Some women are attracted to physical strength, some women are attracted to maternal instincts, so on and so forth.
The problem is this question is usually being asked by someone who thinks that responding to every factual statement with an inflammatory counterpoint qualifies as intelligence.
The weird definition of intelligence they are using (how to succeed in life) does kind of cover that. The definition of what success is, and the millions of ways of achieving it covers just about all variations.
True, in today's times much higher chance of success is having wealthy parents and not having problem exploiting other people, but it wasn't always like that.
Though given that it is 4chan, I agree with responder that OP mixes incelligence with intelligence. I'm not convinced that sitting on a forum full of memes and Nazi ideology is something that an intelligent person would be interested in.
Men are attracted to the "airhead type" because those women are good at making men feel good about themselves and keeping up lively conversation; and though people usually prioritise companions who have the same interests as them, they enjoy talking also to a lively conversation partner, perhaps someone as-different-from-themselves as possible: someone who surprises them.
Many men feel that all women have the "airhead" quality - no, not as in they're all stupid, but as in they're lively and conversational in that stereotypical way that disrupts the man-to-man conversation; and though they do not speak to men as equals (preferring to talk over them or jerk the conversation off on some other tangent, perhaps, or dwell on uniquely feminine topics which baffle/disinterest the male listener), this is seen as no big loss, really. For women are different to men, and their presence in our lives is welcome precisely because of that rather than in spite of it.
The important thing to remember is that people change overtime and every person is more multifaceted than massive media would have us believe - so yes, that is "just Hollywood." Who's to say why a man likes an "airhead," she probably has more depth to her than you know about.
Edited to change one comma into a colon, and formalise grammar in final sentence
Intelligence is working out that you don't have to struggle. UK example, don't move to London "for the jobs" if you are only finding minimum wage work.
Success looks different for different groups of people, unfortunately. A slave could be considered more successful than another, while remaining a slave.
Intelligence is actually slightly negatively correlated with success by a lot of metrics (earnings, years of life, health) and the best predictors are general big 5 attributes like openness to experience, low neuroticism, high conscientiousness (hard working), and extraversion. Those characteristics are way better predictors of life success.
Do you have any references for this? As far as I know the literature, the debate about "what matters more" is still ongoing with some research arguing in favor of personality and other research in favor of cognitive ability. Regardless of this, the relationship between cognitive ability and various life outcomes seems to be consistently positive, and I am not aware of any convincing evidence to the contrary.
I guess I was referencing the original 2016 study by Borghans, Golsteyn, Heckman & Humphries that's since been replicated and refuted. You're right that it's not settled academically right now so we don't know for sure.
Yeah, surely, if you define working hard as just receiving your father's or grandfather's wealth (or at least, part of it) as your inheritance.
When you actually look down at this rabbit hole, you find that the entire premise where these supposedly "predictors" rely, the meritocracy, is actually just a scam, maybe the biggest one.
Because social movility is totally broken because prices, rents and taxes are going crazily up while salaries are dropping dramatically, and meanwhile some fucking bank takes your money as a monetary rescue for a fucking son of a bitch billionaire which movement caused an economic catastrophe.
What is success? Being surrounded by people you love and trust? Living life without regret? Sitting on hoards and hoards of money? Planting an endangered tree?
Yeah, I'd say humor is the better indicator. It boils down to the ability to connect ideas in creative ways, as well as keeping a longer context window in conversations
It's not a direct 1:1, but what is intelligence really? There's many types, and they're all a combination of domains
That's not what I was referring to. Intelligence is basically a combination of working memory, recall, cognition, and metacognition
The combination of these domains together produce the foundation for the "types" of intelligence, which might be more accurately described as abilities
Humor demonstrates these qualities socially. It's not a direct relationship, more like a demonstration. Like how dancing demonstrates physical ability, humor demonstrates the factors underlying intelligence
Women are individuals who’s preferences differ from person to person. But forget all that for a second. Women are just not attracted to men who are DUMPY RUDE ASSHOLES. NOBODY IS. These dudes make so many excuses to not work on themselves.
I always assumed "dude" is gender-neutral word. We even have a saying "dūdiņa" in my language which is like sweet-talking "dude" word meant towards women.
Impossible. If women had choices, then they'd have a diversity of off-spring with a wide spectrum of forms, traits, and behaviors.
We know that can't be the case, because all men are identical and perfectly interchangeable, except for a tiny variance in peak performance which they use to sort themselves from Sigma to Omega for the purpose of obtaining Da Big Sequesy to produce more Sigma clones.
I mean, that's a fun take but realistically there are plenty of women who put a lot more stock in looks (just as men do) an immediate financial ability.
That jock who got a job that's physically demanding might be making more out of high school, but the IT nerd who went for they education and got a good tech job was likely on a slower burn path to self-improvement with better pay, possibly improving looks over time (or at least less of a beer belly). At least before AI started killing the tech sector again, so maybe the jocks will be coming out ahead for awhile.
Also, there's also nothing wrong with being a good dude with average intelligence who works hard. Just don't pick an red-hatred idiot. And intelligent nerds who don't learn social skills can absolutely still become nasty incels.
I wouldn't put too much stock into the jock versus nerd stereotypes.
Life isn't an RPG with stats that come at the cost of other stats. Being bad at sports doesn't make someone more likely to be good at school (if anything, the correlation might run the other way). And charisma, ambition, intelligence, physical appearance, athleticism, work ethic, are all distinct factors that sometimes feedback on each other, and feed into things like wealth, happiness, attractiveness, etc.
Life isn't an RPG, but there has definitely been a push by certain groups to value looks and strength or martial prowess over intelligence and education, particularly in North American culture. Yeah, somebody can be an athlete without being dumb, and as another person pointed out there actually a lot of high-speed decision-making that requires intelligence to pro-sports.
At the same time, there are people who very much lean towards looking buff, tough, but not too bright as they categorize intellectuals as losers or socially unwanted. Similarly, there are girls or women who will emphasize their looks and actively hide their intelligence. Il This over time leads to a willful ignorance that IMO is worse than simply being of lower IQ or lacking education.
I'm not aware of any culture in which hiding one's strengths is a common response to one's own surroundings. Placing value on a particular characteristic does not imply that a completely unrelated characteristic is undesirable. Plenty of beautiful smart people out there, and even in a society where beauty is prized above all else, why would someone beautiful hide their intelligence?
