Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Saturday, February 01, 2014

OTP - Feb 2014: Politics remains a hurdle for immigration reform

Yet Obama might find his best-chance legislative compromise in an issue that lately has seemed to be on life support: an overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws.

Curiously, immigration was an issue the president barely mentioned in this year’s speech. Maybe he does not want to interfere with those Republicans who actually agree with him on the need to bring the nation’s millions of undocumented workers out of the shadows.

Bitter Mouse Posted: February 01, 2014 at 04:01 PM | 3524 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 11 of 36 pages ‹ First  < 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 >  Last ›
   1001. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: February 11, 2014 at 04:10 PM (#4654993)
This is a pretty regular phenomenon. The really, really attractive people often find that they intimidate potential suitors from afar.


Well, that explains my last several years ...
   1002. The Good Face Posted: February 11, 2014 at 05:36 PM (#4655066)
You're being a particularly high profile jackass on this issue. Are you concerned about your dipping status, perchance?


I just enjoy tweaking people who are vociferously insisting that up is down and black is white. It's kind of amusing that I've conditioned you guys so thoroughly, but you really should remember that statements are not necessarily wrong just because I make them. These are not extraordinary claims we're talking about here.

This is a pretty regular phenomenon. The really, really attractive people often find that they intimidate potential suitors from afar.


This is because most men have an intuitive grasp of their own SMV, and recognize that pursuing a woman whose value is significantly greater than their own is a tough sell. Where do you think the concept of "She's out of your league" came from? Less common the other way around, since as demonstrated earlier in the thread, even very high SMV males will have sex with average-ish looking women if they don't have to put forth much effort.

   1003. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 11, 2014 at 05:37 PM (#4655070)
This is because most men have an intuitive grasp of their own SMV


Is there like, a website where we can see an ordinal list of guys and their SMV's. Is this like WAR? Do we go to FanGraphs or BRef?
   1004. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: February 11, 2014 at 05:39 PM (#4655072)
This men/women conversation ranks extremely high on the Unintentional Comedy Rating.
   1005. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: February 11, 2014 at 05:39 PM (#4655074)
Rickey!: Just going by income is imperfect but not far off the mark.
   1006. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 11, 2014 at 05:43 PM (#4655076)
Rickey!: Just going by income is imperfect but not far off the mark.


Maaaaaan, you can't buy GAME!
   1007. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 11, 2014 at 05:44 PM (#4655080)
Rickey!: Just going by income is imperfect but not far off the mark.


That's like using RBI instead of SLG, man. I need accurate value lists if I'm going to properly sort out the relevant SMVs for my cohort.
   1008. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 11, 2014 at 05:48 PM (#4655082)
It's kind of amusing that I've conditioned you guys so thoroughly, but you really should remember that statements are not necessarily wrong just because I make them.


Where GF admits he is wrong most of the time, and suggests we are unfairly judging all his posts based on this fact. Bitter Mouse is amused.
   1009. Greg K Posted: February 11, 2014 at 05:49 PM (#4655083)
Do you seriously want to argue that women don't want high status men?


Bringing to mind The Last Days of Disco


Jimmy: There's something deeply ingrained in human biology: women prefer bad over weak and indecisive... and unemployed
Josh: I don't know about that.
Jimmy: You think they do prefer weak, indecisive, and unemployed?

Though Jimmy does deliver that last line with a hint of hope and optimism.

There may be an element I'm missing, but don't men also desire high status women? It's just that until recently (and probably still overwhelmingly now) women's status has largely been a function of their beauty, whereas men can derive status from a few different avenues. I guess I might just be unclear on what "high status" means in this context.

EDIT: I missed it the first time and am too lazy to go back (this is why I hate acronyms!)...what is this SMV again?
   1010. The Good Face Posted: February 11, 2014 at 05:50 PM (#4655084)
Bitter Mouse is unable to read for comprehension.


Fixed that for you.
   1011. McCoy Posted: February 11, 2014 at 05:50 PM (#4655085)
I recall reading that Ashley Judd went for years without a date. Nobody asked her out in that time. Damn, never thought of that.

This is a pretty regular phenomenon. The really, really attractive people often find that they intimidate potential suitors from afar.


Which means if they can't get a date then the people who do get to know them think they are either batshvt insane or arseholes.

There is no real phenomenon of beautiful people stranded all alone with no one asking them out. I mean if all you do is work in some hole and then go home to your cats and that is it it might happen but otherwise you'll end up getting hit on or asked out or have people strike up conversations with you all the time.
   1012. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 11, 2014 at 05:52 PM (#4655086)
EDIT: I missed it the first time and am too lazy to go back (this is why I hate acronyms!)...what is this SMV again?


I assume he's using it as "sexual market value." That's the most obvious thing.
   1013. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 11, 2014 at 05:53 PM (#4655088)
I just enjoy tweaking people who are vociferously insisting that up is down and black is white.

Why does "tweaking" require making fun of someone's personal misfortune? That's being a ####-heel, not "tweaking".
   1014. McCoy Posted: February 11, 2014 at 05:54 PM (#4655089)
Yeah, that's an excellent example. The Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinski one is good as well. And didn't Jude Law get into trouble for banging the nanny while he was with Sienna Miller? High SMV men are often not super discriminating in terms of who they'll enjoy sexual encounters with. Who they'll marry/date long-term/be seen in public with is a different story, because it could affect their status.


I don't know what SMV means but researchers looked into why people cheat on other people and the #1 reason is because they are bored. This applies to both men and women. Being bored trumps looks almost every single time.
   1015. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: February 11, 2014 at 05:55 PM (#4655090)
I know it's not really germane, but it is amazing how well most women will respond if you just talk to them and engage them like a normal human. It is doubly amazing how this very simple fact eludes loserish guys everywhere. I thought it was only high school boys that regarded the ability to talk directly to females in a normal, conversational manner as a mysterious superpower. Nope.

Having half the population treat talking to you like trying to defuse a nuclear bomb rigged to a five-by-five Rubik's Cube is the #1 source of general nuisance in the life of every attractive woman in America.

Addendum: And the subtle undercurrent behind that attitude of "women are different from men and should be treated differently," even though most the guys who do this are clueless rather than malicious, is aggravating for obvious reasons.
   1016. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 11, 2014 at 05:57 PM (#4655092)
I know it's not really germane, but it is amazing how well most women will respond if you just talk to them and engage them like a normal human.

Eh, you'll still get shot down 19 out of 20 times trying to talk up a random women.

You just have to learn to ignore rejection, and/or find better ways to meet women than chatting up attractive strangers.
   1017. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 11, 2014 at 06:00 PM (#4655096)
Fixed that for you.


No, it is pretty clear. Even "statements are not necessarily wrong just because I make them" is wrong. It is like the wrong recursion effect.

Seriously though you claim I am so totally wrong, but you have yet to actually argue what you think is exactly wrong, other than using that totally typical baseline case of Derek Jeter and then wildly overgeneralizing.
   1018. Greg K Posted: February 11, 2014 at 06:00 PM (#4655097)
I find I can never for the life of me remember how I got into any relationship. It just seems to happen at (extremely sporadic) random intervals. Like the flu.
   1019. The Good Face Posted: February 11, 2014 at 06:01 PM (#4655098)
There may be an element I'm missing, but don't men also desire high status women? It's just that until recently (and probably still overwhelmingly now) women's status has largely been a function of their beauty, whereas men can derive status from a few different avenues. I guess I might just be unclear on what "high status" means in this context.


