Are looks the whole of male-female attraction?
Amanda Platell below says that looks are the whole of it but I think that what she says applies to some couples only, maybe most of them but certainly not all. There are a lot of people of average looks who get married. Where do they fit in?
I am in a way a living refutation of her thesis. I have never been good looking but I have had lots of relationships with fine women -- including 4 marriages. So something other than looks has been at work for me
I have certainly noticed how some women turn aside after one glance at me but I think they are the shallow ones. Other women give me a chance to spark their interest. And I sometimes do.
At age 80 I have in fact recently acquired a new girlfriend aged 33. So looks are impossible there as a cause of the attraction. I won't attempt to say how that relationship happened as, regardless of what I might say, readers will almost universally conclude that she must be a gold digger. I will say, however, that it was an instant attraction for both of us. My point is simply that there are other sources of attraction than looks and most of us can be pretty glad of that
The truth is that what most men are attracted to is the way a woman looks. Her radiant face, her curvy body, her bosom . . . that is a simple fact, an inalienable truth. Having brains is a bonus which you may, or may not, discover after a few days or weeks in bed.
If you're looking for equality, perhaps find it in the fact that women are just as guilty of judging men on their physical attributes. It has nothing to do with feminism or being enlightened or enthralled by a clever mind.
Allow me to educate Baddiel on something he has clearly never thought about: the existence of the female gaze.
Men of a sensitive disposition should not read on because — sorry — this will be brutal.
For when a woman first meets a man, she is not interested in his mental muscle but purely in his physical brawn. We are as callous as men and judge potential paramours only on their appearance.
We first look to see if he is fit, with nice muscly arms to embrace us and firm thighs to entangle us. Does he have a man-belly overhanging his trousers? Are his fingernails tatty? Is he one of those men who never go to the dentist?
And, yes, the clothes — are they well-cut or shabby? If he's in jeans, does he, um, fill them out nicely? Yes, women are as susceptible to such carnal considerations, too.
Does he have, heaven forbid, tattoos? If he's an older man, does he need to hold onto the restaurant table before getting up for the loo? Again.
In fact, when it comes to assessing a potential partner, women are like the Terminator. We can coldly and cruelly decipher a male human form in minute detail in seconds, deciding whether to accept or reject him purely on his body.
Too short, too fat, too thin, too sweaty. Shabby shoes, greasy hair, the shadow of a wedding ring, a shoddy suit he's been wearing for decades — we give them five minutes before moving on, and that's when we're feeling generous.
Men mistakenly believe their wit and banter will win us over, that these are the 'most important things', but don't believe it. They're not. We women will size you up in the blink of an eye.
Like most of my female friends, I have never, ever, dated a man I didn't find physically attractive at the very first meeting. If there is no physical chemistry, then there is nothing.
With apologies to Elizabeth Barrett Browning, who wrote How Do I Love Thee? (Sonnet 43), when I count the ways I have loved men in my past, it is always based on physical looks — at least at first. Names are changed to protect the innocent.
First love, Mark: smitten at first sight by a fit young man singing A Hard Day's Night on a late shift while typing out the weather report for our local newspaper. Blond, burly, scruffy hair, cheekbones you could cut Cheddar on.
Our first date was to the ballet Swan Lake; he turned out to be highly intelligent, but that was not what mattered. It was pure lust.
Second: a languidly beautiful man I met at a bar in Sydney which was frequented by journalists. I don't recall at any stage considering how clever he was. Call me shallow, but I was bedazzled by his beauty. I think he felt the same about me — I was young then — but either way there was an instant chemistry and we married.
Third: a bloke I thought at first was a brickie on a building site but who turned out to be a wealthy property developer. He thought I was a secretary when I was in fact deputy editor of a national British newspaper. Our eyes met across a dusty suburban street. Not once during our six years together did anything matter but the sheer physical longing between us.
To conclude, what I and any woman of any age is looking for in a man is someone fit, sexy, gorgeous, gregarious, confident and supportive, with a glint in his eye. We make no apologies for it because that's what men look for in us.
If, in the end, he has a brain, that's a bonus. We can read Crime And Punishment to each other in bed.
But be warned, the female gaze is deadlier than the male.
***********************************************
Andrew Tate is RELEASED from house arrest but will not be allowed to leave Romania amid sex trafficking charges
They are gradually easing up on him. They may be realizing that they don't have much against him.
Andrew Tate has been released from house arrest but he will not be allowed to leave Romania following rape and sex trafficking charges.
Tate, his brother Tristan and two Romanian women have been released from house arrest today and are now under judicial control, a lighter restrictive measure.
