# tsk-tsk ladies :P



## rickthegreat (Dec 22, 2008)

"Surprisingly, single women were much more interested in pursuing a relationship with a committed man than with a single man. Specifically, when researchers described the man as single, 59 percent of single women were interested in pursuing him. However, when they described the exact same man as being in a committed relationship, 90 percent of the women were interested. Men did not show this preference..."

Heeheehee

This was not news to me though. There is at least one guy in a eh..community that exploits this.

"This may be because a man who is attached ...in a sense, has been pre-screened by another woman."

"According to a recent poll in Women's Health magazine, most women who mate poach don't believe the relationship status of the man influenced their behavior, but this study proves that belief to be false."

http://www.synergy-pr.com/press/MelissaBurkley,PhD/51/800/0

Heeheeheeheehee

Anyway, what bugs me isn't necessarily the fact that women find attached men more attractive, but that they either lie about it or are unaware of it. Makes me wonder what else women are not aware of. 

Lesson: If you're a guy and don't have a girlfriend, lie about having a girlfriend. Or wear a wedding ring. (I keep mind right next to my cologne) :b (kidding, I don't actually have a wedding ring.) Maybe I should get one though.  I don't wanna turn into a Seinfeld episode though.






Oh, and guys: bring your gal friends along with you :b

"Research on human preferences does show that women rate men as more desirable when they are surrounded by other women, compared to being alone or surrounded by other men"

Damn it sucks to have SA.  oh well. hahahahaha


----------



## rumjungle (Feb 13, 2009)

I've kind of been aware of it for sometime now with myself. It is so wierd and almost counter-intuitive but yes I know that my interest in past suitors will go up if I find out they are no longer single. I'm not a man-poacher though! 

I'm also someone who isn't ready for a serious relationship so I find single men that are potentionally interested in me threatening (not that it's a frequent thing I have to deal with).


----------



## Iced Soul (Jan 28, 2009)

While, I can agree with women being more attracted to guys already in good, stable relationships (for the reason that it shows he's able to commit and not a lost cause, is what I'm thinking, and that, to me, is not news), I don't agree that a guy is more attractive when surrounded by other girls. Maybe it's just me, but if I see a guy surrounded by other girls, I either think he's definitely taken, so forget about him, or he's probably a player and not worth the time or effort.


----------



## rickthegreat (Dec 22, 2008)

Iced Soul said:


> While, I can agree with women being more attracted to guys already in good, stable relationships (for the reason that it shows he's able to commit and not a lost cause, is what I'm thinking..


Interesting. That's what the psychologist (who was a woman) hypothesized. Another take on that is that women find attached men more attractive because they have been pre-screened not only for their ability to commit, but for other qualities like resources (wealth), leadership, a network of friends (social skills), intelligence, propensity for aggression/risk taking--in other words for their ability to *provide*--eh, yes for her and potential baby. All of which take time to elucidate (for the most part)...and since all women look for all of these same things (more or less), then a guy who is committed to someone has passed the rigorous female test--saving the "poacher" all that leg work and risk of getting a dud--in theory at least. :b Plus it's not just that. Presumably the guy who is committed was also chosen for his genes that will be passed on, so that baby will be just as resourceful, risk-taking, confident, etc.--in theory at least. Well, not necessarily, but you ladies can dream.


----------



## Zephyr (Nov 8, 2003)

I don't think it's news to anybody. If you've been in past relationships, especially "stable" ones, it shows that you're capable of that. Other women have desired you in a serious way, and so it shows you're worth being desired. Your value can only go up. On the other hand if you're currently single, or worse _perpetually _single, there will be reasons why. No one else wants you; why should she? Even if this might not always be a conscious thought process, I totally understand it.

There also could be a bit of "wanting what you can't have." You're not allowed to taste the forbidden fruit











> Anyway, what bugs me isn't necessarily the fact that women find attached men more attractive, but that they either lie about it or are unaware of it. Makes me wonder what else women are not aware of.


True for all humans. We're complex creatures. There is a lot lurking under the surface we're only vaguely aware of.


----------



## markx (Dec 22, 2007)

So that study would seem to suggest that having a dating site relationship status of "single" is actually a hindrance. :con


----------



## nothing to fear (Mar 23, 2005)

that might make sense in how you might know he is capable to be in a committed relationship and you would find that more attractive.


i've never felt more attracted to a guy for that reason, though. quite the opposite actually.


----------



## mountain5 (May 22, 2008)

I think it's just as much the fact that single men are perceived as a threat, as it is the so-called value of married men.

Just walking around in the world as a single male, it seems like the perception is that you're either on business, or you're up to no good. In the very brief time I had a girlfriend, I was astounded by how much more attention and respect I got with a girl on my arm.

I used to think about buying a cheap ring to put on my finger and see if that made any difference, but there's not much of a point since I hardly ever meet strangers.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

Yeah, that makes sense.


----------



## strugglingforhope (Jun 13, 2009)

This is precisely the reason I feel so insecure about dating, I've never had a girlfriend - so it's like there must be something wrong with me. And there sort of is something wrong with me - saying I've been shy is a better excuse than other things, but still it's not going to come across well. I think it's not really fair to judge someone that way, but nevertheless it will happen - hell I judge people on looks I can't control that. It just makes you think how unfair it is that the guys that get the girls get more girls, and the guys who don't - get less, but that's natural selection at work - it's the way it is, not the way it should be.


----------



## rocky (Oct 14, 2006)

i have a friend i've known for half my life. he's a good guy, but not someone i would consider physically attractive to women given the fact that he's at least 150 pounds overweight among other things. all through high school he struggled with girls but somehow managed to meet someone and get married about ten years ago. he's commented to me numerous times about how women practically throw themselves at him since then and i've actually witnessed it myself. one night a few years ago i was talking to him after work and two very attractive young women approached him, gave him a big hug and started openly flirting with him. i even heard one of them invite him over to her house to "party" with her :um the whole time this was going on they completely ignored single, available me. :sigh


----------



## Cerberus (Feb 13, 2005)

I guess this is why polygamy can work.


----------



## STKinTHEmud (Jun 21, 2009)

I think the lesson here is for those of us who want something real to stay away from that 90% and go for the 10% of women who aren't inclined to mess with a man in a relationship. Likewise, there are a lot of really messed up guys out there who aren't worth a woman's (who wants something real) time. Granted, this significantly reduces our dating pools, but really, I don't think we should settle for just anyone.


----------



## mountain5 (May 22, 2008)

No-Sturm-und-Drang said:


> maybe cuz there are so many "single" guys that are tools


I don't know what you mean here...are you talking about guys who lie about being single, or what?


----------



## Neptunus (Oct 29, 2007)

Yet another reason why marriage is pointless...


----------



## Witan (Jun 13, 2009)

Phoebus said:


> Yet another reason why marriage is pointless...


:agree

Just more proof that humans are nothing more than bald, tool-using monkeys.


----------



## sacred (May 25, 2009)

wow this would be horrible news if i were a shy single guy with family oriented values in the year 500 and living in a village with a population of 200 people.


----------



## DeeperUnderstanding (May 19, 2007)

Yeah, it seems like most girls want someone who is wanted by other girls. Doesn't make a lot of sense, but girls don't seem to make a lot of sense. :lol


----------



## millenniumman75 (Feb 4, 2005)

mountain5 said:


> I don't know what you mean here...are you talking about guys who lie about being single, or what?


The ones who cannot commit and treat women like ****. Yes, it rhymed! :lol


----------



## nothing to fear (Mar 23, 2005)

No-Sturm-und-Drang said:


> maybe cuz there are so many "single" guys that are tools


hm, i'd say there are just as much, if not more, guys i meet who are in relationships or have been in some who are tools or i just generally dislike.
but then again i seem to just have different taste, maybe?


----------



## rickthegreat (Dec 22, 2008)

rocky said:


> ...he's commented to me numerous times about how women practically throw themselves at him since then and i've actually witnessed it myself. ...the whole time this was going on they completely ignored single, available me. :sigh


That sucks rocky. It's hilarious about your friend though.  How did they know he was married? Just the ring? His wife wasn't right there with him right? :O

I just think there is more to it than the guy being able to commit. Besides, this study was about whether or not women would be willing to pursue the committed guy, not just whether they liked him more or whatever. Why would they be willing to pursue him if that was all? Commitment implies fidelity no? C'mon girls, it can't be that his ability or willingness to commit is what makes a guy more attractive. Besides, the guy could be a player nine way to Sunday. I dunno. I don't get it.


----------



## rocky (Oct 14, 2006)

> How did they know he was married? Just the ring? His wife wasn't right there with him right? :O


no one of the girls lives near him and knows him and the other one was her friend. they all knew each other so it wasn't like he was being approached by random women he's never met before.


