Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Looks vs Status Options · View
DamonX
Posted: Thursday, August 12, 2010 7:55:50 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2009
Posts: 799
Uh oh. Damon has escaped from the tank....

It is commonly stated that men are more attracted to a woman's looks while women are more attracted to a man's status...Do you agree? Disagree?

And let's try and avoid the rosy, "what matters is what's inside" comments.

Discuss. icon_smile
Guest
Posted: Thursday, August 12, 2010 8:13:07 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 821,069
lol damon..but,barring birth, isnt it whats inside a man that brings him to a higher status?
Lisa
Posted: Thursday, August 12, 2010 9:14:32 PM

Rank: Moderator

Joined: 3/3/2009
Posts: 5,168
Location: Victoria, Australia
I disagree.

That's about all I can say since you only want certain responses to your question. happy8
DamonX
Posted: Thursday, August 12, 2010 9:25:54 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2009
Posts: 799
Lisa wrote:
I disagree.

That's about all I can say since you only want certain responses to your question. happy8


Go ahead and say what you are thinking Lisa. icon_smile I'll play nice.
sprite
Posted: Thursday, August 12, 2010 11:27:15 PM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness
Moderator

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 20,363
Location: My Tower, Madagascar
Can't i have both? a hot guy with money and power? :D



Love not hate.
rxtales
Posted: Friday, August 13, 2010 2:16:24 AM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 11/28/2008
Posts: 2,589
Location: Newcastle, United Kingdom
I disagree
WellMadeMale
Posted: Friday, August 13, 2010 8:53:50 AM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,866
Location: Cakeland, United States
I disagree with your statement, Damon - as worded, but would agree with this statement:

some men are more attracted to a woman's looks while some women are more attracted to a man's status

I would also disagree that it is commonly stated: men are more attracted to a woman's looks while women are more attracted to a man's status

I am not familiar with that being commonly stated anywhere, except perhaps in someone else's mind. evil4


Obscenity is the last refuge of an inarticulate motherfucker.
mercianknight
Posted: Friday, August 13, 2010 10:11:09 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/11/2009
Posts: 2,025
Location: whispering conspiratorially in your ear, Bermuda
Oo! Oo! My turn, my turn! hello1

I am going to take Damon's statement in it's purest literal sense and, .....wait for it......agree! The only caveat is that WMM has a very strong point when he adds the word "some".

In general terms, and using very basic examples, my life experiences have shown me the following: ***pulls pin out from grenade and holds...***

Dude's walking along the street, minding his own business, when a 250lb, 5'2", meter maid catches his eye as she writes a parking ticket. He thinks, "WTF!" Zero attraction. Then the owner of the vehicle comes rushing out, all 120lb, 5'6" of well turned out leggy blonde and he immediately thinks, "Oh, I'd like to fuck that." Instant attraction, even though he keeps on walking and never sees either lady again.

Not so attractive, even chubby, Dude is hired as Head of Department in No Name Inc, and upon being introduced to the staff is immediately centre of attention within the females who become attracted to the question(s) "how" or "why" did he get the job. A deep burgeoning need to know who this (new) alpha (providor) male is develops and they converge upon him.

Attraction is instinctive and does not always mean sexual. Some would even term my references as mere curiousity, however, I would then argue that curiousity is a form of attraction - just think of the kitty cat 'attracted' to whatever gets its attention.

***lobs grenade and runs for cover****



"Whoa, lady, I only speak two languages, English and bad English." - Korben Dallas, from The Fifth Element

"If history repeats itself, and the unexpected always happens, how incapable must man be of learning from experience?" - George Bernard Shaw
Dancing_Doll
Posted: Friday, August 13, 2010 10:14:30 AM

Rank: Alpha Blonde
Moderator

Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 7,218
Location: Your dirty fantasy
WellMadeMale wrote:


I am not familiar with that being commonly stated anywhere, except perhaps in someone else's mind. evil4


It looks like it's been rather commonly stated in many people's minds... at the very least in the minds of 10,000 people in 37 countries, and on six different continents.

