Are Smarts and Sex Appeal Mutually Exclusive?

In a way, this post is kinda dumb. Reasonable people already know that high intelligence is attractive per se, as regards both men and women in the sexual market place. Stupid people have dull faces and say dull things. This is no secret.
The problems come from the fact that lots of people think they are smarter than they truly are and so have unrealistic self-evaluations. Plus, there is a lot about human social interactions that cannot be learned by any means but experience. And so introverted, bookish sorts may take a while to those things out.
But high intelligence is like being rich or being thin.

I’m not so sure about the intimidation factor. There may be some men who are, indeed, intimidated by a woman who is much smarter than they are. More likely, he doesn’t have that much in common with her to begin with, and that’s a bit off-putting, but this comes across as “being intimidated”. I do think that where the woman has a markedly higher intellect, this can be a big challenge for both persons in the relationship because it undermines hypergamous attraction. In other words, I don’t think a woman can easily have a sustained high (intimate partner type) respect for a guy whom she totally and utterly schools intellectually — that undermines her attraction to him in hypergamous terms, and he’s probably not hypergamously interesting for more than a relatively short while (she may have flings with such men, of course). This is why, I think, you tend to see smart women still selecting men who are generally more or less as smart as they are (just as women, regardless of their height, strongly prefer men who are at least a bit taller than they are). Hypergamy is real, and intellect is one aspect of it among others, when it comes to LTR-type selection.

Now, having said that, are there some smart men who would prefer a less-smart woman? Yes, but that’s increasingly going by the wayside now due to the widespread practice of assortative mating — at least among the very smart. Among the very smart, you tend to find very smart matched with very smart, probably because it’s generally quite hard for very smart people (male or female) to really relate well to people who are markedly less intelligent in an intimate relationship.

Oh I agree that it’s not always an intimidation thing – that’s why I said if a guy is intimidated by a smart women, it probably says something about him as well as the idea of them together.

You do need to be on the same level to be able to maintain something.

“A woman in this situation will begin to feel either ashamed of him, or sheepish about her own intelligence.”

Yes! I had a boyfriend once where I avoided having my friends meet him. I very slowly introduced him to a few of them, and then would leave the room when he started talking because I did not want them to look at me like, “WTF?”

They surmised the only reason I was with him was because of his good looks and the sex, and they were right.

I’ll never do that again. No matter HOW good looking or how good the sex. At most I’ll keep a guy like that on the downlow as a booty call and nothing more. Or maybe take a cruise with him so I can show off the arm candy to people I’ve never met before and will never see again.

Susan- 100 is an average IQ. There is no real tie between iq and mental illness which can lead to arrests, rehab, etc. And 1 out of 4 students who drop out have an IQ over 110.

I wouldn’t put much stock into what Obsidian, a self-confessed chubby chaser and who’s into astrology (lol), has to say about women’s hotness and intelligence. Seriously what kind of guy (a 40+ y.o to boot) assesses women’s attractiveness with f’ing astrology?

A woman’s smarts don’t add much if at all to her sex appeal (unless the smart is related to the art of love making) but it will definitely add plenty to her relationship appeal. Doesn’t apply if her “smarts” are in areas like women’s studies & other lame degrees / credentials, obviously.

I think that with both intelligence and looks, there may be a “don’t have to” factor that comes into play.

I heard once on some show (sorry, I forgot which–some podcast) that some people feel a really hot girl doesn’t study certain subjects in school because she “doesn’t have to.” A girl/woman who’s extremely hot doesn’t have to study extremely hard on a really hard subject to make her way in the world, so unless she gets a high amount of pleasure from doing so, she will probably spend her time doing more fun things.

In the same way, looking that level of hot takes a lot of work and time, especially past a certain age. An extremely intelligent woman knows she “doesn’t have to” have the kind of hairdo that requires a $200 touchup every six weeks (for instance) and work out four hours a day. A bathing suit model (for example) watches every calorie and works out at least two hours a day, and has to make the scene in order to be seen and get gigs. Not that anything’s wrong with that…but an extremely intelligent woman knows she “doesn’t have to” go quite that far in order to make her way in the world and be attractive enough to make her way in the world without making looks her full-time job. She can look good enough to make her way in the world with the $35 haircut and twice a week workouts and the occasional Italian dinner out with friends, clients, etc. and a little wine and a little black swing dress that hides the middle section and maybe not a tan. (you get the idea.)

A woman who’s going to make her way in the world from her looks has to pretty much make it her full-time job. If she gets her full amount of pleasure from doing so that’s her decision…but she “doesn’t have to” study calculus. A woman who’s going to make her way in the world from her brains may have to network and socialize but she doesn’t have to spend two to four hours a day at the gym, spa, and salon. At some point it wouldn’t be as pleasurable for her to spend that much of her time that way. So she’s an 8 instead of a 9 or a7 instead of an 8 due to a “don’t have to” factor.

There are only so many hours in a day, and I submit that some intelligent 6′s or 7′s could be 8′s if they spent more time on their looks but they “don’t have to.” It’s not that they let themselves go and think it doesn’t matter. It’s that it takes a lot more time, money, and effort than guys probably realize to stay that good looking, and for some women who know they can make their way in the world without making beauty their full-time job, they get more pleasure out of spending that time on other things (but wouldn’t get pleasure out of becoming completely dowdy.)

I’m intelligent and formerly pretty enough to know it can bring more trouble than intelligence brings. The kind of jealousy and one-upmanship and marginalizing that a woman’s intelligence brings out in some men is nothing compared to the kind of jealousy and accusations and shenanigans that being beautiful can bring out in some men. No woman ever died or got acid thrown in her face from being thought a dour, no-fun, humorless clod. Quite a few have travelled and died rich. Anne of Cleves wasn’t pleasing to Henry VIII’s sight and not only did she keep her head, she asked for and got her own castle and got to live out her days enjoying her hobbies independently…all for letting Henry out of the unthinkable task of having sex with her.

While we’re on the smart set among actresses, let me put in a vote for Tricia Helfer. A super-hottie, to be sure; but I was (pleasantly) surprised to see from some interview shows that she’s extremely bright and eloquent, able to speak in whole paragraphs very clearly and thoughtfully. If you’re curious, check out these short videos:

.

http://video.syfy.com/shows/battlestar/behind_the_scenes_3/q_a/tricia-helfer-q–a-part-1/v79643

.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyvH1eeiDZw

.

Not necessarily the next Einstein, but definitely the farthest thing from a bimbo. And, she doesn’t seem to have had one of those fancy, credentialed East Coast educations, but went straight into modelling from a young age. So, proof positive that outstanding beauty can be accompanied by naturally good brains.

.

