Men: Are you "Good Will Humping?"
 

A funny little article from Claude Mills entitled "GOOD WILL HUMPING"

Obvious point: Ugly is subjective at best. I like nerdy girls, myself. Leave that Paris Hilton crap for others guys.

Underline was placed for emphasis. Rest of the article was posted for humor.

Show of hands... who is honest enough to admit this slice of reality?

Nerdy chicks can be good looking, they only don't know how to 'use it'.

As for the concept. No, but the longer I'd go without the more willing I'd be and the lower my 'standards' would become when I was younger.

Now, no, I don't get that desperate, even if its been a while.

No.

Apparently, I tend to have sex with women who come to me. That is my criteria for selection. Well, at least the beginning of it.

I like nerdy girls too.

I'm not really sure what 'ugly means.'


I tend to only fuck 10s. At least five 2s.

No, I'm not going to have sex with a woman that I think is physically ugly. I would go out with a woman that was considered a bit of a "plain Jane" or only average in looks. If she turns out to have a nice personality, I might consider a relationship with her. Looks are important, but personality is more important in my opinion.

I honestly don't mind girl with a bit of weight, but the face needs to be nice looking ;)

First of all, Nerdy and ugly are not synonymous. Nerdy can be very sexy.

Secondly, I had sex with a girl whom I did not find attractive. I don't think many men would find her attractive. Her vag even had quite a rotten odor. After the act ended, I couldn't get away fast enough. That was the last of my ugly girl sex. No more for me.

I know you all have banged some shovel-faced bimbos! FESS UP!

OK, OK, I did, yes it's true. But I was in high school and the chick could deep throat.......

I remember some of my friends ragging on my about my "ugly" girlfriend. I could only smile to myself as I thought of what those poor bastards were missing out on. :thumbsup:

Nowadays, if it weren't for the being married part, I wouldn't be afraid to ask a 5~6 out. Sexy beautiful is not the same as pretty beautiful. I'd rather be with someone compatible and have fun than worry about some trophy partner.

Thanks, man. Everybody has done it. Some of us admit it freely.

Deep throat is proof that god loves us and wants us to be happy.

Not if you hit it from behind.

I don't. And won't.


I'm sorry to girls out there with self-esteem issues. I know I'm the reason. And I don't really care.

Does this mean that having had morning sex on numerous occasions I am most definitely not an ugly chick then?

I've only ever had a relationship with one guy I wasn't attracted to visually (I don't do one night stands so no real charity screws) and even then the fact that his kisses tasted like a mixture of vanilla, nutmeg and cinnamon kinda made up for it. Gods above he was addictive.

Hey King... that's the kind of honestly I love around here!

As for the OP, I'd say "it's possible". I like "nerdy" girls as well. I also have a skewed view of beauty and prefer cute to sexy, or rather find cute sexier than supermodel looks. Some of the girls I find very attractive, I find them so for very specific reasons.

I am just like WK. I fuck 9s and 10s exclusively.

One time in my life I banged a girl that wasn't 'ugly' but wasn't super hot either, and it seemed not worth my time. I got rid of it pretty soon after that.

That makes me an asshole to most people, but hey... assholes are the ones who get the fucking hot ones so it works pretty damn nicely.



But I'm glad whoever wrote that article is taking the heat off me. Someones gotta bang the ugly wimminz. Somehow some of the ugly dudes get hot bitches, but rarely does a hot girl get a hot dude. So there is a disproportionate amount of ugly women wanting to bang and less ugly dudes to keep the social ladder together correctly.

There's no accounting for taste. Some guys like girls with a bit of meat on their bones, some guys like the Paris aesthetic. Dark skin, light skin, glasses, whatever makes you happy.

I may be the only guy in the world who does not rate women on a scale of one to ten. Instead, my rating system is decidedly simpler; I'd sleep with her or I wouldn't. Every girl falls into one of the two categories. Back in my.. eh.. less scrupulous days, more tended to fall into the former. Now it tends to go the other way, as I've learned that looks aren't all there is to the equation.