Quote:


Evolutionary psychologists like Dr. David Buss believe that present-day mate selection behaviors were founded in the Stone Age. Buss' recent survey of over 10,000 people in 37 countries, on six continents, reports that men consistently prize physical attraction and youth in their potential mates, while women value ambition, status, and financial resources.

In evolutionary terms, men seek out sexually desirable females whose youthful features indicate good health and the ability to bear children, while women look for mates with abundant enough resources to provide for their children.

http://ca.askmen.com/dating/curtsmith_100/



I'm actually surprised that people are needing to be so PC by claiming this doesn't exist? By agreeing that it's a trend, doesn't mean that you, yourself subscribe to it as being the way it *should* be, or even that it's relevant to your own personal situation.

I think that the theory can be seen on a more exaggerated level within certain social circles (ie. the idea of the 'trophy wife' or 'gold-digger', for example, are both cultural example of this)... but even in circles where affluence is not a factor, women will tend to be more attracted to the "alpha" male. She may not get him, of course, but isn't that what grabs our attention first? How many Hollywood dramatic or romantic films feature a beta-male as the leading character? Not many. It's because women will swoon more for the guy with status... whether that 'status' character is the rich guy (eg. Edward Lewis in Pretty Woman) or the heroic guy (eg. William Wallace in Braveheart)... In the rest of life, the pro-athletes, and the lead singers in the band are always going to get more attention from women because of their implied status.

I probably don't really have to argue whether women are valued for their looks (initially!)... I think that's a given. Just look here at Lush at the sexy pics threads featuring perfect ass, breasts, legs, and various other female body parts. Those pics tend to be rather female-pic dominated. And I haven't seen any threads featuring 'women with amazing personalities' or 'women in power'.

Neither looks or status determine whether a "relationship" would work, and I definitely don't think this is the trump card in every situation, but as a general trend in terms of initial attraction, I think the theory is pretty common throughout *most* of our society.




WellMadeMale
Posted: Friday, August 13, 2010 10:50:11 AM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,866
Location: Cakeland, United States
Dancing_Doll wrote:
WellMadeMale wrote:


I am not familiar with that being commonly stated anywhere, except perhaps in someone else's mind. evil4


It looks like it's been rather commonly stated in many people's minds... at the very least in the minds of 10,000 people in 37 countries, and on six different continents.



Heh, DD I love ya babe...but 10,000 out of 7 billion is not a commonality.

It's not commonly mentioned in the circle of people I have associated with during my time on this planet. Or perhaps it is, and I've just been ostracized my entire life. That's possible too.

Except for those people who are vision impaired, I think that both male and female respond first to stimuli they see. Then they begin to further use their other senses to help them mold what the feel and think about someone they meet for the first and subsequent time(s).

Remove vision from the equation and I'm not really sure what sense would come into play immediately with highest priority. The women I've known all my life (were gifted with sight) and reacted pretty much to visual stimuli first. What makes up the 'most attraction' after everything else is satisfied?

Isn't 'status' all encompassing the essence of the person in question? Or was Damon merely trying to mention the M word and disguising it as status?

Such as....women are more likely to be money hungry gold diggers more than men are?

I don't buy that, either.

Obscenity is the last refuge of an inarticulate motherfucker.
Dancing_Doll
Posted: Friday, August 13, 2010 11:52:55 AM

Rank: Alpha Blonde
Moderator

Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 7,218
Location: Your dirty fantasy
WellMadeMale wrote:

Heh, DD I love ya babe...but 10,000 out of 7 billion is not a commonality.


Well it's a sample population that's being extrapolated to make a generalization. And I know you hate generalizations. happy8
It's impossible to know what every single person on the planet thinks about this subject (half the time I don't think we feel comfortable admitting these things to ourselves either), but I think the study was to show that these trends cross cultural barriers.

It's also a theory that I've witnessed in my own social circles as well. Maybe I am hanging with the wrong crowds (correction: I *know* I'm hanging with the wrong crowds, but I digress). I have three close female friends that have openly told me "well, you know (insert husband's name) isn't good looking or what I imagined myself with, but with him I have security and I don't have to work anymore". I see these kinds of couples all the time - the high status man teamed up with the beautiful unambitious woman. I know several "high status" guys that have chosen to marry ex-models who are swinging on a continuum towards being 'emotionally high maintenance and crazy', but they look great on their arm. For a high status guy, he will want a 'status symbol' on his arm and that's when I agree - the visual comes into play. But I think the visual is more often a priority than what the woman does for a living, or how successful she is.