Note that the opposite tack works as well: the next Einstein can also be pretty good-looking. Check out physicist Lisa Randall of the Harvard faculty and originator of some seriously abstruse theories about non-flat extra dimensions. I saw her give a lecture once, and not only is she smarter than any ten people you know put together, I thought she was also something of of a head-turner with a strong resemblance to Jodie Foster. Your tastes may vary, of course, but the point is that even an ultra-smart woman can have above-average looks at the same time.

I wouldn’t put much stock into what Obsidian, a self-confessed chubby chaser and who’s into astrology (lol), has to say about women’s hotness and intelligence. Seriously what kind of guy (a 40+ y.o to boot) assesses women’s attractiveness with f’ing astrology?

It’s worse than that. Obsidian was run out on a rail from The Spearhead for making up BS such as claiming the men of The Spearhead don’t take showers and for throwing hissy fits when a few people asked him some questions. All of this is when he’s not talking about Elijah Muhammed, the anti-white black supremacist racist who came up with the myth that a mad scientist created white people 6000 years ago, in very positive terms. That’s equivalent to talking positively about David Duke.

“They attempt to poo poo it, though they haventb studied one book. Not. One. How is it possible to be an educated person and do this?”

For starters: how much comets, planets and other celestial bodies have been discovered because something was wrong in astrological charts by not taking those celestial bodies into account? None.

And why haven’t astrologers predicted, for example, the location and magnitude of the recent earthquake in New Zealand? Or anything like that? (Remember: the prediction must be in clear, unambiguous language, and clearly preceding the fact self.)

Let me rephrase your question: how is it possible to be an educated person and believe in astrology?

Vjatslav,
LOL. Nice try, but it won’t work. The answer is, you haven’t read ANYTHING about astrology. Which is fine, and you’re entitled to your opinion.

I;m just not interested in it.

Nor are the billions around the world who think astrology offers something insightful.

Now go run along and play…

O.

Astrology, at least originally, was created by the ancient Babylonians and Greeks because they believed that the gods sent messages through the night sky. The Babylonians codified it some thousands of years ago. Unfortunately, since the codification the night sky has changed–the Earth and the sun move throughout space–and the 4000 year old Babylonian codification no longer matches reality. So, even if the gods send us messages through the night sky, the current astrological models are off.
…
That’s beside the point. The interesting point is that science has found a correlation between IQ and attractiveness. As others have pointed out, this doesn’t entail a correlation between smarts and attractiveness, neither does the graph provided really demonstrate a correlation between high IQ and attractiveness. It’s one thing to notice that people with an IQ of 100+ tend to be more attractive; another entirely to claim that people with an IQ of 120+ tend to be more attractive than those between 100-120.

A fashion photographer said that it is really hard to book French male models, since they all go to prestigious private schools and have busy school schedules and social schedules. He found that the parents were almost always a pair of a successful man and a model/beauty queen woman.

I know a number of married women about 50 who don’t have children and haven’t held paying jobs for a very long time. It’s not my business, but they say that if they held a 9 to 5 they couldn’t stay as skinny. None of them is “hot” by movie star standards but they have and maintain a “look” that doesn’t necessarily cost a lot of money in terms of salons, spa treatments, plastic surgery, but take a lot of time. This “look” successfully attracts men who will foot their bills. I don’t know how to describe this “look,” but outdoorsy/North Face/sharp angular. It translates in some areas of the USA as successful and sharp in a certain way. Not in bars and clubs but certainly among those slightly older. What I am getting at is these women have said many times that if they held a 9 to 5 they wouldn’t get the time to work out and wouldn’t be as skinny. Their husbands sometimes seem to want them to get 9 to 5′s but they won’t. It’s not my business. I know it sounds like sour grapes and if I had extreme discipline I could diet that skinny while holding a full-tiime job (But I wouldn’t be able to be on the Internet so much, which is where too much of MY pleasure in life comes from.) Well, anyway, in my opinion, those women are kind of making their way in the world from their looks even though their “look” is not a movie-star look. I am not talking about women with young children or women who volunteer a lot. I fully support stay-at-home mothers. These women seem to make their image their full-time job, and it works. (meow.) They talk a lot about name brands. It seems to me they sometimes that knowing and talking about the “right” name brands and circulating in the right “art” circles is their full-time job, and their husbands are in agreement. Their husbands say things like “My wife taught me how to dress to be successful” but their wives complain “when I ask my husband how work went he shuts me down.” It’s their business. My boyfriend is a government drone and talks my ear off. I can’t read the Internet or a book in the same room because he wants to tell me everything that’s in the paper that day. It is the sweetest music to my ears, as long as I went without the companionship of a man who not only has a wider range of interests than I do, but a sharper and more inquisitive mind and takes pleasure in talking to me about those things. There’s no one-upmanship because we each consider the other smart. I think. Somehow it just works. Where was I going with this? Maybe if I worked on having a successful look that won the financial support of men, I would have had more male companionship earlier, and maybe this is sour grapes. But in my opinion, women my age without kids who don’t hold a 9 to 5 so that they can take vacations and work out during the daytime hours 9 to 5, are making their way in the world from their looks. I guess that’s kind of snotty. I know I couldn’t do it because I never had that good of looks, but these aren’t movie star women who wear makeup and get plastic surgery. There’s a “natural” look that takes too much time and dedication to hold a 9 to 5 as well. Meow Meow.

“In the meantime though, to paraphrase a famous Man – I have studied the matter, sir.

You have not.

No investigation, no right to speak.”
.
The arrogance is quite impressive here. You’re the one with the burden of proof, not I. So for a start, you could answer my questions (that you’re not able or willing to do that speaks many volumes), and maybe you could also explain why something that would be very useful if true is so rejected by the groups in the best position to know whether it works or not. If some astrologer were able to predict when and where an earthquake would strike, and how strong, that would be fantastical – at least we could evacuate people if the earthquake will demolish their homes.
.
“Uh, and exactly when did I say that astrology had anything to do with science? ”

If astrology really works, we could measure it. Science is the only known reliable method to do that.
.
“I mean, the mere mention of it brings these guys outta the woodwork, LOL. If astrology is so much hookum, why speand any time at all addressing it? I mean, I think playing the lottery is a waste of time, but you never hear me rail on about it; I simply move on with with my life. Why can’t the astrology haters do the same?”

Astrology is proof of bad thinking, and it is a lot more dangerous than wasting some money on a lottery because it influences much more behavior than lotteries. Anyway, if one were to follow your reasoning racism would also become something unspoken of – some persons don’t care about it, but other persons are rather vociferous at any mention of racism, so everyone should just shut up.