I have noticed that the girls I end up with tend to be the ones that get a lot of male attention, so that probably means they rate pretty high. And then there was the one who was a ten (even I had that pegged)... and bi-sexual... and had a pierced tongue...

What was I talking about?

You must not be familiar with the advanced rating system Martian. Any 10 with pierced tongue and bi-sexual is no longer judged on the standard system.

She moves to the advanced, which only consists of 11, 12 and 20.

I think you banged an 11 or 12 (20 is reserved for the best fuck of your entire life, you can only score someone a 20 on your deathbed or minutes before a fatal accident... thus the relative rarity of the score being given out)

This thread is inane.

Hey, I thought this was a men-only thread.... :p

/threadjack


Well then, i'm guessing i'm one of those rare 20's...I feel I'm a 10, and although i don't have a pierced tongue, i can deepthroat and i have quite a long tongue that can do a wave motion (lots of practice) and although i'm not bi-sexual...i would absolutely love to have sex with a woman :D aka "I want to have a threesome"

and healer's not even on his deathbed :D

And it may seem I'm tooting my own horn a little here, i feel that i kinda need to in this particular thread.

:thumbsup:

sorry for the threadjack.

/end threadjack

I'd go so far as to say it's an embarrassment to the TFP.

But hey, unless I'm at *least* a "5-6," (god forbid) I'm sure it doesn't matter what I think. :rolleyes:

And now, feel free to respond with as many "Heyyyy, we're just joking, lighten up..." comments as you want. It won't work.

BTW: Mandy, you should never feel you have to toot your own horn like that here, if this place is really what it purports to be. But apparently "evolution" means being allowed to act like neanderthals.

This statement may or may not be applicable to this thread: There are very few truly ugly women in the world. However, there are very many truly shallow men.

I agree. It's really shallow to consider only her facial features...I mean, after all, she could have a really hot bod!:expressionless:

Welcome to the TFP equivalent of an evolutionary dead end. Just like the neanderthals.

Perhaps this thread should be merged with the "Dumb People" thread.

I think this thread should be merged with the garbage can, myself. Free speech is all and good, but this is just one race dumping on another and basing our actions on their looks, something that they can't control. BTW, I've seen more really beautiful women with really ugly guys, which gives credence to the theory that women are a lot less shallow then men.

Yeah, this is more of a Fark thread than a TFP one.

If this thread is offending anyone or violating the rules... it should be taken down by the mods.

Uh, it's not violating any rules, dude...it's just stupid.

Unfortunately that is not against the rules.

Bullshit.

It gives credence that women look for different things in males than males do in females.

I very rarely see a ugly rich man with an ugly woman, I doubt its because she was 'less shallow'.

Women are no different than men in this kind of thing.

Hell I really really love my wife. Shes everything to me. Yet I still want her to be attractive to me, and if she were to let herself go, I'd be very upset and if it was bad enough and she didn't care, it would be a great strain on our relationship.

Shes also a stay at home mom, watching the kids that sort of thing. If I said 'honey why don't you go back to work and I'll be the stay at home dad' I'm sure that would upset her greatly. Maybe it wouldn't lead to a divorce, maybe it would, but it would strain our relationship.

Are we shallow? I don't think so. We were attracted to each other for multiple reasons in order to live our lives happily together. For me looks were high on that list, her her it was my confidence, (it wasn't money I didn't have any) and how I made her feel.

The article was mean spirited. What it didn't mention was normally guys who act/do this are NOT very attractive themselves. Its a way they justify their own lousy sex lives. Its like Quazimoto talking about how he banged the ugly chick. Sure 'preying' on someone with low self esteem is easier, but its a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Nevermind.

Beauty...or ugly, if you prefer...I think, is more arbitrary than subjective. I, myself, tend to be more attracted by a more unconventional beauty. You mentioned Paris Hilton. Frankly, I don't really find Ms Hilton to be all that attractive, physically. I'd take a Janeane Garofalo over a Paris Hilton any day of the week.


