and is a lot more likely to reject each one. But that would break the assumption they are "otherwise identical". It also points out how hopeless that condition is: do they reject the same number of offers a year, or do they reject the same percentage of offers made? Both numbers cannot be simultaneously identical.

So I switched to a purely extrinsic argument. There's going to be a lot more guys each willing to put in a lot more effort to nab a pretty girlfriend from you than an ugly one. All other things being equal, you're going to have to put in a lot more effort to hold on to her.

All which makes me sound like I am discussing pieces of meat, as if the girlfriend has no volition of her own. But the truth is that both men and women treat themselves (and each other) that way all the time. I swear that if they ever stopped, the entire species would cease to procreate.

 

[Astronuc]

A guy who also dislikes sports and emphasizes that to help keep my attention isn't being manipulative, he's communicating something we have in common.

If the man is only doing that to keep the woman's attention, but then one must ask - to what end?

Sure he is. What if he also wants only sex? He's only emphasizing the fact he doesn't like sports in order to increase his chances.

It's probably somewhat grey. If the guy is emphasizing a positive point, i.e. he doesn't like sports, and then over-emphasizes that point to curry favor in hopes of taking advantage of the woman in question, then he is being manipulative.

However, I can't imagine that some guy would sit there for a long time emphasizing the fact that he doesn't like sports. I would presume he would move on to other subjects/topics.

Hopefully, the woman would see through an attempt to mislead her.

Men and women do that all the time. (Ref #329 )

Some men and women, i.e. those in dysfunctional relationships, do that. And there do seem to be a lot of such relationships, considering that about half of marriages fail at some point.

A couple in a truly loving relationship, do not. They stay together because they are dedicated to each other, and they work things out.

 

[twisting_edge]

How is it a sure example of manipulation? It is completely dependent on a hypothetical qualifier you added.

While "sure" may have been a bit of an overstatement, it does not depend solely on my qualification.

What if she wanted just sex (but refused to sleep with a sports fanatic for whatever reason), and he was looking for a long-term relationship? The scenario is missing a lot of details. It's extremely relevant because it is in all those details that you start to discover people's actual motivations and intentions. Cardboard cut-outs simply aren't adequate when you start discussing intent.

You realize this whole thing eventually hinges on the nature of consciousness, right? But it turns out to be even messier than that, since you have the rat's nest of "devious intent" (or "misaligned interests") between two individuals.

If I know taking my girlfriend out to a nice dinner first makes the rest of the evening far more enjoyable for me, am I being manipulative when I do that? What if it is also more enjoyable for her (usually the case)? What if I am doing it only for the sex now, but would like to eventually marry her when I have the resources to back up that commitment?

What if she knows exactly what I am doing, but has no plans of ever marrying me under any circumstances? If you change her plans, which I am probably not even aware of, all of a sudden I am turned from the manipulator to the manipulated.

You call all of it "manipulation", call none if it "manipulation", or degrade the word to a meaningless epithet you apply to anything that annoys you.

 

[Moonbear]

Sure he is. What if he also wants only sex? He's only emphasizing the fact he doesn't like sports in order to increase his chances.

But that is NOT the example I gave. Creating a strawman argument is not going to help here. You obviously have your mind set, and are willing to distort my examples to force your view to fit every situation, even when it clearly does not. Good luck with that.

It seems to me you feel the ends justifies the means. If the outcome is pleasant for all concerned, then poof it magically ceases to be manipulation in your examples. But manipulation can actually lead to good results. Everyone does it all the time, as I wrote earlier.

No, READ WHAT I WROTE! The INTENT is what makes the difference. Blech, I give up. It's not worth explaining it if you don't even want to attempt to listen or discuss what I'm actually writing. You have a strange view of what the word manipulation means, it certainly has nothing to do with the dictionary definition, and if you want to view all women as manipulative, then go ahead, just warn them in advance so they know what they're getting into.

 

[Astronuc]

While "sure" may have been a bit of an overstatement, it does not depend solely on my qualification.

What if she wanted just sex (but refused to sleep with a sports fanatic for whatever reason), and he was looking for a long-term relationship? The scenario is missing a lot of details. It's extremely relevant because it is in all those details that you start to discover people's actual motivations and intentions. Cardboard cut-outs simply aren't adequate when you start discussing intent.