A little bit of reading on astrology: http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Dean.pdf

Vjatslav,
Those who think Black folk are inferior certainly don’t need me to use as their “evidence”, they’ve been doing that for a very long time now. At any rate, perhaps you’re familiar with the Humanist magazine’s “attack” on astrology? That was what, 35 years ago. Can you even remember the scientists who signed off on it? Something tells me most people right here can’t.

Look, it’s OK if you haven’t actually read anything astrologically related and serious. If you want, I’d be more than happy to provide you with a reading list; that way, you’ll be a lot more informed in your “anti” arguments.

In the meantime though, to paraphrase a famous Man – I have studied the matter, sir.

You have not.

No investigation, no right to speak.

*shrugs*

O.

“Wrong. I don’t have to prove anything to you or anyone else. Quite the contrary, sir. If you wish to discuss astrolology with me, I require you to know what you’re actually talking about.”

Define what you consider to be astrology. And yes, if you want to say that astrology is true, you’ll have to prove it.
.
“Now show me documented studies of people ruined and made worse for having their horoscope done or reading an astrology book.”
Nancy Reagan consulted a astrologer so that her husband, the president of the United States, would have his meetings on “good days”. Anyone who has that kind of influence could be dangerous – what if the astrologer had said “nuke the USSR”? And reading an astrology book isn’t dangerous in and of itself, and neither is having your horoscope done. Following the horoscope, when it errs (which will be often, considering the lack of proof for astrology), is what is dangerous.

“my bad, made a typo; what I meant to say was, how well did science do in predicting the New Zealand earthquake? Or for that matter, the Chile earthquake? Or the Haiti earthquake? Or the earthquake in DC what, a month or so back? What’s the predictive record for science here, V? You tell me.”
Scientists know that they don’t know how to predict when an earthquake will occur, so they don’t do it. Anyway, your question is rather irrelevant – how would we be sure that astrologers, using an unproven method, don’t just copy the predictions of scientists in these cases?

“Have you heard of Nick Campion? Charles Harvey? Charles Carter? Olivia Barclay? William Lilly? These are all British asgtrologers. Please read up on them and holla back when you’re done.” Just dropping some names isn’t very impressive – you could at least point to some interesting article on their site or so. Nick Campion looks like he is more concerned with the history of it, and since you refuse to respond to my questions in a meaningful way I’m not going to waste my time on the others. Anyway, this is the courtiers’ reply in full force.

“Anyway, if one were to follow your reasoning racism would also become something unspoken of – some persons don’t care about it, but other persons are rather vociferous at any mention of racism, so everyone should just shut up.

O: Ah, so now we’re back onto the race thing. LOL. You’re funny. In a “they’re all laughing AT you” kind of way…”
Ah, the old argument ad hominem. Can’t you really find some more subtle fallacies?

Many girls I’ve run into who’ve complained of intimidating men with their intelligence more likely drove them off with their massive egos. Many women are actually attracted to that kind of arrogance in men; the reverse, not so much. Guys value intelligence in women but not the sense of superiority that many carry along with them. Intelligence in women is only hot if it’s balanced out by some humility.

V: The arrogance is quite impressive here.

O: Look who’s talkin’…

V: You’re the one with the burden of proof, not I.

O: Wrong. I don’t have to prove anything to you or anyone else. Quite the contrary, sir. If you wish to discuss aastrolology with me, I require you to know what you’re actually talking about.

V: So for a start, you could answer my questions (that you’re not able or willing to do that speaks many volumes),

O: See above. Read slowly…

V: and maybe you could also explain why something that would be very useful if true is so rejected by the groups in the best position to know whether it works or not.

O: Again, you know not of what you speak.

V: If some astrologer were able to predict when and where an earthquake would strike, and how strong, that would be fantastical – at least we could evacuate people if the earthquake will demolish their homes.

O: Go and discuss the matter with the astrologers of New Zealand.
.
“Uh, and exactly when did I say that astrology had anything to do with science? ”

V: If astrology really works, we could measure it. Science is the only known reliable method to do that.
.
O: How well did astrology do in predicting said earthquake?

“I mean, the mere mention of it brings these guys outta the woodwork, LOL. If astrology is so much hookum, why speand any time at all addressing it? I mean, I think playing the lottery is a waste of time, but you never hear me rail on about it; I simply move on with with my life. Why can’t the astrology haters do the same?”

V: Astrology is proof of bad thinking,

O: No, the “attack” on astrology by the Humanist magazine is an example of bad thinking. Do you even know what I am talking about, son?

V: and it is a lot more dangerous than wasting some money on a lottery because it influences much more behavior than lotteries.

O: There have been documented studies as to what happens to big lottery winners. Have you heard of them? Now show me documented studies of people ruined and made worse for having their horoscope done or reading an astrology book. I’ll wait.

V: Anyway, if one were to follow your reasoning racism would also become something unspoken of – some persons don’t care about it, but other persons are rather vociferous at any mention of racism, so everyone should just shut up.

O: Ah, so now we’re back onto the race thing. LOL. You’re funny. In a “they’re all laughing AT you” kind of way…

O.

V,
Have you heard of Nick Campion? Charles Harvey? Charles Carter? Olivia Barclay? William Lilly? These are all British asgtrologers. Please read up on them and holla back when you’re done.

O.

Obsidian,

the obvious problem with your attitude on TS was that you assume its commenters and authors were automatically dealt a better fate in life compared to you by virtue of being born white men. You don’t consider the possibility that many of them were born into poor families, were abused and screwed over by their divorced feminist mothers, were ass-raped in divorce court, had false rape / sexual harassment charges file against them etc. – that, in short, many of them were routinely victimized by women. Did you ever suffer any of that? Probably not, since you repeatedly stated that you like women in general. This opinion of yours is probably partially the result of your parents and grandparents having lived in stable, harmonious marriages. That’s what you’ve experienced and it gives you a biased outlook on women. Compare this to the worst of the worst of female behavior, which most commenters and authors on TS have apparently seen. Is it really surprising that they have a vitriolic and hateful attitude towards women? You have no right to judge them since you don’t know of their experiences. You say you have a right to be angry at the entire world because the cards were stacked against you. Well, it’s obvious many white guys on the TS follow the same logic.

Your overlooking one thing, that is that your Hot/dumb list women have had extensive
plastic surgery, realistically they’re not all that hot. Does pre surgical Paris hilton compare
to Emma Watsons natural beauty..? I think not

Someone said it’s usually men who come out of the woodwork railing against astrology. Someone else said smart women can come across as having big egos. Let’s see if I can be a smart woman and deliver an argument against astrology without coming across as a big ego. My other rants are alienating, so this is just an experiment. I’m a smart woman who is against astrology even though not believing in woo is the fastest way to unpopularity this side of telling other women not to hook up.