For whatever it's worth, in my circles (urban white collar millennial professionals in dense cities), most people are both athletic and intelligent. There are plenty of finance bros and tech bros who have Ivy League degrees (sometimes Ph.D.s, M.D.s, J.D.s) that represent real academic achievement and can also turn around and dominate on a basketball court or in a fighting gym. Lots of smart people like gyms, whether we're talking resistance training, Olympic lifting, CrossFit/Hyrox, endurance cardio sports like marathon running or biking, winter sports like skiing, etc.
That's also consistent with what I saw in my high school. Most of the top students headed towards Ivy League or similar caliber schools were also athletes who were very good at a competitive sport for the school. The "nerd"/"jock" dichotomy we expected from John Hughes movies never really materialized, and the popular kids tended to be people who were both good at school and good at sports.
And yet where do you think the demographic that voted for the guy that shits his pants and falls asleep comes from exactly, and moreover continues to double-down on supporting him even to their own detriment?
How about the people who modify their trucks to spread black smoke just to "own those pissy hybrid drivers and cyclists"?
The continued attempts to enumerate activities that would have fit on Jackass (and likely watched the same on repeat).
Never knew a pretty girl in school who got good grades but hid then and played dumb?
There's plenty of people who embrace an absurdist mentality and openly reject anything that requires actively using one's brain.
There's plenty of people who embrace an absurdist mentality and openly reject anything that requires actively using one's brain.
I think they're old, fat, unathletic, and unattractive.
I know Trump voters. For the minority who are actually young, they're much more likely to be loser incels who are both bad at sports and didn't get a college degree (much less post graduate educations). It's aggrieved losers trying to make sense of the world, who are generally unattractive on most metrics: poor, unhealthy, unathletic, not very smart.
It's like looking at people who work in the trades. Plumbers and welders and carpenters. They tend to be in worse physical shape than, like, lawyers and doctors, who obviously have better intellectual and academic credentials.
So if you're surrounded by losers, I'm just gonna ask that you stop being impressed with them.
The thing there is that when people say "people are attracted to intelligence" the intelligence people think of is different than the type people are generally attracted to.
Highly analytical intelligence is a type of intelligence. So is the ability to make correct choices in a variety of situations.
Almost every athletic endeavor entails being able to assess situations quickly and accurately, and know how to respond. Team sports require group coordination, training and predicting teammates behavior.
That's intelligence, but it's often considered a lesser sort than the analytical sort.
It's why people see the people doing work that requires the type of less prestigious intelligence as less intelligent, and see people being drawn to them as proof that people aren't really drawn to intelligence.
To be blunt: it doesn't matter how strong you are if can't read or get confused by the garage door opener every day.
It's the same as saying that people aren't attracted to appearance because plenty of people are drawn to normal attractiveness people.
That's actually a good point about sports intelligence. Pro athletes likely have a certain almost instinctual grasp of certain physics even if they aren't running the actual numbers in their heads.
You can take away the qualifiers. :) and it's not instinctual, just practiced.
The notion that athletics doesn't require intelligence draws away from the understanding of exactly how much practice it takes to hone the skills to that level.
And, for a fun reference, the typical NFL player has significantly more traditional education than the average person.
Ah yes, how to succeed in life in a fundamentally broken society that values exploitation over everything else. Couldn't think of a better metric for choosing a partner.
Ffs, you were so quick with the snarky remark that you dont even understand that suceeding in life means a lot of different things to a lot of diferent People.
The definition you gave is your own and for me it reveals a skweded perspective of what means sucess, adaptation or intelligence.
Fair point :D but succeeding in life without succeeding in society is pretty difficult since as you said it means a lot of different things for different people but is still one of the biggest influence on their situation
Beeing generally happy and doing well while simultaneously profiting from a society that is build on genocide, exploitation of natural resources and imperialism is such a twisted concept. Even if not part of the 10%.
Gotcha. So would you rank yourself as mostly unhappy, destitute and unwell?
Can you think of anyone in our society who's doing alright within the confines of a broken system, or do you think that everyone's existence is inseperable from the context of that existence, even if the means of changing it or it's impact are outside of their reach? Somewhere in the middle?
I met a guy who helps manage a homeless shelter and food bank. Stand-up guy. Makes ends meet, is doing what he can where he can. Generally happy guy with a family. Pretty twisted right? Or my former coworker who let his gardening hobby get out of hand and ended up running a community garden that retrofitted two houses to donate to families in need.
People exist in their circumstances, but they're not defined by them. How you react to those circumstances speaks to your character, not that you exist in them.
Or my former coworker who let his gardening hobby get out of hand... to donate to families in need.
The implicit level of privilege here should not go unacknowledged. It's a hint at the full story. That's a fundamental part of the problem regardless of how the individual feels about it or reacts.
Perhaps more importantly these are extremely niche/cherry-picked versions of succeeding. In USA it almost always means the same evil bullshit.
You're not wrong, the guy did have a lot of privilege in his life. He's well educated, has a demeanor people trust and enough money to have a backyard garden in a house in a not ideal part of town. He opted to use that privilege to get his neighbors to join their backyards together to have a community garden, and then used a city/state program to use their pooled money to buy an empty lot and an unoccupied house to finish the block. Instead of selling the house for profit, they opted to give it to someone in need.
I'm not sure what full story you're looking for. Dudes a community college astronomy professor who spent some time maintaining billing software.
My point isn't "oh my God, everyone in the US is a saint!” it's that the notion that "because the US has fundamental structural problems, anyone who isn't a miserable failure is inherently evil" is just profoundly misguided.
Either your definition of success is setup such that it says more about you than other people, or you just fundamentally haven't encountered many people.
What's your definition of "success"? How many Americans do you think are engaged in "evil bullshit"?
How you react to those circumstances speaks for your character
Being able to ignore the bigger picture because you can change your own privileged surroundings IS the problematic reaction that speaks for your character
Gotcha, so doing good where you can makes you evil unless you're mired in torment over things beyond your control? By that metric everyone in the world is evil.
I can't fathom an ethical system that requires you to be unhappy about things beyond your control once you've done the good that you can.
What constitutes "good character" to you? What constitutes "success"?
Yes it is called empathy, it's nothing you can buy yourself out of by doing good things. If you are somehow interested in the well being of the people it just doesn't magically disappear after helping some of them. It doesn't make you evil but it's certainly not a good sign to weigh these things against each other. The ability to feel good while seeing the world suffer seems to me problematic.
Gotcha. So when was the last time you were happy? I take it you simply do not do things you enjoy?
And when did I say anything even remotely like not feeling empathy for suffering, or that caring for people disappears after doing a good deed? Empathy isn't an ethical system.
I'm actually curious what behavior you think would be non-problematic, and if any human actually does that.