You realize this whole thing eventually hinges on the nature of consciousness, right? But it turns out to be even messier than that, since you have the rat's nest of "devious intent" (or "misaligned interests") between two individuals.

If I know taking my girlfriend out to a nice dinner first makes the rest of the evening far more enjoyable for me, am I being manipulative when I do that? What if it is also more enjoyable for her (usually the case)? What if I am doing it only for the sex now, but would like to eventually marry her when I have the resources to back up that commitment?

What if she knows exactly what I am doing, but has no plans of ever marrying me under any circumstances? If you change her plans, which I am probably not even aware of, all of a sudden I am turned from the manipulator to the manipulated.

You call all of it "manipulation", call none if it "manipulation", or degrade the word to a meaningless epithet you apply to anything that annoys you.

IF one's girlfriend is FULLY informed (i.e. not deceived), i.e. one is honest and forthright, and the girlfriend can make an INFORMED decision as to the relationship/interaction, then the girlfriend is not being manipulated. But then one could then consider the situation where the girlfriend is informed, but then is coerced or badgered into doing something that she wouldn't ordinarily do.

I think there is manipulation by deception and manipulation by coercion or force.

I hope nobody here does that.

 

[twisting_edge]

The INTENT is what makes the difference.

That intent would need to be conscious, n'est pas? Care to define consciousness?

I urge you to look again at my revision of the first version of your second scenario. That sort of situation (one giving, the other not really all that interested) seems to happen all the time. There are varying degrees of awareness people have of their own motivations.

At what level of awareness does intent become relevant?

 

[zoobyshoe]

Your paraphrases are all spot on, but I sometimes fail to adequately spell out the connections.

Part of the question postulated that the ugly and the pretty were otherwise identical. They are equally likely to jump ship of their own volition. But once you introduce the possibility of them being manipulated by outside influences, that becomes almost entirely irrelevant. If the pretty one gets 100 offers a week, and the ugly one only a single offer, the pretty one becomes 100 times more likely to decide to split than the ugly one is.

But that does not allow for is the fact the pretty one is used to that level of traffic, and is a lot more likely to reject each one. But that would break the assumption they are "otherwise identical". It also points out how hopeless that condition is: do they reject the same number of offers a year, or do they reject the same percentage of offers made? Both numbers cannot be simultaneously identical.

So I switched to a purely extrinsic argument. There's going to be a lot more guys each willing to put in a lot more effort to nab a pretty girlfriend from you than an ugly one. All other things being equal, you're going to have to put in a lot more effort to hold on to her.

All which makes me sound like I am discussing pieces of meat, as if the girlfriend has no volition of her own. But the truth is that both men and women treat themselves (and each other) that way all the time. I swear that if they ever stopped, the entire species would cease to procreate.

OK. I'm glad I understood what you were saying.

The point of the hypothetical choice is just to make crystal clear that looks matter: they figure into any decision about who you pursue. You mentally put looks in the plus column for good looking people or in the minus column for below average people.

From what you said I think it follows that if I could guarrantee no straying of interest on the part of either choice the good looking one would then win.

Your analysis of who is likely to think about "jumping ship" makes me chuckle: it's WAY too well thought out for most people's taste.

Sure he is. What if he also wants only sex? He's only emphasizing the fact he doesn't like sports in order to increase his chances.

There's every chance she tells herself she doesn't know why she stays with him. Men and women do that all the time. "He's just not worth it," she says to herself every night, "and I don't even want this stuff." Yet she keeps going back to him anyway. This is far, far more common than the more deliberate variety. Most everyone has had those moments. The only question is what they do about it. What about those people who suspect it really is the gifts bringing them back, but who deliberately avoid thinking about the issue because it's painful?

I wrote a much longer comment on the issue, but suspect most people's eyes would glaze. I can drop a copy in my journal. But that second excerpt is the true crux of the matter, and where you are slipping up.

It seems to me you feel the ends justifies the means. If the outcome is pleasant for all concerned, then poof it magically ceases to be manipulation in your examples. But manipulation can actually lead to good results. Everyone does it all the time, as I wrote earlier.

The truth is that people do things for a wide variety of reasons, reasons they often do not even know themselves or are in denial over. And, yes, I think that is still "manipulation". The case above is a classic, but it was a lot more classic after I got through with it. Who hasn't said, "I don't know why I keep doing this," at some point in their life?