Earlier, I alluded to an attraction to Janeane Garofalo. Somewhere, on these boards, is a picture of you as a dead ringer for Ms Garofalo.
That's hot.
And it does, by the way, matter what you think. Regardless of where you happen to fall on my, or anyone elses "attractive scale".

Okay seriously: male and female are GENDERS, not RACES. It is one of my worst pet peeves. Race is a subspecies and refers to things like different ethnicities in humans, not the sex.

Hmm deepthroat, wants a threesome... I've seen your pictures... Well I'd say at the least an 11. I'm also not on my deathbed so my god given right to give a 20 has not yet been achieved!



(Offtopic: If you don't like the thread gtfo of it people, you dont have to post in every thread on the board. Especially when you obviously have nothing to add to the conversation except try to pretend you are morally superior to the people chatting)

I don't post in every thread on the board. I'm voicing my opinion on the topic at hand. You don't like it? GTFO, dude. :rolleyes:

And I love it when people go traipsing off on the 'you think you're morally superior' trailway because someone disagrees with them. No, dude, I'm disagreeing because I think this thread is stupid...has nothing to do with morality.

I really cannot put into words at the moment how pissed off this thread makes me

besides ugly is in the eye of the beholder....

I've found that guys that think this way do not possess the personality that I require from a partner so I guess Im not really missing out, because personality wins over looks ANY day for me....but what do I know...Im not all that attractive AND Im fat

guess thats why Im damn good in bed huh?

Thanks for the kind words, BOR... but that line you quoted from me was actually written with sarcasm, not a desire for validation. I wrote it to point out the asininity of what several people were saying here.

I'm glad to see some of the TFP men standing up and making sure that their silence doesn't ensure their complicity with these kinds of attitudes.

didn't mean you

btw if you've seen me around here and there, my POV is often times different than many of the other TFP people. Usually its well thought out and they will argue it with me (of course I'm hardheaded so sometimes it takes a few times =0)

but this neanderthal talk, stupidity talk, is just uncalled for acting like people are better.

when i first saw this thread i wonder how it would take until someone posted in anger, resentment...whatever you want to call it.


i don't understand if you don't like the thread don't read it or post in it. if the mods have not removed it i don't see what the big deal is.

I really don't have any strong feelings one way or the other about this thread. I've had physical relationships with plenty of women, some of which had many wonderful features excluding great beauty.

The OP is a sort of cruel way to say something nice: looks aren't everything. Many, many, many women (or for the ladies, many men) who may not be very attractive can be wonderful and fascinating people that can brighten your life and earn your affection, be it emotional or physical, without having to be traditionally beautiful. That's it. Yes, it was said in a Sam Kinison manner, but so what?

So what you're saying is that you only want to hear from people who agree with you? I really don't see any other way to take that kind of statement. If this were a thread about why sticking beans up one's nose and waiting for them to sprout was a fantastic idea, I'd chime in that the thread was a waste of time and space, just like I've done in this one.

As MM has already pointed out, there's not rule against being dense on this board. I don't see much difference between my hypothetical thread and this one.

I'm not here to agree with everyone, and I don't see any problem with saying that a thread is dumb. Some of them are - the hand thread yesterday was a great example. No one has said anything personally offensive about anyone else in this thread, and that's the Back Button Test. Having a differing opinion, and sharing it is encouraged.

I editted my last post but you posted before me.

Thats just a silly way to interpret what I said, what it means is "Golden Rule" basically.

What my problem is how if certain people don't agree. Like a few of those above, they feel the need to call people stupid, shallow, etc

or hmm Dense as you decided would be your word of choice.

It's completely unnecessary and reeks of trying to be better than someone.

I can assure you, it's never long, unless I'm traveling or my internet connection is down. :thumbsup:

So, would you rather have this be your little "men's lounge," and have us "angry people" leave you alone to chuckle and elbow each other in the ribs about all those sad, ugly bitches?