And for the protocol, i don't give a shit about that incel bullshit, I just hate people that try to make complex problems look simple because of their particular privileged situation
Ah yes avoid being dragged down by choosing somebody who just drags other people down but not you. So they have a shitty character in general but behave differently toward you. Never heard that this went wrong.
I'm really sorry for this view on yourself. I don't know how to change this since the default variants that I have been told didn't work out for me either but I am really sure that prioritizing somebody else over yourself or as you said protecting somebody from getting cursed with one self is one of the most harmful ways to see things. It makes it a lot harder to come close to somebody since you are framing the avoidance as something helpful for them
They don't exist. If women get into pepe lore or WW2 they grow male genitalia. It's not well documented but it happens quite a lot. The body starts producing massive amounts of testosterone and the stress ages and disfigures the women and also effects their memory. Most of the male incels on 4chan are former super models who got exposed to pepe lore or WW2.
"That's a suspiciously long reply about how Hitler could have succeeded with dates and sub plans. This is all hypothetical right. Just a thought experiment?"
most women i know are more attracted to a character or intelligence than anything else. i know a couple more "stereotypical" women as well. like one girl which disagreed a potential boyfriend just because he is driving a small car. and i can see a big correlation with their background/upbringing
It's usually “how to succeed in life” intelligence, not “realization of abstract k-skeletons as k-skeletons of intersections of convex polyhedra in R^2k−1 in life” intelligence if that doesn't make you money.
Oh, I am highly attracted to certain kinds of intelligence in women, but (a) I think I have acquired this over my post-teenage life, and (b) I still very much need that intelligence to be in a body I also find attractive. We are all victims of our evolution and cultural messaging, to varying extents.
Instincts. Supposedly we look for the healthiest partner, and beauty is a symbol of health.
Then again, some of us have been burnt and I no longer trust beautiful women, I prefer partner who's easy to get along with/talk with and isn't just using me.
I'm sorry. Sounds like you've had some shitty experiences. I have, too, so maybe I get it at least somewhat (based on this very short description), but my experiences aren't yours, and it sucks. It changes you and can fuck up future relationships and happiness if the aftermath doesn't go well. Hoping you have found a better path toward happiness.
I'm sure I agree but your comment suggests you could summarise what else you think should be factored into the measure of success, and now I'm curious to hear it
You have already failed. Success is not measured in wealth.
If you are having a good time with friends/family around a fire pit with a total cost of £0. You are succeeding more than the richest man on earth who can't get anyone to genuinely like him.
Sure I guess, but its not like it has to be difficult to pay for all that stuff.
Living I'm south east UK and even at minimum wage its pretty easy to cover essentials. If you think spending more on things you don't need will make you happier, that might be where you are going wrong.
The first time I felt like life was alright was after leaving school and moving out. Despite on paper being vastly below the poverty line. It didn't feel like it, I could afford rent and food, didn't really know what else to spend my money on. GTX1060 isn't something you need to buy many of.
Main thing to reduce living costs is just share a house with other people. Our rooms still had their own locks so its not like anyone could go through my stuff.
Minimum wage is much lower for apprenticeships, plus I was only working 11-5. Once I completed the apprenticeship I started earning regular minimum wage. Saved most of the difference for a house deposit.
I didn't say I did nothing, just that I didn't spend much money after essentials are covered. Tbh, still don't.
After work go to the beach, drink a can of cider, cook up some hotdogs for dinner and have a swim - it costs me under £1.
Been going out fruit picking lately, mostly plums, apples and blackberries. That costs £0 to do and you end up with delicious food out of it. Or lately, been making wines from some of them which was a small one time cost for some bottles.
Gardening and allotment, £50 a YEAR rent for the allotment and get a pretty big space from it. Still a WIP as I am new to that but I get to chat with people there along with grow my own fruit/veg. Before that I just had my small garden which I use to grow herbs.
If this is just "existing", I feel like I would question who is the one that's brainwashed.
That's great!, when your done patting yourself on the back and thinking only about your own situation. You might want to consider 80-90% of the rest of the world's population where those safety nets DON'T exist...
Hey, don't insult anon's inceligence! I bet he also has a finely a finely curated selection of k-on anime figures and essays on why wimminz should submit to men like him, which they would totally understand and fawn over him if they had galaxy brains like he has!
If “succeed in life” means significant intergenerational wealth to achieve a strong head start, great genetics for height and facial symmetry, and strong black triad traits, then sure. Let’s convert the word “luck” to “intelligence”, regardless of how bad that fit may be.
I mean, there are exceptions among women. But the correct term is called “outliers” for a damn good reason.
Sounds like you might be buying into the black pill Incel propaganda they were talking about. Pretty much all my smart friends who ended up being fairly successful (at least middle class) ended up being snatched out of the dating pool fairly quickly, before they ended up making anything of themselves.
I think ambitious and emotionally intelligent people often end up pairing in long term relationships and removing themselves from the dating scene fairly early in life. So people who are less emotionally developed/available are left thinking the other sex is to blame.
Plus, I think if we are going to be judging the sexes for being shallow, I would say a lot more women are okay with being with men less attractive to themselves than vice versa.
Nobody is attracted to intelligence. Don't say you are because you aren't. You're attracted to the body. And whoever you're with is attracted to your body. That's romantic love. If you're upset that people don't love you for your brain, you suffer from body dysmorphia.
For sexual people, it's about the body and the problem with Internet nerds is that they're hyperintelligent and hypernegative and think their bodies suck and want people to be sexually attracted to their brains. But their bodies don't suck, and they're not physically ugly.
I can guarantee you every guy here who's moping about being lonely has dozens of women masturbating to the thought of them every night. And their not masturbating to thought of them programming in C++.
If that was even remotely true then the entire idea of seduction wouldn’t exist. Convincing someone who didn’t want to sleep with you to sleep with you wouldn’t be a fucking thing, you absolute moron.
Jesus Christ! Friendly fuck, ainch ya. This proves my point about the hypernegativity. I'm telling everyone here, they're good lookcking, and the response is I'm fucking moron. Damn.
To address what you're saying about seduction: You can't sell a bald man a comb. A woman isn't going to be romantically involved with you if she doesn't want to. You have a spooky level of cynicism regarding this.
Look at your responses and your downvotes. Obviously nobody agrees with you. If you weren’t a moron you’d maybe look at this as an opportunity for self reflection and growth.
Er, no. No, this is just not how humans work. Even if we take love out of the equation and talk only about lust, that can be triggered by all sorts of things and a person's physical shape is only one of them. A particular look, the way a person smells, how they carry themselves, their voice, their charm, their laugh, and a thousand and one other things can be the thing that makes you want to jump someone's bones.