You nailed it in one. Women have sexual marketplace value just like men do, but it's mostly determined by their beauty. Other things like wealth, personality, accomplishments, etc. are all factors, just as they are for men, but they tend to be less important than looks. Madeleine Albright certainly has high status, she's smart, well educated, accomplished, politically connected, etc., but would most men rather date her or a randomly selected Victoria's Secret model? Also, how the hell is she only 74?!?
   1020. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: February 11, 2014 at 06:02 PM (#4655099)
Eh, you'll still get shot down 19 out of 20 times trying to talk up a random women.


Does "talk up" in this context mean "attempt to get a date with"? If so then yes, probably. Personally when I strike up a casual conversation with a random woman while going about my day, the percentage of the time she shuts it down entirely is something like 10-15%. Most people welcome casual conversation.

Of course you should be able to read obvious "don't bother me" signals. Trying to chat up someone who is working out at the gym or texting on her phone is both stupid and rude.

Most of the men I know try way too hard to get a date with every attractive woman they see, and skip over the part where you, whatyacallit, talk to her. Nobody likes awkward flirting.
   1021. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 11, 2014 at 06:03 PM (#4655100)
Eh, you'll still get shot down 19 out of 20 times trying to talk up a random women.


If you are hitting on them maybe, but if you are just talking to them, not really. I have become friends with many people* this way. it is really easy if you are not desperate. Desperation, they smell it on you like a stink.

* Women, even attractive ones, are people. I know you know this, but some don't.

EDIT: Or, you know, what PASTE said.
   1022. bunyon Posted: February 11, 2014 at 06:03 PM (#4655101)

Addendum: And the subtle undercurrent behind that attitude of "women are different from men and should be treated differently," even though most the guys who do this are clueless rather than malicious, is aggravating for obvious reasons.


Hang on. Are you trying to suggest that women are not different than men? Because that is batshit insane the other direction.
   1023. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 11, 2014 at 06:03 PM (#4655102)
Eh, you'll still get shot down 19 out of 20 times trying to talk up a random women.


If they think you're just looking for a little ass on the side, yes. If you have an actual human conversation? I find women are open to conversations at the bar just like anyone else.
   1024. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: February 11, 2014 at 06:05 PM (#4655103)
Hang on. Are you trying to suggest that women are not different than men? Because that is batshit insane the other direction.


Of course not.
   1025. The Good Face Posted: February 11, 2014 at 06:09 PM (#4655105)
Seriously though you claim I am so totally wrong, but you have yet to actually argue what you think is exactly wrong, other than using that totally typical baseline case of Derek Jeter and then wildly overgeneralizing.


You already admitted I was right on the previous page. Do you really want to reopen your (and Sam's) moronic, "Women are just as attracted to poor, ugly, losers as they are to rich, confident, good looking men" argument?
   1026. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 11, 2014 at 06:10 PM (#4655107)
Do you really want to reopen your (and Sam's) moronic, "Women are just as attracted to poor, ugly, losers as they are to rich, confident, good looking men" argument?


Tell us how to properly value the pretty boys, Face? Can you help us out there, man? Surely you have an appended list of what constitutes "market value," right?

Idiot.
   1027. zonk Posted: February 11, 2014 at 06:13 PM (#4655109)
Heh...

Yeah, it's really beyond me why so few women are on this site!
   1028. bunyon Posted: February 11, 2014 at 06:16 PM (#4655110)
Okay, Zeth. Good. I was worried man. Because my wife is different. With two capital Fs.

And I'm with Greg. Ask me how I got in a relationship and I have no idea. Though I don't think I'm exactly busting the SMVmeter.
   1029. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 11, 2014 at 06:20 PM (#4655114)
Do we calculate SMV out to one or two decimals? How do we account for defense?
   1030. The Good Face Posted: February 11, 2014 at 06:23 PM (#4655115)
Tell us how to properly value the pretty boys, Face? Can you help us out there, man? Surely you have an appended list of what constitutes "market value," right?

Idiot.


The horrible reality that some guys have more on the ball than others when it comes to attracting the opposite sex shocking and appalling you? Grow up Sam, what I'm saying shouldn't be news to anybody out of middle school. I'm genuinely sorry that reality keeps pissing in your cornflakes, but maybe if you stopped swallowing lies uncritically, it wouldn't happen so often.
   1031. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 11, 2014 at 06:31 PM (#4655119)
The horrible reality that some guys have more on the ball than others when it comes to attracting the opposite sex shocking and appalling you?


Dude. I'm not appalled. I'm laughing at you. You haven't progressed out of basic adolescence apparently. You apparently believe that there's a real thing called "sexual market value." Do you also play the neg at the tricks at the bar? I'm not the one needs to grow up here, butddy.
   1032. Lassus Posted: February 11, 2014 at 06:32 PM (#4655120)
Heh. Well-done, bunyon.

I am unaware of my SMV as well. Does it have anything to do with having sex in the a Cathedral? I hope?

This conversation is ####### hilarious, however.
   1033. spike Posted: February 11, 2014 at 06:33 PM (#4655122)
"Women are just as attracted to poor, ugly, losers as they are to rich, confident, good looking men" argument?

As a person who has experienced dating in middle age, this statement becomes more true than many might think
   1034. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: February 11, 2014 at 06:33 PM (#4655123)
I think TGF has been reading "The Rational Male" website a bit too much.

Takedown by PZ Meyers.
   1035. Greg K Posted: February 11, 2014 at 06:42 PM (#4655127)
I think as a general idea, people are attracted to high status people is a fairly defensible position so long as it rests on a bit of a tautology. If we're defining "high status" as "the thing that people are attracted to" (wealth, power, beauty, fame...whatever), then the statement is literally always true.

I think the problematic element is that the calculus changes across time, culture, sub-sets of society, or even individuals. What is high status to someone moving within the international art scene might be of negligible status to someone thoroughly devoted to Alabama college football. I think you run the risk of falling into Bill James' definition of "baseball intelligence" being too universal. It might be "true" if you're fluid enough with what "high status" means...but if so, how useful is that construct?
   1036. Greg K Posted: February 11, 2014 at 06:47 PM (#4655130)
I think TGF has been reading "The Rational Male" website a bit too much.

Takedown by PZ Meyers.

Wow, SMV is an actual thing? I assumed someone was just being a bit tongue-in-cheek in this thread with regard to WAR.
   1037. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: February 11, 2014 at 06:48 PM (#4655131)
It's pretty damn universal and cross-cultural that women tend to be attracted to the man who has command of the room, and men tend to be attracted to the most physically appealing woman in the room.
   1038. Lassus Posted: February 11, 2014 at 07:03 PM (#4655142)
It's pretty damn universal and cross-cultural that women tend to be attracted to the man who has command of the room, and men tend to be attracted to the most physically appealing woman in the room.

I'd be curious of the tending. Although if two out of five women you asked disagreed with this, or said they were turned off by showoffs, someone like Good Face would just call them liars, or nuns in the Cathedral.

