Out of curiosity, do you think the same thing holds true for women - that women who are not necessarily conventionally attractive can still do pretty well with men if they act confident?
That was actually 30% of the decision, The Willis Rule. I told myself once that if I could take my hand and put it flat against my forehead with my little finger touching my eyebrows, and my index finger did not touch my hairline, at that point I’d just shave my head and not go through the Bruce Willis “Hudson Hawk/Die Hard 2” embarrassing phase.
(Note, I’m still about a quarter inch from that stage. This was partially a fit of pique and partially part of the weight loss plan.)
Tortilla
6543
I would say yes, though to a somewhat lesser degree. I suppose it depends on what age bracket men we are talking about here. The younger the guy, the more likely he is to be very superficial.
madkevin
6544
For what it’s worth, I absolutely do. I like to think of it as the Sandra Bernhard Factor.
Men are more visual, so there’s probably a limit – a morbidly obese gal is going to have a really hard time of it – but yeah, I know some girls who are on the heavy side or who have unconventional looks or whatever who nonetheless come off as really hot, because they own how they look and make it work. Believing you’re sexy goes a long way towards actually making you sexy.
Shave with an actual razor and cream in the shower and put baby lotion on after you’re done. Girls love rubbing a smooth head. And sometimes that leads to the other smooth head getting rubbed.
JoshV
6547
Considering alot of game geek nerds throw gamer geek girls a few extra points, I don’t see why confidence wouldn’t help either.
Obnoxious, overbearing, loud, abrasive, and generally crass behavior makes unattractive women look even more unattractive?
madkevin
6549
I never said it was healthy.
Pogo
6551
This post brings you to… 215/215 completely irrelevant, ignorant, and useless fucking posts on Qt3. Congratulations.
re: job - the only thing I really figure I needed to mention about it in a dating profile is that a) I’m gainfully employed, b) I work for a veterans’ organization, and c) my job is satisfying and fulfilling. I figure this conveys that I am financially stable and not some part-time hash-slinger at the Waffle House, that I work in a reasonably stable and respectable industry which should convey some sort of maturity, and that I don’t bring home work-related stress or bitch about my job.
With regards to income, I just always check the appropriate little bubble on the profile. I don’t think I’m in the range ($36,000 to $42,000) where I’m attracting gold-diggers or where it seems like boasting - but in the same token, I don’t have anything I feel I need to keep secret about how much I make. I mean, I live reasonably comfortably but I don’t think a dating profile is the place to justify that.
Perhaps I need to borrow ElGuapo’s Maserati and take some profile photos with it.
Sure, tell me why I’m wrong, then. Most “attractive, intelligent and stable” women in his age bracket have started families. The few remaining normal and desirable singles are absolute catches. They’re 10s by virtue of scarcity, and they can easily fill their calendars dating objectively successful guys. Here’s the facts: the dude making $100k+ doesn’t have to spend time cultivating confidence, he just needs to go to work and get paid to pass himself off (in full honesty!) as superior to other bachelors. Nothing wrong with being real about your prospects.
There’s divorcees, too, but seeing as Mightynute values stability I don’t really think he’s interested in spending the enormous amounts of time and energy necessary to pass himself off as a legitimate authority figure to some other guy’s kids and thus secure a bit of domestic harmony. Of course that’s all groundless supposition.
You’re a charmer, Martin. You’ll go far.
I have no problem dating a divorcee. I have some trepidation regarding introducing children into the mix, for a number of reasons, namely that I do not know how comfortable I’d be with stepping into a situation where there’s a) a significant and unavoidable obstacle to spontaneity in the relationship, and b) I’m not at all certain whether I’m the kind of person who should be ANY kind of influence on kids at this point.
While I have relaxed my “absolutely no dating women with kids ever” parameter, it’s still a cause for a lot of concern for me. I’m still not convinced it could work, but I’m not going to rule it out completely.
Pogo
6557
You’re wrong because the guy making $100k a year isn’t necessarily good at presenting himself as a catch.
So anytime you say something like “here’s the facts,” you’re actually talking out of your fucking asshole.
Ahahahahahaha no.
Maybe in the lala-world that you and PUA douchebags live in, yes, but thankfully, I live in a much more awesome world, where what you said has no bearing on reality.
I don’t think any of us will disagree that you live in a much more awesome world dating wise. It’s called college. It’s where a lot of people find mates.
In fairness to Martin he was talking about older still-single folks trying to find mates.
And you think that women in their 30s are suddenly more retro-sexist and shallowly greedy than women in their early 20s? Why?
I would actually think the opposite – a woman who is more “cookies”[1] is going to be less concerned about outward trappings. She knows more about who she is and what she wants and a fancy car is even less likely to impress. Plus, she probably has a career, and if she’s making decent money, it’s not particularly urgent that a dude be making a bazillion dollars.
Presumably nobody wants a layabout minimum-wage pothead, but neither do I think that all women are just checking out a dude’s pocketbook, any more than I think (no matter what people are saying here) that dudes are looking for the hottest chick they can find.
[1] Buffy reference. Everyone’s seen Buffy, right?