----------



## MaidMarian (Feb 18, 2009)

rickthegreat said:


> "Surprisingly, single women were much more interested in pursuing a relationship with a committed man than with a single man. Specifically, when researchers described the man as single, 59 percent of single women were interested in pursuing him. However, when they described the exact same man as being in a committed relationship, 90 percent of the women were interested. Men did not show this preference..."


This is one of the big reasons I dislike and mistrust most women. They are sneaky, jealous, backstabbing *****es.


----------



## Witan (Jun 13, 2009)

MaidMarian said:


> This is one of the big reasons I dislike and mistrust most women. They are sneaky, jealous, backstabbing *****es.


In the interest of fairness, most men are stupid arrogant Neanderthals, so it evens out.

And I think it's interesting that we're both ripping on our own gender o_o


----------



## Neptunus (Oct 29, 2007)

Phoebus said:


> Yet another reason why marriage is pointless...





somethinginthewind said:


> I'm glad I don't feel like this.


I, personally, don't feel the need to have a piece of paper to validate my love... nor do I wan't to go through the legal hassles of getting a divorce - I see nothing wrong with that. But, hey, if that's what works for you, then great - it's your right, and your life and I respect that. To each her own!


----------



## Witan (Jun 13, 2009)

LaRibbon said:


> Well I am not that surprised. A guy who is capable of a comitted relationship, is what every woman wants.


*bites tongue hard*


----------



## ivankaramazov (Aug 22, 2009)

Most guys are well aware of this. It's annoying. 

During my last serious relationship I felt like I was always meeting girls that wanted to date me. Now, not so much.


----------



## mm222 (Aug 17, 2009)

*Very True*

Its a strange phenomena..but very true if your observant.

here's on of my stories:

One of my female co-workers who was a ditsy type that wanted all guys to google all over her, didn`t really pay me any attention, acting like she was hot stuff...but I could care less because I had a girlfriend who was leagues above her in that category...I never really mentioned the fact that I had a girlfriend (I find it pretentious when people go on about their gf`s or bf`s)...and one day before going to the movies with my gf I stopped by the workplace, and this girl who never bats an eye my way is all of a sudden all over me trying to act like we are chummy chummy and all giggling and was practically laughing at how stupid and obvious it was, I couldnt believe it! or make sense of it, my girlfriend later asked me if there was something going on between us...I told her no, then pointed out that it looked like she really liked me?

I dont know but thats one obvious example that I can share.

I think another reason why this happens is because females are EXTREMLY competitive (like guys are with sports, cars, and money) with being the main female/object of desire. Thats my own scientific observation, sorry no clinical research to back that up..:blol

Also to further add, and delve deeper into this supremely fascinating topic...

I don't know how many of you are familiar with the "PUA" (pick up artist), we'll there is a guy who goes by the name 'mystery' and he is a 'pick-up-artist' (yes he actually holds seminars and has a TV show, google him PUA + MYSTERY), and he has books and such on how to pick up girls and yadayada...and one of his methods for picking up girls like crazy is arriving at a club with 2 female friends and eye'ing other girls, getting attention, arousing interest, then leaving the two he came with (they are friends, and are cool with it), to go off hunt... he claims it works like a charm, and according to these studies...it obviously does.

Now Id go and try that asap, but I got a little social anxiety issue I gotta work out first..:mum


----------



## DeeperUnderstanding (May 19, 2007)

LaRibbon said:


> Well I am not that surprised. A guy who is capable of a comitted relationship, is what every woman wants.


Umm, that makes no sense at all. So she wants someone who's in love with someone else? She can't find her own man?

It's just silly that married men are sought after, and single men (who *are* available) are left out in the cold.


----------



## nothing to fear (Mar 23, 2005)

i don't know, you guys shouldn't read much into that

it could just be the whole '_you want what you can't have_' thing, but either way those examples still don't prove that you single man have such a major and significant disadvantage. just don't let it bring you down single guys, is all i'm saying 



LaRibbon said:


> Well I am not that surprised. A guy who is capable of a comitted relationship, is what every woman wants.


hmm, i don't think i've ever once had that cross my mind when i've thought of what i find as attractive traits and when considering how i feel towards guys i may be interested in.
hell, i don't even know i want a committed relationship.

i'd be curious to know overall how other females here feel about that as well.


----------



## Drachasor (Aug 23, 2009)

WintersTale said:


> Umm, that makes no sense at all. So she wants someone who's in love with someone else? She can't find her own man?
> 
> It's just silly that married men are sought after, and single men (who *are* available) are left out in the cold.


Humans are not, fundamentally, rational. Making sense is something we have to work at.


----------



## DeeperUnderstanding (May 19, 2007)

Drachasor said:


> Humans are not, fundamentally, rational. Making sense is something we have to work at.


I guess so.


----------



## WineKitty (Nov 26, 2004)

I am very surprised to see people putting so much stock in this "statistic". I think something like this would be rather hard to gauge.

This study is done by Oklahoma University. But what is the pool of people they got this information from? From what age group? What are the details?

Here is the sample group per the link:

The sample consisted of* 184 undergraduates *(97 women) from
Oklahoma State University, with 46% of the sample identified as
single (35 women, 49 men) and 54% as attached (62 women, 38
men). Participation was for partial course credit. The study involved
a 2 (gender: women versus men) 2 (relationship status:
single versus attached) 2 (target: single versus attached) factorial
design.

This is hardly a representation of women as a whole so the stat really doesnt mean that much, at least to me.

The purpose of my reply is that regardless of whatever stats one might read in either direction, women do not think *collectively* and that gets implied in threads like this, over and over again on SAS and as a member of nearly five years, it gets so tired. Not this particular thread per se but this whole attitude of "the way women think". No one thinks like me, I can guarantee anyone that.

And an additional comment I have (not that anyone asked me :b)is that marriage is a personal decision and I respect the decision NOT to marry by anyone. But for someone who is married, its not just a "piece of paper validating" love. Its a commitment. On a huge level. Its the intertwining of lives. Its not just for show for lots of people; it really means something. And ultimately it has nothing to do with other people; its all about two people. I totally respect the decision NOT to marry and wish more people were that cautious. But I dont ridicule the idea of not marrying and wish that others didnt ridicule the idea of others marrying. I know there was also the statement made that "to each their own" and I appreciate that. I am not so much talking about the poster that said this but in general, as again, the idea of marriage is readily mocked on this forum regularly. If its not for you, that is fine. But its not a religion or something you have to "believe" in. For some its simply a committment between two people that those two people choose to make. Not right or wrong; simply a decision between two people.


----------



## Neptunus (Oct 29, 2007)

WineKitty said:


> And an additional comment I have (not that anyone asked me :b)is that marriage is a personal decision and I respect the decision NOT to marry by anyone. But for someone who is married, its not just a "piece of paper validating" love. Its a commitment. On a huge level. Its the intertwining of lives. Its not just for show for lots of people; it really means something. And ultimately it has nothing to do with other people; its all about two people. I totally respect the decision NOT to marry and wish more people were that cautious. But I dont ridicule the idea of not marrying and wish that others didnt ridicule the idea of others marrying. I know there was also the statement made that "to each their own" and I appreciate that. I am not so much talking about the poster that said this but in general, as again, the idea of marriage is readily mocked on this forum regularly. If its not for you, that is fine. But its not a religion or something you have to "believe" in. For some its simply a committment between two people that those two people choose to make. Not right or wrong; simply a decision between two people.


Yes, and to you, that's what that piece of paper represents, whereas I feel that one can have all that you describe without it. And ya' know what? Just like you, I'm okay with both views! "To each their own" after all! :b


----------



## WineKitty (Nov 26, 2004)

Phoebus said:


> Yes, and to you, *that's what that piece of paper represents*, whereas I feel that one can have all that you describe without it. And ya' know what? Just like you, I'm okay with both views! "To each their own" after all! :b


Dont get me wrong;I am not debating you. I simply was trying to say that for some marriage represents a commitment; there isnt a right or wrong on this. I wasnt so much commenting on your post but this idea that has been much debated on SAS. I wish more people were more skeptical of marriage frankly. It would be a very good thing.

The "piece of paper" literally represents nothing to me; its much more than that to me, dont misunderstand that. There is more to it than that to those of us that take our married relationship seriuosly; that may be how you see it but dont ridicule it. While you end your statement with "to each his own" you also call it a piece of paper. I dont mock your views at all; I encourage it actually. More people should think like you and not jump into a binding legal relationship without serious thought.


----------



## WineKitty (Nov 26, 2004)

And lets not take the focus of the skewed numbers offered on this so called statistic. Check the link to confirm the group that I posted from which this number is derived from. This is hardly a true representation of the true thinking of women.


----------



## Neptunus (Oct 29, 2007)

Phoebus said:


> Yes, and to you, that's what that piece of paper represents, whereas I feel that one can have all that you describe without it


To clarify, so I don't come off as "mocking"...