Anyway, that's definitely a trend I see as being extremely common where I live, and when I walk around in my neighbourhood, and with *some* of my friends. But then again, that doesn't represent everyone's human experience. Personally I've never been attracted to men because of their wealth-status, but the social-alpha-male is just another version of a guy that leads the pack in one way or another. I don't think it's necessarily always about money. Women tend to like "successful" men (where success = leadership, not bankroll). Sorry for the generalization, but it's just my opinion, based on my own 'field experience'.

As Sprite said, I'm sure both genders would love to find a partner with both. It's just that in reality, we sometimes have to let one slide more than the other, and this is where the tendencies sometimes differ between men and women.


WellMadeMale
Posted: Friday, August 13, 2010 1:38:23 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,866
Location: Cakeland, United States
If I could hookup with a sugar momma, quit my day job and act as her floormat/pool boy/yard maintenance person or pet walker

I'd be down with it.

Obscenity is the last refuge of an inarticulate motherfucker.
SweetPenny
Posted: Friday, August 13, 2010 3:17:40 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 6/15/2010
Posts: 1,274
Location: State of Confusion
I don't know if "status" is the right word. For me, it's the whole package. First and foremost, I need intelligence. I also need attraction, sense of humor, easygoing personality, common interests, etc.

Guest
Posted: Friday, August 13, 2010 4:38:44 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 821,069
Looks -beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Status - isn't that shallow? For me, I have to be attracted (looks) but also intelligence is important - otherwise what do you talk about when you're not fucking?
Guest
Posted: Friday, August 13, 2010 5:01:22 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 821,069
personally I always read status before accepting a chat or whatever- simply because if i aint down with what you're into- or i don't think we'll have anything in common- what's the point- good lookin' or not?

so yeah man, you're probably right :) a lot of the guys i have chatted to on lush- have all been like- hi, how big are your tits? Obviously couldnt give a shit what im like or even what my name is- note I say SOME not ALL

sugar over n out xxxxxxxxxxxx
LarsKaiden
Posted: Friday, August 13, 2010 6:33:58 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 7/27/2010
Posts: 210
Location: Paris, France
It depends on the maturity level of the woman and man in question.

Any guy or any girl in a beneficial relationship will recognize the qualities and faults of their partner, assess them and question them accordingly.

Seems like rather an immature question to me, but who am I to judge?

Emily.
DamonX
Posted: Friday, August 13, 2010 8:40:14 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2009
Posts: 799
Quote:
Such as....women are more likely to be money hungry gold diggers more than men are


These types of statements are where the problems lie. When I state something like "women tend to be attracted to status moreso than looks" people on this site often infer that I am stating that women are golddiggers or some other such tripe.

But lets explore this idea of status. I know some people take that as "wealth" but that is not always the case. maybe I should have used the term "personality" instead, since I know that one never evokes any defence response.

Women tend to be attracted to men with personalities that portray a high level of status. Is that less offensive? Probably.

Picture this scenario...Two equally attractive men walk into a party. One makes the rounds, initiates conversation with everyone else, talks to everybody, gets all the attention, and generally becomes the life of the party. The second man follows him around quietly subserviently without saying much at all.

Which man do you think you would be more attracted to?

Probably the first one right? That is status. Not being a millionaire or a celebrity (although those factors would also definately raise the attraction level as well). This is why a less-than-handsome man can possibly make up for his lack of physical attractiveness by portraying a persona of higher status, while an ugly woman doing the same would probably not meet with quite so much success in that department.

And WMM...inserting the word "some" into the statement realy does nothing other that make the statement completely worthless. "Some" women are attracted to albino midgets. "Some" men are attracted to 400 lb women. "Most" are not.