Well, too bad. It's not a men's lounge, and I'm not going anywhere. :)

maybe we can take over the ladies lounge, turn it in the Forum for the Phallic.

and relegate the ladies lounge to Tilted Cooking until further notice? LOL

A reality is that most men have had a pity screw at some time in their life. How many women can say the same? How many women just feel like getting some and grab the first ugly guy at the bar because he looks easy?

Comon, people. This is radically simple stuff. Men are easier than women. Men don't have to worry about rape or anything, either. Frankly, our only real concern is an STD, and that only enters into some men's minds. If you want to be disgusted by that and think that we should be more evolved, then you have unrealistic expectations. And it's not that we're not nice people, either.

Excellent point.

I wish more guys would admit things like this, because these conversations happen daily between groups of dudes. If a dude has an ugly g/f that guys gonna get slammed by his buddies here and there. Unless he is a whiner and can't take a joke.

Then you grow up a bit more. I know some pretty ugly wives out there, but amazingly no ones buddy make fun of them in front of their husband.

If you really do have feelings for someone, its not being a whiner if you get upset about your 'friends' telling you how ugly she is. Its pretty juvenile to do so, right up their with 'your momma is so ugly...' jokes.

I concur whole-heartedly. Essentially, this is a thread discussing men's standards regarding the physical appearance of potential bedmates.

And Jazz, the difference between your theoretical "nose beans" thread and this one is that people don't actually put beans in there noses and wait for them to sprout, but the actions in the OP occur everyday... so I don't see any harm in discussing them. However, I will agree that the article in the OP did set a rather vulgar and crude tone, which is likely what upset people... not the actual topic.

quoted for truth (even if you did tell me to get my femaleness out of the raw food thread yesterday :p )

I don't usually hate on my friends who might have less than desirable significant others because of my previous post to the one you quoted: women who may appear physically undesirable may very well have other traits that more than make up for it. I know this because I've dated more than a few. Looks are great, sure, but if you're just out for looks in a relationship, you're missing out.

Speaking to the one night stand type of thing? Yeah, our standards are simply lower and we are able to feel more safe because men aren't victimized by sex in the same manner than women can. Our victimization is more often emotional whereas for women it's both emotional and physical.

Y'know what, Ustwo... you're alright. At least, for the time being. ;)

It's not a matter of growing up. Why is it necessary to imply that sort of thing? You honestly think this kind of thing doesn't happen?

I've had buddies with g/fs who were ugly, and I made fun of them here and there for it. You think they got all upset? No, they laughed because its a joke, and thats how guys joke alot of the time. Maybe you cant take the kind of joke, or the people you hang with can't, whatever, How in any way does that imply that people like that need to grow up?

I could switch it around and say you need to lighten up if you can't take it. Would that make me right? Not anymore than you telling someone else their sense of humor is wrong and they should grow up.

I'm pretty sure has been asked elsewhere in this thread, but what constitutes a nine or ten and/or ugly chick? Personally, I like to believe that my definition is a tad bit different then the public male consensus.

I think it's fairly obvious to the majority of men what kind of woman is 9 or 10.

The only people usually who are going to disagree with the normal aesthetic... uhh... well "rating" i guess are people who live in a specific 'niche' of taste. Otherwise, 1 woman who rates a 10 on one mans scale, will most definatly rate a 9.. or 10.. or 11, on the majority of mens scales.

oh really? I rate higher than a 10 on my hubbys "scale".....I seriously doubt the marjority of "men" would rate me as high. Its no different than women thinking Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise or whatever other flavor of the year is popular are the end all be and I personally cant find one attractive thing about them.

and as for your "majority" thats also subjective to....the majority of men I know cant stand skinny girls, while some other guy in this thread could belong to a "majority" that thinks skinny girls are the only way to go

The majority of men *you* know are most definatly not the majority of all men now are they. Why would I be talking about the men you know anyway?

This is going to get touchy, but you are looking at what I said in the wrong way. actually proves my point, just the opposite way though, someone who rates low on one mans, will most likely rate low on the majority of other mens as well. I of course make no judgement on scale in this situation, just explaining my point.

