I tend to think that eventually you have to see "the whole person." Her being kind of stupid wouldn't be quite so bad if she weren't so sure she's smarter that the rest of us, but at some point that attitude is bad for even otherwise attractive people, and we 'see' them with other eyes.
I tend to think that eventually you have to see "the whole person." Her being kind of stupid wouldn't be quite so bad if she weren't so sure she's smarter that the rest of us, but at some point that attitude is bad for even otherwise attractive people, and we 'see' them with other eyes.
I think that when we're young, maybe even more when You're a Young _Dude_, the pool of partners find attractive enough to ... engage ... is pretty large. Factors such as alcohol, inexperience, and being a Total Horn Dog contribute.
But as we get older, even before we're geriatric but, having seen my mom in her Senior Living Community even then - especially then, when the stuff that really matters matters - what we find attractive in a potential ... engagement partner ... shrinks that pool based on a lot of factors.
Almost all of Those With Whom We'd Do It in the old days are no longer attractive because they fail "the whole person" test. Many or most miserably so. BUT... when you finally start figuring out what matters, it turns out that because we were young and dumb, some of those who we immaturely, unwisely excluded could very well be One With Whom We'd Do It. Like, the Best One For You With Whom To Do It. You love Who You Love.
I was certainly a young horn dog, but my mother once said I dated, and brought home to meet my family a wild assortment of young women (brunette, blond, redhead, tall, short skinny, fat, whatever) but they all had something in common. 1) Smart, in the truest sense. 2) good sense of humor. 3) Active, mentally and physically. 4) some sort of artistic or musical talent. She was totally right. I knew what I wanted in a "mate". I ended up married twice to two fine women who "fit my profile."
OTOH, I did rather a lot of experimentation when I wasn't "attached" to one of them. I'm serially monogamous. "Dumb" girls were just right out. As a colleague once said (We were 'older' single grad students at the time) when asked about what made women attractive, "Intelligence. You gotta talk to them sometime." Other than that, the smart ones are all good.
Haven't seen that movie, but whoever wrote that scene knew what they were talking about. OTOH, in real life I would fail to see how she is actually 'helping' the problem of male failure to commit. That is a social problem, not a biological one. Continue bashing males for being shallow and "unnecessary" and see what it will get you.
And I doubt if in that movie she's interested in a fat, ugly, smelly guy. Oddly enough, women can be shallow on a biologic base as well.
I went to a small HS -- 300 students -- and no one was ever sure if I was a nerd or a geek or a homo or what. I never really got a nickname. Probably a good thing. But when you get a nickname you just have to make it work for you.
When I was coaching 12-14 male baseball, some of the 'guys' had rather cruel nicknames for the less athletically inclined. So I got them all together and 'assigned' each of them a nickname to be used when around the team. At first they hated, hated, hated it. I called one of them "Hose-nose" for the rhyme. He protested that his nose wasn't long. I pointed out that he called Sid "Squid" because Sid didn't like it. He shut up and eventually saw the light. One of the mouthy ones became "Jaws" and one of the bigger ones was "Orca" and so on. And Sid became "Wheels" because I said when he ran he ran so hard his legs looked like he was on wheels. He wasn't fast at all (too short) but he loved the nickname.
I don't remember the dozen+ nicknames, but my son still is in contact with the 40 years later, and the teammates still call each other by the nicknames I 'gave' them. A bonding mechanism when used properly.
We didn't win a lot of games, but we were a doggone TEAM.
Sounds like my teams. Small town, going against bigger teams and hard core coaches. I had a couple of really good athletes every year, 3-5 some years, but we didn't 'recruit'. I tried to improve their fundamentals and reward true effort as much as I could. And if you showed up for every practice, you played in the game for at least one at bat. Period. The rule was, if everyone plays hard, to the best of their ability, Coach buys ice cream after the game. Not many games where ice cream wasn't bought.
Coaching matters. Getting everyone to kick the ball in the same direction, literally and figuratively, is pretty much the first thing a team has to know.
I tend to think that eventually you have to see "the whole person." Her being kind of stupid wouldn't be quite so bad if she weren't so sure she's smarter that the rest of us, but at some point that attitude is bad for even otherwise attractive people, and we 'see' them with other eyes.
"the whole person"
I'll go ya one further.
