In the recent post Sexy at Rational Male, Rollo Tomassi characterizes the above statement by Emma Watson as a “diatribe…inane post-pubescent aphorisms.”
The interview the above quote is from took place three years ago, when Watson was just 18. Her comment was an expression of her frustration with the gulf between the way she wishes to appear, and the way that the media wishes to portray her. She is not saying that she doesn’t want to feel sexy, or be sexy in her personal life. She is expressing that she doesn’t want to have to “be sexy” for the public.
In fact, in the original interview in the Daily Mail, this immediately preceded the above quote:
I had a party in town and the pavements were just knee-deep with photographers trying to get a shot of me looking drunk, which wasn’t going to happen. I don’t have to drink to have a good time. The sickest part was when one photographer lay down on the floor to get a shot up my skirt.
She is an attractive, brainy, talented woman who wants to keep it classy. Unlike so many young actresses who are all too willing to be plucked, bleached, lasered, cut and carved, vacuumed, implanted and airbrushed, Watson says, “That’s not me. I feel uncomfortable.” She’s being true to herself, refusing to market fakery. Since her goal is not to be a sex symbol, but a serious actress, she refrains from displaying her most sexual self to the public. She’s a modest young woman.
I have no plans to do anything for the sake of it, or to shock people. I might be willing to take my clothes off for a Bernardo Bertolucci film, if it was a part that really made sense as part of my character. But I wouldn’t do it just to make a point, to move on from Hermione. I’d hate to be so tactical. I’m not just getting my kit off for anyone.
If only Emma Watson were this hot!
She’s aiming for Natalie Portman, but Tomassi would prefer she channel Kim Kardashian. He quips:
Sexy is not always slutty, but slutty is always sexy.
Tomassi extends his misunderstanding: “Considering Emma’s boyish pixie cut this should come as no surprise to anyone. What Emma doesn’t get is that sexy isn’t always slutty. She doesn’t understand how to be sexy, but few women do because it is Men who’ve classically defined what is sexy and feminine in women. What has historically worked as sexy, and what has been historically confirmed as feminine is defined by the response and effect that particular behavior set evokes from Men. What we consider today as sexy behaviors and appearance were characteristics ‘selected-for’ that endured to become gender indicative aspects of being feminine.”
Is sluttiness feminine? Male readers here have emphatically argued otherwise. In any case, sluttiness was not “selected for.” From David Buss’ The Evolution of Desire:
Why men marry poses a puzzle. Casual sex without commitment would have sufficed if all he needed was to reproduce. So there must have been powerful adaptive advantages to committing years of investment to a woman. Most men can obtain a much more desirable mate if they are willing to commit. The reason is that women desire a lasting commitment, and the most desirable women are in the best position to get what they want.
Tomassi also fails to mention that ”sexy,” even as defined by men, is malleable. A hundred years ago, a glimpse of a well-turned ankle could produce an instant erection, as a man imagined the discovery of soft skin, and all the intimate parts of a woman. Today, the typical slut can only arouse curiosity about three things:
- Does she have pubic hair? Is it the same color as up top?
- Are her nipples pink or brown? Small or large?
- Will she let me cum on her face?
How sexy is that?
Tomassi again: “It’s a pity that Emma doesn’t understand how to be sexy, but she’s in the majority; precious few women know what turns men on, and still fewer have any capacity to effectively be so.”
I don’t understand his logic here. If, as Tomassi claims, slutty is always sexy, and the bars and clubs are jammed with slutty women, then how could those women be accused of not understanding what turns men on? According to Tomassi, fewer than “precious few” know how to be sexy. Yet sluts are everywhere.
By choice, Emma Watson will never be a sex symbol. Undoubtedly, she will also never lack male admirers. I’m sure she knows how to be sexy when she feels sexy, which is admirable, and honest, and healthy.
My acting headshot, age 40
Personally, I think she’s lovely, and yes, sexy. But then, I’m just a woman who wore a pixie cut once upon a time, what do I know.