I am interested in amateur astronomy. I learned why the constellations along the so-called zodiac *look* like the sun, moon, and planets are moving through them. I also know that those “constellations” are really not related to each other at all. They just “look” like a group of stars that are sort of together. In reality, one of the stars in, say, Taurus, might be farther away from another star in Taurus than it is from a star in, say, Gemini (just making that up) … it just LOOKS like those stars make a pattern called “Taurus” from Earth. A star that looks like it’s as close as the next star in Taurus, might be zillions of light years away but brighter, so it looks to humans on Earth like “Taurus” means something or holds together as something. It doesn’t. It’s just how those stars look from Earth, like they make a pattern. The stars in, say, “Taurus,” really aren’t related to each other at all.

And the arrangement changes over time. V-E-R-Y S-L-O-W-L-Y. In a few years (OK a lot) the “North Star” won’t be the same star anymore. The constellations won’t look the same either.

Anyway, the biggest reason I think astrology is bunk is that what looks like “constellations” really aren’t. That’s just how things look from Earth, and how things look from Earth changes anyway. VERY SLOWLY.

“Constellations” really aren’t anything. They just look like they are together but the stars in them might be zillions and zillions of light years apart.

There are some stars that move together as a unit, formed out of the same gas cloud and/or locked in each other’s gravity. These are star clusters and double stars…not “constellations.” “Constellations” are nothing. There is a very interesting hobby passed down from father to son, observing and calculating which “double stars” are really doubles, moving in each other’s gravity, and which only look like doubles. The reason the hobby is passed down from father to son is it takes more than one lifetime to observe and make the calculations.
Old astronomy buffs who have lost their eyesight can still make the calculations and use their time to contribute in that way. There are many, many calculations waiting to be carried out and see which doubles that look like doubles are true doubles. I oversimplified this but I don’t like to talk jargon and I’m too lazy to look up the notes from a class I went to where I learned about how they tell true doubles. All I remember is it takes sometimes more than one lifetime of observations, and fathers pass their hobby down to their sons. I think that’s neat. It’s more important to look for asteroids though, and it’s fascinating how they do that.

One way I like to give information without seeming like a big ego know-it-all is try to remember where I learned something and say where I heard the piece of information. The book where I learned about the path the sun, moon, and planets take through the so-called “zodiac” was named “Stars and Planets.” I think it was this one…you can take a peek inside at page 10. http://www.amazon.com/Field-Guide-Stars-Planets-Peterson/dp/0395934311/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1283962861&sr=8-2#reader_0395934311 Page 10 explains why the sun, moon, and other planets seem to move through the same particular path (called the ecliptic) which happens to have the “constellations” of the Zodiac along it.

It so happens that what look like “constellations” are along that path, but it only looks that way from Earth. Constellations really aren’t anything. The stars in them may be zillions of light years apart. I already said that, sorry.

I like to explain things without sarcasm and also with “This is how I changed my mind on this issue.” This is how I changed my mind on astrology after so many highly educated people said things like “If the stars don’t influence us, how come the moon causes tides?” I learned that what looked to the ancients like “constellations” aren’t really anything. They just look like they form patterns to a human from earth. That’s all. I said that 1500 times. I AM a bore.

Hi Hollenhund,
Replies below:

H: the obvious problem with your attitude on TS was that you assume its commenters and authors were automatically dealt a better fate in life compared to you by virtue of being born white men.

O: Given the intrinsic value that is placed on merely being White, I don’t think what I said was off base at all.

H: You don’t consider the possibility that many of them were born into poor families,

O: Being poor and Whie no doubt isn’t fun, but being poor and Black is markedly worse. Only a deeply naive or a deeply pernicious individual would attempt to argue otherwise.

H: were abused and screwed over by their divorced feminist mothers, were ass-raped in divorce court, had false rape / sexual harassment charges file against them etc. – that, in short, many of them were routinely victimized by women. Did you ever suffer any of that?

O: Nope, can’t sat that I have. But that doesn’t mean that makes me immune from being mistreated by Women either.

H: Probably not, since you repeatedly stated that you like women in general. This opinion of yours is probably partially the result of your parents and grandparents having lived in stable, harmonious marriages. That’s what you’ve experienced and it gives you a biased outlook on women.

O: I don’t think so. I think my experiences have given me a unique insight into Women many guys don’t have, and all of them most certainly are NOT good, LOL. I guess it all comes down to how one chooses to deal with their challenges in life, I chose to make the most out of my life. Simple as that.

H: Compare this to the worst of the worst of female behavior, which most commenters and authors on TS have apparently seen. Is it really surprising that they have a vitriolic and hateful attitude towards women? You have no right to judge them since you don’t know of their experiences. You say you have a right to be angry at the entire world because the cards were stacked against you. Well, it’s obvious many white guys on the TS follow the same logic.

O: See above comment. In the end, it all comes down to what you will do with your life. From what I can tell, the Spearhead crew seems to choose to be mired in their own misery, bitterness and hatred. Let them have at it.

O.

RT,
I have to ask, what kind of astrology books were you reading? You might have seen the names I mentioned to V, if you did, you might want to check them out. A horoscope is comprised of many factors, not just one or two.

O.

V,
Replies below:

V: Define what you consider to be astrology. And yes, if you want to say that astrology is true, you’ll have to prove it.

O: Again no, I don’t. No one is going to prove anything to you, V. If you want to know about astrology, you’ll just have to go and do your own homework. Now go and read up on those astrologers I told you about…
.
“Now show me documented studies of people ruined and made worse for having their horoscope done or reading an astrology book.”

V: Nancy Reagan consulted a astrologer so that her husband, the president of the United States, would have his meetings on “good days”. Anyone who has that kind of influence could be dangerous – what if the astrologer had said “nuke the USSR”? And reading an astrology book isn’t dangerous in and of itself, and neither is having your horoscope done. Following the horoscope, when it errs (which will be often, considering the lack of proof for astrology), is what is dangerous.

O: LOL. Those aren’t actual studies, what you gave were some anecdotes. When you get those studies, come back and we’ll talk.

“my bad, made a typo; what I meant to say was, how well did science do in predicting the New Zealand earthquake? Or for that matter, the Chile earthquake? Or the Haiti earthquake? Or the earthquake in DC what, a month or so back? What’s the predictive record for science here, V? You tell me.”

V: Scientists know that they don’t know how to predict when an earthquake will occur, so they don’t do it. Anyway, your question is rather irrelevant – how would we be sure that astrologers, using an unproven method, don’t just copy the predictions of scientists in these cases?

O: Then we have really nothing to discuss, right? Again – when have I said that astrology could accurately predict earthquakes, not only on this thread, but anywhere on this site? I’ll wait while you go and get the direct quote.