I think that when we're young, maybe even more when You're a Young _Dude_, the pool of partners find attractive enough to ... engage ... is pretty large. Factors such as alcohol, inexperience, and being a Total Horn Dog contribute.
But as we get older, even before we're geriatric but, having seen my mom in her Senior Living Community even then - especially then, when the stuff that really matters matters - what we find attractive in a potential ... engagement partner ... shrinks that pool based on a lot of factors.
Almost all of Those With Whom We'd Do It in the old days are no longer attractive because they fail "the whole person" test. Many or most miserably so. BUT... when you finally start figuring out what matters, it turns out that because we were young and dumb, some of those who we immaturely, unwisely excluded could very well be One With Whom We'd Do It. Like, the Best One For You With Whom To Do It. You love Who You Love.
https://youtu.be/nSRCpertZn8
Or... maybe that's just me. *shrugs*
... I think I'll push back and grab a coffee. I don't know WTH that came from.
LOLOLOLOLOLOL.
I was certainly a young horn dog, but my mother once said I dated, and brought home to meet my family a wild assortment of young women (brunette, blond, redhead, tall, short skinny, fat, whatever) but they all had something in common. 1) Smart, in the truest sense. 2) good sense of humor. 3) Active, mentally and physically. 4) some sort of artistic or musical talent. She was totally right. I knew what I wanted in a "mate". I ended up married twice to two fine women who "fit my profile."
OTOH, I did rather a lot of experimentation when I wasn't "attached" to one of them. I'm serially monogamous. "Dumb" girls were just right out. As a colleague once said (We were 'older' single grad students at the time) when asked about what made women attractive, "Intelligence. You gotta talk to them sometime." Other than that, the smart ones are all good.
I hate her but she really was super funny.
Haven't seen that movie, but whoever wrote that scene knew what they were talking about. OTOH, in real life I would fail to see how she is actually 'helping' the problem of male failure to commit. That is a social problem, not a biological one. Continue bashing males for being shallow and "unnecessary" and see what it will get you.
And I doubt if in that movie she's interested in a fat, ugly, smelly guy. Oddly enough, women can be shallow on a biologic base as well.
Smart is definitely sexy to a card-carrying nerd like The Pi-ster.
*shakes head* Note to self: You can't give yourself your own nickname. Especially when you're a card-carrying nerd.
I went to a small HS -- 300 students -- and no one was ever sure if I was a nerd or a geek or a homo or what. I never really got a nickname. Probably a good thing. But when you get a nickname you just have to make it work for you.
Whoa, Buddy - slow down there!
Wow! Funny!
And I hope you dove in Pete Rose-style.
Well, everyone does it now.
*nods* Good call.
https://thumbs.gfycat.com/AccomplishedCompetentIvorygull-mobile.mp4
Great movie.
When I was coaching 12-14 male baseball, some of the 'guys' had rather cruel nicknames for the less athletically inclined. So I got them all together and 'assigned' each of them a nickname to be used when around the team. At first they hated, hated, hated it. I called one of them "Hose-nose" for the rhyme. He protested that his nose wasn't long. I pointed out that he called Sid "Squid" because Sid didn't like it. He shut up and eventually saw the light. One of the mouthy ones became "Jaws" and one of the bigger ones was "Orca" and so on. And Sid became "Wheels" because I said when he ran he ran so hard his legs looked like he was on wheels. He wasn't fast at all (too short) but he loved the nickname.
I don't remember the dozen+ nicknames, but my son still is in contact with the 40 years later, and the teammates still call each other by the nicknames I 'gave' them. A bonding mechanism when used properly.
We didn't win a lot of games, but we were a doggone TEAM.
Sounds like my teams. Small town, going against bigger teams and hard core coaches. I had a couple of really good athletes every year, 3-5 some years, but we didn't 'recruit'. I tried to improve their fundamentals and reward true effort as much as I could. And if you showed up for every practice, you played in the game for at least one at bat. Period. The rule was, if everyone plays hard, to the best of their ability, Coach buys ice cream after the game. Not many games where ice cream wasn't bought.
Coaching matters. Getting everyone to kick the ball in the same direction, literally and figuratively, is pretty much the first thing a team has to know.
I'm not a soccer fan, per se, but I do love watching children on their first soccer team.
https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/7be8753f-13cb-46b0-bcab-1b4b02d2ce1e