Can A Woman Fall In Love With A Man She’s Not Physically Attracted To?
The conclusions Sabrina Haynes comes to below are congruent with my personal experience. I have never been better than average in looks but for most of my life I have had no trouble attracting women, usually pretty good-looking ones. Why? In line with what she says, I have a lively sense of humour and high intelligence. I joke a lot and understand a lot. And I have great self-confidence
I was always confident that if I could just get a woman to have a meal with me, the magic would happen rapidly and she would want to see me again. Now that I am 80 and physically frail, it no longer works but it did work for many years. Sabrina does nail it below
The dominant social narrative currently at play is that a majority, if not all women are superficial beings who want a guy with a six pack who earns six figures. Women who are picky (or merely just selective) about their mate rightfully end up sad and alone, while the men they rejected go on to be successful.
At least, that’s what the manosphere thinks. The more reasonable among us probably disagree with this. In many couples, one individual is more attractive than the other. This isn’t always the case, of course, but there are actually benefits to women being the one who is more attractive in these scenarios. One study found that couples, where the wife was more physically attractive, had better positive outlooks as opposed to couples where the husband and wife matched one another in attractiveness.
Contrary to popular belief, it isn’t all about looks, money, success, or what car he drives for a lot of women (I can already hear the protests coming from the responses), but how exactly do women fall in love with unattractive men? The answer isn’t all that surprising, really.
The Pete Davidson Conundrum
Davidson isn’t a supermodel or even very good at his job, according to some, but that hasn’t stopped him from being romantically linked to some of the most successful and beautiful women in the public eye.
To be fair, you might not think that Kim Kardashian, Kate Beckinsale, Phoebe Dynevor, or Emily Ratajkowski are the most deserving of fame or success, but from a somewhat objective standpoint, they have the advantage over him in terms of physical appearance. Whenever there’s a question of inequality, specifically in terms of attractiveness, it boggles the mind. Women might look at that and think, what’s she doing with him? Men might think, what does he have that I don’t?
It’s been scientifically proven that women find a funny man “irresistible.”
I received a fair amount of pushback in my circle for arguing that Davidson’s girlfriends, both past and present, choose to be with him because he’s funny, sweet, and vulnerable (their adjectives, not mine), but the science doesn’t lie. It’s been scientifically proven that women find a funny man “irresistible.”
Pete Davidson and his famous celebrity girlfriends might be a bit too far-removed for some of us, so I’ll use a more realistic example. A friend from college, let’s call her Helen, confirms this.
In our senior year, she briefly went out with a friend of hers, so I called her to talk about their first date. “We had been friends for several years before this,” she says. “I didn’t think he was drop-dead gorgeous or anything, but he wasn’t terrible looking.” I can corroborate that, but here’s where it gets interesting. “We had amazing chemistry,” she says, still gushing, though this happened years ago. “He was super smart, very sweet, with an amazing sense of humor. We shared similar interests, and when we talked, it was a back-and-forth, effortless kind of banter.” Sadly, they didn’t last due to distance, but she says, to this day, it was the best first date she’s ever had.
Comedian Iliza Schlesinger Explains
We know that it’s possible for men who aren’t the most visually stunning to land a 10, but how exactly does it happen? Comedian Iliza Schlesinger, winner of Last Comic Standing and a frequent guest on The Joe Rogan Experience, explains it for us.
A matter of years ago, Iliza was flying back to her home in LA when she struck up a friendship with the man sitting beside her, Brian. He worked at a hedge fund, was a Yale graduate, and owned a home in Beverly Hills. They got along, but he wasn’t the most physically attractive guy. And, to make things complicated, he was into her, and she didn’t feel the same at first. But all of that changed.
“You cannot fake intelligence, you cannot fake sense of humor, you cannot fake wit. He had those things. He was unattractive,” she says, “We were friends for a full year.” But as their friendship grew, his feelings for her did as well. She wasn’t into him, until he revealed that his mom had cancer and became really emotionally vulnerable with her. “This is my big thing. As a woman, you can become attracted to a man you’re physically not attracted to because of personality. [For] men, it doesn’t work. You’re never like, that girl is a warthog, but it turns out she’s really funny, so I wanna put my mouth on hers.”