In an exclusive statement to MailOnline, a spokesperson for Andrew and Tristan Tate said: 'The authorities are yet to decide on the frequency of the control checks with the Romanian police.
'We would like to extend our sincere gratitude to the Romanian judicial system for their fair consideration.
'This positive outcome gives us confidence that more favourable developments are on the horizon and the truth is beginning to prevail. We also want to thank all the supporters who have shown great resilience and patience during this time.'
Earlier this week the brothers were appealing against a court decision made last month to keep them under house arrest for a further 30 days.
Their appearance at the Court of Appeal in Bucharest came after the influencer was formally charged with rape, human trafficking and forming a criminal gang to exploit women in June. Tristan and two Romanian women were charged with human trafficking.
The four will not be able to leave Romania or travel to some parts of the country but can leave home and travel within Bucharest and Ilfov.
The release is subject to judicial controls for 60 days.
Upon his release Tate, 36, tweeted: 'After 10 months. 3 in jail, 7 at home. After 15million euro of asset seizures. After an inditement based on nothing.
'The file was passed to a Judge who has ruled it weak and circumstantial. I have been released from house arrest but must remain within Romania. Now. To the Mosque. Alhamdulillah.'
The Bucharest Court of Appeals said in a written ruling that it 'replaces the house arrest measure with that of judicial control for a period of 60 days from August 4 until October 2.'
Tate, who was arrested on December 29 in Bucharest and has denied the allegations, had previously lost a series of appeals against his house arrest.
'I am in the Bucharest Court of Appeal to find out if I will be detained for a ninth month,' Tate wrote on Twitter on August 1. 'Three months in jail, six months locked in my house.'
After spending three months in police detention in Bucharest, the Tate brothers won an appeal on March 31 to be moved to house arrest. They are now able to move freely within parts of the country.
The brothers are banned from from contacting the two Romanian associates who are also charged with trafficking as well as witnesses, alleged victims and their families. Breaking these rules could lead to further house arrest or detention.
In June, Romania's anti-organised crime agency known as DIICOT had requested that judges extend the house arrest measure after it filed its investigation.
Tate, who has been accused of peddling conspiracy theories online and has amassed 7.2 million Twitter followers, has repeatedly claimed that prosecutors have no evidence against him and that there is a political plot designed to silence him.
DIICOT alleges that Tate, his brother Tristan and two Romanian women - Luana Radu and Georgiana Naghel - formed a criminal group in 2021 'in order to commit the crime of human trafficking' in Romania, as well as in the United States and Britain.
There are seven female victims in the case, DIICOT said, who were lured with false pretences of love and transported to Romania, where the gang sexually exploited them and subjected them to physical violence.
One defendant is accused of raping a woman twice in March 2022, according to the agency. The women were allegedly controlled by 'intimidation, constant surveillance' and claims they were in debt, prosecutors said.
******************************************************
Richard Dawkins’ frank ‘sex’ talk infuriates many
Richard Dawkins has been trending on social media for days. Usually outrage mobs get sore arms if they hold their pitchforks aloft for more than 24-hours, but in this case, they’ve made an exception.
What was Richard Dawkins’ great crime?
He sat down for a chat about ‘sex’ (or ‘gender’ as the trendy would say these days). Worse, he committed this sin while being a former darling of left-wing thought who has long-railed against religious doctrine and now finds himself at odds with a genuine leftist cult.
Speaking on his podcast, The Poetry of Reality, he said:
‘Sex really is binary. No question about it. You’re either male or female and it’s absolutely clear you can do it on gamete size, you can do it on chromosomes… To me, as a biologist, it is distinctly weird people can simply declare, “I am a woman (though I have a penis)!”’
Kinky.
He went on to call it an ‘odd distortion of reality’ – which is an understatement to people who find themselves labelled as hateful bigots for telling blokes to leave the women’s bathroom.
As someone cleverly pointed out in the comments to this podcast, written in response to one of those ‘but gender is a social/cultural/feeling construct’ replies, sports are not played with philosophical statements – they are played with biological ‘sexed’ bodies.
Therefore, if the transgender argument is that gender is something other than biological sex, it does not follow and cannot be argued that transgender people should access sex-segregated activities in which ‘gender’ is being used with the intended translation of ‘sex’.
For example, when women’s sports was created, it was not intended as a category for ‘people who feel as they are women’. It is a deliberate biological segregation to give women a fair go at competition. The inclusion of transgender individuals appears to be a fleeting experiment, as sporting bodies finally bow to pressure from furious women.