This whole argument is just about the slope of the bell-curve of desire. People who - hilariously - cite made-up goofiness like SMV has it at a steep - possibly disrespectful - slope. If you find the slope is more gradual, you're considered, I dunno, blind to the world.

I'll stick with scouts over invented stats in this argument.
   1039. Greg K Posted: February 11, 2014 at 07:09 PM (#4655145)
This conversation does bring to mind the "Ascribe a Numerical Value - Face, Body, Personality" conversation from Beautiful Girls.

Note: It is frustratingly hard to find what you're looking for when you google "Beautiful Girls clip".
   1040. bunyon Posted: February 11, 2014 at 07:21 PM (#4655147)
see you in a few hours, Greg.
   1041. The Good Face Posted: February 11, 2014 at 07:34 PM (#4655151)
You apparently believe that there's a real thing called "sexual market value."


Well of course it's real. If you agree, as you have, that some people are more attractive to the opposite sex than others, then we could fairly say that they have more value to the opposite sex in the sexual marketplace than other people who are less attractive to the opposite sex. It's not that tricky if you think it through.

I'd be curious of the tending. Although if two out of five women you asked disagreed with this, or said they were turned off by showoffs, someone like Good Face would just call them liars, or nuns in the Cathedral.


I'd just shrug. Anything's possible with a sample of five. And of course, we all know people would NEVER lie about sex and what they find desireable.

I think TGF has been reading "The Rational Male" website a bit too much.


Never read it. The concept of SMV is not uncommon. It's just an acknowledgement of what we all know to be true; some people are more attractive to the opposite sex than others, and there are relatively consistent and predictable factors that go into such attractiveness, or the lack thereof.
   1042. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 11, 2014 at 07:40 PM (#4655153)
Does "talk up" in this context mean "attempt to get a date with"? If so then yes, probably.

Of course. Why else are you chatting up a random attractive young woman, rather than a guy or a woman you're not attracted to?
   1043. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 11, 2014 at 07:42 PM (#4655155)
Do we calculate SMV out to one or two decimals? How do we account for defense?

Oooooh, I'm great at defense. I never was any good at picking up women, but if some jackass pissed me off, I could ruin his rap like nobody's business.
   1044. Greg K Posted: February 11, 2014 at 07:52 PM (#4655160)
Oooooh, I'm great at defense. I never was any good at picking up women, but if some jackass pissed me off, I could ruin his rap like nobody's business.

I did that once to great comic effect. A group of 5 or 6 of us were standing around, and one of my friends was laying down his best (read: not very good) game on this poor girl. Meanwhile I (being slightly more drunk than was probably wise) decided to run a colour man style analytical breakdown of this guy's unsuccessful flirting technique as it occurred. Ostensibly for the person beside me, but as it turns out, loud enough for pretty much everyone in a thirty foot radius to hear.

After a couple minutes of this, said flirter breaks off his conversation and motions to me as if he wants to tell me something. I, being drunk and stupid, leaned over and received a punch to the face that knocked me flat on the ground.

It was a pretty great party.
   1045. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: February 11, 2014 at 07:53 PM (#4655161)
Of course. Why else are you chatting up a random attractive young woman, rather than a guy or a woman you're not attracted to?


Because attractive young women are more aesthetically pleasing. It's bundled up in the word "attractive."

(The real answer is that I, personally, chat up a lot of people when I get the chance because I find people interesting, and this includes a fair number of women, attractive and otherwise, young and otherwise. I am extremely married. But I am fond of women and not ashamed to say so, to you or to my wife.)
   1046. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 11, 2014 at 07:57 PM (#4655163)
I did that once to great comic effect. A group of 5 or 6 of us were standing around, and one of my friends was laying down his best (read: not very good) game on this poor girl. Meanwhile I (being slightly more drunk than was probably wise) decided to run a colour man style analytical breakdown of this guy's unsuccessful flirting technique as it occurred. Ostensibly for the person beside me, but as it turns out, loud enough for pretty much everyone in a thirty foot radius to hear.

After a couple minutes of this, said flirter breaks off his conversation and motions to me as if he wants to tell me something. I, being drunk and stupid, leaned over and received a punch to the face that knocked me flat on the ground.

It was a pretty great party.


What a prick. Him not you.

Because attractive young women are more aesthetically pleasing. It's bundled up in the word "attractive."

(The real answer is that I, personally, chat up a lot of people when I get the chance because I find people interesting, and this includes a fair number of women, attractive and otherwise, young and otherwise. I am extremely married. But I am fond of women and not ashamed to say so, to you or to my wife.)


You ways are strange and frightening to me ;-)
   1047. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: February 11, 2014 at 08:11 PM (#4655168)
The concept of SMV is not uncommon. It's just an acknowledgement of what we all know to be true; some people are more attractive to the opposite sex than others, and there are relatively consistent and predictable factors that go into such attractiveness, or the lack thereof.


Like your discussions of race, on some high level it is true but banal, but once you try to pin it down to something definite then things turn to sand in your hands.

For example, since there are more Chinese than Americans, are all Chinese men born with greater SMV than American men (since presumably they are more attractive to Chinese women than American men)?

See, 'the opposite sex' is so broad a category that it's functionally useless.
   1048. Greg K Posted: February 11, 2014 at 08:12 PM (#4655170)
What a prick. Him not you.

Well to be fair I was being a prick. Or at the very least trying very hard to be one.

It's also more or less standard behaviour amongst my friends. I certainly wouldn't do that to someone that wasn't a close friend, and he certainly wouldn't hit anyone unless he was on good terms with them. As I recall the girl (understandably) immediately walked away and we spent the next hour or so laughing at the marvellous scene we had produced! Like Buster Bluth it had been a life-long dream of mine to find out what it was like to get punched in the face.

As a corollary to that story one year that same guy asked to get punched in the face for his birthday. So one of our friends volunteered and we all convened on the sidewalk outside the pub. It pretty much went as follows.

Puncher: So how do you want to do this?
Punchee: Well, maybe for starters don't hi[WHACK!]

He got a full step into it and got him right in the eye. It really sounded like someone thwacking a slab of beef with a piece of wood, with a little suction sound at the end. Then we went for Chinese food, another great night!

Not to make it sound like I have "rough and tumble" friends or anything, far from it. It's probably the nerdiest bunch of weenies in the metropolitan Toronto area - most of them still have a regular D&D game in one of their mom's basement. Abuse (usually just verbal, but on the special occasions you want to make memorable, physical) is how you demonstrate true friendship.
   1049. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 11, 2014 at 08:40 PM (#4655182)
Well to be fair I was being a prick. Or at the very least trying very hard to be one.

It's also more or less standard behaviour amongst my friends. I certainly wouldn't do that to someone that wasn't a close friend, and he certainly wouldn't hit anyone unless he was on good terms with them.


Being a prick to each other sometimes is part and parcel of friendship. But punching? Not to me.
   1050. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 11, 2014 at 08:45 PM (#4655184)
f you agree, as you have, that some people are more attractive to the opposite sex than others,


BZZT. Try again. I do not concede this point. I agree that some people are attractive to some people. I don't concede some sort of universal standard outside of marketing trends.
   1051. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 11, 2014 at 08:46 PM (#4655185)
Of course. Why else are you chatting up a random attractive young woman, rather than a guy or a woman you're not attracted to?