“Have you heard of Nick Campion? Charles Harvey? Charles Carter? Olivia Barclay? William Lilly? These are all British asgtrologers. Please read up on them and holla back when you’re done.”

V: Just dropping some names isn’t very impressive – you could at least point to some interesting article on their site or so. Nick Campion looks like he is more concerned with the history of it, and since you refuse to respond to my questions in a meaningful way I’m not going to waste my time on the others. Anyway, this is the courtiers’ reply in full force.

O: Translation: I’m too lazy to actually get off my duff and do the hard work of finding out what astrology is all about…

“Anyway, if one were to follow your reasoning racism would also become something unspoken of – some persons don’t care about it, but other persons are rather vociferous at any mention of racism, so everyone should just shut up.

O: Ah, so now we’re back onto the race thing. LOL. You’re funny. In a “they’re all laughing AT you” kind of way…”

V: Ah, the old argument ad hominem. Can’t you really find some more subtle fallacies?

O: Sure, when you can actually get off your ass and read an actual astrology book or two…

O.

RT,
LOL. You’re not really gonna go and make the case that everything you say and do in your life has a rational basis, now are you? Or, that the majority of what people say and do, has a rational basis – right?

Come on.

And yea, I know all about the Forer effect, it’s hard to be an astrologer without knowing all about stuff like that, the “attack” on astrology by way of the Humanist magazine in 1975, etc et al. I have to ask you, have you ever had your horoscope done, and if so, by whom, please? And you said that you had “five really intense astrology books” – I’d really like to know what they are, if you don’t mind.

Thanks.

O.

Hi Snowdrop,
Yea, on occasion, I’ve run accross a female debunker of astrology too, LOL, and like their male counterparts, they too dont seem to know a heck of a lot about ASTROLOGY itself. Like you. You know quite a bit about astronomy, but it is nothing like astrology, which is something entirely different.

I’m a bit familar with the book you mentioned. Have you read Geoffrey Cornelius’ The Moment of Astrology? Or Richard Tarnas’ Cosmos & Psyche? Or Nick Campion’s books on the history of astrology? Those are all good starting points for understanding what astrology is all about and how it why it works as it does.

O.

Yes, I had two points: first was that it doesn’t appear as if the correlation goes on as strongly indefinitely. Second, that IQ is only a potential that has to be actualized to matter. So, a girl with high IQ does not equal a “smart,” accomplished or intelligent girl–just a girl with a lot of potential. Compare Christopher Langan, IQ 190, with Albert Einstein, IQ 150. One revolutionized physics before he was 30. The other is 50+ and without any serious accomplishments.

@Obsidian
“LOL. You’re not really gonna go and make the case that everything you say and do in your life has a rational basis, now are you? Or, that the majority of what people say and do, has a rational basis – right? ”
.
I don’t recall saying that everything has to have a rational basis. I believe what I said was – “It’s fun to sit around with your girlfriends and read you horoscopes and laugh about it, but is it something to base a rational argument on? Doubtful.” I hardly think that’s a sweeping blanket statement in claiming everything/everywhere about everyone has a rational explanation. What I said was astrology does not have a rational basis in my opinion.
.
You’ve been asked repeatedly to provide some sort of reasoning to explain why astrology holds any sort of merit and have yet to produce anything. Instead you jump to saying we should go do our own homework. When someone says something like that, they’re hardly persuasive. What they’re saying to me is that they don’t really have any solid evidence to support their case. In fact, if you were one of my students and had been charged with writing a persuasive essay on the subject you would have failed because you have no provided any sort of evidence. You seem incapable of responding to people who reply with evidence. In fact Snowdrop provided a great amount of detail on the matter and you simply reply by essentially saying astrology is different than astronomy. Then provide zero supporting evidence to further elaborate on your point.
.
Additionally, you seem to think you alone hold the key to what men find attractive and again pander about the idea that smarts and sex appeal are mutually exclusive. Given that I have a variety of guy friends there is one thing I’ve learned over the years – every guy has a different idea of what he likes, and it’s also flexible.
.
Megan Fox is on the Maxim list. Some of my buddies think she’s gorgeous, others think she’s absolute trash. When the whole Jennifer Aniston vs. Angelina Jolie thing went done, there were some guys who couldn’t fathom picking Angelina over Aniston. It’s going to depend on the individual and what it is they’re actually seeking. Some of my buddies have said they’ll bang a dumb chick, but they won’t take her home to mom.

More from the “dumb it down” discussion on my site…

“D: Many people like their significant others to share their interests. It gives one a sense of commonality, and a shared “language” that is used to draw each other closer together. If someone can’t talk to you about things that you are very interested in, it does put up a huge barrier.

O: Correction: WOMEN like it. Like I said in my example above, it ain’t a dealbreaker for a Brotha if you aint a walking Hip Hop encyclopedia, or a NFL archive. This is clearly a FEMALE concern. I am asking you WHY it is so important, from the standpoint of a utilitarian point of view. Like I said, you not knowing Hip Hop or football ain’t gonna break the relationship. So why is it such a dealbreaker for you and apparently so many Educated Sistas? This you have yet to actually explain and make the link to vital relationship concerns. The floor is yours…

D: The NYT series on class in America, one dealing with cross-class marriages. It reports marriages where the woman is more educated than the man is much more likely to end in divorce than other types: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/19/national/class/MARRIAGE-FINAL.html?_r=1&hp

O: Yea, I think I read that. Hacker talks about the same thing in his book Mismatch. Perhaps the problem is the Women having unrealistic expectations?”

And…

“D: Most modern woman, especially if she is also going to be earning money as well, want a companionate marriage, not a marriage where the two people pass each other like ships in the night.

O: Hold it right there-so, you’re saying, that *because dude ain’t down with Pound, that is tantamount to being two ships passing in the night*? Is this what you’re saying, Deery? No disrespect, but given your rather imprecise manner of writing lately, I need to be very clear about where you’re coming from and why.

Maybe the problem with modern Women is that they expect too much? Hacker addresses this in his book Mismatch.

D: When you are with your SO, what do you talk about? Hopefully things in which you have a common interest. http://marriage.about.com/cs/stagesofmarriage/a/marriagemodel.htm

O: We talk about all manner of things, and most importantly, we don’t see our differences as enormous chasms neither of us can bridge, but resources that strengthen our bond. I can give her a perspective on life that she just would not have had before, and vice versa. That’s what a good relationship is all about. I mean afterall, how do you really grow as a person if you’re with essentially a carbon copy of yourself?

D: Talks about the different types of marriages. While I realize some men may care less about what is in a women’s brain than her backside, for most women, the key to a successful marriage is all about communication, not just his physical attributes. This is where having things in common helps contribute to the longevity of a marriage.