Excellent, very well articulated, insight.

 

[rewebster]

What a nice long discussion on the Theory of Relationsivity!

 

[Hurkyl]

The scenario is missing a lot of details.

Yes it is, but so what? We are still capable of making an evaluation based on the details we do have. You seem to expect us to read and consider your hypothetical scenarios -- shouldn't you do others the same courtesy?

 

[twisting_edge]

IF one's girlfriend is FULLY informed (i.e. not deceived), i.e. one is honest and forthright, and the girlfriend can make an INFORMED decision as to the relationship/interaction, then the girlfriend is not being manipulated.

Are you suggesting a quid pro quo? How should I inform her? Help me out with the wording a little bit: "If I take you out to dinner, then I'm not waking up alone tomorrow, right? If I'm going to be sleeping alone, I'd like to get started right after I finish this beer. I'm a little short on sleep this week."

I admit I could probably do a little better than that on my own. But you can see the problem. It becomes an obligation. Even in a relatively committed relationship, you could only get away with that a few times, if any. Perhaps if you were cohabiting that might work as a long-term arrangement, but otherwise I'd say it is useless as a solution.

On the other hand, as long as no one says anything, you can have precisely that arrangement all worked out with a ribbon stamped on it. She might even ask you to take her out to dinner while giving you a big wink. She wants to be in the mood, and you (plural) have found this always works.

At least, it did right up until the time you try to establish a quid pro quo. After that it was just another chore, not too dissimilar from clearing the table.

 

[twisting_edge]

Yes it is, but so what? We are still capable of making an evaluation based on the details we do have. You seem to expect us to read and consider your hypothetical scenarios -- shouldn't you do others the same courtesy?

No, in this case you really can't make evaluations based on inadequate data. Nowhere did the second example specify the woman was even aware of her supposed manipulation. That is an extremely crucial point. If you attempt to fill in the blanks based on the "known" right answer, you can recreate the situation the author intended.

But if you fill in the blanks based on the case that is far, far more common and realistic (partial or no awareness, denial), the example becomes impossibly muddled.

Which is precisely my point. There is no clear dividing line between "what everyone means by manipulation" and normal behavior. If you cannot deal with manipulation, you need to step out of the race until you can.

 

[Astronuc]

Are you suggesting a quid pro quo? How should I inform her? Help me out with the wording a little bit: "If I take you out to dinner, then I'm not waking up alone tomorrow, right? If I'm going to be sleeping alone, I'd like to get started right after I finish this beer. I'm a little short on sleep this week."

I am simply recommending that one be honest. I cannot help one on the wording, because I would never do what is being suggested. When I dated women, it was to spend time with them in a friendly interaction and get to know them better. I never dated women with the intent of having sex with them, and in fact I turned a few down, because the situation/timing wasn't right. In each situation, I wanted the woman in that relationship to be able to know with certainty, that I wasn't interested in them for sex, but rather I cared about them as persons. Unfortunately, when I declined the intimacy, I believe they felt rejected and the relationships cooled and eventually ended.

I admit I could probably do a little better than that on my own. But you can see the problem. It becomes an obligation. Even in a relatively committed relationship, you could only get away with that a few times, if any. Perhaps if you were cohabiting that might work as a long-term arrangement, but otherwise I'd say it is useless as a solution.

I cannot help one with that. I stayed with my wife, or she stayed with me, on weekends and holidays during the year before we got married. As far as I was concerned, we were married the moment we started being intimate (sleeping together).

On the other hand, as long as no one says anything, you can have precisely that arrangement all worked out with a ribbon stamped on it. She might even ask you to take her out to dinner while giving you a big wink. She wants to be in the mood, and you (plural) have found this always works.

At least, it did right up until the time you try to establish a quid pro quo. After that it was just another chore, not too dissimilar from clearing the table.

Well, you've lost me.

The first date with my wife (just the two of us) was out to dinner. We talked for several hours, after which I took her home. I walked her to the door (upstairs to a garage apartment), and I when saying good bye, I asked her "May I kiss you". She said yes. Since I was on the step below her, I stretched up, while she leaned over. We kissed. And as I was turning to descend the stairs, I stumbled and nearly fell down the stairs. We've been together ever since (25+ years, and I've known her 26+ years).