One can be committed (be it married, handfasted or whatever you label it) without having to sign a document. But, if that's what is needed to "seal" the commitment, then fine. It's not for me, because I, personally, find it unnecessary. So, IOW, marriage is more than just a "piece of paper." Mostly, though, I want to avoid all the legal pitfalls that go along with said paper should I need to divorce... Call me cynical, oh well --- Guess I should have elaborated in my first post.


----------



## whiterabbit (Jan 20, 2006)

I'm surprised at the number of people who have said "Yeah, that makes sense. I've noticed that." But then again I'm not very observant and I don't interact with people so I suppose it's not something I would notice. It doesn't apply to me anyway, as with almost every statistic and generalisation about women brought up on here. It's no surprise. I always knew I was one of those evolutionary anomalies that shouldn't really be here.

I don't think you need to put too much stock into gender generalisations like this though. Just remember that the whole of humanity is s**t and neither gender is any more s**t than the other. We're all _equal_ c***s. Just take each person as they come and you might find one or two nice ones.


----------



## Witan (Jun 13, 2009)

whiterabbit said:


> Just remember that the whole of humanity is s**t and neither gender is any more s**t than the other. We're all _equal_ c***s. Just take each person as they come and you might find one or two nice ones.


Hear hear.


----------



## hyacinth_dragon (Dec 28, 2008)

I've had married men interested in me and I didn't find them more attractive because they were married. I just found it creepy that they thought I would date someone who was married and felt that I would lack the self respect to say no.


----------



## rickthegreat (Dec 22, 2008)

WineKitty said:


> I am very surprised to see people putting so much stock in this "statistic". I think something like this would be rather hard to gauge.
> 
> This study is done by Oklahoma University...This is hardly a true representation of the true thinking of women.


I dunno if OU is a party school or anything, but a university seems like a good place to find a thinking woman...unless they found them pissed drunk at a sorority house. :b

Just admit it! :b some women find attached men more attractive.

mm222 brought up a good point about female competitiveness too.


----------



## WineKitty (Nov 26, 2004)

rickthegreat said:


> I dunno if OU is a party school or anything, but a university seems like a good place to find a thinking woman...unless they found them pissed drunk at a sorority house. :b
> 
> Just admit it! :b some women find attached men more attractive.
> 
> mm222 brought up a good point about female competitiveness too.


Its not the fact that its from OU; is that really all you got out of what I posted? That isnt what I was pointing out. I was pointing out the rather small pool of undergrads that this "statistic" came from.

Just admit it! :b Your "stats" are skewed and not representative of women as whole. One cannot make a generalized statement based on what 184 undergrads think, and only 97 of those were women.

Here is your sample pool again, for the record:



> *The sample consisted of 184 undergraduates (97 women) from Oklahoma State University*, with 46% of the sample identified as
> single (35 women, 49 men) and 54% as attached (62 women, 38
> men). Participation was for partial course credit. The study involved
> a 2 (gender: women versus men) 2 (relationship status:
> ...


----------



## finster (Jul 5, 2007)

This so call phenomena may explain the fact that guys have repeatedly mentioned to me how weird it is that once you finally get a girl they seem to suddenly appear everywhere.

I always chalked it up to once the pressure was off so to speak that men might relax a little and then women would more naturally become within their sphere so to speak.

I know I'm probably making no sense and unfortunately I don't have much first hand experience with this anyway (sigh).


----------



## WineKitty (Nov 26, 2004)

finster said:


> This so call phenomena may explain the fact that guys have repeatedly mentioned to me how weird it is that once you finally get a girl they seem to suddenly appear everywhere.
> 
> I always chalked it up to once the pressure was off so to speak that men might relax a little and then women would more naturally become within their sphere so to speak.
> 
> I know I'm probably making no sense and unfortunately I don't have much first hand experience with this anyway (sigh).


Did you see how this "stat" was acquired? I wouldnt exactly call it a phenomenon, even when prefaced with so-called.


----------



## finster (Jul 5, 2007)

WineKitty said:


> Did you see how this "stat" was acquired? I wouldnt exactly call it a phenomenon, even when prefaced with so-called.


Maybe you're right. Is there a word for SA type "urban legends?"


----------



## nothing to fear (Mar 23, 2005)

finster said:


> Maybe you're right. Is there a word for SA type "urban legends?"


haha, nah but there should be


----------



## nothing to fear (Mar 23, 2005)

WineKitty said:


> And an additional comment I have (not that anyone asked me :b)is that marriage is a personal decision and I respect the decision NOT to marry by anyone. But for someone who is married, its not just a "piece of paper validating" love. Its a commitment. On a huge level. Its the intertwining of lives. Its not just for show for lots of people; it really means something. And ultimately it has nothing to do with other people; its all about two people. I totally respect the decision NOT to marry and wish more people were that cautious. But I dont ridicule the idea of not marrying and wish that others didnt ridicule the idea of others marrying. I know there was also the statement made that "to each their own" and I appreciate that. I am not so much talking about the poster that said this but in general, as again, the idea of marriage is readily mocked on this forum regularly. If its not for you, that is fine. But its not a religion or something you have to "believe" in. For some its simply a committment between two people that those two people choose to make. Not right or wrong; simply a decision between two people.


i bet i come off as seeming like i ridicule or look down or judge marriage harshly. if someone asks me about marriage i have a lot more views against it - but when i say against it, i'm only ever referring to how i would feel about getting married. but because those reasons might sound pretty negative i'm always worried they'll offend others who are there and married or want to get married. so maybe it seems like others ridicule marriage more than they actually intend to, you know? i can definitely understand the love and commitment reasons, though - as well as other reasons some people give (even if i personally don't identify). i don't really judge a married/engaged couple personally, but in situations i tend to hold back on expressing how i feel about marriage since i worry i'll come off that way.
i'm not sure how marriage came up specifically in this thread but just random thoughts on it from my point of view


----------



## Witan (Jun 13, 2009)

nothing to fear said:


> i bet i come off as seeming like i ridicule or look down or judge marriage harshly. if someone asks me about marriage i have a lot more views against it - but when i say against it, i'm only ever referring to how i would feel about getting married. but because those reasons might sound pretty negative i'm always worried they'll offend others who are there and married or want to get married. so maybe it seems like others ridicule marriage more than they actually intend to, you know? i can definitely understand the love and commitment reasons, though - as well as other reasons some people give (even if i personally don't identify). i don't really judge a married/engaged couple personally, but in situations i tend to hold back on expressing how i feel about marriage since i worry i'll come off that way.
> i'm not sure how marriage came up specifically in this thread but just random thoughts on it from my point of view


I really don't know what to think of marriage. I really want to get married someday, but I also think that marriage is pointless because in the end you'll just end up getting divorced anyway, with all that entails. I want to trust somebody enough to marry them, but don't see how I can.

Does anyone else have this ambivalent, self-conflicting view?


----------



## Drachasor (Aug 23, 2009)

Witan said:


> I really don't know what to think of marriage. I really want to get married someday, but I also think that marriage is pointless because in the end you'll just end up getting divorced anyway, with all that entails. I want to trust somebody enough to marry them, but don't see how I can.
> 
> Does anyone else have this ambivalent, self-conflicting view?


By all accounts, most individuals who get married DON'T get divorced. The figure for marriages is that over 50% end in divorce, but there are a lot more people who marry multiple times now, meaning they get more than their "fair share" of divorces. I'm not sure what the divorce stats for individuals are, however.


----------



## Drachasor (Aug 23, 2009)

WineKitty said:


> And lets not take the focus of the skewed numbers offered on this so called statistic. Check the link to confirm the group that I posted from which this number is derived from. This is hardly a true representation of the true thinking of women.


It's important to bear in mind the situation as well. Reading over the study, it isn't clear at all that the women would do anything more than indicate they found the guy attractive. From the study:



> Specifically, participants responded to
> the following questions: How appealing is this person; How likely
> would you show interest (make eye contact, smile, etc.) in this person;
> How compatible do you think you are with this person; How
> ...


All these were weighted equally and combined into a COMPOSITE SCORE, which means the poaching part in particular "initiating a romantic relationship" was treated equally to "how appealing is this person." So yeah, woman might find a married guy more likeable and attractive. That doesn't mean they'd try to steal him away from whomever he is with. Nor, do I think, does answering that you'd be interested in initiating a romantic relationship to the above question necessarily mean "while he was attached". I don't think there is anything wrong with women that DO feel this way per se, afterall the fact a guy IS in a relationship is a bit of data about him. It would be interesting to see how the results vary with age, and to see how each of those questions varies individually though.

Anyhow, there isn't anything really awful implied by this, imho.


----------



## Thomas Paine (Mar 29, 2008)

Witan said:


> I really don't know what to think of marriage. I really want to get married someday, but I also think that marriage is pointless because in the end you'll just end up getting divorced anyway, with all that entails. I want to trust somebody enough to marry them, but don't see how I can.
> 
> Does anyone else have this ambivalent, self-conflicting view?