You've clearly never seen Chris Dial in a bar. ############ chats up EVERYONE.
   1052. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 11, 2014 at 08:47 PM (#4655186)
What a prick. Him not you


??? What kind of friend never punches you in the face? You have boring friends.
   1053. zonk Posted: February 11, 2014 at 08:52 PM (#4655190)

I'd be curious of the tending. Although if two out of five women you asked disagreed with this, or said they were turned off by showoffs, someone like Good Face would just call them liars, or nuns in the Cathedral.

This whole argument is just about the slope of the bell-curve of desire. People who - hilariously - cite made-up goofiness like SMV has it at a steep - possibly disrespectful - slope. If you find the slope is more gradual, you're considered, I dunno, blind to the world.

I'll stick with scouts over invented stats in this argument.


Forget samples, it's inherently dishonest -- and if anything, makes me want to align myself further with the sorts of feminists that would insist on spellings like 'womyn'. If anything, it's a cathedral construction... Hell, look no further than Wendy Davis down in Texas - she made sacrifices that would be lauded in a man and now finds herself as a mother attacked for being a lesser mother because of it. There are biological necessities, of course, that exclude some options for women, and together with certain social constructs, mean that yeah... taken as an aggregate, a woman looking to start a family might very well find herself thinking of earning potential, etc in terms of meeting that special someone.

However - and I say this as a single man of 40, so what do I know - my experience has been that women are no more... what was the original term, hypergamous? ... than men. Nor are they particularly more able to succeed in hypergamy.

If anything, I've always found women less prone to such mate-seeking tendencies (and not just 'marrying up' - but also various superficial constructs like agnostic beauty/attractiveness, etc) than men. Just sheepishly thinking about online dating forays - I know that personally, there's a sad 'photo bar' I try very hard not to employ... but in the other direction, I probably haven't had more than two occasions where digital chatting hasn't led to at least a "why not?" date. Whether I'm any sort of catch or not is immaterial, I've found that women are a lot better at least trying to discover the intrinsic person and 'feel' the match or not than I know that I am.

Now, sure... at a bar or other event that's just screaming one night stand? All bets are off and both sexes are equally adept at superficial snap judgements.
   1054. greenback calls it soccer Posted: February 11, 2014 at 09:01 PM (#4655193)
For example, since there are more Chinese than Americans, are all Chinese men born with greater SMV than American men (since presumably they are more attractive to Chinese women than American men)?

Apparently that's not the way it works. Link.
   1055. Lassus Posted: February 11, 2014 at 09:06 PM (#4655194)
I'd just shrug. Anything's possible with a sample of five.

I apparently should have said 40%, as that's what I meant.


And of course, we all know people would NEVER lie about sex and what they find desireable.

Like how men would never lie about not liking larger women or anything non-standard because of douchebags like you?
   1056. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 11, 2014 at 09:45 PM (#4655211)
Hell, look no further than Wendy Davis down in Texas - she made sacrifices that would be lauded in a man and now finds herself as a mother attacked for being a lesser mother because of it.

No, she's losing support because she stretched the truth to develop a narrative of her life story that wasn't quite true. Contrary to what she said, she wasn't divorced as a teenager, had only lived in a [family] trailer for a few months before she got her own apartment, and had her second husband (13 years her senior) pay her last 2 years at TCU & then Harvard Law School, cashing in his retirement to do so. After the last payment on her student loan, she leaves him, leading to a divorce that included allegations of adultery on her part, and custody of the children being awarded to the husband, What part of that would a man be lauded for?
   1057. Tilden Katz Posted: February 11, 2014 at 09:48 PM (#4655212)
Hey Clap, we had a pretty good conversation about gay marriage over the last day or so. Do you have any thoughts?
   1058. Tilden Katz Posted: February 11, 2014 at 09:50 PM (#4655213)
Oh also, I know how hard you work posting polls, so I can forgive you for missing this one.

EDIT: here's the link http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/02/11/217724/mcclatchy-marist-poll-christie.html
   1059. Dr. Vaux Posted: February 11, 2014 at 09:52 PM (#4655214)
Living in a trailer is some kind of horrible hardship now?
   1060. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 11, 2014 at 09:58 PM (#4655217)
I've always found women less prone to such mate-seeking tendencies (and not just 'marrying up' - but also various superficial constructs like agnostic beauty/attractiveness, etc) than men.

Women tend to marry "up". AFAIK, the research showing that isn't in question. However, recent marriage trends are a significant factor in changes in economic equality. Doctors, lawyers, and other professionals used to frequently marry their secretaries (or someone similar); now they frequently marry other doctors, lawyers, and assorted professionals. Nothing the matter with that, and it's a fairly predictable consequence of allowing women to pursue their full potential in the workplace, but this type of "assortative mating" is responsible for something like 29% of the economic inequality growth of recent years, according to at least one study.
   1061. Lassus Posted: February 11, 2014 at 09:58 PM (#4655218)
Link doesn't work, Katz.
   1062. Howie Menckel Posted: February 11, 2014 at 10:07 PM (#4655222)

Sen McCaskill on Morning Joe today was interesting:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/sen-mccaskill-i-wouldnt-invite-obama-to-campaign-with-me/

Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) told Morning Joe Tuesday morning that she probably wouldn’t invite President Barack Obama to campaign with her if she were running in a state where his approval rating is underwater.

“I’m try to be really candid and honest on this show,” she said. “The president’s numbers are not strong in my state or in Arkansas or Louisiana or in North Carolina. He did not win those states when he ran for reelection in 2012.”

“But that doesn’t mean that you can’t win,” she continued. “These candidates in those states are strong candidates. They have been an independent voice for their states. They know how to stay on offense and talk about the Republicans shutting down the government, and the Republicans marginalizing great, hard working people who come to this country wanting nothing more than be a part of the American dream.”

“I think this issue of whether or not you have Obama come to your state is something we like to focus on in Washington, but probably is not that important when you get out to these states,” she concluded.
   1063. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: February 11, 2014 at 10:42 PM (#4655235)
Living in a trailer is some kind of horrible hardship now?


Where I come from, it's not something one aspires to, though lord knows I have first cousins who grew up in a single-wide, albeit with a living room & screened-in porch built on. It's gone, but on the same spot another first cousin lives in a double-wide even as I type.

The house I spent my adolescence in, then sold a few years after inheriting it upon my mother's death, was razed & replaced with a trailer, but as of a couple of years ago the land was sitting vacant. I guess I can no longer call myself "trailer trash once removed" in good conscience.

I guess YMMV, though.
   1064. zonk Posted: February 11, 2014 at 11:13 PM (#4655245)

No, she's losing support because she stretched the truth to develop a narrative of her life story that wasn't quite true. Contrary to what she said, she wasn't divorced as a teenager, had only lived in a [family] trailer for a few months before she got her own apartment, and had her second husband (13 years her senior) pay her last 2 years at TCU & then Harvard Law School, cashing in his retirement to do so. After the last payment on her student loan, she leaves him, leading to a divorce that included allegations of adultery on her part, and custody of the children being awarded to the husband, What part of that would a man be lauded for?