In the interview, Richard Dawkins was speaking with author Helen Joyce. She said, ‘I don’t think that “male” and “female” are prizes for effort. They are just observations of categories that we are…’ She went on to say that ‘this is a linguistic movement’. It is an interesting observation, and goes a long way to explaining why censorship – particularly from Australian levels of government – is being employed as barbed wire to keep public criticism out of the conversation.
The podcast contained a ruthless discussion where nearly every sentence stirred the bristles on the backs of keyboard warriors. They are yet to recover.
‘Science is all about reality,’ said Dawkins. He has spent his whole life within the fold of the scientific community. ‘Science and reality have come up against some competition.’
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/08/richard-dawkins-frank-sex-talk-infuriates-internet
***********************************************The great Canadian history hysteria
An epic demonstration of the power of the Left to believe what they want to believe -- facts regardless
Readers would doubtless find it hard to believe that the late Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh kidnapped and killed indigenous children while on a state visit to Canada in 1964. Yet this story circulated for years in Canada along with other horror stories of the rape, torture and murder of indigenous children at the hands of depraved priests and nuns. The bodies, it was said, were thrown into furnaces or secretly buried at dead of night. These accusations were linked to boarding schools run by various religious bodies first established in the 19th century and finally closed in the 1990s. A Truth and Reconciliation Commission was set up in 2008, and millions of dollars were given by the government to search for clandestine mass graves. None was found.
Then, in 2021, a single survey of an orchard at Kamloops in British Columbia by a young anthropologist using ground-penetrating radar found ‘disturbances in the ground’, and this was taken as proof of a mass grave of hundreds of children. Soon other communities announced that they too had found forgotten cemeteries, and the media portrayed these as hidden mass graves, implying terrible crimes. Canada descended into a frenzy of allegation and public self-flagellation. Dozens of churches were vandalised or burnt down, and the Trudeau government ordered the national flag to be flown at half-mast for several months. The Pope apologised, as did the Archbishop of Canterbury. China denounced Canada at the UN. But no investigation has been made of the site at Kamloops and no bodies have been found there.
Yet sensationalist stories of abuse and murder have gained credence in official circles, or at least are not publicly contested. Investigation is hampered by a reluctance to hint at scepticism concerning accusations (‘survivors’ truths’) made by members of indigenous communities, who insist that inquiries should be led by indigenous people and their ‘Knowledge Keepers’, not by the police. The highly activist Nationalist Centre for Truth and Reconciliation took control of much of the documentary evidence, which it has been unwilling to show to researchers.
A moderate view would be that these schools were often sites of harshness and neglect, but there is also plenty of evidence of happy children and dedicated teachers. The schools were often asked for by local indigenous communities. There is no proof of children being kidnapped and forced into them. Many were close to their homes and supported by their parents. Even in the recent past, nuanced discussion of the schools was possible. No longer. Those indigenous leaders who formerly praised their own school experiences are silent. The official story focuses solely on horrors.
Nevertheless, several prominent – and in the circumstances, brave – Canadian historians have expressed reasoned doubt. Careful record-keeping means that suggestions of thousands of missing children and unexplained deaths can be disproved. Old cemeteries that have lost their grave markers have been identified, but still no secret mass graves have been found.
Far from there being relief that the most appalling fears appear groundless, a deadening cloak of silence has been thrown over the whole subject. The former executive director of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is pressing for an ‘anti-colonial approach’ making ‘denialism’ subject to ‘both civil and criminal sanctions’. The justice minister says that he is open to the idea. The deliberate vagueness is doubly intimidating. Would asking for the radar scans at Kamloops be ‘denialism’? Or pointing out that no human remains have been uncovered?
We are used to ‘denial’ of some controversial assertion being proclaimed a moral and intellectual offence. As far as I know, though, only Holocaust denial is a crime in some countries. Note the obvious difference: evidence for the Holocaust is overwhelming and denying it in good faith impossible. The situation in Canada is precisely the opposite: it is not denying but rather sustaining these accusations in the absence of evidence that tests good faith.
But there is a lot of money at stake. Hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation have been handed out to former school children. Ideology too: the schools symbolise a policy of integration – broadly followed until the 1960s – when full citizenship was offered to indigenous peoples, as opposed to the present policy of maintaining them as separate ethnic groups in territorial reservations. Integration is now tantamount to genocide for many liberals, so accusations that schools were literally ‘institutions of genocide’, killing and secretly burying ‘thousands of children’ is too powerful a story to be given up by those pursuing greater land rights, huge reparations and ‘rewriting national history’ to promote separate nationhood.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/08/antisocial-history/ ?
****************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
*****************************************
/>
Kristina Pimenova, once said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair
Bliss: What every woman wants: to feel safe and secure in the arms of her man. Robert Irwin and Rorie Buckey. See 
No comments:
Post a Comment