Yes.


----------



## nubly (Nov 2, 2006)

WineKitty said:


> And an additional comment I have (not that anyone asked me :b)is that marriage is a personal decision and I respect the decision NOT to marry by anyone. But for someone who is married, its not just a "piece of paper validating" love. Its a commitment.


you can be committed without being married. a piece of paper means nothing considering the divorce rate. you dont commit with a piece of paper. you commit with your heart.


----------



## VIncymon (Apr 16, 2009)

Though this is not news to me .. I do find it a very counter productive oxymoron.

In order to get a girlfriend, women have to be interested in you, in order for women to be interested in you, you have to already have a girlfriend.

tsk tsk ... there's no way out !

If that is the case then how do you get your first girlfriend ?

QUOTE "Anyway, when I think about it, one of the things I find attractive about him is he's the commitment type. Very in love with his wife. And I want that for myself (not from him cos his married, but from someone), He his the type that can commit = he is attractive. Does this make sense? This is my subjective experience. I can't speak for the study sample, maybe they have a different view. Also I find it hard to believe that 90% would PURSUE the committed guy. They just said they were INTERESTED in pursuing. 90% would pursue? I don't think so, that sounds ludicrous. "

Don't you see the oxymoron in this ?


----------



## Thomas Paine (Mar 29, 2008)

Come on ladies. What are we living in, the dark ages? *runs away*

P.S. This was sarcasm (aka humor). Please no infractions.


----------



## WineKitty (Nov 26, 2004)

nubly said:


> you can be committed without being married. a piece of paper means nothing considering the divorce rate. you dont commit with a piece of paper. you commit with your heart.


Well duh Nubly did I say you couldnt? I dont think you even read my post if that is all you got out of it.


----------



## Atticus (Nov 10, 2003)

This study is like a lot of other studies, as well as many informal polls here that ask people about preferences. Having or stating a preference doesn't necessarily predict behavior. Having preferences is free, stating them is cheap, but real choices always come at a cost. Most people at least consider the cost before acting.

And as Drachasor pointed out, this study considered any sort of positive regard the same as it considered a statement of romantic interest. I think the results are dubious x 2. 

Having said that, my personal, anecdotal experience is that being in a relationship does seem to bring some interest from other women. So it goes.


----------



## WineKitty (Nov 26, 2004)

Atticus said:


> Having said that, my personal, anecdotal experience is that being in a relationship does seem to bring some interest from other women. So it goes.


Oh my. :fall Not you too.

You are crusin' for a bruisin' mister...meet me by the bike rack after school. :spank :twak :duel

:b


----------



## Atticus (Nov 10, 2003)

WineKitty said:


> Oh my. :fall Not you too.
> 
> You are crusin' for a bruisin' mister...meet me by the bike rack after school. :spank :twak :duel
> 
> :b


Ummm, I have chess club after school, and I'm pretty sure I don't know where the bike rack is, and.. :tiptoe

In all seriousness, I might have been behaving differently, feeling validated and OK about myself for a change. But something certainly seemed different :duck


----------



## mm222 (Aug 17, 2009)

*Study... Shmuddy!!*

I think a few posts are WAYYYY to concerned over the specifics of the study. Yes, that gauges how well it was conducted, and the validity...and blablablablabla...

BUT....and big 'BUT', at that the study is not the only one validating this phenomena. Just ask the people! The vast majority in this thread even AGREE that they have witnessed this to be true.

So forget the study, it was a great topic starter, and all that, but I could give a shizer about the specifics...irrelevant to someone who has seen first hand that it does happen, AND discussed this with numerous other men who will AGREE to this strange social dynamic. Don't take my word for it...read the threads, and go ask 10 of your male friends (do your own survey), and you'll be convinced that there just might be some truth to this thing. idea

Plus, on the topic of Marriage...it clearly isn't working for most people...just look at the statistics. People should think twice. Its based on old school roles that no longer support today's couple to the fullest. But ill go into that when someone posts on that specifically, as there are some deep psychological, evolutionary, aspects that need to be explored along with it.

Also because...
This post is about whether people Agree or Dis-Agree whether Women seem to be more attracted to men who already have a Woman in their life.

Focus people. Focus!...lol:roll


----------



## Drachasor (Aug 23, 2009)

mm222 said:


> I think a few posts are WAYYYY to concerned over the specifics of the study. Yes, that gauges how well it was conducted, and the validity...and blablablablabla...
> 
> BUT....and big 'BUT', at that the study is not the only one validating this phenomena. Just ask the people! The vast majority in this thread even AGREE that they have witnessed this to be true.
> 
> So forget the study, it was a great topic starter, and all that, but I could give a shizer about the specifics...irrelevant to someone who has seen first hand that it does happen, AND discussed this with numerous other men who will AGREE to this strange social dynamic. Don't take my word for it...read the threads, and go ask 10 of your male friends (do your own survey), and you'll be convinced that there just might be some truth to this thing. idea


Anecdotal evidence is often extremely crappy. Our brains aren't evolved to form valid statistical opinions. There are tons of reasons why guys could notice more girls paying them attention if they aren't single. You might go out more, you might meet more girls (friends of your girlfriend, etc). You also might just notice how you have to "turn down" attention, which you didn't do before, so it sticks out in your mind better. It's so easy for people to form the wrong opinion on things that it isn't remotely funny. The reason why we do studies on these sorts of things is because people's perceptions can easily correlate very poorly with reality.

Also, the males that haven't noticed this sort of thing tend not to speak up. I'll speak up though. I've dated and I never noticed any difference between how women treat me when I am not single and when I am single.



> Plus, on the topic of Marriage...it clearly isn't working for most people...just look at the statistics. People should think twice. Its based on old school roles that no longer support today's couple to the fullest. But ill go into that when someone posts on that specifically, as there are some deep psychological, evolutionary, aspects that need to be explored along with it.


You need to look and understand the statistics on marriage better. Over half of marriages end in divorce in the US, that is certainly true. However, you have a lot more people out there now with multiple marriages, so those people easily can shift the balance over to most people who get married stay married, with others who get married become serial divorcers. Anyhow, a lot of people get married for stupid reasons or lack the skills to work out problems, so it isn't like a high divorce rate means marriage is bad. Being stupid is bad.


----------



## rickthegreat (Dec 22, 2008)

WineKitty said:


> Its not the fact that its from OU; is that really all you got out of what I posted? That isnt what I was pointing out. I was pointing out the rather small pool of undergrads that this "statistic" came from.
> 
> Just admit it! :b Your "stats" are skewed and not representative of women as whole. One cannot make a generalized statement based on what 184 undergrads think, and only 97 of those were women.


You make a good point about the sample size. So yeah the sample size was not random. And it was small. So I could buy the idea that *these *college women are attracted to men for entirely different reasons than the vast majority of women. That the attraction mechanism is different in these OU women. I could. But I don't.

The rules of attraction are universal I think. I bet most women would perform the same way in this study. It's just a hunch though. *A larger and a random sample of the female population would definitely be better though.*

Your personal tastes in men notwithstanding, how different do you think the results would be if a large random sample of the female population was used? To what would you attribute that difference? Do you think it has to do with intelligence, socio-economic status of the women? Social norms? Ages? I could buy that some of that stuff might have some bearing on their choices to some extent but I just think the rules of attraction are universal.


----------



## rickthegreat (Dec 22, 2008)

btw, I don't judge women that find men more attractive when they are attached. It's just the way it is I figure. Getting mad at women or judging them for this would be like a woman getting mad at guys for liking boobs or something. You can't help what one is attracted to.


----------



## nothing to fear (Mar 23, 2005)

mm222 said:


> I think a few posts are WAYYYY to concerned over the specifics of the study. Yes, that gauges how well it was conducted, and the validity...and blablablablabla...
> 
> BUT....and big 'BUT', at that the study is not the only one validating this phenomena. Just ask the people! The vast majority in this thread even AGREE that they have witnessed this to be true.
> 
> ...


errr, only asking men on whether women are more attracted to men who are in relationships does not at all prove that it is valid. men's personal experiences in those situations does have some significance but you are missing the whole other demographic involved, so you know, it kind of makes a bit of sense to ask an equal amount of women too and take that into consideration.


----------



## WineKitty (Nov 26, 2004)

rickthegreat said:


> You make a good point about the sample size. So yeah the sample size was not random. And it was small. So I could buy the idea that *these *college women are attracted to men for entirely different reasons than the vast majority of women. That the attraction mechanism is different in these OU women. I could. But I don't.


You want to cling to this "stat" being valid; go ahead.



> The rules of attraction are universal I think.


I dont. What are these "rules"? Who made them up? What you call the rules could be something different for someone else. That is such a vague statement.



> I bet most women would perform the same way in this study. It's just a hunch though.