Oh man, I am so sorry I told everyone here that they're physically attractive. Okay. You win. I'm insane. You're right. You're all ugly monsters who will never find love.
You're not even trying to understand why everyone disagrees with you. In fact, you're refusing to even acknowledge that you could be mistaken in your premise that people aren't attracted to intelligence, and instead lash out.
That is why you need therapy.
You’re not even trying to understand why everyone disagrees with you.
That's fine. They're not even trying to understand what I was saying.
In fact, you’re refusing to even acknowledge that you could be mistaken in your premise that people aren’t attracted to intelligence, and instead lash out. That is why you need therapy.
Are you being serious? Or just attacking me like the other person? Because I'm pretty sure if I go to a therapist and I show them these exchanges, they're not going to say that I'm the one who needs therapy.
You unilaterally claimed that nobody is attracted to intelligence, that everyone is just pretending and they're really only attracted to physical appearance. Even as hyperbole, that is a wildly unhealthy thing to believe, and you absolutely called yourself out.
You unilaterally claimed that nobody is attracted to intelligence, that everyone is just pretending and they’re really only attracted to physical appearance. Even as hyperbole, that is a wildly unhealthy thing to believe, and you absolutely called yourself out.
What's wildly unhealthy is loving the person you're fucking in the same way you love your mother and sister and grandma. I'm not the one calling myself out.
everyone except me is hiding the truth about what they really feel, but I know the truth!
That's the position you're going to double down on, in the face of everyone correcting you? No, the therapist won't think you're crazy at all.
You think you've found a gotcha, but you're still just outing yourself. You think that a romantic relationship involves a single type of attraction, and that a single type of attraction affects sexual arousal? If I believed you capable of long term romantic relationships, I'd pity your spouse.
If you're a cis hetero male looking for a cis hetero woman like the person in the OP meme, and you're looking to attract blind demisexuals, then you're not going to be asking why women aren't attracted to intelligence in the first place.
I'm being pragmatic and you're all throwing spherical cows at me.
I have literally never wanted to fuck someone that I couldn't have an intelligent conversation with, because, like, what would we even talk about. Can I recognize that I am physically attracted to someone and I find them fuckable? Yes, obviously. But, would I? just because of that physical attraction? No. Just, why? Again, what would we talk about?
Would I marry someone who I found really invigorating and intellectually fulfilling even if I'm not necessarily physically attracted to initially or in the traditional sense and then learn to love their bodies and get really into it? Yes, absolutely.
Human attraction isn't some weird binary thing and it //certainly// isn't solely physical.
I have literally never wanted to fuck someone that I couldn’t have an intelligent conversation with, because, like, what would we even talk about.
Sweet is more important than smart, and you just talk about dumb things. Instead of talking about Schroedinger's Cat and how the thought experiment illustrated problems with the Copenhagen Interpretation, you talk about real cats and how cute they are.
Would I marry someone who I found really invigorating and intellectually fulfilling even if I’m not necessarily physically attracted to initially or in the traditional sense and then learn to love their bodies and get really into it? Yes, absolutely.
You're over thinking it. You're not "learning to love their bodies", you're just growing warm for their form.
You guys are talking yourselves out of some great relationships and breaking hearts and not even know it.
We're on the Internet so you're probably in the majority. But the vast majority of people marry someone they want to fuck. Sure, the mind and spirit is part of it, but I love the mind and spirit of my cat but I don't want to marry her.
I'm pretty sure the OP meme is about a heterosexual dude, so these replies are nitpicking and forcing the conversation to be about something tangentially related.
What I'm talking about are hyperintelligent heterosexual nerds who suffer from body dysmorphia and who try to impress women with how insanely smart they are. Women don't care about your brain. No matter how physically ugly you think you are, you're not. There are literally a million women on this planet who find you attractive and you will make their pussies sopping wet when they see you.
171 replies
Also, this is just plain wrong.
Some women are attracted to intellectual minds.
Some women are attracted to physical strength, some women are attracted to maternal instincts, so on and so forth.
The problem is this question is usually being asked by someone who thinks that responding to every factual statement with an inflammatory counterpoint qualifies as intelligence.
A greentext that's wrong? Highly unlikely.
Allow me to make an inflammatory counterpoint to demonstrate my intelligence: this text isn't green YOU BUFFOON!
Got em
😰
Not on this Internet!
We need a new internet
Is it still under warranty?
Ah, damn, we might have to ask the US military...
or worse...
T H E F R E N C H
It would be like claiming it contained misleading statements and was not heteronormative.
wrong and homosexual, as per usual
Chance in a million!
Now I don't know if that means it has to happen (if it's exactly 1000000:1, according to Pratchett) or if the front fell off.
Well, I was thinking more about the other ones.
The weird definition of intelligence they are using (how to succeed in life) does kind of cover that. The definition of what success is, and the millions of ways of achieving it covers just about all variations.
From what I've observed, intelligence doesn't count for much when it comes to "success in life", whatever that might be.
True, in today's times much higher chance of success is having wealthy parents and not having problem exploiting other people, but it wasn't always like that.
Though given that it is 4chan, I agree with responder that OP mixes incelligence with intelligence. I'm not convinced that sitting on a forum full of memes and Nazi ideology is something that an intelligent person would be interested in.
Incelligence is a heck of a term.
Should be word of the decade.
!brandnewsentence or however to link a community
Kinda bordering a strawman here, but if I said
there would be bunch of dudes saying they are into intelligent women, and that it's just hollywood.
(Sidenote props to the artist for drawing all those people one by one)
Zach is like Randall Munroe for people who prefer eyes to not be attached to heads 🤩
Men are attracted to the "airhead type" because those women are good at making men feel good about themselves and keeping up lively conversation; and though people usually prioritise companions who have the same interests as them, they enjoy talking also to a lively conversation partner, perhaps someone as-different-from-themselves as possible: someone who surprises them.
Many men feel that all women have the "airhead" quality - no, not as in they're all stupid, but as in they're lively and conversational in that stereotypical way that disrupts the man-to-man conversation; and though they do not speak to men as equals (preferring to talk over them or jerk the conversation off on some other tangent, perhaps, or dwell on uniquely feminine topics which baffle/disinterest the male listener), this is seen as no big loss, really. For women are different to men, and their presence in our lives is welcome precisely because of that rather than in spite of it.
The important thing to remember is that people change overtime and every person is more multifaceted than massive media would have us believe - so yes, that is "just Hollywood." Who's to say why a man likes an "airhead," she probably has more depth to her than you know about.
Edited to change one comma into a colon, and formalise grammar in final sentence
At least OP said women and not "females".