O: Communication, the ability to convey ideas, is different from being able to talk about the same things, Deery. I think it is very possible to do one or the other, even both. But they don’t mean the same thing. Perhaps the real education for Sistas/Women, is in learning how to really challenge their assumptions. Nothing does that more than someone under the same roof.”

Come on ladies! What do you have to say?

Holla back

O.

At the root of this argument is the Smart vs. Pretty battle girls grow up with and smart girls grow up resenting because the attention you get from being pretty is so much less charged and so more forthcoming.

But does it matter? If beauty is an attractor and manifests itself on a bell curve, the majority of girls who are, say, 5 and above in looks, have what it takes to attract a pretty good man if they keep their egos in check, their eyes open, and their common sense turned on.

Both Kim Kardashian and Natalie Portman were born with a fantastic slate of attributes. They came from upper middle class backgrounds and are both very beautiful. Portman seems quite intelligent. However, at 29 neither of them have managed to find a husband (or at least one that they stuck with – Kardashian is divorced) or have any kids. Perhaps they don’t want that, but most women do, and the clock is ticking. You could make the case that they have used their attributes to carve careers out for themselves, but let’s face it, the only one with a real career ahead of her is Portman. Kardashian’s going to hit the wall in a few years, and Hollywood isn’t kind to aging attention whores.

Perhaps I’m biased because I can live happily without the money and fame, but I genuinely think that women who are nowhere near as privileged as these two can with effort and care find someone to love and do meaningful things. You don’t need to be a 10 or a 9 or an 8 in smarts or looks to do that.

To answer the titular question, I absolutely do not believe that smart women – even brilliant women – are de facto Medusas who either repel or petrify any man who approaches. You also can be smart and not a total bitch.

Why are we conflating intelligence in a woman with everything that is ugly?

But then again – I’m not someone who is easily intimidated.
-
Fear (intimidation) does not require insecurity. There are lots of “tough/secure” people that will get intimidated when you put a gun in their face. You say you are small, but I doubt that someone else’s size is solely enough to intimidate you. I would suspect that size combined with aggression (signals) are necessary for you to be fearful.
-
Avoidance of harm (emotional or physical) is a very common reason to feel intimidation, not insecurity. Half the reason guys don’t approach women in groups has nothing to do with insecurity and everything to do with the way women in groups can be rude when one of them is not interested. How often do women make fun of guys rather than being polite? Too much.

“And the way to get me to do anything, is to come at me in way that was decidedly different from our friend Vjatslav (sorry for the spelling!), who bascially “demanded” that I “prove” something to him. ”

Maybe you should learn the layout of a keyboard. You’ll see that there are possibilities to correct errors in spelling.

And if you want to make an argument that something is true, you’ll have to give some evidence – which you’ve completely failed to do, while demonstrating that you clearly need some remedial lessons in logic and the scientific method (you should try using it sometimes – even being a black working class male doesn’t exempt you from reality, and being Chairman Mao isn’t a ground for exemption either) – or accept that you’ll be run out of town on a rail. Just saying “do your homework” is lazy and irresponsible (the courtiers’ reply you use is suspiciously endearing to creationists, by the way) when you posit something that goes against the null hypothesis. So what if my demanding that you fulfil some basic requirements for scientific thougth rattles you? I don’t care about your feelings (though your narrow-mindedness is irritating in and of itself).

A word of advice to all the unmarried women reading: guys who actually care about Maxim’s top 100 list of hot women are not long-term material. Do yourselves a favor and find a man who’s not into this kind of thing. The less a man knows about celebrities and pop culture, the better. It’s usually women who are into the tabloids and pop culture stuff (though I recommend not being into it yourselves either).

Different strokes for different folks. All the men who love KK and other such women, go for it! Good on ya! Personally, I’m quite happy with my man who loves my look and my body type, and who didn’t want to have anything to do with dumber girls. He also has no idea who KK is.

We watched The Prestige the other day, and I mentioned that Scarlett Johansonn was in it. He said, “Never heard of her.” He didn’t think she was a big deal either. After the move, we had a wonderful discussion about how the entire movie is a symbolic magic trick, about the invocation of the Tesla myth, and how male ego was the pivotal thing without which the plot wouldn’t have worked.

Life is good when you’ve got an awesome man.

Ms. Walsh,
I take it you’ve rea Andrew Hacker’s book Mismatch? In it he makes pretty much the same argument I’m making, that the kinds of issues Deery, the Essence writer Bene Veira and indeed quite a few Women here are making, are the kinds of concerns that are germane largely to Women. Most guys simply aren’t concerned about about their mate NEEDING to jest in Latin, or expounding on the works of Marcel Proust, etc. Bottomline, it’s just not that important, and Hacker notes this in Mismatch.

And I note that no one, not Deery, or for that matter, YOU, have actually answered my question: why MUST it be necessary, for a Man to do these things? What tactical difference does it make to the relationship? Please explain, somebody…anybody…everyybody…???

Holla back

O.

RT,
Replies below:

RT: You’ve been asked repeatedly to provide some sort of reasoning to explain why astrology holds any sort of merit and have yet to produce anything. Instead you jump to saying we should go do our own homework. When someone says something like that, they’re hardly persuasive. What they’re saying to me is that they don’t really have any solid evidence to support their case. In fact, if you were one of my students and had been charged with writing a persuasive essay on the subject you would have failed because you have no provided any sort of evidence. You seem incapable of responding to people who reply with evidence. In fact Snowdrop provided a great amount of detail on the matter and you simply reply by essentially saying astrology is different than astronomy. Then provide zero supporting evidence to further elaborate on your point.

O: LOL. Well, for one thing RT, I’m NOT one of your students, this is NOT a class, and I don’t have to prove anything to anyone. I was discussing things I saw from an astrological perspective. Period. And the way to get me to do anything, is to come at me in way that was decidedly different from our friend Vjatslav (sorry for the spelling!), who bascially “demanded” that I “prove” something to him.

Well, we see how that turned out.

If astrology ain’t your thing, hey, all well and good; I won’t try to “convert” you, that’s never been my bag. But I’ll be damned before I let you, V, or ANYONE attempt to force me to explain or prove myself to any one of you. You don’t like what I’m saying, here’s a really novel idea:

DON’T READ IT.

Capice? Try that on for size, hmm?

SW: I don’t recall saying that everything has to have a rational basis. I believe what I said was – “It’s fun to sit around with your girlfriends and read you horoscopes and laugh about it, but is it something to base a rational argument on? Doubtful.” I hardly think that’s a sweeping blanket statement in claiming everything/everywhere about everyone has a rational explanation. What I said was astrology does not have a rational basis in my opinion.