And you know this how? :roll



> *A larger and a random sample of the female population would definitely be better though.*


Something we agree on.



> Your personal tastes in men notwithstanding, how different do you think the results would be if a large random sample of the female population was used? To what would you attribute that difference? Do you think it has to do with intelligence, socio-economic status of the women? Social norms? Ages? I could buy that some of that stuff might have some bearing on their choices to some extent but I just think* the rules of attraction are universal*.


I have no idea how a larger sample would have turned out. I dont even care. What is the point of saying "well most women think this or that?" That is total bull****. WOMEN DONT UNIVERSALLY THINK ALIKE we are not a collective and I am so freaking sick and tired of that portrayal on SAS that I could throw up. If you want to believe a survey of 97 college students who were participating for course credit means half of the human race feels the same way then go right ahead. But dont expect to not get some reaction when you post that. Most statistics are crap if you ask me.

This is fast becoming the same old tired type of gender thread that SAS Relationships is becoming famous for.


----------



## LostPancake (Apr 8, 2009)

WineKitty said:


> for someone who is married, its not just a "piece of paper validating" love. Its a commitment. On a huge level. Its the intertwining of lives. Its not just for show for lots of people; it really means something.


i like that - it's not something you hear too often.



mm222 said:


> I think another reason why this happens is because females are EXTREMLY competitive (like guys are with sports, cars, and money) with being the main female/object of desire. Thats my own scientific observation, sorry no clinical research to back that up..:blol


okay, true if you had said SOME females! 

i've noticed the same thing if i'm out somewhere with an attractive girl (like a cousin or a friend) - it's like they want to see if they're more attractive than the one you're with.

and no it's not all girls, maybe just the insecure ones, or ones who are addicted to being eyed by guys (does that happen?)



Witan said:


> I want to trust somebody enough to marry them, but don't see how I can. Does anyone else have this ambivalent, self-conflicting view?


i couldn't trust myself enough to marry someone, until i get to where i actually like myself. otherwise, i'm going to keep trying to change, and if i did ever manage to, the relationship would be all out of whack.



LaRibbon said:


> I meant, it's like the man has proved himself to be 'the marrying type', the kind of guy who is more likely to settle down and not be a player (not saying single guys are all players) He his the type that can commit = he is attractive.


yeah that makes sense - you infer that the guy has good morals which makes him more attractive. but yeah, obviously if you're attracted to good morals, you wouldn't then start pursuing him!


----------



## Neptunus (Oct 29, 2007)

hyacinth_dragon said:


> I've had married men interested in me and I didn't find them more attractive because they were married. I just found it creepy that they thought I would date someone who was married and felt that I would lack the self respect to say no.


Well, I will say one thing- and this is a very small "study" indeed - just one person's opinion.... My sister is a flight attendant, and she's pretty worldly, not just that she's been around the world, lol, but she's had exposure to (observed) many social situations and groups. According to her, married men are just as bad. She, and her coworkers, get hit on left and right - it's terrible! She's been propositioned by so many married business men in flight it's ridiculous! The same goes for wherever she travels. I feel for her at times, because she gets harassed daily!!! So, according to her (and understandably so) it's ALMOST like you can't trust anyone. She also says married women are bad too, especially on the party scene. A lot of her coworkers cheat. So it's everywhere!


----------



## Cerberus (Feb 13, 2005)

The vanity of individuality can be pretty sickening at times. Anyone concur? I'm not saying the OP generalization is correct, but people can be pretty defensive when their individuality and preciousness is questioned. This trend of rejecting any kind of generalization on this board is a strange one. Well, no it's not. When just about everyone in our culture hears how special and unique they are in some way (whether by teachers or parents or coaches or whoever else) while being raised, it's not surprising people are so resistant and defensive to being placed under some generalization.


----------



## WineKitty (Nov 26, 2004)

Cerberus said:


> The vanity of individuality can be pretty sickening at times. Anyone concur? I'm not saying the OP generalization is correct, but people can be pretty defensive when their individuality and preciousness is questioned. This trend of rejecting any kind of generalization on this board is a strange one. Well, no it's not. When just about everyone in our culture hears how special and unique they are in some way (whether by teachers or parents or coaches or whoever else) while being raised, it's not surprising people are so resistant and defensive to being placed under some generalization.


Well if the 'generalization' consisted of something more than 97 college students taking course credit than perhaps I would give this more merit.

When I grew up (late 70s early 80s) it was okay for a teacher to tell you that you wouldnt amount to anything (thanks Mr. Kelley, sixth grade). You might think that positive words are a bad thing to kids and you might have a point to some degree; perhaps todays schools are overcompensating a bit. But I can promise you that to have a 50 something year old guy tell you that you will never be anything and that you are destined to be a loser when you are 11 years old isnt a good thing. The overcompensating thing of today is based on that time....perhaps too much in either direction isnt a good thing can we agree on that?

And for the record, Mr.Kelley was wrong. I have a great marriage, which I gather from SAS is a super rare wonderful thing, and a combined working life that lends itself to a great combined effort for our future financially, a great kid, a great stepkid and family that I love. I have a career in the medical field where I make a difference. I have made a difference in the lives of a wonderful handful of people, and maybe also to some dear friends I have made on SAS and for that I am a success. Pin the blue ribbon on me.


----------



## whiterabbit (Jan 20, 2006)

Cerberus said:


> The vanity of individuality can be pretty sickening at times. Anyone concur? I'm not saying the OP generalization is correct, but people can be pretty defensive when their individuality and preciousness is questioned. This trend of rejecting any kind of generalization on this board is a strange one. Well, no it's not. When just about everyone in our culture hears how special and unique they are in some way (whether by teachers or parents or coaches or whoever else) while being raised, it's not surprising people are so resistant and defensive to being placed under some generalization.


I'm probably guilty of rejecting most generalisations and when I read back over these posts I cringe because they seem so optimistic and idealistic and egotistical, but I only say that they don't apply to me (which is a perfectly valid point to bring up in any 'generalisation' thread, especially when someone is saying "_All_ people do this...") and I recognise that there is at least a minority of people which they also don't apply to. I don't have a ****ing clue what the majority of people think or do because I sit in my little room all day, isolated, like a freak so I can't really have an opinion on whether or not these generalisations are true (and if I ever have done, then in all likelihood it was wrong). All I can say is whether or not it applies to _me_, which may come across like I'm trying to assert my own special unique snowflake-ness but I'm only ever being honest. And anyway, the whole world revolves around me so however I fit into the generalisation really matters.

I suppose I just don't like all these specific generalisations about people either. I prefer to go with the "Most people are c***ts" generalisation and leave it at that. There's no point getting bogged down with the rest of it.


----------



## Drachasor (Aug 23, 2009)

Cerberus said:


> The vanity of individuality can be pretty sickening at times. Anyone concur? I'm not saying the OP generalization is correct, but people can be pretty defensive when their individuality and preciousness is questioned. This trend of rejecting any kind of generalization on this board is a strange one. Well, no it's not. When just about everyone in our culture hears how special and unique they are in some way (whether by teachers or parents or coaches or whoever else) while being raised, it's not surprising people are so resistant and defensive to being placed under some generalization.


Everyone fits into boxes, it's just a matter of finding the right set of boxes for a given person.

For what it is worth, studies have found telling everyone they are super-special and unique isn't a terribly great way to go about things. Generally makes people care less about individual achievment ('cause they are super-special anyhow) and can lead to behavioral problems, IIRC (don't quote me on that, I'll have to look up the studies again, been a while, I only remember for sure that it isn't good).


----------



## Drachasor (Aug 23, 2009)

WineKitty said:


> Well if the 'generalization' consisted of something more than 97 college students taking course credit than perhaps I would give this more merit.


It can be true that studies like this are flawed because they often are done only with a college population. On the other hand, a suprising number of things still work with older adults, so one shouldn't be too quick to dismiss it. On the other hand, the study has some methodological flaws in how it asks questions and then analyzes the data that make its conclusions pretty dang questionable, imho.



WineKitty said:


> When I grew up (late 70s early 80s) it was okay for a teacher to tell you that you wouldnt amount to anything (thanks Mr. Kelley, sixth grade). You might think that positive words are a bad thing to kids and you might have a point to some degree; perhaps todays schools are overcompensating a bit. But I can promise you that to have a 50 something year old guy tell you that you will never be anything and that you are destined to be a loser when you are 11 years old isnt a good thing. The overcompensating thing of today is based on that time....perhaps too much in either direction isnt a good thing can we agree on that?


Wow, your teacher was a jerk. Maybe people accepted teachers doing that back then, but I don't think it would ever be ok. Encouragement and such is good for kids I think, but telling kids they are awesome no matter what is more problematic, from what I understand. As is telling them they won't amount to anything, no matter what.