{ 1771 comments… read them below or add one }
« 1 2 3 4 5 … 12 »
Susan,
The beauty bias holds for both sexes in general, not just publishing
That´s true. It doesnt make me angry though. GudEnuf´s comment about “just like a man” is pure bias.
Susan,
Megan Fox is sexy, I got a boner when I saw her in Transformers. But Im guessing if I interacted with her, her lack of persona / brain power would crush that boner quickly.
I know a bunch of sexy girls Im not attracted to. My body say´s yum, but I as a whole dont feel it. When we put the brain in the equation, we´re talking about attractive personalities and chemistry, not just physical appearance. So of course the physical aspect is the first card, but its not the only card.
A distressed hot woman trigger´s the white knight and protective gene, she doesnt lose the sexiness. In a predator kind of guy, distress is sexy for other reasons.
But happiness / smiling / fertility are more sexy than the lack of, unless the guy has some problems with happiness / smiling (like he cant relate or doesnt feel comfortable with that)
Say this guy hot from Friday Night Lights is sitting on the bench all sweaty and with the focused / consternation on his face and you find him sexy. What difference does it make for you if he doesnt feel sexy? your body is already telling you what he is.
Point is, sexiness aint defined from your own feelings and thoughts, even if you, with your feelings and thoughts, can alter your own sexiness.
Women undervalue the physical in men / screen for the bigger picture, the emotional state and character of the guy play a bigger part on if they find a guy sexy or not. But it´s not related to if the guy thinks he is sexy or not, it only relates to the girl´s checklist, either she finds what she´s looking for in him or not.
@Yohami
Your first response to this post was to share which photos you found intriguing, who you’d like to fuck. Most of your subsequent comments have done the same. No one cares who you want to fuck. It’s entirely beside the point of the post. So you were trolling from the start.
Rollo was the one who twisted Emma Watson’s meaning entirely, apparently without bothering to read the interview he sourced.
In fact, she was an 18 year old girl talking about feeling uncomfortable parading her sexuality in the media. Let’s see what else Rollo said…
How does Emma Watson’s position on revealing her body demonstrate that she does not understand how to be sexy?
How does it makes sense to say that precious few women know how to turn men on, when most are sluts and sluttiness is always sexy?
Why does Rollo claim that fewer than precious few women have any capacity to be sexy?
If you respond, please answer these questions, not attack me personally. Rollo couldn’t do it, and now you’re avoiding answering the precise question that the post addressed.
Again, to repeat: I do not care whom you find sexy. This post is not about whether short hair is sexy, or who you hope to fuck next time around. This post is about whether it is rational for a male to attack a woman’s decision to present herself in a non-sexual way to the world, deeming her incapable of generating sexual attraction in men. That’s what Rollo did. Do you agree or disagree with his position?
Sexual,
Yes, joy is attractive, smarts are attractive, physical is attractive, character, etc, pieces on a puzzle. Sexy doesnt mean body. Even when body is what most men care about, its not the ONLY piece and not the only way.
Yeah of course. Sexiness is not just about physical traits. But hey that was Rollo´s point too, and what a lot of women seem to be missing.
Susan,
If we define sluttiness as ready-to-fuck and showing-skin, sluttiness is always sexy.
But then we have personalities and morality and its easy to transgress people´s sensibilities on a personal basis, and we all have different thresholds.
I dont like porn for example.
Still, get me exposed to any part of the female body and my own body pays full attention.
NSFW http://img.funtasticusnsfw.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/photozip/032103club_girls/club_girls_14.jpg
See. I dont like that girl – I wouldnt go talk to her – but did I look at her tits? for a split second I totally fucked her. Is this the route girls have to take to be sexy? not at all.
How does writing an attack post on Emma Watson demonstrate his point? He was responding to Watson’s comments on not vamping it up for the media to claim that she is essentially asexual and clueless about men.
We all know that it is possible to be sexy without being slutty, or man would be extinct by now. Duh. What’s radical is Rollo’s claim that sluttiness is always sexy. There are certainly several men here who disagree, so I don’t understand why you believe we should take that at face value.
How have I said that sexy = slut? I am saying the opposite. Women can be very sexual, and sexy, without walking around with their sexuality on display.