Setting aside for a moment that you present an awful lot of he said/she said as fact --

Why don't you wash it all through Congressman Mark Sanford - in which no facts are in doubt - and get back to me regarding whether you can spot the differences or not...
   1065. McCoy Posted: February 11, 2014 at 11:13 PM (#4655246)

Does "talk up" in this context mean "attempt to get a date with"? If so then yes, probably. Personally when I strike up a casual conversation with a random woman while going about my day, the percentage of the time she shuts it down entirely is something like 10-15%. Most people welcome casual conversation.


You guys are talking about two completely different subjects and a lot of time it is also two completely different environments.

The sexual tension part is what makes creating a connection so difficult and why when there is none it makes creating a friend so easy. You act differently and so do the other person. Secondly I would think it is rather well known that men do in fact get dumber around people they are attracted to. I think in some studies they have even shown that men forget their addresses and their names around women they are attracted to.
   1066. starving to death with a full STEAGLES Posted: February 11, 2014 at 11:35 PM (#4655251)
Sen McCaskill on Morning Joe today was interesting:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/sen-mccaskill-i-wouldnt-invite-obama-to-campaign-with-me/

Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) told Morning Joe Tuesday morning that she probably wouldn’t invite President Barack Obama to campaign with her if she were running in a state where his approval rating is underwater.

“I’m try to be really candid and honest on this show,” she said. “The president’s numbers are not strong in my state or in Arkansas or Louisiana or in North Carolina. He did not win those states when he ran for reelection in 2012.”

“But that doesn’t mean that you can’t win,” she continued. “These candidates in those states are strong candidates. They have been an independent voice for their states. They know how to stay on offense and talk about the Republicans shutting down the government, and the Republicans marginalizing great, hard working people who come to this country wanting nothing more than be a part of the American dream.”

“I think this issue of whether or not you have Obama come to your state is something we like to focus on in Washington, but probably is not that important when you get out to these states,” she concluded.

dumb. dumb dumb dumb.

republicans are gonna conflate democrats with obama anyway, so if you're a candidate you might as well show some spine and support the guy at the top of the ticket. even if his polling is "under-water" in louisiana, his presence draws attention to your campaign and the kind of people who would go to a rally to see him aren't gonna be the ones who hate him anyway.


it's the same thing with this christie thing and illinois gubernatorial candidates. if you're in that race, instead of slinking away from him when he comes to your state to raise funds for your campaign, you should stand by him when others won't and depending on how things shake out in the next few years, you might have made yourself a really, really powerful ally.

that's a gamble, but the upside gives you a chance to be governor of illinois in 2014 and gets your name on a short-list of 2016 VP candidates, while the downside is really limited to having to get a real job.

   1067. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: February 11, 2014 at 11:47 PM (#4655258)
You act differently and so do the other person. Secondly I would think it is rather well known that men do in fact get dumber around people they are attracted to. I think in some studies they have even shown that men forget their addresses and their names around women they are attracted to.


I doubt the effect is distinguishable from forgetting simple things when nervous for other reasons. Most men are nervous around attractive women.
   1068. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 11, 2014 at 11:53 PM (#4655259)
I think in some studies they have even shown that men forget their addresses and their names around women they are attracted to.


Yup.
   1069. Greg K Posted: February 12, 2014 at 12:18 AM (#4655266)
I have a tendency to concentrate so much on getting my name right that I hardly ever catch the other person's name upon meeting.

Depends on what you mean by "forget". If you gave me a second to think about it I'd have it in that situation. But off the top of my head I'd probably say "221B Baker Street" or something.
   1070. Howie Menckel Posted: February 12, 2014 at 12:52 AM (#4655276)

MSNBC has a host named Krystal Ball? well, she doesn't want Hillary to run in 2016

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/dont-run-msnbcs-krystal-ball-urges-anti-union-hillary-to-pass-on-2016/

can't wait to see what future Fox News host Claire Voyant - she'll be a blonde for sure - has to say about this...

   1071. Swoboda is freedom Posted: February 12, 2014 at 01:15 AM (#4655283)
can't wait to see what future Fox News host Claire Voyant - she'll be a blonde for sure - has to say about this...

Clare's broadcast partner is Noah Vail. Love to see it when Clare Voyant throws it over to Noah Vail.
   1072. Dr. Vaux Posted: February 12, 2014 at 01:23 AM (#4655284)
I know perspective is everything, but when I lived in a trailer, I was damned happy to be living anywhere. Plastic plumbing? Well, it's better than no plumbing! But that part of Kansas is probably different from your part of Arkansas--this was a town where the trailers were among the few houses that weren't falling to rubble. There were definitely white-collar professionals livings in trailers in that town.

   1073. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 12, 2014 at 01:34 AM (#4655288)
Setting aside for a moment that you present an awful lot of he said/she said as fact . . .

I don't believe even Davis has denied the accuracy of the Dallas Morning News story, although like Zonk she seems to think she's being treated unfairly by being called on the discrepancies. I don't think most folks will agree with that, and she has compounded her problems by playing the victim card, accusing the campaign of her opponent, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, of planting the story (newspaper denies it) and then committing a Biden-level gaffe by saying Abbott "hadn't walked a mile in my shoes". Abbott is a paraplegic confined to a wheelchair.
   1074. boteman Posted: February 12, 2014 at 04:11 AM (#4655301)
T.I.L. that Sellers, South Carolina is shaped like home plate. That's neat.
   1075. BrianBrianson Posted: February 12, 2014 at 06:25 AM (#4655307)
Eh, you'll still get shot down 19 out of 20 times trying to talk up a random women.


Maybe don't open with "Hey, can I jam my dick in you?" and you'll do better. \"####\" is a far more appealling sounding word than "dick".

Of course, context matters. If you select a context where most women are single, you'll do a lot better than if you select a context where most women are married (e.g., on OKCupid women respond to about 30% of the unsolicited messages they get, men to about 40% - but you're selecting single people who're looking. Hit on women at a couple's only retreat, and you're likely to do a lot worse.) so there's a bit of an IQ test implicit here.
   1076. zonk Posted: February 12, 2014 at 09:06 AM (#4655325)

I don't believe even Davis has denied the accuracy of the Dallas Morning News story, although like Zonk she seems to think she's being treated unfairly by being called on the discrepancies. I don't think most folks will agree with that, and she has compounded her problems by playing the victim card, accusing the campaign of her opponent, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, of planting the story (newspaper denies it) and then committing a Biden-level gaffe by saying Abbott "hadn't walked a mile in my shoes". Abbott is a paraplegic confined to a wheelchair.


I'll assume the remainder of your response -- you know, to my main point -- was busy hiking the Appalachian Trail and was unavailable for posting...
   1077. zonk Posted: February 12, 2014 at 09:28 AM (#4655335)
Robert Costa is probably the world's best fly on the Republican caucus wall...

Boehner’s delivery was crisp; his decision was final. The room of Republicans sat up, stunned that Boehner was abruptly shifting away from the leadership’s plan, which had been championed 12 hours earlier at a Monday night meeting in the Capitol basement. But there were no outcries or boos. A few members whispered to each other that Boehner was right, that due to conservative opposition to any hike, he was cornered. But they didn’t speak up or clap. Boehner just stood there for a moment after he finished, eyed the room, and walked toward his seat. On his way there, Boehner shook his head, then turned to the nearly mute crowd and wondered aloud why he wasn’t getting applause. “I’m getting this monkey off your back and you’re not going to even clap?” Boehner asked, scowling playfully at some tea-party favorites.