WineKitty said:


> And for the record, Mr.Kelley was wrong. I have a great marriage, which I gather from SAS is a super rare wonderful thing, and a combined working life that lends itself to a great combined effort for our future financially, a great kid, a great stepkid and family that I love. I have a career in the medical field where I make a difference. I have made a difference in the lives of a wonderful handful of people, and maybe also to some dear friends I have made on SAS and for that I am a success. Pin the blue ribbon on me.


Sounds great. Congrats. : )


----------



## VIncymon (Apr 16, 2009)

As someone earlier posted, the fact that this particular study is flawed does not negate the fact the people have noticed and spoken of the phenomenon for *years*.

And yes, I agree that a study like this must be taken from the opinion of men. A study about the behaviour of women cannot be based on the opinion of women.

Its like any psychological study, you cannot have the subject know what you are looking for, or else the subject will try to prove/disprove your theory.

Instead of always shying away from generalizations, maybe we should try to understand them.

Its like when I (black) talk about certain black stereotypes with my friends. Saying that it doesn't apply to me doesn't stop the stereotype.

But then again, race itsn't like sex. You can inform people and change a race's attitude; but you cannot change sexual behavhiour.

So maybe what the OP said, is just how it is ... generally-speaking.

Personally i believe the 'marrying-type' is a silly description. If I buy a car, does that make me the own-his-own-vehicle-type ?


----------



## nubly (Nov 2, 2006)

reminds me of that seinfeld episode were george wears a wedding ring to try to get women and gets hit on.


----------



## Cerberus (Feb 13, 2005)

WineKitty said:


> Well if the 'generalization' consisted of something more than 97 college students taking course credit than perhaps I would give this more merit.
> 
> When I grew up (late 70s early 80s) it was okay for a teacher to tell you that you wouldnt amount to anything (thanks Mr. Kelley, sixth grade). You might think that positive words are a bad thing to kids and you might have a point to some degree; perhaps todays schools are overcompensating a bit. But I can promise you that to have a 50 something year old guy tell you that you will never be anything and that you are destined to be a loser when you are 11 years old isnt a good thing. The overcompensating thing of today is based on that time....perhaps too much in either direction isnt a good thing can we agree on that?
> 
> And for the record, Mr.Kelley was wrong. I have a great marriage, which I gather from SAS is a super rare wonderful thing, and a combined working life that lends itself to a great combined effort for our future financially, a great kid, a great stepkid and family that I love. I have a career in the medical field where I make a difference. I have made a difference in the lives of a wonderful handful of people, and maybe also to some dear friends I have made on SAS and for that I am a success. Pin the blue ribbon on me.


Like I said, I'm not saying the op generalization is right, and it would be cool and better if they got a larger sample size to help corroborate this study (although I'm not so sure that people are so different that 90 people isn't necessarily representative for some human behaviors; after all, a study about the behavioral differences between men and women when it comes to, say, peeing standing up or sitting down with only ten, or 90 if you wish, males and females would, I think it would be safe to say, be representative ). That sucks that happened to you as a kid, and good job on your accomplishments. Maybe your teachers comments helped motivated you.  Being too negative or too positive with kids can both be bad, so, yeah, I agree that, as usual, moderation would probably be best.

Our culture seems to support and encourage what I'm calling the vanity of individuality. Capitalism (particularly the social darwinist beliefs that still run rampant), everyone was created with a special purpose in mind, we're all special snowflakes, character flaws have seemingly become non existent, and so on.



whiterabbit said:


> I'm probably guilty of rejecting most generalisations and when I read back over these posts I cringe because they seem so optimistic and idealistic and egotistical, but I only say that they don't apply to me (which is a perfectly valid point to bring up in any 'generalisation' thread, especially when someone is saying "_All_ people do this...") and I recognise that there is at least a minority of people which they also don't apply to. I don't have a ****ing clue what the majority of people think or do because I sit in my little room all day, isolated, like a freak so I can't really have an opinion on whether or not these generalisations are true (and if I ever have done, then in all likelihood it was wrong). All I can say is whether or not it applies to _me_, which may come across like I'm trying to assert my own special unique snowflake-ness but I'm only ever being honest. And anyway, the whole world revolves around me so however I fit into the generalisation really matters.
> 
> I suppose I just don't like all these specific generalisations about people either. I prefer to go with the "Most people are c***ts" generalisation and leave it at that. There's no point getting bogged down with the rest of it.


I don't recall anyone or most people using "all" as a qualifier, and just because they didn't use "some" as a qualifier or a qualifier in their statements doesn't mean an invisible "all" qualifier is to be assumed. I suppose I'd have to look back over this thread to check, but I mostly just recall generalizations, and, as you know, generalizations obviously have exceptions.



Drachasor said:


> Everyone fits into boxes, it's just a matter of finding the right set of boxes for a given person.
> 
> For what it is worth, studies have found telling everyone they are super-special and unique isn't a terribly great way to go about things. Generally makes people care less about individual achievment ('cause they are super-special anyhow) and can lead to behavioral problems, IIRC (don't quote me on that, I'll have to look up the studies again, been a while, I only remember for sure that it isn't good).


I agree. People really aren't all that different (You all look alike when I compare you all with dogs lol ). People typically can be placed under some label or generalization, even if they reject it because they're too vain in their individuality to accept they're not so different from other people. I'm not saying someone cannot be the exception, but when so many people reject any kind of generalization because they're so special or such an individual or whatever, I cannot help but think they're full of it.


----------



## whiterabbit (Jan 20, 2006)

Cerberus said:


> I don't recall anyone or most people using "all" as a qualifier, and just because they didn't use "some" as a qualifier or a qualifier in their statements doesn't mean an invisible "all" qualifier is to be assumed. I suppose I'd have to look back over this thread to check, but I mostly just recall generalizations, and, as you know, generalizations obviously have exceptions.


No, nobody did in this thread. I was just mentioning that when people _do_ use the "all" qualifier, it's understandable that people would be quick to point out that "no not all people are like that, some people aren't and I'm not either." It's stating the obvious but sometimes people need to have the obvious stated at them.

I suppose I just like to focus on the exceptions to generalisations, rather the generalisations themselves, because they're usually less depressing. I should probably stop being so pointless.


----------



## Cerberus (Feb 13, 2005)

^My mistake. You didn't do that. I apologize.


----------



## nothing to fear (Mar 23, 2005)

Cerberus said:


> The vanity of individuality can be pretty sickening at times. Anyone concur? I'm not saying the OP generalization is correct, but people can be pretty defensive when their individuality and preciousness is questioned. This trend of rejecting any kind of generalization on this board is a strange one. Well, no it's not. When just about everyone in our culture hears how special and unique they are in some way (whether by teachers or parents or coaches or whoever else) while being raised, it's not surprising people are so resistant and defensive to being placed under some generalization.


(hadn't read the above responses so this may have been mentioned..) 
but it seems here - very likely because a lot of us lack enough experience - many generalizations people will come across are taken to be more accurate then they are really are. so when i see posts and threads stating "[_women or men_] only like [_this_]" and i know very well from my personal experience and my experience with others that it is far from completely accurate i often want to speak up about it. not really because i might be offended about it, more just to reassure that it shouldn't be taken so seriously or cause anyone to feel down at all because of it.


----------



## TheGMan (Jun 10, 2004)

The study doesn't really mean anything. I can only go by personal experience and anecdotal "evidence." My experiences are similar to other posts.

I would add that in my experience, women are no more likely to do this than men. A lot of single men go after married/committed women, some intentionally. Probably for the same reasons. Like placing value on someone who is desired by others.

As far as the attraction to "commitment" some are reading into this, I don't really get that. Then again, maybe it's best not to make sense of things. IMHO, someone merely being in a relationship doesn't show a tendency to commit and be faithful. Nor does being single somehow show that someone is afraid of commitment. I don't know how the hell anyone with SA could think that. People are single or not single for a variety of reasons. A lot of guys with GFs are "tools" and "players." A lot of single people are interested in relationships but don't have one.


----------



## TheGMan (Jun 10, 2004)

mm222 said:


> Its a strange phenomena..but very true if your observant.
> 
> here's on of my stories:
> 
> One of my female co-workers who was a ditsy type that wanted all guys to google all over her, didn`t really pay me any attention, acting like she was hot stuff...but I could care less because I had a girlfriend who was leagues above her in that category...I never really mentioned the fact that I had a girlfriend (I find it pretentious when people go on about their gf`s or bf`s)...and one day before going to the movies with my gf I stopped by the workplace, and this girl who never bats an eye my way is all of a sudden all over me trying to act like we are chummy chummy and all giggling and was practically laughing at how stupid and obvious it was, I couldnt believe it! or make sense of it, my girlfriend later asked me if there was something going on between us...I told her no, then pointed out that it looked like she really liked me?