 

[Hurkyl]

No, in this case you really can't make evaluations based on inadequate data.

Sure you can. It just means that you cannot be completely confident in your accuracy.

If you attempt to fill in the blank

And working with inadequate data is certainly a more approprate than working with fake data.

 

[twisting_edge]

I am simply recommending that one be honest. I cannot help one on the wording, because I would never do what is being suggested.

I'm not sure I would ever do that either. It's possible I might even have done soemthing along those lines without noticing it at some point in the past. The situation is admittedly a little artificial, but it serves to highlight a point.

Honesty is toxic in a lot of situations. It's one of the reasons I appear so misanthropic (and misogynistic) on the matter. They might say complete honesty is crucial to them, but it's really not. They want you to be completely honest, but dread to think you might find out all about them.

Remember that huge issue over "obvious signals"? That is the level of honesty people actually want. They want complete honesty, but generally offer only "plausible deniability" in return. It's a loser's bargain.

 

[twisting_edge]

And working with inadequate data is certainly a more approprate than working with fake data.

Whose data is more fake? The values you filled in in order to reach the conclusion she obviously wanted to reach, or the values that represent the vast majority of actual cases in the real world? Backfilling data to reach a desired conclusion is generally regarded as a no-no.

Context: planar geometry in Middle School.
Partial data from student: "the three angles of my triangle add up to 270 degrees!"

Obvious conclusion: the pole and two points on the equator separated by 90 degrees.

Real world: kid hasn't learned how to operate a protractor yet

 

[DaxInvader]

What a nice long discussion on the Theory of Relationsivity!

LOL!

Thats a proof that mathematics is applied everywhere.

Its a big debate, To one purpose.

 

[Astronuc]

I'm not sure I would ever do that either. It's possible I might even have done soemthing along those lines without noticing it at some point in the past. The situation is admittedly a little artificial, but it serves to highlight a point.

Yes, I understand the situation is hypothetical.

Honesty is toxic in a lot of situations. It's one of the reasons I appear so misanthropic (and misogynistic) on the matter. They might say complete honesty is crucial to them, but it's really not. They want you to be completely honest, but dread to think you might find out all about them.

Well, I can testify to the matter of being honest causing problems. A friend's sister was visiting his dorm room once, and being dark, I walked her to her car. I then asked her if she would be interested in going out, and that the reason I had not asked earlier was that I had asked some one else. Well, that didn't go over to well - I got shot down in flames. That other part that I didn't tell her was that I thought she probably wouldn't be interested because she was a very attractive model and was probably used to dating much better looking guys or guys with more to offer. By the time I built up the nerve to ask her, it was too late. Anyway, we became good friends over the next several years.

On the other hand, don't general. Every person is an exception to the rule/norm. One has to take people on a case by case basis.

Isn't "misanthropic (and misogynistic)" a bit too strong in your case?

Remember that huge issue over "obvious signals"? That is the level of honesty people actually want. They want complete honesty, but generally offer only "plausible deniability" in return. It's a loser's bargain.

Signals for me were never 'obvious', which my wife (psychologist) and brother (psychiatrist) attribute to Asperger's (my brother sees some manifestations of high functioning autism in me). I need painfully explicit instructions or explanations - hence I was reserved with women.

In close relationships, I prefer to be able to speak my mind openly and honestly, otherwise it's not really a close relationship. Even my wife will get upset at me sometimes when I am brutally honest. It was an issue for many years, because she had asked me to be honest, and in some cases when I was, she'd blow up.

In your case, I think a certain person would prefer honesty, and if in doubt, ask her. I find that she has been pretty straightforward, as well as somewhat unorthodox, which is one of her many endearing qualities.

 

[JasonRox]

I don't really think it's all that different for guys. When you're young and out to have fun, you may date a lot of women chosen by physical attraction, but when you're ready to start settling down, if they don't have anything between their ears, you're going to get bored quickly and move on. Who would want to come home after a long day at work to someone who glazed over with disinterest when you tell them about your day and has nothing better to discuss than the latest soap opera or how Nancy botched her manicure at the salon?

I'm not sure what I want between the ears.

It would be nice to have a good looking math girl, but I probably wouldn't find her.