Subjective to what? Okay... Maybe the typical Hollywood stereotype, but a lot of men don't ascribe to such superficial values. Personally, I prefer larger women. The typical super-skinny, Hollywood super-model type doesn't do anything for me. Really. It's just like... "Meh... Please eat something" :D

...But I digress.

alot of men dont... most do, what is the point of argueing this?

There is a reason why the awesome majority of women in show business are skinny and petite. It's certainly not because more men prefer fatties.

I think when guys starting talking about rating women from 1-10 based on looks it is perfectly my right as a female with a pair of hands to type with to say they are being stupid. And no one can imply they are being shallow??

Yeah, whoa, let's be sure and spare the feelings of those who don't give a fuck about people's feelings.

I can't even believe we are having this conversation.

Precisely the point that I tried to make earlier. Every man has his own scale, and women will rank accordingly on it. My particular tastes may differ wildly from yours, or it may just as easily fall into synch. It's all arbitrary. What's important to me may mean diddly squat to you. And it goes a little deeper that just living in "a specific 'niche' of taste".

Perhaps. But, the thing is, there is no one single defining "scale". My scale is going to differ from the next guys scale. To operate under the "One Defining Scale", under which all women are judged? Now, that's stupid. But a scale does exist.

I don't think anyone is denying that these rating systems are shallow. After all, they are only referring to physical, skin-deep beauty... but you need to consider the context in which they were created. Men usually only refer to them in regards to short-term, sexually driven relationships. And when that type of relationship is their goal, factors such as personality, emotional stability, and intelligence take a back seat to visual attractiveness, willingness, and sexual performance.

However, I don't think any of us use them as the sole factor in considering a woman's potential for a long-term relationship. As Ustwo mentioned, as we grow older and mature out of that more machismo-driven phase of our lives, our goals change regarding what type of relationships we are seeking... and therefore our consideration levels of various womanly aspects (physical, emotional, and mental) change as well.

A scale exists in your mind, Bill. :)

To the thread in general:

I'll make this my last post on this thread. I've already unsubscribed so you guys can breathe easy now and go about your, eh, business or whatever the fuck this is. But...

To rate women by looks and then say, 'I'll only sleep with women that are at least a ___.' (Which, of course, presumes that your own appearance is irrelevant.)

And even worse, as purported by the OP 'Sleep with ugly girls because they probably give good blow jobs.'

These ideas are offensive to women. And any amount of whining about how sanctimonious I am for saying so is only whistling in the wind. Feel that way if you must, and rationalize to yourself that you're just being honest, but the truth is that you're wallowing in a depthless puddle of your own abject puerility. One day you're gonna stand up and decide to be a man. Well, one can only hope so anyway.

Keep on whistling...

Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

An intelligent woman that can ski and rides her own motorcycle is an automatic "10" to me.

There's one hell of a lot of amazing people of both genders that won't make a 9 or 10 on anyone's beauty scale.

I think the large amount of research on human romantic relationships contradicts your position that preferences for romantic partners are arbitrary. Men across cultures tend to value the same traits in long-term and short-term mates. The same goes for women. The attractiveness of an individual may be sum of the assessments across these traits. Now, who you choose as a mate will always be a function of those shared preferences, the current mating pool, and what your level of attractiveness is (physical or otherwise). Individual differences do play a part, but there are patterns of preferences within each sex that are not arbitrary.

Arguing about "which is more attractive: blonde, brunette, or red-head?" or the like does seem to reflect arbitrary standards. Looking for physically healthy, particular age ranges, sanity, kindness, intelligence, waist-to-hip ratio, symmetry, etc. does not seem as arbitrary to me. I think that part of what may make people think preferences are arbitrary is that people are not considering the full range of available mates. They assume a level of sanity, kindness, physical attractiveness, intelligence, etc. and then argue about really specific traits.