   1078. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: February 12, 2014 at 10:14 AM (#4655346)
dumb. dumb dumb dumb.

republicans are gonna conflate democrats with obama anyway, so if you're a candidate you might as well show some spine and support the guy at the top of the ticket. even if his polling is "under-water" in louisiana, his presence draws attention to your campaign and the kind of people who would go to a rally to see him aren't gonna be the ones who hate him anyway.


I think any undecideds want to side with a "winner", and sorry to say, Obama doesn't seem like a "winner" right now. If he builds up momentum again this summer, maybe, but I don't blame red state Dems from keeping their distance (much like the GOP disavowed Bush in 2006-2008).

I think 2-4 years after he's out of office, everyone will want to be seen with Obama.
   1079. bunyon Posted: February 12, 2014 at 10:20 AM (#4655350)
I know perspective is everything, but when I lived in a trailer, I was damned happy to be living anywhere. Plastic plumbing? Well, it's better than no plumbing! But that part of Kansas is probably different from your part of Arkansas--this was a town where the trailers were among the few houses that weren't falling to rubble. There were definitely white-collar professionals livings in trailers in that town.

Same here. You could live in a trailer less than 10 years old or a crumbling wood house built before the dust bowl. Easy choice. Trailers can be nice.

Now, a crumbling, old trailer? Yeah, that sucks. But even then I wouldn't call it suffering. If you have a roof and enough to eat, you may well be poor but you aren't suffering. Suffering, to my mind, is a whole 'nother ball game. That doesn't make a rags to riches story unappealing, just don't overdo it.


Zonk, I don't think the Sanford angle works as Davis hasn't lost (yet) and isn't in the same district, thus not the same group of voters. You can't say that a voter in Davis' district wouldn't have reacted differently to Sanford. Politically, I like Davis more than her opponent. But if the discrepancies in her backstory are true - that is, if she lied - then I think very much worse of her as a person. I might still vote for her due to politics. Wouldn't make her not a lying scumbag.
   1080. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: February 12, 2014 at 10:30 AM (#4655355)
Rand Paul to sue Obama, NSA


“I am filing a lawsuit against President Barack Obama because he has publicly refused to stop a clear and continuing violation of the 4th Amendment. The Bill of Rights protects all citizens from general warrants. I expect this case to go all the way to the Supreme Court and I predict the American people will win,” Paul said in a statement.

Former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli will serve as his lead counsel and Matt Kibbe, president of FreedomWorks, joins him in filing the suit.

   1081. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 12, 2014 at 10:31 AM (#4655356)
Zonk, I don't think the Sanford angle works as Davis hasn't lost (yet) and isn't in the same district, thus not the same group of voters. You can't say that a voter in Davis' district wouldn't have reacted differently to Sanford.


Of course you could. The voters in Davis' district (who are yapping about how that dirty gold digging ##### is just in it for the money) wouldn't think twice about Sanford's secondary activities in South America. See, I just said it. It also has the benefit of being 90+% true in the details.
   1082. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 12, 2014 at 10:36 AM (#4655362)
Paul is out in front of the GOP pack in prepping for 2016.
   1083. zonk Posted: February 12, 2014 at 10:37 AM (#4655364)
Zonk, I don't think the Sanford angle works as Davis hasn't lost (yet) and isn't in the same district, thus not the same group of voters. You can't say that a voter in Davis' district wouldn't have reacted differently to Sanford. Politically, I like Davis more than her opponent. But if the discrepancies in her backstory are true - that is, if she lied - then I think very much worse of her as a person. I might still vote for her due to politics. Wouldn't make her not a lying scumbag.


The issue originally wasn't so much raised from the political perspective as it was from the gender perspective... that was more my point in bringing up Davis and Sanford.

I'm quite willing to accept as a postulate that all politicians are at least some degree of lying scumbag - not because bad people are drawn to politics, but because the nature of our politics is such that you have an awfully hard time winning unless you at least dip your toes into that pool (Whether the need for 'narrative construction' or the manner in which one needs to constantly keep the coffers full -- and certain interest groups satiated).

In effect, it's less about Davis' 'backstory' than it is the fact that Davis, as a wife, as a mother (and to the contrary of VERY strong denials from the children she supposedly failed) being held to one standard, while Mark Sanford --- who we know with an absolutely, no rumors needed, undeniable certainty -- stepped out on his wife on the state dime, at that, destroyed his marriage in a most painful and public way, didn't "think of the children"... and while to be sure - the Democrats most definitely attempted to use facts, not innuendo, not rumor, but the basic fact against him - it certainly didn't stick.

   1084. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 12, 2014 at 10:46 AM (#4655369)
Gender roles and expectations are changing, but I don't think I am being controversial by suggesting that there is a double standard at work. But life is, as mom always said, not fair. She was always a long shot IMO, demographics are just too against her, but in 4 to 8 years I think a Dem will have a much better chance there.
   1085. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: February 12, 2014 at 10:51 AM (#4655373)
Same here. You could live in a trailer less than 10 years old or a crumbling wood house built before the dust bowl. Easy choice. Trailers can be nice.

Now, a crumbling, old trailer? Yeah, that sucks. But even then I wouldn't call it suffering. If you have a roof and enough to eat, you may well be poor but you aren't suffering. Suffering, to my mind, is a whole 'nother ball game. That doesn't make a rags to riches story unappealing, just don't overdo it.


My perception of trailers is no doubt colored by the unfortunate condition of the single wide in which I briefly lived, for maybe a month, midway through my sophomore year in college. The insulation was so lacking that during one cold spell, the water in the toilet bowl froze solid. I have no idea how the temp may have been outside, but of course this was southwest Arkansas; we're not talking Minnesota or Alaska here.

When my future 2nd wife & I were looking to move up from renting back in '86, we initially looked at trailers, because we thought that's all we could reasonably hope to afford, since between us we were making something like $30K, with her two teenage daughters also involved in the equation. Some seemed pretty decent, but the fact that one salesman flat-out lied to us about the alleged tax benefits of such a purchase helped reduce our enthusiasm about the possibility. We wound up buying a house in one of North Little Rock's working-class sections.
   1086. GregD Posted: February 12, 2014 at 10:51 AM (#4655374)
I have two possibly contradictory responses to Davis:
1) I think there's a difference between flat-out lying and smoothing out stories. Politicians tell stories over and over and I think it is universal among them that they begin to shape their stories to the applause lines and in the process end up drifting away from the facts. Single mom at 20 but you slip and say single teen mom, and pretty soon I think most people giving that many speeches would start shading, perhaps without knowing it. To me, Davis is in the category of some of Reagan's polishing of his stories. It doesn't reflect an impressive commitment to precision, but it doesn't bother me. And it's totally different than say flat-out flying of the Clinton/Gingrich style.

2) I have a big personal problem with candidates who don't seem to keep track of their kids. Perhaps that's absurd, and perhaps it ventures into the unknowable, but I do think it spoke to Reagan's character that he was such an absent father (and it spoke to both Bushes' character--and to Obama's--that they were so present.) I can understand the idea that it's too much to blame politicians for the impact of every scandal upon their children--to me Sanford is a liar and terrible husband but unclear that he's a terrible father though he obviously did something that terribly humiliated his children.