When I use the terms "men" and "women" I in no way mean "ALL" men or women. I am talking about trends and tendencies, while it seems you seem to take offence and infer that I mean 100% of all women/men. If you look back through the countless posts that you have called out, you would be hard pressed to find the word "all" preceding either the words "men" or "women" in any of the statements I have given.

I find it odd that so many people take such offence when some of us try and look at themes like "attraction" from a scientific point of view. I don't use terms like "shallow", "superficial" or "gold digger," thus I find it odd that so many seem to claim that I am infering these ideas from my statements.

And please, please, please...don't make me reiterate the statement that I have injected sooo many times into these threads, even though it never seems to catch on.

"_ttr_ct__n _s n_t _ ch__c_"

Anyone want to buy a vowel?
LadyX
Posted: Friday, August 13, 2010 8:57:15 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,773
DamonX wrote:

It is commonly stated that men are more attracted to a woman's looks while women are more attracted to a man's status...Do you agree? Disagree?


I don't know whether I can agree or disagree really. I only know what I respond to. I'll be honest, a hot guy gets a lot hotter when he carries himself a certain way, dresses nice, acts the part, and knows how to show a lady a generous, good time. That doesn't mean I don't sometimes have attraction to guys with no money, or that I'm blinded by dollar signs where I'll put up with a bunch of bullshit in return, but yes it makes a difference. I won't say it matters to everyone, but I couldn't imagine it not mattering at all to me.
WellMadeMale
Posted: Friday, August 13, 2010 10:39:32 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,866
Location: Cakeland, United States
DamonX wrote:
Quote:
Such as....women are more likely to be money hungry gold diggers more than men are


These types of statements are where the problems lie. When I state something like "women tend to be attracted to status moreso than looks" people on this site often infer that I am stating that women are golddiggers or some other such tripe.

Picture this scenario...Two equally attractive men walk into a party. One makes the rounds, initiates conversation with everyone else, talks to everybody, gets all the attention, and generally becomes the life of the party. The second man follows him around quietly subserviently without saying much at all.

Which man do you think you would be more attracted to?

Probably the first one right? That is status. Not being a millionaire or a celebrity (although those factors would also definately raise the attraction level as well). This is why a less-than-handsome man can possibly make up for his lack of physical attractiveness by portraying a persona of higher status, while an ugly woman doing the same would probably not meet with quite so much success in that department.

And WMM...inserting the word "some" into the statement realy does nothing other that make the statement completely worthless. "Some" women are attracted to albino midgets. "Some" men are attracted to 400 lb women. "Most" are not.


Anyone want to buy a vowel?


Let's take your scenario and expand upon it.

Two reasonably attractive and educated/cultivated and well-built (in different ways) tailoring and clothing are exemplary as well - gentlemen enter the same establishment, one much younger in appearance and vibrancy than the second older gentleman, who is much taller in height. They are both running buddies.

One is a social gadfly, zipping from table to table...conversation to conversation, mingling, meeting and seemingly knowing everyone...all the while advertising his presence and availability to all females, not just those who might be free and available - to all. He's the life of the party. Smiles, grins, leers and giggles abound.

The other takes a seat near a low traffic passageway and orders a drink for himself and buys the table next to him a round in a discreet fashion because he knows those 7 people, three of them intimately. Three couples and a stunning brunette.

One hour later the gadfly is still making people crack up and he's still the life of the party. Thirty younger women are feeling their panties moisten up whenever he graces their face with his eyes and smiling white teeth.

The older gentleman, at the current moment - is driving home the best looking woman in the entire nightclub in his Jaguar.

Who has the most perceived status?

And what the fuck, does that have to do with anything either?

Wanna buy a clue...?



Obscenity is the last refuge of an inarticulate motherfucker.
DamonX
Posted: Saturday, August 14, 2010 12:28:39 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2009
Posts: 799
I'm glad my thread could evoke another well-made trip down memory lane. icon_smile

the real question is not "who has more status." Different people will perceive different aspects of a personality as being "higher status." The same as people will perceive different physical aspects as attractive. The fact remains though, that both status and appearance have an effect on attraction. I think that both the protagonists in your little tale portray "status." Haggling over which one has the most, is a meaningless endeavour.