Rrrreallly setting the bar high, are we?
Weaponised schizophrenia
So success in life means actual intelligence? I disagree with that.
Success ≠ actual intelligence.
Plenty of very successful people who are complete morons.
Women are attracted to success, regardless of actual intelligence.
And of course this is a generalization. Women are not a monolith.
It's more that intelligence implies success rather than success implies intelligence.
Actual intelligence boosts chances for success, but it is not required for success.
The way the world is going, intelligence is playing less and less of a factor. You're either born into it, or you're a wage slave struggling for life.
Guess that depends on where you are. Many places in the world have very high social mobility along with solid welfare and pension systems.
Maybe somewhat less that 40 years ago, but certainly much better than the last thousand years overall.
Intelligence is working out that you don't have to struggle. UK example, don't move to London "for the jobs" if you are only finding minimum wage work.
Success looks different for different groups of people, unfortunately. A slave could be considered more successful than another, while remaining a slave.
Intelligence is actually slightly negatively correlated with success by a lot of metrics (earnings, years of life, health) and the best predictors are general big 5 attributes like openness to experience, low neuroticism, high conscientiousness (hard working), and extraversion. Those characteristics are way better predictors of life success.
Do you have any references for this? As far as I know the literature, the debate about "what matters more" is still ongoing with some research arguing in favor of personality and other research in favor of cognitive ability. Regardless of this, the relationship between cognitive ability and various life outcomes seems to be consistently positive, and I am not aware of any convincing evidence to the contrary.
I guess I was referencing the original 2016 study by Borghans, Golsteyn, Heckman & Humphries that's since been replicated and refuted. You're right that it's not settled academically right now so we don't know for sure.
Yeah, surely, if you define working hard as just receiving your father's or grandfather's wealth (or at least, part of it) as your inheritance.
When you actually look down at this rabbit hole, you find that the entire premise where these supposedly "predictors" rely, the meritocracy, is actually just a scam, maybe the biggest one. Because social movility is totally broken because prices, rents and taxes are going crazily up while salaries are dropping dramatically, and meanwhile some fucking bank takes your money as a monetary rescue for a fucking son of a bitch billionaire which movement caused an economic catastrophe.
Yeah, I took it more as analysing and adjusting to one's current situation, as opposed to going conspiracy nut.
Neither magic crystals nor PUA courses are what someone struggling to budget 2000$ for candles needs
What is success? Being surrounded by people you love and trust? Living life without regret? Sitting on hoards and hoards of money? Planting an endangered tree?
It's just correct enough for the tiny quipy descriptor to get to the real takedown after.
Also this is 4chan, grade on a curve.
Yeah, I'd say humor is the better indicator. It boils down to the ability to connect ideas in creative ways, as well as keeping a longer context window in conversations
It's not a direct 1:1, but what is intelligence really? There's many types, and they're all a combination of domains
That's actually a pseudoscientific neuromyth¹²³⁴⁵⁶⁷.
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
That's not what I was referring to. Intelligence is basically a combination of working memory, recall, cognition, and metacognition
The combination of these domains together produce the foundation for the "types" of intelligence, which might be more accurately described as abilities
Humor demonstrates these qualities socially. It's not a direct relationship, more like a demonstration. Like how dancing demonstrates physical ability, humor demonstrates the factors underlying intelligence
(But you could also just be a good or bad dancer)
Speaking of juicy mammoths, who's the lady in the picture?
Asking the important questions.
Some thirst trap which is ironic since she's holding a drink
iidazsofia
Probably what he considers his bottom in terms of women he'd date.
Why are dudes like this.
Women are individuals who’s preferences differ from person to person. But forget all that for a second. Women are just not attracted to men who are DUMPY RUDE ASSHOLES. NOBODY IS. These dudes make so many excuses to not work on themselves.
Dudes are individuals whose personalities differ from person to person.
I'm guessing that was the joke
I always assumed "dude" is gender-neutral word. We even have a saying "dūdiņa" in my language which is like sweet-talking "dude" word meant towards women.
It depends on context. It gets used gender neutral sometimes, but it also gets used as a masculine descriptor too.
women are people with choices
they make different choices
Impossible. If women had choices, then they'd have a diversity of off-spring with a wide spectrum of forms, traits, and behaviors.
We know that can't be the case, because all men are identical and perfectly interchangeable, except for a tiny variance in peak performance which they use to sort themselves from Sigma to Omega for the purpose of obtaining Da Big Sequesy to produce more Sigma clones.
😭😭😭
Dude lamenting women not being attracted to intelligence checks out as he use a picture that clearly focuses on a woman's intelligence.
The intelligence is stored in the boobs.
I mean, that's a fun take but realistically there are plenty of women who put a lot more stock in looks (just as men do) an immediate financial ability.
That jock who got a job that's physically demanding might be making more out of high school, but the IT nerd who went for they education and got a good tech job was likely on a slower burn path to self-improvement with better pay, possibly improving looks over time (or at least less of a beer belly). At least before AI started killing the tech sector again, so maybe the jocks will be coming out ahead for awhile.
Also, there's also nothing wrong with being a good dude with average intelligence who works hard. Just don't pick an red-hatred idiot. And intelligent nerds who don't learn social skills can absolutely still become nasty incels.
I wouldn't put too much stock into the jock versus nerd stereotypes.
Life isn't an RPG with stats that come at the cost of other stats. Being bad at sports doesn't make someone more likely to be good at school (if anything, the correlation might run the other way). And charisma, ambition, intelligence, physical appearance, athleticism, work ethic, are all distinct factors that sometimes feedback on each other, and feed into things like wealth, happiness, attractiveness, etc.
Life isn't an RPG, but there has definitely been a push by certain groups to value looks and strength or martial prowess over intelligence and education, particularly in North American culture. Yeah, somebody can be an athlete without being dumb, and as another person pointed out there actually a lot of high-speed decision-making that requires intelligence to pro-sports.
At the same time, there are people who very much lean towards looking buff, tough, but not too bright as they categorize intellectuals as losers or socially unwanted. Similarly, there are girls or women who will emphasize their looks and actively hide their intelligence. Il This over time leads to a willful ignorance that IMO is worse than simply being of lower IQ or lacking education.
I'm not aware of any culture in which hiding one's strengths is a common response to one's own surroundings. Placing value on a particular characteristic does not imply that a completely unrelated characteristic is undesirable. Plenty of beautiful smart people out there, and even in a society where beauty is prized above all else, why would someone beautiful hide their intelligence?