As for whether a woman feeling sexy has any direct impact on her sexiness, I’ll ask the men…
Is there any difference in how sexy you find a woman while fucking her, based on how sexy she feels, as evidenced by her degree of interest in sex? Or is an indifferent sexual partner every bit as sexy?
Byron > Susan > Lokland
That. I dont find Watson “sexy”. Would I fuck her? in my mind I already did.
It’s funny you should say that. Last night I watched North and South, a British period drama set in the 1800s. The main character, a preacher’s daughter and woman of unassailable virtue, attends a ball with most of her breasts visible above the rise of her gown. This was clearly considered appropriate feminine attire for virgins. Other periods in history have also exposed much more cleavage than we consider slutty today. Ironic.
There are a lot of wonderful women (and, come to think of it, beta males too) who are hopelessly stuck in the frumpy zone because they believe that catering to instinctive attraction triggers, whether through “looking sexy”, however defined, for women, or learning game for men, is somehow beneath them or at least insufficiently authentic. The problem is that appealing somewhat to those attractors (the 1 in 3 rule, eliminating anti-game) is a healthy signal that you are someone who takes the needs of your (prospective) partner seriously.
I don’t hear, or see, Watson doing that.
You can get away with the short hair because of what the rest of your face says, and you’ve got the personality to back it up (owing an undetermined amount of that personality to an upbringing many young women no longer enjoy). Emma Watson can get away with it (is she in fact? any data on her actual love life?) because the rest of her face is profoundly attractive as is the Hermione character that she repeatedly hints at wanting to now get beyond, just not in a sexual way.
Yes, I agree that Watson slutting it up would be horrifying. Androgynizing herself is, however, not much better.
Flavia,
That. Plus for some reason she always looks like she had sex a minute ago.
As you point out, there is a great deal of information available at first glance (or sniff, or whatever). We know that men are turned on by pheromones, not just visuals, the process is pretty complex, chemically speaking.
My body will tell me something different based on how the man is presenting himself. If Kyle Chandler is sloppy drunk, I do not think he is sexy. If he is giggling like a schoolgirl, I do not think he is sexy. If he is sweaty and focused, he is sexy. If he is playing with his toddler, he is sexy. If he is sneering at his wife, he is not sexy. If he is feeling sexy and experiencing life’s joys and smiling in a way that makes others feel good, that is the sexiest thing of all. All of this will be processed in a second or two.
I’m definitely missing that in Rollo’s remarks. If sluttiness is always sexy, then why would anything else be needed? It seems to me that Rollo is arguing that Watson’s unwillingness to bare her body in a way that feels slutty to her precludes her being sexy. He does not consider or mention any other traits.
That is a 180 degree contradiction to Rollo’s claim, assuming that being DTF is reflected in the woman’s appearance.
Susan,
Im pointing to different angles of sexy that dont revolve around sluttiness, since the point here is “defining sexy”
Nope.
Except Rollo´s point is that sexy is not about being slutty. You should be agreeing with him.
It makes sense when you add femininity and seduction to the equation. You can underplay the sluttiness and play femininity seduction and it makes for a better sexy cocktail. That again is Rollo´s point.
Because most women think showing tits is enough. And it IS enough to get the boner on. But the seduction / femininity is like a lost art.
I think I did? but Im just paraphrasing Rollo´s point, which was already on his post.
What rollo did is to attack the notion that sexyness = sluttiness. It goes again, but many other guys did the same as so did I, and I linked to different girls to point the difference.
Sluttiness (aka, being ready to fuck, showing skin ) is always sexy. But then there are degrees that might cross personal sensibilities. In my case, that gets crossed early.
Sexiness is not ONLY about showing skin and being ready to fuck. Add femininity / seduction / joy and on and on, and it´s a better cocktail.
I think criticizing Watson is on point because she´s not turning the slut down (good for her) but making it as turning the sexy down. Hey, sexy doesnt mean slut. You can be full of sexy (attractive to men) without showing your pants. So Watson is shutting down herself, not just the slut.
But as I see her, she probably doesnt have it on herself, like I said, its like she doesnt have the pieces.
