« Ching-chong-chang out of Shaq's big mouth.... | Gene Expression Front Page | The causes of suicide »
January 17, 2003

Joe Millionaire

Michelle Cottle hates Joe Millionaire and Noy Thrupkaew tells you why it degrades both genders. Yeah, but people are flocking to watch it.

Unfortunately, I think as contrived and artificial as these shows are, they are shedding light on a few of the strands that makes people select their mates. Intelligence & humor are always the number #1 criteria that both men and women declare in their prospective partner, but what is left unsaid is that there is a general level of physical attractiveness that is necessary (or barring that, financial success) that must be met before you would even allow the process of discernment to begin. Personally, what I find most amusing is watching men having to create rationales for their choices of women for what they know is a predominantly female audience. It seems clear that their selections of women are based on physical appearence and willingness to "put out" (let's be honest, how well can you get to know someone in a week anyhow? The first rounds are all about meat-inspection).

Posted by razib at 11:37 PM




Razib:
"...but what is left unsaid is that there is a general level of physical attractiveness that is necessary (or barring that, financial success) that must be met before you would even allow the process of discernment to begin. "

This is true, but physical attraction to someone else is immensely more important for a man than a woman. Example, how many rich, old women do you see with rock hard studs in their 20's? Whereas we all know their are MANY pretty women who will go for a man with money despite his age (with, of course the decline in looks that aging brings).

I've often thought that the money factor for women was the greatest criticism for Sailer's most brilliant work, 'Is Love Colorblind?':

http://www.isteve.com/IsLoveColorblind.htm

To me, trying to explain sexual relations in the Western World comes down to Tom Leykis (LA based radio talk show host who constantly talks of how to use money to attract pretty women) vs Steve Sailer ('Father' of internet discussion of HBD who puts more emphasis into the aesthetics). Much like science with Classical Physics vs Quantum Physics, we are still looking for the Grand Unifying Theory to explain everything.

Here's one possible take:
Guys are simple. We go for the superficial physical appearance first. Don't misunderstand me. If a woman meets our 'looks' threshold, we may still not want to pursue anything with her based on other factors (i.e. prior kid(s)by another man, 'bitchy' personality, being extremely stupid). But, she needs to meet our threshold for us to care about digging for data on the other stuff.

Immature (usually very young) women go for guys that are more attractive on a non- financial superficial level. This doesn't necessarily mean handsome looks or badass body. A guy with a suave personality can often appear attractive to women. These women generally don't think about the money aspect that much. They may feel that there is hope they will earn enough money on their own- or simply that they are too immature to understand the importance of money completely like mature women. At this stage, Sailer forces reign supreme.

Women who are mature are also interested in superficial attributes but usually demand their guy to be more financially secure. Other superficial attributes that I mentioneed can still be important but are looked at as 'icing on the cake'. At this stage, Leykis 101 forces reign supreme.

My intent in writing this is not to disparage any sex. It is UNREALISTIC to expect people to not base some of their desire to be with someone else (long or short term) on superficial attributes.

But, maybe we base too much on the superficial. Maybe the reality of life too often clashes with the expectations of idealism. Perhaps this is why we have so many people in unhealthy relationships or single. All of this might also contribute to our 50% divorce rate.

It is still better to try to understand the truth than ignore it.

Posted by: -R at January 18, 2003 03:30 PM


'I've often thought that the money factor for women was the greatest criticism for Sailer's most brilliant work, 'Is Love Colorblind?'

In retrospect, I should add the two greatest criticism of Sailer's work were 1) insuffiecient discussion of the phenomena that many women emphasize that their men have to have money and 2) insufficient discussion of why many women go for the person with the 'cool' personality more than men.

In both cases the men in question often are aesthetically appealing but still attract the opposite sex like flies to honey.

Posted by: -R at January 18, 2003 03:52 PM


"In both cases the men in question often are aesthetically appealing but still attract the opposite sex like flies to honey."

should read: 'are not aesthetically appealing'

I need an afternoon nap.

Posted by: -R at January 18, 2003 03:54 PM


Which is why I think Fox wimped out by picking a hunky 6'5" stud as their "Millionaire". They should have picked some shlubby, 5'7" cubicle jockey and let the girls loose...

Posted by: jimbo at January 22, 2003 09:34 AM