For whatever it's worth, in my circles (urban white collar millennial professionals in dense cities), most people are both athletic and intelligent. There are plenty of finance bros and tech bros who have Ivy League degrees (sometimes Ph.D.s, M.D.s, J.D.s) that represent real academic achievement and can also turn around and dominate on a basketball court or in a fighting gym. Lots of smart people like gyms, whether we're talking resistance training, Olympic lifting, CrossFit/Hyrox, endurance cardio sports like marathon running or biking, winter sports like skiing, etc.
That's also consistent with what I saw in my high school. Most of the top students headed towards Ivy League or similar caliber schools were also athletes who were very good at a competitive sport for the school. The "nerd"/"jock" dichotomy we expected from John Hughes movies never really materialized, and the popular kids tended to be people who were both good at school and good at sports.
And yet where do you think the demographic that voted for the guy that shits his pants and falls asleep comes from exactly, and moreover continues to double-down on supporting him even to their own detriment? How about the people who modify their trucks to spread black smoke just to "own those pissy hybrid drivers and cyclists"?
The continued attempts to enumerate activities that would have fit on Jackass (and likely watched the same on repeat).
Never knew a pretty girl in school who got good grades but hid then and played dumb?
There's plenty of people who embrace an absurdist mentality and openly reject anything that requires actively using one's brain.
I think they're old, fat, unathletic, and unattractive.
I know Trump voters. For the minority who are actually young, they're much more likely to be loser incels who are both bad at sports and didn't get a college degree (much less post graduate educations). It's aggrieved losers trying to make sense of the world, who are generally unattractive on most metrics: poor, unhealthy, unathletic, not very smart.
It's like looking at people who work in the trades. Plumbers and welders and carpenters. They tend to be in worse physical shape than, like, lawyers and doctors, who obviously have better intellectual and academic credentials.
So if you're surrounded by losers, I'm just gonna ask that you stop being impressed with them.
"Just don't pick an red-hatred idiot" took me a sec to parse.
It's a typo but the intended group still fits! Love it.
Yeah I meant to your red-hatted but hatred seems to come with that package too so...
Women like beer bellies, and big forearms.
Everything men hate, women like.
The thing there is that when people say "people are attracted to intelligence" the intelligence people think of is different than the type people are generally attracted to.
Highly analytical intelligence is a type of intelligence. So is the ability to make correct choices in a variety of situations.
Almost every athletic endeavor entails being able to assess situations quickly and accurately, and know how to respond. Team sports require group coordination, training and predicting teammates behavior.
That's intelligence, but it's often considered a lesser sort than the analytical sort.
It's why people see the people doing work that requires the type of less prestigious intelligence as less intelligent, and see people being drawn to them as proof that people aren't really drawn to intelligence.
To be blunt: it doesn't matter how strong you are if can't read or get confused by the garage door opener every day.
It's the same as saying that people aren't attracted to appearance because plenty of people are drawn to normal attractiveness people.
That's actually a good point about sports intelligence. Pro athletes likely have a certain almost instinctual grasp of certain physics even if they aren't running the actual numbers in their heads.
You can take away the qualifiers. :) and it's not instinctual, just practiced.
The notion that athletics doesn't require intelligence draws away from the understanding of exactly how much practice it takes to hone the skills to that level.
And, for a fun reference, the typical NFL player has significantly more traditional education than the average person.
Ah yes, how to succeed in life in a fundamentally broken society that values exploitation over everything else. Couldn't think of a better metric for choosing a partner.
Ffs, you were so quick with the snarky remark that you dont even understand that suceeding in life means a lot of different things to a lot of diferent People.
The definition you gave is your own and for me it reveals a skweded perspective of what means sucess, adaptation or intelligence.
Fair point :D but succeeding in life without succeeding in society is pretty difficult since as you said it means a lot of different things for different people but is still one of the biggest influence on their situation
Yes, it is. Someone who can do well in society and their lives while being generally good to those around them is often considered a good catch.
Thinking that anyone who succeeds in life in our society must be one of the like, less than 10% who are ghouls is odd.
Beeing generally happy and doing well while simultaneously profiting from a society that is build on genocide, exploitation of natural resources and imperialism is such a twisted concept. Even if not part of the 10%.
Gotcha. So would you rank yourself as mostly unhappy, destitute and unwell?
Can you think of anyone in our society who's doing alright within the confines of a broken system, or do you think that everyone's existence is inseperable from the context of that existence, even if the means of changing it or it's impact are outside of their reach? Somewhere in the middle?
I met a guy who helps manage a homeless shelter and food bank. Stand-up guy. Makes ends meet, is doing what he can where he can. Generally happy guy with a family. Pretty twisted right? Or my former coworker who let his gardening hobby get out of hand and ended up running a community garden that retrofitted two houses to donate to families in need.
People exist in their circumstances, but they're not defined by them. How you react to those circumstances speaks to your character, not that you exist in them.
The implicit level of privilege here should not go unacknowledged. It's a hint at the full story. That's a fundamental part of the problem regardless of how the individual feels about it or reacts.
Perhaps more importantly these are extremely niche/cherry-picked versions of succeeding. In USA it almost always means the same evil bullshit.
You're not wrong, the guy did have a lot of privilege in his life. He's well educated, has a demeanor people trust and enough money to have a backyard garden in a house in a not ideal part of town. He opted to use that privilege to get his neighbors to join their backyards together to have a community garden, and then used a city/state program to use their pooled money to buy an empty lot and an unoccupied house to finish the block. Instead of selling the house for profit, they opted to give it to someone in need.
I'm not sure what full story you're looking for. Dudes a community college astronomy professor who spent some time maintaining billing software.
My point isn't "oh my God, everyone in the US is a saint!” it's that the notion that "because the US has fundamental structural problems, anyone who isn't a miserable failure is inherently evil" is just profoundly misguided.
Either your definition of success is setup such that it says more about you than other people, or you just fundamentally haven't encountered many people.
What's your definition of "success"? How many Americans do you think are engaged in "evil bullshit"?
Being able to ignore the bigger picture because you can change your own privileged surroundings IS the problematic reaction that speaks for your character
Gotcha, so doing good where you can makes you evil unless you're mired in torment over things beyond your control? By that metric everyone in the world is evil.
I can't fathom an ethical system that requires you to be unhappy about things beyond your control once you've done the good that you can.
What constitutes "good character" to you? What constitutes "success"?
Yes it is called empathy, it's nothing you can buy yourself out of by doing good things. If you are somehow interested in the well being of the people it just doesn't magically disappear after helping some of them. It doesn't make you evil but it's certainly not a good sign to weigh these things against each other. The ability to feel good while seeing the world suffer seems to me problematic.