Portman is full of sexy and classy.
Watson is not just non-sexy, but non-sexual non-seductive non-feminine.
She seems to think sexy=slut. It aint.
Susan,
Yep, such a complex cocktail.
I remember seeing the young Emma on TV before the first movie, what an absolutely revolting precocious brat she was. Presumably it is helpful for an actress, the two boys seemed pretty normal. Given the years of fame, I can’t see her personality having developed out of the obnoxious attention whore phase, she might be getting a bit bored of the attention though.
And Susan, nice list of beautiful women with short hair, but most men would think that they’d look better with longer cuts…I swear to you! It’s like most ‘high’ fashion that looks great on top models…they’d look great in bin-bags.
Susan,
He does, he pasted the rest of his comment here, and I quoted it and bolded it, and I´ve been repeating the second aspect to it. Here it goes again.
A guy get´s turned on in the presence of readily available sex / skin, etc. Gimme a naked female body and I get a boner. 99% chance.
But being sexy goes well beyond that because its a more complex cocktail than just the physical aspect.
Femininity joy smiles happiness character etc.
Rollo´s point is that women seem to have forgotten about all the aspects to sexiness and that they only consider the physical part. So if they want to be sexy they go slut (ready to fuck, skin, tits in your face).
Which is a shame (again, paraphrasing Rollo) because there´s more to it.
Watson plays down the slut, but she´s left with nothing: she doesnt have the other stuff either. She kills the slut, which is good, but she´s not “attractive” beyond superficial physical beauty (except of Jesus who finds her smart, but I think he´s confounding coldness with brain power)
And killing the slut shouldnt be about killing the sexy
And skin+ready to fuck is sexy, but there´s more to it.
Etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
@Yohami
I didn’t want you to think I was ignoring your comment, but I won’t repeat myself further. We’ll agree to disagree. I get a very, very different message from Rollo’s post, as I believe most women would.
The female shaming is strong in Rollo. If I recall correctly, he is in the liquor business, servicing casinos in Las Vegas. If that is true, he sees a very particular slice of the female species – women who display their bodies and their sexuality for a living. Perhaps this explains his attitude towards the female sex.
Do you know how many millions of synapses fire in order for you to have a single thought? (Out of the 100-500 trillion in your brain?)
Sarcasm is a weak move.
Yup, I get it. My point was that these women made a choice which ostensibly included more criteria than the male gaze.
@Susan, I like that you wrote down the Merriam-Webster definition of sexy. At work both my male and female bosses will toss out the word like “genetics is really sexy right now” or “the latest sexy topic in the medical industry.” At first it was really odd. Now I’m used to it. They’re definitely using the second definition, appealing/interesting, rather than erotic/sexual.
@Flavia
Unless you are Team Jacob in which case you can go in the corner with Olive :p
Welcome Twisister.
That. Plus for some reason she always looks like she had sex a minute ago.
Is very interesting because she might does looks like that, and frankly if she and Rob were riding the same limo when going to the premieres it might be true, but she is not slutty either.
Check this who wore it better link: http://www.robstendreams.com/2011/01/kristen-stewart-vs-lauren-santo-domingo.html
Watson body language screams “don’t touch me” and if you check her premieres full lengths pictures she is always crossing her legs. Kristen is looking away from the camera but her body language is seductive and open to seduction or/and being seduced I think that is another key missing Emma looks like she doesn’t need to get laid ever she is “too smart to get horny” sort of look. I will say maybe is just her image and maybe is because her best angles are the ones where she looks like that, only time will tell.
@Yohami
There he goes with the feminazigynocentricXXism.
What he says has always been true. Women’s sexuality has always been the code that men try to crack, as we face far greater risks with each sexual encounter. Have women ever needed to do anything more than take off their clothes to get sex? Why should a woman seduce a man for sex? Because he’s the top dog, with his superior genes? But the top dog doesn’t demand seduction very often. In this SMP, he’s much more likely to hit it and quit it than be seduced by a woman who knows how to do it right, i.e. slow.
There is no incentive for women to seduce men in this market.