Good point.

as if women don't rate men based on shallow criteria either? I know TFP women tend to be all holy and above this but women in general are not. Being tall, strong, or rich, preferably all of the above, will get you much more attention as a man. It's reality, life just sucks like that, blame evolution. But getting all emo about it doesn't solve anything.

He's right and we have a degree of proof right here.

Take a look at the titty board. What do you see 99% of the time? Young, thin, symmetrical, average faced (by measurements) females. If everyones tastes were all over, you would see the kind of pictures people are posting all over too, and they aren't. Now and then we get a very attractive, thin older woman, now and then.

Now you can find porn of all kinds out there of course, but its classified as fetish porn, it has far lower number target audience than mainstream porn.

The market caters to tastes not the other way around. Some standards are anything but arbitrary.

The different way to take it is, if I start a thread about what your favorite pokemon is, maybe I actually want to know, rather than have two real replies and thirty people saying 'pokemon are stupid, this thread sucks'.

I've slept with people I found interesting but not attractive. Does that count for the purpose of the thread?

you can't talk about things other find stupid or you are stupid duh omfg duhdonm

In a way. I'll admit I was glamorizing the topic by adding my own reasoning to it, but yes, sure.

If you want to know what society views as a 9 or 10, sort the titty board (all threads since the beginning) in descending order of either views or replies. Either way, the first couple pages will be what men have voted with their clicks and 'omg sooo hot' replies as being the gold standard for physical appearance.

If you want to find out in a Safe For Work manner, go to Hot or Not, and look at the top scorers.

My entire group of friends (married, single, guys, girls, work, social, club scene, otherwise, ranging from 18 to 30) acknowledges that there are three or four 1-10 scales. One for 'Real Life Hot', one for 'Work Hot', one for 'Media Hot' and one for Total Package (which evaluates job, personality, social standing, AND looks), for both guys and girls. We even go so far as to have achieved consensus about what most of our ratings are, and how many Total Package points away from yourself you should date. (2 points--I've heard several comedians do routines stating the same, so I know it's not just my friends) We joke about people's relationships failing because they tried to date outside their number.

If you think this doesn't happen, you are being willfully ignorant--there have been very successful internet sites (the aforementioned Hot or Not) based on finding out what your number is. Just the fact that 'a total 10' has meaning to every guy in every bar without needing to give it context means it exists. Let's not pretend like this thread is the only place in the world where this practice exists...this thread wasn't about 'hey, do you guys rate women?' it was something else entirely.


Sorry for the clusterfuck of replies, that's what I get for sleeping in and missing the action.

never said i agree with the thread/post/topic.

i don't see why you feel the need to attack me when i said nothing to you or about you.

mom told me don't act like one unless you wanted to be treated as one....

Wow... lots of name-calling and harsh words kicking around in this thread.

I find it funny that women would complain, given that women are just as superficial as men are- they're just superficial about different things. Both genders talk shit about people, both genders judge people, and both genders are looking out for what they like.

It's always funny that any physical attribute a woman likes in a man is acceptable, but anything a man likes in a woman is considered superficial. 95% of the time, such is the double standard. I think some people are fighting hard in this thread because they know there's a double standard in how women ogle men vs how men ogle women, and would rather the thread die out as being stupid.

I'm not saying this thread has a lot of merit, but man there's a lot of high emotion for what's essentially a double standard. I hear women complaining about the looks of guys they've slept with all the time. Women: you're not innocent of anything. Build a bridge and get over it.

hrm, I can probably dig up pictures all my exes, i'm pretty sure they're all hot.

may not agree with you about certain drugs... but I can definately agree with this.

The amateur threads are always good, but they don't always have the typical model looks. And I wish there were more high quality home images.

And I'm glad this thread is here, you don't have to like it, but this is real life and it shouldn't be censored. Although the title could be better.

Seriously, are some of you people trying to be obtuse here? It's not rocket science. Of course INDIVIDUALS have different scales but it isn't hard to tell what society as a whole thinks is a 9 or a 10 (although I really liked twistedmosaic's description of the four different scales, that was very accurate).