The "want to buy a vowel" statement was not directed towards you, but rather to the countless others that persistently insinuate that my "generalizations" are somehow labelling people as "superficial."

Want to buy a...Dammit! I'm out of clever replies. :(

Lisa
Posted: Saturday, August 14, 2010 1:14:07 AM

Rank: Moderator

Joined: 3/3/2009
Posts: 5,168
Location: Victoria, Australia
I agree with you, Damon, that we can't control who we're attracted to, but quietly confident men are much more appealing to me than the one you described in your scenario. He sounds like high-maintenance and in need of lots of attention. A man can be confident without having to work a room every time he enters one. That would grow old pretty quickly.
Guest
Posted: Saturday, August 14, 2010 12:59:59 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 821,069
Well, let's face it. What matters really is what's inside, since status and looks will only go so far.

"Nice house, nobody home" comes to mind.
DamonX
Posted: Saturday, August 14, 2010 10:36:35 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2009
Posts: 799
Lisa wrote:
I agree with you, Damon, that we can't control who we're attracted to, but quietly confident men are much more appealing to me than the one you described in your scenario. He sounds like high-maintenance and in need of lots of attention. A man can be confident without having to work a room every time he enters one. That would grow old pretty quickly.


I understand Lisa. I used that scenario as a very very obvious difference in order to display things in a very overt manner. Quiet confidence is usually much more appealing than some attention seeking jackass. A man that has a quiet confidence and can pull it off, actually displays a high degree of status doesn't he? A subservient side-kick that merely follows his friend around probably does not.

Quote:
Well, let's face it. What matters really is what's inside, since status and looks will only go so far.


These kind of statments really make me wonder whether people even understand the topic. The thread is about the differences in attraction triggers between males and females.

I find that people tend to take any topic such as this, as "superficial vs non-superficial" instead of actually looking at the factors involved in such social dynamics. Lets just take a deep breath, remove our own personal insecurities from the equation and try and think about thinks critically for a change.
Guest
Posted: Sunday, August 15, 2010 12:52:04 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 821,069
"Personal insecurities?"
mercianknight
Posted: Monday, August 16, 2010 7:14:54 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/11/2009
Posts: 2,025
Location: whispering conspiratorially in your ear, Bermuda
Lfunny

I'm sorry, Damon, I just can't help laughing at where some of these posts have taken your question. I guess I'm too simplistic in my outlook. Have a great day.

"Whoa, lady, I only speak two languages, English and bad English." - Korben Dallas, from The Fifth Element

"If history repeats itself, and the unexpected always happens, how incapable must man be of learning from experience?" - George Bernard Shaw
Guest
Posted: Monday, August 16, 2010 8:19:57 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 821,069
DamonX wrote:


It is commonly stated that men are more attracted to a woman's looks while women are more attracted to a man's status....


I knew this sounded familiar! Damon! You're a Jane Austen fan! Who would have guessed it!

Quote:
It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a large fortune must be in want of a wife.

However little known the feelings or views of such a man may be on his first entering a neighbourhood, this truth is so well fixed in the minds of the surrounding families, that he is considered the rightful property of someone or other of their daughters.


Quote:
Elizabeth Bennet had been obliged, by the scarcity of gentlemen, to sit down for two dances; and during part of that time, Mr. Darcy had been standing near enough for her to hear a conversation between him and Mr. Bingley, who came from the dance for a few minutes, to press his friend to join it.

"Come, Darcy," said he, "I must have you dance. I hate to see you standing about by yourself in this stupid manner. You had much better dance."

"I certainly shall not. You know how I detest it, unless I am particularly acquainted with my partner. At such an assembly as this it would be insupportable. Your sisters are engaged, and there is not another woman in the room whom it would not be a punishment to me to stand up with."

"I would not be so fastidious as you are," cried Mr. Bingley, "for a kingdom! Upon my honour, I never met with so many pleasant girls in my life as I have this evening; and there are several of them you see uncommonly pretty."

"YOU are dancing with the only handsome girl in the room," said Mr. Darcy, looking at the eldest Miss Bennet.