“It was all the kindness, how smart, how funny, all the stuff…my heart opened up.” Iliza admittedly fell in love with a guy she wasn’t attracted to who had been more or less pursuing her, but unfortunately, it didn’t end well. As it turns out, Brian lied about his mom being sick, his job, and his college education, among other things, and she eventually found out. After they broke up, she went on to write and star in Good on Paper on Netflix, based on her experience with him.
Women Are Cerebral, Men Are Visual
“Women are cerebral, men are visual,” Iliza explains. This, in part, is what she attributes to how she fell in love with a man she wasn’t initially attracted to. It’s also important to note that though she wasn’t attracted to him when their friendship began, her feelings for him grew as she got to know him.
It seems that a lot of men feel that most women initially write them off right away if they’re not better looking — but in a lot of cases, that isn’t accurate. Had she never formed a friendship with this man, she wouldn’t have become attracted to him. But his character (at least at first) made up for that.
Even the looks of a Hemsworth brother can’t prevent the most boring man from being off-putting.
Men often misguidedly think that women want the hottest man possible because it’s what they themselves value in a mate. Women want an attractive man, but even attractiveness can’t save a man who takes himself too seriously, can’t take a joke, knows nothing of personal hygiene, can’t hold a conversation, or doesn’t know how to dress well.
The same study, which found couples are more positive where the wife is the more attractive of the two, also found that a man’s attractiveness wasn’t the sticking point for wives — it was his level of support for her. At the same time, the couples where the husband was the most attractive found lower levels of support.
A subreddit on r/dating provides a wealth of knowledge on this topic. One guy sums it up perfectly:
“Women, for the most part, do not find men attractive the same way we find them attractive. Meaning that I would go out with a girl as long as she is attractive, sexy, or pretty…I will give her a chance. She doesn’t have to be smart, funny, etc. And I know that might seem wrong for some, but I understand that, by nature, that’s how most guys are. Women, on the other hand, are attracted to something special about you. Not necessarily your looks, I know plenty of guys who are very handsome and attractive but lack personality, social skills, confidence, and so on. That’s why a lot of average-looking guys can get women to notice them if they are funny, mature, and confident with who they are. I think that’s what most women see as attractive. Anything physical is a bonus.”
It wasn’t Brian’s looks or even his fake Yale degree that attracted Iliza to him. It was his emotional vulnerability, his sense of humor, his intelligence, and so much more.
For my friend Helen, her amazing chemistry with her long-time guy friend wasn’t based on his appearance, but on their shared interests, their ability to keep up with one another, their conversation. “Sparks were constantly flying,” she tells me. “Over time, I grew to be more physically attracted to him because I was so engrossed in him. Our connection was magical.”
The Take-Away
Is it possible for a woman to be attracted to a man’s mind? The short answer is yes. Attraction is a powerful thing, and we can’t over-analyze or explain it a lot of the time. Again, even the looks of a Hemsworth brother can’t prevent the most boring man from being hard to be around and off-putting. Similarly, intellect, sense of humor, character, charm, and all the other indescribable qualities we’re drawn to can’t stop us from falling for the guy we wouldn’t think we’d be interested in at first glance.
*****************************************************
‘Spermageddon’: Behind the headlines of the great Western fertility furore
Just a bad research summary behind the scare
In 2017, an 81-year-old American scientist named Professor Shanna Swan, from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, published a study which suggested that human sperm counts had dropped by more than half in the past 40 years, and that our species was, as a result, hurtling toward an imminent reproductive crisis. The paper, which was co-authored by Hagai Levine of Hebrew University, among others, was the largest ever study of human sperm counts: a meta-analysis of 185 papers and 42,935 men that claimed to show that total sperm count had declined by 59.3 per cent between 1973 and 2011, at about one per cent a year. A follow-up paper in 2022 was even more alarming, suggesting that the decline had accelerated markedly since 2000.
Scientists are usually known for their circumspection, but Swan was unambiguous about the implications. In interviews with journalists, she suggested that by 2045, men’s median sperm count could be zero, and that, as a consequence, most babies might have to be conceived using artificial means. The decline was nothing short of a “global existential crisis”, she wrote in her 2021 book, Count Down: How Our Modern World Is Threatening Sperm Counts, Altering Male and Female Reproductive Development and Imperilling the Future of the Human Race. “The current state of reproductive affairs can’t continue much longer without threatening human survival.”