I had the same thing happen to me with several co-workers after I started a relationship with a girl from work. We even worked together some, but I made no attempt to be public about it. These other females never spoke to me, looked at me, anything. Basically no one gave a $%^& about me. One of them saw us out together somewhere, and after that I was treated a lot differently. They would sit around and make comments, criticize my GF to me, just make a lot of remarks as if they were jealous, sit on my lap and touch me in other ways,etc. One in particular was always trying to flirt and pretty much proposition me.

This went on for a couple years after my GF had stopped working there. One girl who found out later came up to me at work and said " I didn't know you lived with ******." I don't think she said 2 words to me in 2 years, maybe "Hi." After that she talked to me all the time and would periodically inquire " So, do you still live with whatshername?"

When I had another job, same thing. Worked there for awhile, no one talked to me. Females kept their distance. GF came to see me one time at work, and after that they were always around making comments, sexual jokes,etc.

Sure enough, after that girl dumped me, it went back to no females giving a $%^& about me again.

I'm married now, but I don't really go anywhere or know anyone. So I can't really say if it would have any effect these days. Not that I care because I'm not looking for any attention. People probably still wouldn't give a $%^&.


----------



## rickthegreat (Dec 22, 2008)

WineKitty said:


> You want to cling to this "stat" being valid; go ahead. I dont. What are these "rules" [of universal attraction]? Who made them up? What you call the rules could be something different for someone else....And you know this how? :roll


Who made them up? Well God, or Mother Nature, or evolution, or however you like to think about it. What are these rules? Many are still a mystery, but with help of studies like this one, they are being elucidated. I know I like boobs though.  Thankfully the people in charge of these psychology departments are not afraid of *gasp* generalizations.

I bet most women would perform the same way in this study. It's just a hunch though.



WineKitty said:


> And you know this how?


I base this on many things: experience, anecdotal evidence, and studies like this one. (Did you think I just felt like it?) Like I said, it's just a hunch and it seems at least that the propensity of the evidence tends to support my hunch. I am however, reasonable and open-minded, and skeptical and in fact eager to hear a rebuttal to contradict my conclusion. I assume you believe that women are NOT attracted to men who are committed. And you know this how? What evidence are you basing your conclusion on?



WineKitty said:


> I have no idea how a larger sample would have turned out. I dont even care. What is the point of saying "well most women think this or that?" That is total bull****. WOMEN DONT UNIVERSALLY THINK ALIKE we are not a collective...Most statistics are crap if you ask me.


Well two points I want to make. First of all, you say women don't universally think alike, but again, I don't think attraction is a thought-process-well in the sense that we normally associate thinking with. Attraction is more instinctual. I never decide "hey I think I will be attracted to this girl". A guy does not "think" to himself "hey, I think I will get an erection over her body". "Is she hot? Lemme think about it?" No, they don't. Like other instincts, it's pretty much instantaneous. There are underlying biological and physiological mechanisms motivating our behavior many times. (Hence the universality of things). And yes love and attraction is more complicated than that, but we're still animals, and so attraction does have some instinct on which it's based on.

To the point of human sexuality: you like a certain type of guy because you *decided *to right? You analyzed it up and down and sideways, maybe made a spreadsheet, and then designed an algorithm unique to you and you alone right? The guy you liked *may* be liked by other women, but it will be for *entirely* different reasons than *your* reasons, is that right? The millions of women that are crazy about a movie or music star *each* like that movie star for their own *unique* reason right? If we asked them why they find Brad Pitt (or whoever) attractive, we'd get millions of different reasons? There are X billion people on earth, so there must be X billion unique and mutually exclusive reasons to like a man or a woman (there can't be any overlap in reasons). That would be like me calling dibs on women's boobs. I don't actually have a study regarding this, but I will conjecture that %100 of heterosexual males like women's breasts. I don't see anything wrong with pointing out similarities in our behavior, whether it be men's tendency to like boobs, or women's tendencies to like attachment, facial hair, confidence or xyz in men.

And, besides what about just intellectual curiosity? Even if there is no application. I like to learn more about myself and my existence and studies like this help shed light on the human condition. This study is not the gospel, I know that. But studies like this have the potential to show us a lot about ourselves. That's what studying psychology is all about. And sorry, psychology is full of generalizations. (We're the same species, the same animal. How can we NOT behave the same in many instances?)

But apart from curiosity, psychology studies can be very useful. Just of the top of my head, what about studies about x percent of school girls performance in math and science plummeting in middle school, or a study suggesting that x percentage of women can be coerced/pressured in to having unprotected sex, a study suggesting that x percentage of kids think drug use is OK, a study about the % of people that text while driving, a study about the % of people that really believe in U.S. healthcare "death panels", a study suggesting that young girls are unduly influence by media portrayal of sex, and the "ideal" Barbie type woman, a study showing that x % of Americans think homosexuality is a choice--and an immoral one at that. And on and on. You honestly don't think this can be useful to society? Would you argue that all human behavior is unique? That any study measuring the behaviors mentioned is b.s.?

Instead of denying that we are so alike, we might embrace our humanity-yes our differences-but our similarities and our commonality. It's OK to think alike and to behave alike. We are the same in many ways, why is pointing that out so bad? Like I wrote before, we're the same freakin' animal, how could we be expected NOT to behave alike? Human behavior and the human experience *can* be generalized.

So it's not b.s. You seem to be against studies, and generalizations and statistics in general. I think we should all remain intellectually curious and open-minded and continue to want to learn more about humankind. And if we find an interesting study that might be thought-provoking, we should share it here.


----------



## kanarazu (Jul 4, 2009)

yeah that makes sense
if they are single, you wonder what is wrong with them
if they are taken, you want to win them over and like compete against the other girl
I'm such an awful person lol


----------



## Zephyr (Nov 8, 2003)

rickthegreat said:


> Who made them up? Well God, or Mother Nature, or evolution, or however you like to think about it. What are these rules? Many are still a mystery, but with help of studies like this one, they are being elucidated. I know I like boobs though.  Thankfully the people in charge of these psychology departments are not afraid of *gasp* generalizations.
> 
> I bet most women would perform the same way in this study. It's just a hunch though.
> 
> ...


Excellent post. I'd put that in my signature if I could.



Cerberus said:


> The vanity of individuality can be pretty sickening at times. Anyone concur? I'm not saying the OP generalization is correct, but people can be pretty defensive when their individuality and preciousness is questioned. This trend of rejecting any kind of generalization on this board is a strange one. Well, no it's not. When just about everyone in our culture hears how special and unique they are in some way (whether by teachers or parents or coaches or whoever else) while being raised, it's not surprising people are so resistant and defensive to being placed under some generalization.


Also excellent, and I do concur. This behaviour does seem to be especially common at SAS, for some reason.


----------



## Thomas Paine (Mar 29, 2008)

*sigh*, if you could only see how unique and beautiful every person is, but you are blinded by societal norms.


----------



## Drachasor (Aug 23, 2009)

rickthegreat said:


> Who made them up? Well God, or Mother Nature, or evolution, or however you like to think about it. What are these rules? Many are still a mystery, but with help of studies like this one, they are being elucidated. I know I like boobs though.  Thankfully the people in charge of these psychology departments are not afraid of *gasp* generalizations.


This study was pretty poor, imho.

As for "laws" of attraction, I'd point out IS quite clear that culture plays a rather significant role in what we consider attractive (that one can get just by looking at different cultures throughout history).



rickthegreat said:


> I bet most women would perform the same way in this study. It's just a hunch though.


A hunch doesn't count for much, especially given this study wasn't that good when you examine it.



rickthegreat said:


> I base this on many things: experience, anecdotal evidence, and studies like this one. (Did you think I just felt like it?) Like I said, it's just a hunch and it seems at least that the propensity of the evidence tends to support my hunch. I am however, reasonable and open-minded, and skeptical and in fact eager to hear a rebuttal to contradict my conclusion. I assume you believe that women are NOT attracted to men who are committed. And you know this how? What evidence are you basing your conclusion on?


Experience is a type of anecdotal evidence, and quite frankly, anecdotal evidence SUCKS. There are so many ways you can get the wrong conclusion from anecdotal evidence. We tend to ignore misses for one; our memories are just crappy at sorting through things in a statistical matter. You can feel sure that something is so (like you get hit on by woman a lot more frequently when you are involved with someone else), and still be wholly wrong. At best, anecdotal evidence can serve as an idea for something to study, or as proof of existence (there are woman that hit on attached guys), but it cannot serve to prove a more general thesis.

As for studies like this one, well, this particular study is pretty bad. It lumps a huge number of actions together, some of which can be catagorized very easily as harmless flirting (which many people do) or even as expressing that you like someone else in with actions suching pursuing a romantic relationship. It counts both sorts of actions easily. Since it doesn't seperate out the various actions, we don't know if more woman go after men who are attached for any sort of real relationship. Perhaps there are more women that feel safe flirting with an attached guy, because they know nothing is likely to come of it. Or perhaps woman merely thing better of attached guys and so are more willing to be friends with them (and this might be related to the previous point). Of course, by "women" here, we are talking about college women, and college women who are probably thinking of themselves as single. It is quite possible what a woman finds attractive in college is different from high school and will be different again in 10 years, etc.