Davis poses two problems on this front: 1) it's hard to know how to read those moments and 2) it's hard not to read a woman leaving her kids with someone else as a damning indictment. Would I feel the same about a father who left custody with the mother but stayed involved? I don't know. Would I feel uncomfortable with a father who left his kids with a former stepmother? Absolutely. So I do recognize the potential for sexism here but also think Davis' particular situation creeps me out.

That said, the moral responsibility one faces as a voter includes not just owning the limitations of the people you vote for but also owning the implications of helping an even more undesirable person by not voting for the least-bad option. I think not-voting is the least-pure moral stance available except for someone who because of some brain injury cannot make distinctions between policies or human beings. So I could certainly imagine myself holding my nose and voting for Davis in a general.

If I were in Texas, however, I think I would be trying to gin up support for a different primary candidate. Her appeal rests on the idea that she might be the only Texas Dem who can run a serious campaign, and her challenge in explaining her backstory undermines that case.
   1087. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 12, 2014 at 10:59 AM (#4655377)
The obvious problem is electing breeders to office. Politics should be reserved for those of us who are above such primal instincts as spawning.
   1088. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 12, 2014 at 11:04 AM (#4655383)
The obvious problem is electing breeders to office. Politics should be reserved for those of us who are above such primal instincts as spawning.


Hey, if women didn't want me to spawn they wouldn't be leaving their roe all over the place waiting for my milt.
   1089. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: February 12, 2014 at 11:04 AM (#4655384)
those of us who are above such primal instincts as spawning.


Being unable to attract a mate is not the same as being above the spawning instinct
   1090. BDC Posted: February 12, 2014 at 11:06 AM (#4655387)
That's a good analysis, Greg. Davis has boxed herself into discrepancies by reducing a messy personal life into a couple of attractive soundbites.

I'll certainly vote for her in the general election, but she's trying to have things both ways at the moment, to be the liberal darling with all kinds of calculated conservative stances. She recently advocated open carry of handguns, for instance. I'm sure her daddy taught her to shoot – actually I'm sure he didn't, he was a major figure on the Ft. Worth theater scene as actor and producer – anyway, I'm sure she's a legitimate gun-loving Texan, but if I want to vote for gun-lovers, there are real Republicans in the race …
   1091. zonk Posted: February 12, 2014 at 11:08 AM (#4655388)

Davis poses two problems on this front: 1) it's hard to know how to read those moments and 2) it's hard not to read a woman leaving her kids with someone else as a damning indictment. Would I feel the same about a father who left custody with the mother but stayed involved? I don't know. Would I feel uncomfortable with a father who left his kids with a former stepmother? Absolutely. So I do recognize the potential for sexism here but also think Davis' particular situation creeps me out.


But that's the thing --

Both her children have come out in very strong terms in support of their mom... We can say "that's expected" -- but it begs the question as to why they needed to do so...

That said, I do understand how it can 'feel strange'... gender roles are changing - and I don't think that's an awful thing. I have friends who have similar situations -- one mom spent 3 months away (traveling home every other weekend) from her 3 year old while she was on a project abroad. I know it was very hard for her - but the simple fact is that she was the primary breadwinner and it was simply easier for her husband to work from home. I've got another buddy that quite playfully calls himself Mr. Mom -- he's got a low stress, 9 to 5 (with frequent telecommuting) and he's the one who gets the kids to school, packs the lunches, and takes them to soccer practice. She's a relatively high powered attorney and works really tough hours... She most certainly loves her kids and loves her family -- but she also loves practicing law. He simply doesn't any great career love - he'll readily admit it's just a generic white collar job that he'd actually be fine with quitting, except his wife isn't quite yet high-powered enough that they can maintain their lifestyle without his income.... Of course, then we get into "first world problems" -- the lifestyle changes they'd undergo might mean continental family vacations instead of Europe, perhaps used cars instead of a top-of-the-line minivan and luxury sedan, etc... but that's another discussion.

I'm not trying to broadbrush sexism here... just saying that decisions like this are a personal matter and beyond the fact that only one gender has a womb, career choices, taking care of children, etc is something that men and women ought to each be free to share the same choices (and yes, take responsibility).

   1092. The Good Face Posted: February 12, 2014 at 11:09 AM (#4655390)
For example, since there are more Chinese than Americans, are all Chinese men born with greater SMV than American men (since presumably they are more attractive to Chinese women than American men)?

See, 'the opposite sex' is so broad a category that it's functionally useless.


The internets might describe that as insane troll logic.

That said, SMV is always, to some degree, specific to a given society, since status markers often differ from society to society. A guy who's a really great rugby player in New Zealand will be treated like Derek Jeter; he'll be famous and highly compensated. A really great rugby player in America will most likely be anonymous because American society doesn't value rugby greatness particularly highly.

And of course, we all know people would NEVER lie about sex and what they find desireable.

Like how men would never lie about not liking larger women or anything non-standard because of ########## like you?


For reals? It's my fault chubby chasers have to hide their shame? My power grows!

Seriously though, this stuff isn't hard. Look at what people do, not what they say. And what high SMV men (men with lots of options) typically do is avoid fat women like the plague. Look at the movie stars men like, the magazines they buy, the porn they watch, and you can see some general trends emerge. And the results are a lot closer to the Kate Upton side of the ledger than the Rosie O'Donnell side. But shhhhhhh... don't tell Sam! In his world, the night janitor at the local Denny's is every bit as attractive to women as George Clooney.

   1093. zonk Posted: February 12, 2014 at 11:13 AM (#4655394)
Look at the movie stars men like, the magazines they buy, the porn they watch, and you can see some general trends emerge. And the results are a lot closer to the Kate Upton side of the ledger than the Rosie O'Donnell side. But shhhhhhh... don't tell Sam! In his world, the night janitor at the local Denny's is every bit as attractive to women as George Clooney.


In other words, look to the high priests of the Cathedral! Take note of their actions, bow when they bow, pray how they pray -- and by that shall you know god!
   1094. BDC Posted: February 12, 2014 at 11:13 AM (#4655396)
what high SMV men (men with lots of options) typically do is avoid fat women like the plague

The problem with that statement is that it quickly becomes circular. Guys (some of them fat themselves) married to fat women are thus by definition losers, whatever their success, happiness, family size, or erotic preferences.
   1095. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: February 12, 2014 at 11:19 AM (#4655400)

That said, SMV is always, to some degree, specific to a given society, since status markers often differ from society to society.


Your original statement said nothing about 'given societies', it was a universal statement regarding 'the opposite sex'. So as you have refuted your own claim, there seems to be nothing left to discuss, unless you want to put forward a different proposition.
   1096. GregD Posted: February 12, 2014 at 11:21 AM (#4655404)
That said, I do understand how it can 'feel strange'... gender roles are changing - and I don't think that's an awful thing. I have friends who have similar situations -- one mom spent 3 months away (traveling home every other weekend) from her 3 year old while she was on a project abroad. I know it was very hard for her - but the simple fact is that she was the primary breadwinner and it was simply easier for her husband to work from home. I've got another buddy that quite playfully calls himself Mr. Mom -- he's got a low stress, 9 to 5 (with frequent telecommuting) and he's the one who gets the kids to school, packs the lunches, and takes them to soccer practice. She's a relatively high powered attorney and works really tough hours... She most certainly loves her kids and loves her family -- but she also loves practicing law. He simply doesn't any great career love - he'll readily admit it's just a generic white collar job that he'd actually be fine with quitting, except his wife isn't quite yet high-powered enough that they can maintain their lifestyle without his income.... Of course, then we get into "first world problems" -- the lifestyle changes they'd undergo might mean continental family vacations instead of Europe, perhaps used cars instead of a top-of-the-line minivan and luxury sedan, etc... but that's another discussion.
I'm open to the role of sexism in this, though I do more primary care of my kids than my wife does so I'm at least aware of the idea that gender does not have to equal child care.