The story soon went viral. Newspapers described Swan’s findings as “spermaggedon” and “sperm-pocalypse”. Swan, meanwhile, became a star. She appeared on Joe Rogan’s podcast and was interviewed by Russell Brand. In 2022, she headlined a live science event at the Koncerthuset, in Copenhagen, where the announcer introduced her as “The one and only Shanna. F---ing. Swan!”
In her book, Swan mostly blamed the sperm decline on a range of widely used chemicals, including bisphenols and phthalates, which appear in many plastics, including food containers and baby bottles, and which interfere with the body’s production of the hormones testosterone and oestrogen.
But, of course, everyone had a theory of their own. It was feminism, porn, tight underwear, soy milk. It was veganism or COVID or COVID vaccines or political correctness or climate change. In today’s politically disordered landscape, “spermageddon” was embraced with equal gusto by people who otherwise wouldn’t want to breathe the same oxygen, from environmentalists, who wanted to end plastics and Big Ag, to culture warriors and men’s rights groups, who wanted to end gender pronouns and marriage equality. By the time doubts about “spermageddon” began to surface, the story had assumed a life of its own, spawning narratives every bit as intriguing as anything Shanna Swan had written.
The paper, which was published in Human Reproduction Update, attracted controversy from the get-go. For one thing, Swan divided her findings into two categories: “Western” and “Other”. “Western” included men from North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand – white-majority areas. The “Other” category included Africa, South America and Asia – that is, mainly black and brown populations. The distinction, which seemed inherently racialised, became more problematic when it emerged that Swan had only observed a significant sperm count decline in “Western” men. On the face of it, African, Asian and Latin American sperm was fine.
Once the initial panic over “spermageddon” plateaued, questions emerged about Swan’s study. Some were predictably partisan. Swan, who had long argued for tighter regulation of the chemical industry, was ridiculed on junkscience.com, a website run by Steven Milloy, a noted climate sceptic and advocate for Big Tobacco and oil companies. (She had been similarly targeted by Jon Entine, a journalist who has written in defence of the agrochemical industry and founder of the educational non-profit Genetic Literacy Project, which has long advocated for the use of GMO foods and pesticides.)
“You can get a sample from one man and … give one half to one lab and the other to another lab, and often you get two markedly different results.”
But other criticisms are harder to dismiss. One of the main ones concerns methodology. Swan and her team didn’t perform any original research; it was a meta-analysis, meaning an analysis of previous studies going back to 1973, the reliability of which is difficult to gauge. “Lots of the studies used for Swan’s 2017 analysis don’t contain all the information that is needed,” says andrologist Robert McLachlan, the medical director of Healthy Male (formerly Andrology Australia), a federal government-funded men’s health body. “In some cases, the ages of the men are missing. Almost 45 per cent of the studies she used don’t include the year the sperm sample was collected, and 29 per cent don’t mention the average sperm concentration.” (Where such data was missing, Swan and her team made estimates.)
Technology is also an issue. “Over the decades that these studies were performed, we have no way of knowing how closely the labs adhered to best practice,” McLachlan says. “Even today, you can get a sample from one man and split it in half and give one half to one lab and the other to another lab, and often you get two markedly different results. And not just small differences – several-fold.”
Besides, there were plenty of findings that contradicted Swan’s work. Between 1992 and 2012, there were 35 major papers examining changes in sperm count. Eight of them suggested a decline, and six showed ambiguous or conflicting results. But 21 studies, involving 112,386 men, showed either no change or improvements in semen quality. Needless to say, none of these 21 studies made the news. That Swan’s work has so dominated the narrative says a lot about the way science works in the age of mass media. “Scientists are incentivised to publish work that shows sensational results,” says Tim Moss, health-content manager at Healthy Male. “They have this publish-or-perish professional landscape. You get grant money if you have your work published, and it’s more likely that your work will be published if you can show some effect. For example, if you do a study comparing two groups of people, and you show there is no difference, it’s harder to get that published than if you did a study that shows a big difference.”
****************************************************
Disunity in the British Labour party over Gaza
Sir Keir Starmer has suffered a major blow to his authority after Labour MPs staged a mass rebellion over his stance on a ceasefire in Gaza.
A total of eight members of the Labour leader’s frontbench resigned or were sacked as more than a quarter of his MPs defied him to support an immediate cessation in the fighting.