One certainly isn't very justified trying to draw some general conclusion on how most women behave. Indeed, even the study shows most women don't behave this way. Only about 30% of all women in the study showed increased interest in the attached guy (of course, I am not entirely sure how clear the questions are about the mate poaching thing, as it is possible some women find an attached guy more attractive (and remember "attractive" here might just mean they like the guy more or would feel more comfortable around them), and marked that they'd pursue a relationship with them, with the unspoken caveat that they were no longer attached -- the questions are vague on this point, imho, and I can see people interpretting them both ways). Honestly, the study raises more questions than it answers, and I find it particularly odd how they lumped all the questions together into one number, rather than show the spread of answers.



rickthegreat said:


> Well two points I want to make. First of all, you say women don't universally think alike, but again, I don't think attraction is a thought-process-well in the sense that we normally associate thinking with. Attraction is more instinctual. I never decide "hey I think I will be attracted to this girl". A guy does not "think" to himself "hey, I think I will get an erection over her body". "Is she hot? Lemme think about it?" No, they don't. Like other instincts, it's pretty much instantaneous. There are underlying biological and physiological mechanisms motivating our behavior many times. (Hence the universality of things). And yes love and attraction is more complicated than that, but we're still animals, and so attraction does have some instinct on which it's based on.


Attraction is far from merely instinct. There is definitely learned behavior of various sorts. Culturally we've been encouraging people to like thinner and thinner women for decades (if not a lot longer than that), when that hasn't been the case classically. Also, there are certainly some members of the population that place a lot more value on personality and other mental qualities, and that certainly is a thought-process. I'm not saying none of it is instinctual, but it clearly isn't all instinctual (I won't pretend to give a breakdown percentage-wise because neither of us have any idea what that would be).



rickthegreat said:


> And, besides what about just intellectual curiosity? Even if there is no application. I like to learn more about myself and my existence and studies like this help shed light on the human condition. This study is not the gospel, I know that. But studies like this have the potential to show us a lot about ourselves. That's what studying psychology is all about. And sorry, psychology is full of generalizations. (We're the same species, the same animal. How can we NOT behave the same in many instances?)


One has to be careful to properly interpret and read a study. Just taking a short description of it, or even the author's conclusions, at face value can be a dangerous thing to do, especially in an area as complicated as psychology.

-Drachasor


----------



## mm222 (Aug 17, 2009)

Drachasor said:


> Anecdotal evidence is often extremely crappy. Our brains aren't evolved to form valid statistical opinions. There are tons of reasons why guys could notice more girls paying them attention if they aren't single. You might go out more, you might meet more girls (friends of your girlfriend, etc). You also might just notice how you have to "turn down" attention, which you didn't do before, so it sticks out in your mind better. It's so easy for people to form the wrong opinion on things that it isn't remotely funny. The reason why we do studies on these sorts of things is because people's perceptions can easily correlate very poorly with reality.


>> So we should not explore any curious human psychological phenomena?? Wow, there are all kinds of holes in your logic of your whole first paragraph alone (but Im not going to go at every area I disagree with). I simply advise you to re-read all the posts to see that there are various real testimonials to from SAS members just in this very post!! So the fact that you dont see it in your experience does not mean that others HAVE not witnessed this to be true. So respect that, because that is what we are sharing here.



> Also, the males that haven't noticed this sort of thing tend not to speak up. I'll speak up though. I've dated and I never noticed any difference between how women treat me when I am not single and when I am single.


>> How do you know this? Is this just an ASSUMPTION of yours?? or did you personally ask every member of this site? hmmm, not likely! As anyone with any logic would realize it is impossible to determine. A very weak point my friend. Very very weak point in your argument. Please do not claim to know what others feel based on ASSUMPTION, because that is boarderline comical in any debate of opinions. Just a tip, when you attempt a debate of opinions:idea



> You need to look and understand the statistics on marriage better. Over half of marriages end in divorce in the US, that is certainly true. However, you have a lot more people out there now with multiple marriages, so those people easily can shift the balance over to most people who get married stay married, with others who get married become serial divorcers. Anyhow, a lot of people get married for stupid reasons or lack the skills to work out problems, so it isn't like a high divorce rate means marriage is bad. Being stupid is bad.


>> :no Not really sir...You just have to UNDERSTAND what I said a little BETTER. The fact that over half of marriages end in divorce (which you stated, not I)...proves my point!!!! It doesn't matter that they get remarried a bunch of times after that...in fact it does, it even FURTHER proves my point that marriage is not working!!! [If you have to get electrocuted a number of times before realizing that sticking a knife in the electrical outlet is not working, then im afraid to say that doing it for the tenth time and you die trying... does not exactly mean it is a success. Follow that anology??]. 
I'm sorry pal, but I am not seeing any common sense in ANY of your arguments against what I said. It just doesn't follow any logic that ive come across. I simply say that the old pillars of marriage are not working, the stats back me up on that, and so do you....lol. That's all I gotta say about that.


----------



## Drachasor (Aug 23, 2009)

mm222 said:


> >> So we should not explore any curious human psychological phenomena?? Wow, there are all kinds of holes in your logic of your whole first paragraph alone (but Im not going to go at every area I disagree with). I simply advise you to re-read all the posts to see that there are various real testimonials to from SAS members just in this very post!! So the fact that you dont see it in your experience does not mean that others HAVE not witnessed this to be true. So respect that, because that is what we are sharing here.


You need to reread what I wrote, because you apparently don't understand it. Experience IS CRAP FOR DETERMINITING STATISTICAL FACTS. There are so many ways for what your gut tells you is write to be completely wrong. That's the whole reason why studies ARE important, the whole reason we have to explore human psychology with studies and other kinds of research. That said, a bad study is still a bad study, and there are several reasons to distrust the study the OP quoted.

Seriously, you should reread what I wrote, because somehow you didn't understand anything I said.



> How do you know this? Is this just an ASSUMPTION of yours?? or did you personally ask every member of this site? hmmm, not likely! As anyone with any logic would realize it is impossible to determine. A very weak point my friend. Very very weak point in your argument. Please do not claim to know what others feel based on ASSUMPTION, because that is boarderline comical in any debate of opinions. Just a tip, when you attempt a debate of opinions:idea


*sigh* again, you miss the point entirely. It's not unsual for people who have a firm opinion on something to speak up louder than those who haven't noticed it (nonetheless, clearly I am being a bit too pedantic). In any case, a bunch of people on the forum WHO HAPPEN TO POST hardly makes up a valid statistical sample. This is just anecdotal evidence, and anecdotal evidence sucks.

It's funny that you are trying to make this a debate of opinions. I do not agree that is the proper way to debate something, especially when the OP started this thread with a study (however bad that study is). This is a debate of psychologic, and hence science. Tossing up a bunch of random opinions and anecdotal evidence does nothing to help one's argument in such a debate.



> >> :no Not really sir...You just have to UNDERSTAND what I said a little BETTER. The fact that over half of marriages end in divorce (which you stated, not I)...proves my point!!!! It doesn't matter that they get remarried a bunch of times after that...in fact it does, it even FURTHER proves my point that marriage is not working!!! [If you have to get electrocuted a number of times before realizing that sticking a knife in the electrical outlet is not working, then im afraid to say that doing it for the tenth time and you die trying... does not exactly mean it is a success. Follow that anology??].
> I'm sorry pal, but I am not seeing any common sense in ANY of your arguments against what I said. It just doesn't follow any logic that ive come across. I simply say that the old pillars of marriage are not working, the stats back me up on that, and so do you....lol. That's all I gotta say about that.


I'm sorry you don't understand the mathematics of my argument better, let me try an example so you can follow what I am saying.

Let's say we have 20 married couples, the first 15 get married and never get divorced. The last 5 couples have more trouble, and they get divorced and remarried several times (between each other). On average, those 10 people composing the last 5 couples are each married 5 times.

So couples that don't divorce have 15 marriages and compose 75% of the population. Couples that do divorce have 25 marriages (20 of them ending in divorce), and compose 25% of the population. In other words, 50% of marriages end in divorce (20 out of 40), but only 25% of the population ever experiences a divorce. (Now consider a scenerio where divorces were rare and marrying someone who got divorced was socially frowned on, you might reduce the number of remarriages among the divorcees significantly -- say to 1.5 marriages per person, and simply end up with more single divorcees in the end, without changing the overall number of people who have successful marriages, you might even have marriages that people hang on to even after the marriage has shown itself not to work. This sort of thing might represent life in the USA 80 years ago).

As you can see, a statistic on how many marriages end in divorce can be very misleading on how common divorce is among the population. As I showed, you can easily have 50%+ of marriages ending in divorce, but marriage working damn well for most people.


----------