So what's the difference between "work hot" and "real life hot"? I'm picturing Steve Carell saying "Normally she'd only be a 6, but when you see her balance those ledgers, 7 and a half, easy."

We're not talking about romancing the "good ones", we're talking about "jumping on the grenade" here, guys.

Way to change the subject!

You certainly saved me some time by typing my exact thoughts.......

*Notices the dust settle (a little bit)*

Hey, guys, can we now talk about the difference between "I would fuck" and "I want to fuck"?

The first expression means the girl meets you bare minimum standards for attractiveness and therefore you would fuck her if given the opportunity. The second is for a girl that is higher up on the scale, likely someone you would brag about to your buddies.

Huh... how do you guys know you weren't the one getting pity fucked?

I feel the anger from the ladies (and really hope MixedMedia hasn't left cuz I like her) - it's directed at the male gaze's way of sizing up women based on physical attributes. The OP's post makes it clear that "ugly" means appearances.

Unfortunately for a lot of women, this kind of objectification translates into lower wages, the glass ceiling, less opportunities, etc. than men. It's judging someone's value based on superficial qualities ergo seeing them as an object, where women are lumped into 9s, 10s, 5s, 12s, whatever. Pretty dehumanizing... but it makes it easier to justify poor treatment.

So I feel the anger. We're sensitive about it because we have to deal with this bs every day.

By the way, the same girl/boy can elicit "I would fuck" and "I want to fuck" - depends on how badly you want to fuck 'em at the time (are you drunk, are you horny, are you dating someone, are you wanting to prove yourself to your buddies). And I think that's universal.

See, I don't view "I would fuck" as "She passes; I would sleep with her when given the opportunity." I view it as: "I would sleep with her, but I won't necessarily, for various reasons (i.e. I'm in a relationship)."

The "I want to fuck" is entirely different.

The distinction between the two isn't good looks/great looks. It's a judgement call depending on the circumstances.

Fair enough. It's all fantasy for me anyways because I'm married and I don't plan on cheating. Therefore, the categories are Can Fuck (my wife), Can't but Would Fuck, and Can't but Want to Fuck.

I guess that is as close to reframing the OP as you can get; as the original phrasing was a bit vague.

Anyway, I'd probably go so far as to say that of women between the ages of 18-45, I'd likely be tempted, in the right situation (i.e., being relaxed in a bar or on holidays, etc), to fuck 30-35%. We all have our turn ons and turns off, and it's nothing for anyone to get angry about, although inevitably people do and many take it personally. Witness several earlier posts.

For me, a woman needs to be height-weight proportionate (more than about 20 pounds over that mark would probably be too much for me) and have a reasonably pretty face - although what I regard as pretty maybe the next person wouldn't - to qualify for that 35% number.

How many I'd actually strongly pursue because I was REALLY attracted to them - the number probably drops to 10%.

Those 10% are not neccesarily classic "10s" - just the 10% of the population that appeal to me as an individual. Petite is great, athletic is great, brunette as 1st choice, blond as 2nd, Oriental or European gets extra marks, nice legs and butt, pretty face - these are the obvious, surface qualities that turn my head.

This thread sort of makes it difficult to tell women that men see them as more than sex objects.

Its best to not allow people to have unrealistic expectations.

If a guy meets a girl at a party/bar/where ever, and they have sex, she is being used as a sexual object. So is he, but that doesn't matter, guys don't care.

The trick is not being offended because women have been taught thats somehow wrong.

I appreciate your input on this thread, UsTwo, but you have this part wrong.

It's not being viewed as a sex object. Many women enjoy being viewed as a sex object, including myself. In fact, I love it. Very much.

It is the disrespect that comes along with this from many man (not all, thank god) that is what gets under the skin of women like abaya and myself. The generalizations, the stereotypes, the debasing of our motivations, the childish whining...these are what motivates me to speak as I have on this thread and others.