The other distinction I made though is also playing into this case. She left the kids with a step-parent. That I would dislike at first glance no matter the gender. Obviously it can be the right and even only thing to do, but it's not a sign of organization or family commitment no matter which gender. And I do think I would respond just as sharply to a man who left his kids with an ex-stepmother. That may reflect biological determinism or whatever other failing on my part, but it is something that does bother me.
   1097. bunyon Posted: February 12, 2014 at 11:24 AM (#4655406)

Davis poses two problems on this front: 1) it's hard to know how to read those moments and 2) it's hard not to read a woman leaving her kids with someone else as a damning indictment. Would I feel the same about a father who left custody with the mother but stayed involved? I don't know. Would I feel uncomfortable with a father who left his kids with a former stepmother? Absolutely. So I do recognize the potential for sexism here but also think Davis' particular situation creeps me out.

That said, the moral responsibility one faces as a voter includes not just owning the limitations of the people you vote for but also owning the implications of helping an even more undesirable person by not voting for the least-bad option. I think not-voting is the least-pure moral stance available except for someone who because of some brain injury cannot make distinctions between policies or human beings. So I could certainly imagine myself holding my nose and voting for Davis in a general.


This says what I was trying to much better.

I wouldn't have voted for Sanford. I don't think much of him as a man and I don't like his politics.

(If the worst stories are true) I don't think much of Davis as a woman. But her politics are close enough to mine I might vote for her.

I suspect the last phrase in both sentences is the most germane. My guess is in SC, most people don't think much of Sanford as a man but his politics line up with theirs so they voted for him. If someone doesn't like Davis' politics - and in TX that is quite likely - it doesn't make them sexist to vote against her.

Both sides play up the "terrible parent!" angle or "horrible spouse!" angle to get an edge. That's just the game.
   1098. Lassus Posted: February 12, 2014 at 11:31 AM (#4655417)
I can't believe I actually thought Good Face couldn't top the Cathedral narrative.
   1099. The Good Face Posted: February 12, 2014 at 11:34 AM (#4655419)
what high SMV men (men with lots of options) typically do is avoid fat women like the plague

The problem with that statement is that it quickly becomes circular. Guys (some of them fat themselves) married to fat women are thus by definition losers, whatever their success, happiness, family size, or erotic preferences.


Why would that be the case? You've never heard of a woman getting fat AFTER getting married and having some kids? Plenty of guys married an attractive woman only to see her gain 100lbs and grow a mustache after a decade of marriage/kids. That can suck for the guy, but isn't necessarily a reflection on his SMV at the time he got married.

It's quite common for a young married couple to have similar SMV; she's pretty, he's reasonably handsome and just starting out his career. It's also common for their SMV to rapidly diverge over a few decades. She's now middle aged and dumpy, and has sacrificed some of her career for her kids. He's still reasonably handsome, but now rich and successful, possibly even powerful and well connected. A guy like that can pretty easily get sex from younger and more attractive women than his wife, and many do. I have a lot of respect for the ones who honor their commitments and don't.
   1100. zonk Posted: February 12, 2014 at 11:52 AM (#4655429)

Why would that be the case? You've never heard of a woman getting fat AFTER getting married and having some kids? Plenty of guys married an attractive woman only to see her gain 100lbs and grow a mustache after a decade of marriage/kids. That can suck for the guy, but isn't necessarily a reflection on his SMV at the time he got married.

It's quite common for a young married couple to have similar SMV; she's pretty, he's reasonably handsome and just starting out his career. It's also common for their SMV to rapidly diverge over a few decades. She's now middle aged and dumpy, and has sacrificed some of her career for her kids. He's still reasonably handsome, but now rich and successful, possibly even powerful and well connected. A guy like that can pretty easily get sex from younger and more attractive women than his wife, and many do. I have a lot of respect for the ones who honor their commitments and don't.


Anecdotes are not data points, I guess... but when I look at my own circle of friends, some of whom are now 3 kids in - the wives in most instances have held up better than the men. In fairness, a lot of that has to do with hairlines - but I see more paunches on the dudes than the women. Just off the top of my head, 'rich and successful' is a mixed bag, too... female attorneys now junior partners, doctors with their own practice with dudes still in middle management, etc. The inverse is true, of course - but just mentally laying out say, the 10 couples I'm closest with... it's a pretty even hand. Of course, I would also say that all 10 are pretty happy couples where both sides of the equation blanching at silliness like 'SMV'.

Or is that also part of SMV? Is it like Fight Club? You can only have positive SMV if you don't talk about your SMV?
Page 11 of 36 pages ‹ First  < 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Backlasher
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogBlue Jays To Acquire Josh Donaldson From Athletics For Brett Lawrie, Others
(62 - 4:19am, Nov 29)
Last: Davo's Favorite Tacos Are Moose Tacos

NewsblogRoyals trade reliever Aaron Crow to Miami for two minor leaguers
(1 - 2:32am, Nov 29)
Last: Joyful Calculus Instructor

NewsblogOT - November 2014 College Football thread
(641 - 1:14am, Nov 29)
Last: Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams)

NewsblogSource: Tomas agrees to six-year deal with D-backs | MLB.com
(39 - 12:51am, Nov 29)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

NewsblogWhatever happened to Wendell Kim? The sad story
(7 - 12:50am, Nov 29)
Last: A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose)

NewsblogBaseball's most underrated Hall of Fame candidates. | SportsonEarth.com : Anthony Castrovince Article
(42 - 12:09am, Nov 29)
Last: alilisd

Newsblog[Cricketer NOT baseball player] Phil Hughes dies after “pitch” to the head
(21 - 11:49pm, Nov 28)
Last: Phil Coorey is a T-Shirt Salesman

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(1198 - 11:48pm, Nov 28)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 11-28-2014
(13 - 11:30pm, Nov 28)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogBoston Red Sox prove (once again) that competitive balance in baseball will never exist | cleveland.com
(55 - 11:30pm, Nov 28)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

NewsblogSandy Alderson says Mets can move quickly if a shortstop becomes available - NY Daily News
(51 - 11:27pm, Nov 28)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogMarlins seek lefty balance in lineup, on mound | MLB.com
(4 - 11:13pm, Nov 28)
Last: Leroy Kincaid

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - November 2014
(1149 - 10:06pm, Nov 28)
Last: Famous Original Joe C

NewsblogBaseball’s Teen-Age Twitter Reporters - The New Yorker
(11 - 7:14pm, Nov 28)
Last: Joe Kehoskie

NewsblogJon Lester has plenty of options in addition to Red Sox - Sports - The Boston Globe
(13 - 4:54pm, Nov 28)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

Page rendered in 0.8851 seconds
52 querie(s) executed