Gotcha. So when was the last time you were happy? I take it you simply do not do things you enjoy?
And when did I say anything even remotely like not feeling empathy for suffering, or that caring for people disappears after doing a good deed? Empathy isn't an ethical system.
I'm actually curious what behavior you think would be non-problematic, and if any human actually does that.
And for the protocol, i don't give a shit about that incel bullshit, I just hate people that try to make complex problems look simple because of their particular privileged situation
If you love your wife and you are broke, you won't make her your wife.
They are just avoiding selfish people who will drag them down.
Ah yes avoid being dragged down by choosing somebody who just drags other people down but not you. So they have a shitty character in general but behave differently toward you. Never heard that this went wrong.
I was reffering to myself, I am a man. I will not be cursing anyone else with myself.
I'm really sorry for this view on yourself. I don't know how to change this since the default variants that I have been told didn't work out for me either but I am really sure that prioritizing somebody else over yourself or as you said protecting somebody from getting cursed with one self is one of the most harmful ways to see things. It makes it a lot harder to come close to somebody since you are framing the avoidance as something helpful for them
User name checks out
What about the women that is into pepe lore or WW2 theory?
I cant decide if there's more or less of them than the ones that's into 4chan incels?
They are irrelevant, because they are both Fake and Gay
Can confirm: am a woman named Gayle "Gay" Fake who can't get enough cartoon frog facts and FDR/Göring slash fiction.
This is true, i am the FDR
Hey there, handsome!
FDR foot fetish
They don't exist. If women get into pepe lore or WW2 they grow male genitalia. It's not well documented but it happens quite a lot. The body starts producing massive amounts of testosterone and the stress ages and disfigures the women and also effects their memory. Most of the male incels on 4chan are former super models who got exposed to pepe lore or WW2.
Taking a wild guess: I feel like there may be a few more women into history than sexism.
Hey... my Pepe folder has been collected and curated carefully for decades
"That's a suspiciously long reply about how Hitler could have succeeded with dates and sub plans. This is all hypothetical right. Just a thought experiment?"
If you can give kindness to strangers: you are successful
most women i know are more attracted to a character or intelligence than anything else. i know a couple more "stereotypical" women as well. like one girl which disagreed a potential boyfriend just because he is driving a small car. and i can see a big correlation with their background/upbringing
It's usually “how to succeed in life” intelligence, not “realization of abstract k-skeletons as k-skeletons of intersections of convex polyhedra in R^2k−1 in life” intelligence if that doesn't make you money.
If you can't show off your rare pepe collection then what's the point?
Right in the ouchies.
Metacognition, hot
Cognition, not
Thinking about thinking is just brain masturbation, which is the pinnacle of homosexuality.
Being a homosexual, I know that thinking about thinking/brain masturbation is unfortunately universal, thus simply the pinnacle of being a cunt.
It might just maybe be similar to why men are also not attracted to intelligence.
Speak for yourself!
Oh, I am highly attracted to certain kinds of intelligence in women, but (a) I think I have acquired this over my post-teenage life, and (b) I still very much need that intelligence to be in a body I also find attractive. We are all victims of our evolution and cultural messaging, to varying extents.
Instincts. Supposedly we look for the healthiest partner, and beauty is a symbol of health.
Then again, some of us have been burnt and I no longer trust beautiful women, I prefer partner who's easy to get along with/talk with and isn't just using me.
I'm sorry. Sounds like you've had some shitty experiences. I have, too, so maybe I get it at least somewhat (based on this very short description), but my experiences aren't yours, and it sucks. It changes you and can fuck up future relationships and happiness if the aftermath doesn't go well. Hoping you have found a better path toward happiness.
I feel attacked
Incidentally it's true. Granted I'm asexual but I'm only attracted to intelligence.
I've heard that people try to marry their parents... or people like them rather.
I see some truth in that sometimes
And how do you succeed in life? Step 1 is to have rich parents. The term commonly used for those seeking out people from rich families is gold digger.
If your only measure of success is wealth, that's kind of sad.
It's not, but anyone that tells you wealth doesn't matter, is either lying or trying to sell you something also.
I'm sure I agree but your comment suggests you could summarise what else you think should be factored into the measure of success, and now I'm curious to hear it
You have already failed. Success is not measured in wealth.
If you are having a good time with friends/family around a fire pit with a total cost of £0. You are succeeding more than the richest man on earth who can't get anyone to genuinely like him.
But enough about Elon Musk.
It's possible both scenarios included Elon Musk.
I don't think he has friends
I was more thinking he could be in the fire.
For those three hours, then they have to pay rent, buy food, pay bills. And try to survive, which wealth makes immensely easier.
Sure I guess, but its not like it has to be difficult to pay for all that stuff.
Living I'm south east UK and even at minimum wage its pretty easy to cover essentials. If you think spending more on things you don't need will make you happier, that might be where you are going wrong.
The first time I felt like life was alright was after leaving school and moving out. Despite on paper being vastly below the poverty line. It didn't feel like it, I could afford rent and food, didn't really know what else to spend my money on. GTX1060 isn't something you need to buy many of.
Main thing to reduce living costs is just share a house with other people. Our rooms still had their own locks so its not like anyone could go through my stuff.
That is existing NOT living. your wife going to live in that "room"? Kids? Anything resembling a vacation? Ever being able to go out?
Damn you're brain washed.
And that's in a country with free health care and decent minimum wage and social support. That shit don't work outside UK/EU countries.
Minimum wage is much lower for apprenticeships, plus I was only working 11-5. Once I completed the apprenticeship I started earning regular minimum wage. Saved most of the difference for a house deposit.
I didn't say I did nothing, just that I didn't spend much money after essentials are covered. Tbh, still don't.
After work go to the beach, drink a can of cider, cook up some hotdogs for dinner and have a swim - it costs me under £1.
Been going out fruit picking lately, mostly plums, apples and blackberries. That costs £0 to do and you end up with delicious food out of it. Or lately, been making wines from some of them which was a small one time cost for some bottles.
Gardening and allotment, £50 a YEAR rent for the allotment and get a pretty big space from it. Still a WIP as I am new to that but I get to chat with people there along with grow my own fruit/veg. Before that I just had my small garden which I use to grow herbs.
If this is just "existing", I feel like I would question who is the one that's brainwashed.
That's great!, when your done patting yourself on the back and thinking only about your own situation. You might want to consider 80-90% of the rest of the world's population where those safety nets DON'T exist...
So using the same logic I can dismiss the problems of Americans because of Sudan?
That would probably be labeled as incelligence by the replier in the OP.