Oh, and the other folks on this thread who have tried to decipher the obvious intent of my attitude towards certain people on this thread have it wrong, too. If anyone is being 'defensive because they know they are wrong' it's certainly not myself.

Women don't have to pity fuck, so they do it a lot less often. Some settle on something less than what they want, of course, but it's a lot different than a pity fuck.

Fucking is fucking. Maybe a guy's tendency to compartmentalize his sexual experiences is part of the problem.

Intent is a part of experience. I think that most can agree that love, for example, is not always a factor in sex. Sometimes it's infatuation or attraction.

In the case specifically addressed in this thread it's the "get your gun off, and help her out" reasoning. It's not particularly sensitive, but it's not such a bad thing, really. The reality is that otherwise, some women may not be able to make a physical connection with a certain caliber of man (just like some men will never make a connection with a certain caliber of woman). Whereas this is normally hopeless for some men, women have the benefit of being a member of the gender that more often controls sexuality. It's easier for a 10 man to have sex with a 2 woman than it is for a 10 woman to have sex with a 2 man. I can't make it any clearer.

I think you said this backwards.

1-10 being ratings in ascending order for attractiveness, no I think I got it right. As someone who falls between 6-8, I'd have very little qualms about shagging a woman who was below a 5. Being a relationship? I dunno, the figures may switch.

I'd say its easier for a 2 woman to have sex with a 10 man than a 2 man to have sex with a 10 woman.

A 10 woman can get a 2 man any day of the week.

Which is why I think you said it backwards.

So you're saying that it is somehow helpful for a woman to be used for sex by someone who is telling themselves that they are 1. providing a sort of 'public service' for ugly women and 2. they might be able to profit from it due to the 'eagerness' in bed of said such ugly woman?

Ever consider a career in advertising?

As a man, if a very attractive woman felt sorry for me being alone at a party and then suggested we go have sex that night, I would not be offended. My ego would be hurt if I found out, but not hurt enough to say no.

Odds are I'd be very eager in bed as well.

Such is the difference between men and women.

I'd also point out that we are talking casual sex here. Its been known that the criteria we pick for recreational sex are different than the ones we pick for a relationship.

For recreational sex, women act a lot like men, for relationships, things change.

I find there to be some people who are plain and after getting to know them become more attractive, if they have a nice personality that is.

Is that just me?

Used for sex? There are two consenting adults who each get something from the experience. It's mutually beneficial. I apologize for the following question, but ask yourself if you've ever slept with someone you're not attracted to. If the answer is yes, then you either found other redeeming qualities (such as those outlined in the OP) or you didn't. If the answer is no, then you support my theory that women do this less often than men.

As for the public service, as I said there is mutuality in the experience. The profit is mutual. The experience is mutual. The pleasure is mutual. The man benefits, and the woman benefits.

I am referring back again to the attitude professed in the OP combined with your assertion that somehow physical appearance necessarily enhances the sexual experience. Especially for people who are popularly deemed to be unattractive.

And to answer your question, the only people I have slept with who I deem to be 'unattractive' were not physically unattractive. I found them to be dull and uninteresting people who I just happened to end up with because they wanted me and I was mentally available. Consequently, I have most often had sex with men who are thought to be 'unattractive' - and, in those cases, with much enthusiasm.

And I was never commenting on whether men or women do this more often.

I'm not saying that the woman might be offended.

I am objecting (and bear with me, because I am figuring all this out while I type) to the attitudes about how physical appearance enhances the sexual experience. I think it is a myth that has been thoroughly absorbed into popular attitudes...and the avenues for an acceptable 'level of attractiveness' are being narrowed by our increasing pre-occupation with appearance. Thereby making exclusion from these avenues something to be pitied and primary to any other attributes that person may have - besides what they might be able to 'bring to the bed' with them in the way of eagerness to please that kind, benevolent beautiful person.

As with most subjects I get into these heightened discussions about, it always comes back to my disillusionment with the increasing shallowness of modern society -oh, and most significantly, the arrogant justifications of that shallowness.