O: Nor does a whole heck of a lot of things, RT, and that WAS MY POINT. Do you deny this? Because if you do, I can rattle off a whole bunch of things, that are quite germane to THIS very discussion, where folk couldn’t be more irrational. Shall we dance?

SW: Additionally, you seem to think you alone hold the key to what men find attractive and again pander about the idea that smarts and sex appeal are mutually exclusive. Given that I have a variety of guy friends there is one thing I’ve learned over the years – every guy has a different idea of what he likes, and it’s also flexible.

O: Well, like I’ve said for the umpteenth time, none of this is personal on my part, just relaying objectively what I’ve seen out there. For example, Marilyn Monroe remains as one of if not thee symbol of the American Blonde Bombshell – and she does absolutely nothing for me. But there she is, as popular as ever. So, shoud I attempt to poo poo that, simply because it doesn’t work for me?

To ask the question, is to answer it.

Holla back

O.
.

Ms. Walsh says:
“One of Obsidian’s favorite tactics is to give orders – go read this book, get back to me with proof on that, etc. He’s made an argument with zero proof. The burden is his.”

O: Meh. In the words of Chaiman Mao – no investigation, no right to speak.

Do the homework and holla back

O.

PS: You remember me telling you that about the books The Game & The Mystery Method, right Ms. Walsh?

Ms. Walsh,
The problem with your line of argument is that you actually believe guys will refer to your empirical studies when out there on the prowl, LOL. All they know is, that chicks like Chelsea Clinton DON’T appear on the Maxim Hot 100. Period.

So, look, this is what I said in response to your argument…

“A simple law of nature states, that in all things, there are tradeoffs. Simply put, more brains equals less sex appeal, all things being equal. This explains why really smart folk have fewer kids, for example, if one accepts that kids are a rough proxy for having sex. They have a harder time getting together and making whoopee, and this is especially true for really smart Women – I remember reading Half Sigma, a Jewish HBD blogger out of NYC, who cited the GSS that indicated that really smart ladies had a tougher time finding a mate and settling down with him, or if they did, they had a higher rate of divorce. Surely really smart gals tend to be more nuerotic than gals of middling or a bit above average IQs – in other words, like their Male Mensa counterparts, there comes a point where having a scalebusting IQ becomes counterproductive, when it comes to forming close relationships. We all know well the nerd archetype. There’s a Female version of this, too. It’s called the Jane Austen Club(s). (By the way, please take note of the painting of Austen; case in point.)”

“Look, why any of this should come as a surprise to the Hooking Up Smart crew is a bit beyond me – it just comes as commonsense to me that everyone can’t be smokin’ hot, that’s just Life. But that doesn’t mean that one can’t be happy, either; a big part of life is knowing what your limitations are, staying in your lane and yea, I’m gonna say the dreaded “S” word – settling. For Women, this is extremely hard to do, especially in a time where the doors of limitations restrictions are blown off for them. But what I’m saying above, about who Men in aggregate find hot, isn’t likely to change anytime soon, and it is a serious Fool’s Errand to attempt to do otherwise. If one accepts that we are the result of tens of thousands of years of shaping and molding by our environment and the adaptations to same, then it only makes sense to simply acknowledge these truths and move on with our lives.”

“I know I did. Readers here will know that I’m not exactly the tallest guy in the room; at 5’8″, I’m actually quite short in stature for a Man. And, being on the smaller side has its disadvantages.

How so, you may ask? Easy – for one thing, Women don’t prefer Men my height. Don’t take my word for it, see for yourself – go hit up Match.com, or OKCupid, or eHarmony, or Craig’s List, and take a look at listings from the ladies seeking gents – five will get you ten that few if any will actually call for a Man UNDER 5’10″, which in America, is the average height for a Male. I know I certainly haven’t. Nor will Women experience any bit of cognitive dissonance in the least for their outright prejudice and clinging to double standards in this regard, while decrying Men for their “superficial” likes, wants and desires in a Woman – if anything, they’ll defend it, and vociferously at that, coupled with a goodly bit of shaming language; you’re merely a loser for mentioning such a thing, and so forth. Simply put, when Women can choose – and anyone who knows anything about Game knows that Women do the choosing most of the time – they choose a taller Man over a shorter one, all things being equal. That’s just the way it is.

So too, is it this way on the job – the University of Pennsylvania, in my hometown of Philly, did an extensive study on Male height and how it impacts Men’s lives; they found, that for every inch over 6′ or so, a Man earns an extra thousand dollars a year. And the reverse is true for every inch a Man is under 6′. So, in other words, there are real costs to being a shorter guy like me. I’ve been judged in all kinds of ways, simply because of my lack of height. Nothing more. But that’s the way we human beings are wired – out in the hinterlands of the Savannah, a Man with Size mattered, and it made sense for a Woman to seek out such guys. (I always chuckle at those ladies who like to pretend their oh so enlightened, and then turn right around and betray their brains for declaring thier thing for tallish Men. At least we guys are honest about being in thrall to our hindbrains.)”

“I could curse the darkness for enduring the slings and arrows of Fate, but instead, I sought ways to overcome my shortcomings, pardon the pun, and compensate for it. In the years since that time, which was very long ago, I think I’ve done OK for myself – I’ve led Men in the business world of sales, and not only was the highest paid man in my union shop who wasnt management or a journeyman in less than three years by standing out as the hardest working and smartest Man in the room and was in the running for union shop president, but I also have date quite a few ladies who were 5’10″ or taller – including my current lady, Ms. Brown Sugah. I haven’t had any complaints. To paraphrase another Little Big Guy: “Look at me! Judge me by my size, do you? And well you should not. For Game is my ally; and a powerful ally it is.”.

And that’s the message I bring to the ladies of Hooking Up Smart – when it comes to guys, brains are nice, but they don’t come before other things Men find appealing, first and foremost being looks. And if you don’t have a heck of a lot of that, there are things you can do to address it. It’s called Sephora. If you can’t catch a Man’s eye, what you say out of your mouth, is at best, moot. Being a Gal with a Big Brain is of interest, nine times out of ten, only to YOU. For most guys, it’s most definitely a plus, but it don’t come before being easy on the eyes, being loyal, being good in bed, and not being a headcase.”

Again: http://theobsidianfiles.wordpress.com/2010/09/08/are-smarts-sex-appeal-mutally-exclusive-well-as-far-as-women-go-in-a-word-yes/

Now, I post that above to make the case, that there ARE real tradeoffs in life, Ms. Walsh. And we don’t do anyone any good to attempt to poo poo that. Sure, there are SOME Women who are a combo like Asia Carrera or Sharon Stone. I don’t deny that. But I’m telling you, you’re not likely to run into them on the campus of Brown, or Columbia, or Spelman or Wellsley. You’re just not. And the ladies need to know that.