Jess Phillips, shadow minister for domestic abuse, was the most high-profile member of the frontbench to quit as 56 Labour MPs in the House of Commons backed the call for a ceasefire.
Ms Phillips said she had resigned with a “heavy heart” but added that she could see “no route where the current military action does anything but put at risk the hope of peace and security for anyone in the region now and in the future”.
The Labour leader has called for a humanitarian pause in the war and warned a full-scale ceasefire would only “embolden” Hamas to regroup and plan more atrocities. Labour MPs had been ordered to back the party’s amendment to the King’s Speech, in line with that position.
They were also on a three-line whip to abstain on the SNP’s amendment calling for a ceasefire. MPs voted 293 to 125, majority 168, to reject the SNP’s King’s Speech amendment calling for “all parties to agree to an immediate ceasefire” in Gaza. But 56 Labour MPs backed the position.
Yasmin Qureshi, the shadow women and equalities minister and MP for Bolton South, was the first to announce she had resigned to back the SNP call. She described the scale of bloodshed in Gaza as “unprecedented” and said MPs had to “call for an end to the carnage to protect innocent lives and end human suffering”.
She was followed by Afzal Khan, the shadow minister for exports and MP for Manchester Gorton, who said supporting a ceasefire was “the very least we can do”.
Paula Barker, shadow minister for devolution and the English regions and MP for Liverpool Wavertree, also anounced she would be standing down saying she had to follow “my conscience”.
As well as the shadow ministers who quit, frontbenchers Rachel Hopkins, Sarah Owen, Naz Shah and Andy Slaughter also quit after breaking the party whip to back the amendment.
Parliamentary private secretaries Dan Carden and Mary Foy have also left their positions on the frontbench, said Labour.
Sir Keir said he regretted that party colleagues had not backed his position, but added: “I wanted to be clear about where I stood, and where I will stand.”
Before the vote more than 70 Labour MPs had publicly backed calls for a ceasefire in Gaza. But a Labour spokesperson said that a Commons vote was a different matter, adding: “This is a whipped vote and every MP knows what the consequence of that means.”
During Wednesday’s Commons debate, Ms Shah was the first Labour frontbencher to tell MPs that she intended to support the amendment. She was followed by shadow minister Helen Hayes, MP for Dulwich and West Norwood, who told the Commons that “a ceasefire is surely the minimum we should be demanding in the face of such horrific suffering”.
Labour’s decision not to back a ceasefire has also prompted the exodus of a series of councillors from the party, and Sir Keir was forced to hold a crunch meeting last month with a group of Muslim Labour MPs to address anger over his handling of the crisis – including comments in which he appeared to back the cutting of power and water to Gaza.
However, frontbencher Imran Hussain ultimately resigned “with a heavy heart” last week, saying he was quitting his role as a shadow minister to be able to “strongly advocate” for a ceasefire.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-gaza-ceasefire-vote-result-b2448234.html
*************************************************Quality life in Chicago
A Chicago family who were attacked and robbed by carjackers in their driveway earlier this month have been targeted again by thieves.
Chicago police confirmed they responded to a call of a stolen vehicle at the 9300 block of South Pleasant at 7.30am on November 14.
The car was later recovered near the 9700 block of South Merrill. Police have yet to confirm if the thieves are the same men who attacked and stole the Pettiford family's first car only 12 days earlier.
Pettiford had been returning from a volleyball event with her daughter when they were held at gunpoint by two unidentified men on November 2.
After terrorizing Pettiford, the men managed to steal Pettiford's car and run away.
While the family has not commented on the incident, Chicago Alderman Matt O'Shea confirmed that they had been robbed a second time.
After the first incident, the family spoke out about their terrifying encounter to spread awareness among other residents in the area.
Footage recorded on the family's Ring camera showed one of the attackers pushing Pettiford to the ground and demanding her car keys while snatching her purse. The other one is seen running behind her daughter, who got inside their house and called the police.
Video then shows the attackers continuing to threaten Michele and rummaging through her purse while her husband, Jeff, walks out of their back door.
Jeff is then seen trying to de-escalate the situation and pointing at his car parked in the driveway with the keys inside but one of the thieves manages to find Michele's keys and start her car.
The two suspects eventually jumped into her Audi A7 and drove off, leaving the traumatized parents on the ground in their own backyard.
****************************************
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