It would not be.
"Success in life" is like knowing how to cook, or being able to get along well with other people.
If your only measure of success is wealth, that's kind of sad.
Wealth for wealth's sake, possibly, but i'm not gonna start throwing shade at someone else's life goals.
Wealth is , however, a good baseline to build upon to achieve other metrics, up to a point at least.
Hey, don't insult anon's inceligence! I bet he also has a finely a finely curated selection of k-on anime figures and essays on why wimminz should submit to men like him, which they would totally understand and fawn over him if they had galaxy brains like he has!
See also: emotional intelligence
https://youtu.be/TFfWqSI_aJQ
Obligatory.
Lmfao.
LMBO Some say he's still in the burn unit to this day
If “succeed in life” means significant intergenerational wealth to achieve a strong head start, great genetics for height and facial symmetry, and strong black triad traits, then sure. Let’s convert the word “luck” to “intelligence”, regardless of how bad that fit may be.
I mean, there are exceptions among women. But the correct term is called “outliers” for a damn good reason.
Sounds like you might be buying into the black pill Incel propaganda they were talking about. Pretty much all my smart friends who ended up being fairly successful (at least middle class) ended up being snatched out of the dating pool fairly quickly, before they ended up making anything of themselves.
I think ambitious and emotionally intelligent people often end up pairing in long term relationships and removing themselves from the dating scene fairly early in life. So people who are less emotionally developed/available are left thinking the other sex is to blame.
Plus, I think if we are going to be judging the sexes for being shallow, I would say a lot more women are okay with being with men less attractive to themselves than vice versa.
Nobody is attracted to intelligence. Don't say you are because you aren't. You're attracted to the body. And whoever you're with is attracted to your body. That's romantic love. If you're upset that people don't love you for your brain, you suffer from body dysmorphia.
i'm asexual-ish but not sex repulsed. i don't care for the body, i care deeply about the mind
For sexual people, it's about the body and the problem with Internet nerds is that they're hyperintelligent and hypernegative and think their bodies suck and want people to be sexually attracted to their brains. But their bodies don't suck, and they're not physically ugly.
I can guarantee you every guy here who's moping about being lonely has dozens of women masturbating to the thought of them every night. And their not masturbating to thought of them programming in C++.
If that was even remotely true then the entire idea of seduction wouldn’t exist. Convincing someone who didn’t want to sleep with you to sleep with you wouldn’t be a fucking thing, you absolute moron.
Jesus Christ! Friendly fuck, ainch ya. This proves my point about the hypernegativity. I'm telling everyone here, they're good lookcking, and the response is I'm fucking moron. Damn.
To address what you're saying about seduction: You can't sell a bald man a comb. A woman isn't going to be romantically involved with you if she doesn't want to. You have a spooky level of cynicism regarding this.
Look at your responses and your downvotes. Obviously nobody agrees with you. If you weren’t a moron you’d maybe look at this as an opportunity for self reflection and growth.
It all goes to prove the OP meme's point. You're all too god damn smart.
Er, no. No, this is just not how humans work. Even if we take love out of the equation and talk only about lust, that can be triggered by all sorts of things and a person's physical shape is only one of them. A particular look, the way a person smells, how they carry themselves, their voice, their charm, their laugh, and a thousand and one other things can be the thing that makes you want to jump someone's bones.
You could just go to therapy instead of advertising your mental issues publicly.
Oh man, I am so sorry I told everyone here that they're physically attractive. Okay. You win. I'm insane. You're right. You're all ugly monsters who will never find love.
You're not even trying to understand why everyone disagrees with you. In fact, you're refusing to even acknowledge that you could be mistaken in your premise that people aren't attracted to intelligence, and instead lash out.
That is why you need therapy.
That's fine. They're not even trying to understand what I was saying.
Are you being serious? Or just attacking me like the other person? Because I'm pretty sure if I go to a therapist and I show them these exchanges, they're not going to say that I'm the one who needs therapy.
No, they will.
You unilaterally claimed that nobody is attracted to intelligence, that everyone is just pretending and they're really only attracted to physical appearance. Even as hyperbole, that is a wildly unhealthy thing to believe, and you absolutely called yourself out.
No they won't.
What's wildly unhealthy is loving the person you're fucking in the same way you love your mother and sister and grandma. I'm not the one calling myself out.
That's the position you're going to double down on, in the face of everyone correcting you? No, the therapist won't think you're crazy at all.
You think you've found a gotcha, but you're still just outing yourself. You think that a romantic relationship involves a single type of attraction, and that a single type of attraction affects sexual arousal? If I believed you capable of long term romantic relationships, I'd pity your spouse.
What about blind people?
If you're a cis hetero male looking for a cis hetero woman like the person in the OP meme, and you're looking to attract blind demisexuals, then you're not going to be asking why women aren't attracted to intelligence in the first place.
I'm being pragmatic and you're all throwing spherical cows at me.
I have literally never wanted to fuck someone that I couldn't have an intelligent conversation with, because, like, what would we even talk about. Can I recognize that I am physically attracted to someone and I find them fuckable? Yes, obviously. But, would I? just because of that physical attraction? No. Just, why? Again, what would we talk about?
Would I marry someone who I found really invigorating and intellectually fulfilling even if I'm not necessarily physically attracted to initially or in the traditional sense and then learn to love their bodies and get really into it? Yes, absolutely.
Human attraction isn't some weird binary thing and it //certainly// isn't solely physical.
Sweet is more important than smart, and you just talk about dumb things. Instead of talking about Schroedinger's Cat and how the thought experiment illustrated problems with the Copenhagen Interpretation, you talk about real cats and how cute they are.
You're over thinking it. You're not "learning to love their bodies", you're just growing warm for their form.
You guys are talking yourselves out of some great relationships and breaking hearts and not even know it.
Am I the only husband that truly values and loves my wife's brain and mind and intelligence and spirit and soul and kindness more than just a body?
Bodies are fleeting. Fall in love with the person, not the flesh-mech-suit.
We're on the Internet so you're probably in the majority. But the vast majority of people marry someone they want to fuck. Sure, the mind and spirit is part of it, but I love the mind and spirit of my cat but I don't want to marry her.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demisexuality
I'm pretty sure the OP meme is about a heterosexual dude, so these replies are nitpicking and forcing the conversation to be about something tangentially related.
What I'm talking about are hyperintelligent heterosexual nerds who suffer from body dysmorphia and who try to impress women with how insanely smart they are. Women don't care about your brain. No matter how physically ugly you think you are, you're not. There are literally a million women on this planet who find you attractive and you will make their pussies sopping wet when they see you.