"Oh! She is the most beautiful creature I ever beheld! But there is one of her sisters sitting down just behind you, who is very pretty, and I dare say very agreeable. Do let me ask my partner to introduce you."

"Which do you mean?" and turning round he looked for a moment at Elizabeth, till catching her eye, he withdrew his own and coldly said: "She is tolerable, but not handsome enough to tempt ME; I am in no humour at present to give consequence to young ladies who are slighted by other men. You had better return to your partner and enjoy her smiles, for you are wasting your time with me."

Mr. Bingley followed his advice. Mr. Darcy walked off; and Elizabeth remained with no very cordial feelings toward him. She told the story, however, with great spirit among her friends; for she had a lively, playful disposition, which delighted in anything ridiculous.


Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen.

Guest
Posted: Monday, August 16, 2010 1:20:51 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 821,069
"Our tests in life are different. A woman's test in life is material, a man's test in life is a woman."
DamonX
Posted: Monday, August 16, 2010 11:07:45 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2009
Posts: 799
Quote:
I knew this sounded familiar! Damon! You're a Jane Austen fan! Who would have guessed it!


Pride and Predjudice? I thought it was Penthouse Forum??? confused1
Guest
Posted: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 5:50:38 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 821,069
I'm going to say a gravely misinterpreted word here - intuition

Now...before you all throw things at me let me make it clear just what mean. First off let me state for the record that I think that both men AND women have it, and I also think it's a pretty valuable tool when it comes to interpersonal relationships. For me it helps decide what category the men in my life fall into - aside from worshiping pleb of course - for instance an instant sexual response mean bed partner and a warm fluffy non-threatening feeling means friend.

If I understand it correctly - and I really hope I do- the topic of the debate is a critical deconstruction of what triggers the attraction response in the first place, so in this case for men it's status and women it's looks.

It's interesting to think that by comparison this would mean that less attractive men could still initiate an intense initial attraction the same way that a beautiful woman would, but if you think about all the examples of gross old men with lots of money or who are heads of a mob syndicates, with attractive women, could you also say that these two principals attract each other? There's a mind bender for you.

I think that the impression we get from people is very important; that impression is that the man has a great deal of status and wealth, or that woman has legs all the way up to THERE, is also something that the advertising is attuned to and takes very careful advantage of.
Think about the classic lynx ad. Men are put in a position of power when women flock to them in droves, because they spray themselves with something that smells like cat pee (sorry, I'm hardly impartial here but DAMN does that stuff smell bad).
Similarly women are told that if they buy the shiny metallic lip gloss men will fall helpless under their spells (despite the fact that in real life the wind blows most of your hair into it making it sticky as hell). Sure, we're used to being sold these messages, but do we ever actually break it down to see that status v beauty debate is a common underlying theme.

Here's where intuition comes into it, if you combine social trends that are influenced by marketing (as seen above) and you think about the way people are CONDITIONED to think about their sexual partners and position within a social group, its easy to see how the mindset of the individual (guided by intuition) can be trained to be attracted to and recognise certain things (like looks or ‘status’). The absolutely devilish part of this is that it all works on a subconscious level.... so we don't even know we're doing it!

Having said all of that, what if the roles are reverses? Do men find an intimidating woman attractive, or is it reserved for women to fall into simpering heaps at the feet of powerful men. Similarly is it exclusively the right of men to become babbling idiots when talking to an attractive female? I know I've seen very articulate and savvy women turn into idiots when a bonds model winks at them from the catwalk (this is actually a really funny story that went on to involve crazy glue and the police).

But ultimately it depends on the person; one person may be more likely than another to base their feelings/actions on their ‘personal’ intuition in combination with the impression of power or beauty that another gives. And thats what keeps things interesting.

XX
BB
DamonX
Posted: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 9:33:12 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2009
Posts: 799
roccotool wrote:
Well, let's face it. What matters really is what's inside, since status and looks will only go so far.

"Nice house, nobody home" comes to mind.


Is that why you always put pictures of attractive men as your avatars and on your wall posts? As an indication of their great personalities and intelligence? I don't see any pics of stephen Hawking or a fat jolly guy with aa great personality on your profile....








confused1
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.