That’s all I’m saying.

O.

@ Susan

“We’re weeping because the most rapidly growing market for Viagra is males aged 18-26.”

Holy shit—is this really true? Link??

I still don’t understand why Obsidian is obsessed with the STEM guys. I’ve been around these guys all my life, and I’ve been dating them since I was a teenager. All of the guys I dated loved computers, technology, video games, and really into engineering/math/physics. I’m married to a man who is studying applied mathematics and who programs in matlab.

Most of the STEM-type guys I have played video games with have girlfriends or wives. The D&D group I was in only had one guy who is single, and it’s not because he’s a nerd, but because he hit on every walking female with total lack of tact and complete reckless idiocy. He could use a lesson in politeness, not “game.”

Anyway, what does any of this have to do with whether or not smart women can be considered sexually attractive by men?

Any of the quoted IQ scores that were attained before adulthood are measures of precocity more than they are measures of innate intelligence. Children who mature quickly tend to see their scores peak and then regress to the mean as they age. Moreover, when a celebrity is admitted to a prestigious college or university it only proves that they met that institution’s lowest standard. I don’t suppose you think George W. Bush was admitted to Yale and Harvard strictly because of his intellect, do you?
.
Perhaps it’s worth considering the likelihood that women and men might be attracted to different kinds of intelligence. It seems to me that women can get their tingles from the mere reputation of a dude who is a highly credentialed expert in a very narrow field — one in which he dominates to bring home the bacon. Men, on the other hand, seem to be impressed by breadth of intelligence that’s actually demonstrated to them — particularly if it’s social intelligence — and don’t care whether or not it’s credentialed.

Finally something sort of back to the hookup culture subject…dragnet, I haven’t seen the viagra statistic but I did read an article I think in New York Magazine about two or three years ago to the effect that doctors in New York were seeing more and more young men with erectile problems and there was some discussion about sex just being so out there on the table everywhere blatant nowadays. No mystery and right in your face. Wait, looks like it was in 04. http://nymag.com/nymetro/nightlife/sex/features/6204/

{Insert Tongue Firmly in Cheek}

Hmm. One of these days, I’ll meet a girl who’s smarter than me, but until then, I have no data pool from which to form a hypothesis on my feelings towards women who are smarter than me.

{Remove Tongue}

@Meg

Chicks like Chelsea Clinton don’t make the Maxim 100, but they apparently do land good looking, Ivy league, investment banker husbands. Same with her mom.
-
Lol. Do you not know who Monica Lewinsky is? And do you really think political marriages count as proof of what men want in an LTR?

Ms. Walsh,
LOL. Nice try. I am talking about the AGGREGATE females on these campuses, NOT the Asia Carreras and Sharon Stones. So yea, I can completely and freely acknowledge your calendar examples, but they don’t in any way kill my point. Try again.

V (I hope you don’t mind my using the first letter of your name),
I don’t recall thnis being an academic or scientific forum, or that you were the designated interlocutor for it. Moreover, my social standing in the American pecking order has nothing to do with the matter under examination – Ad Hominem, anyone?

What I noticed that we very interesting about this entire thread, is that you have yet to actually comment on the topic, which I’ve done from quite a few angles. The only time you’ve had something to say, was to attempt to upbraid me about astrology. Hmm.

When I first stumbled on the HBDsphere, I didn’t do as you did, which was to immediately attack the hosts/commenters. I saw that a number of books were mentioned prominently and frequently, and the light came on in my head that it might be a good idea to go out and read these books so that I knew what was going on and could participate in the discussions intelligently. No one had to hold my hand on the way to Borders bookstore to get a copy of The Bell Curve. I did it all on my own.

So, when I hear from folk like you, the firt thing that comes to mind is, why can’t this seemingly intelligent guy educate himself on the matter first and hthen come back to discuss it Even if he disagrees, that’s cool, but at least he’ll be in a position to state his disagreements from an informed point of view. Who can’t respect that?

Holla back

O.

Look Ms. Walsh, I know you have a personal dog in the fight here, and I can respect that, as i’ve said umpteen times now, I don’t. Couldn’[t care less about KK or NP, not a fan of either. All i’m saying is that really brainy gals tend to have tradeoffs just like real brainy guys (does anyone really dispute the latter point? If not, why all the agita about the former one?), and I showed that with my own personal life with the height issue. Again, no one is disputing that, right?

And again, you keep missing the point. It’s not about what you or your studies cite, it’s about what Men, in aggregate, want and like. *shrugs*

O.

But Obsidian’s point was that a smart woman – specifically a woman who enjoys Jane Austen (not the most inaccessible literature in the world) is bound to be unattractive.

.
Do women normally advertise the fact that they like Jane Austen? Heck, I belong to a Jane Austen fan club…but it’s not something I think I’ve ever brought up to a potentially romantic partner. I don’t think it’s possible to prove that Jane Austen fans are any less attractive than any other women.
.
Now women who like Ayn Rand are an entirely different matter.

Actually Ms. Walsh, Porn is a very good indicator of exactly what turns Men on. Read it and weep, ladies.

O.

Alright, Ms. Walsh. So the exceptions prove the rule, right?

OK, so, how many of those STEM guys are actually DATING those Asia Carreras and Sharon Stones on campus, now? I didn’t hear that number…

O.

@Average Joe, sure, he might run across a name or two in the checkout stand, or have some guys talk about it with him. But he shouldn’t want to know “all about” the various celebs. Popular culture has its place, but to get all into it is not a good sign for a guy.

Early on, when I first started talking to my husband, I remember he and this other guy having a conversation about Megan Fox. The other guy was obviously raving about how hot she is in Transformers, and he was just, “Yeah, she’s good looking. So what?” I remember that leaving an impression on me.

Celebrities don’t mean much to him at all. His head is filled with other things. Right now he’s probably planning for the next math lecture for his students. Rather than the name of some celebrities, it’s my name that occupies the spots in his top list. And maybe the nicknames of my video game characters that I’ve played with him.

That’s just one of a gazillion reasons why I feel really lucky.

@Alondza

Now women who like Ayn Rand are an entirely different matter.
LMAO. And one would expect them to be more like Ayn and be able to land a guy 15 years her junior, but alas they are indeed the ugly ducklings of the fan club world.

Hope,
Again, I ask: if all you and Ms. Walsh say is true, WHY are the STEM dept guys spending their entire careers in college working it out with the left hand, and packing it to the gills at those Mystery workshops? where are all those smart and enligheted gals who just know better? Why aren’t they snapping up those guys? What gives?

O.