In any case, I still don’t see the connection to Emma Watson’s choosing not to strip for the cameras. Her remark about “less is more” speaks directly to seduction, yet Rollo has no patience for it. So yeah, Rollo still doesn’t make sense.
By the way, he was the one who said “never mind” and bailed on the thread. No point in responding when he was gone. He likes to do that, leave snarky comments and then make it clear he’s not sticking around for a reply.
Yohami,
I see the ego in Watson, but not the narcissism. I don’t know much about her beyond what I’ve seen here, though, so it could be I’m just missing something.
She also doesn’t strike me as being emotionally vacuous (whereas Olsen at looks intellectually vacuous to me). I think I see what you’re getting at though. Seems to me that Watson’s strong exterior is hiding something deep and vulnerable, though. Sometimes a rough exterior is just a sign of roughness through and through. Sounds like that’s the type you’ve had to deal with in past relationships.
Olsen (I know nothing about her, just judging her book by her cover) looks soft and vulnerable on the outside, which generally means that’s how she is through and through. That’s not a bad quality (unless you’re not into simple people), but when you find it in a halfway decent looking girl, it usually (in my experience) means she’s been used. That doesn’t make her “damaged goods”, but it doesn’t inspire much trust either.
@Just1X, really? In my book 10-year-olds get a pass for trying to get attention. Kids like attention from people. I loved it when I was a kid, and I would do all sorts of stuff like sing, dance, act goofy just to see my grandparents smile or laugh. It probably got rather annoying for the adults, but kids don’t really know any better. It doesn’t make 10-year-old little Emma Watson a narcissist. Maybe a little bratty, but who was ever a perfectly behaved kid?
I could nor post this right away because I needed to bang my head against the wall a few times just to calm myself.
Susan, how in the name of Venus is a man supposed to perceive just how “sexy” a woman happens to feel about herself at any given time?
Women grossly over rate what men can tell about their internal mood-states. And sometimes I think that women value mens responses less the more obvious they make their clues. Like, if you have to tell him verbally that you are horny it does not count. And this stuff can change for women from heart beat to heart-beat. And if a guy gets it wrong he is routinely punished.
Fortunately, if a guy just takes the lead and works her buttons right and thoroughly her mood can usually be improved. But this is different than somehow knowing for sure where she is at any given second.
Cute vs Beautiful vs Sexy are variations of how an attractive woman presents herself.
Slutty is just a poor attempt at one of the above (usually sexy), or a purposeful attempt at cultivating nothing more than raw lust and attraction.
Susan,
Comment #185:
@Mike C
You can go back through the comments already posted and see the majority of guys would think she is more beautiful with long hair.
****That was never up for debate.***** I specifically clarified what the post was not about, namely this.
You in comment #123
The short hair accentuates her facial features. Short hair makes eyes look larger, and cheekbones more pronounced. The focus on the face is magnified. Very beautiful women can not only pull off short hair, they can look more beautiful with it. By the way, a woman wearing her hair up has very much the same effect. That’s why women do it when they want to appear most beautiful and elegant.
If it is NOT up for debate per comment 185, then why make your statement in 123? If your position is what you said in 123, great, no prob. But why the attempt in 185 to try and backpedal and make a statement like 123 doesn’t exist. With all due respect, you’ve made greater use of this tactic of over hundreds of comments in a thread shifting positions, and not directly addressing previous points….what Yohami called adversary mode.
The title of this post is Defining Sexy. A woman’s hairstyle is inextricably linked with her sexiness. Any suggestion otherwise is completely and utterly absurd. That doesn’t mean a woman should wear her hair to maximize her sex appeal to men.
@Hope,
maybe, maybe…my recollection from seeing the film (quite a bit later, I’m not really a fan) was that the on-screen nauseating princess character of the first film would have required little to no actual acting ability from her.
Perhaps she’s changed, a fair few years have passed, but I can’t help thinking that her celeb life would not have been conducive to a balanced personality. I hope she’s managed a little normality whilst growing up, certainly her on screen role has ‘improved’.
The picture here makes her look a little like a sickly effeminate boy to me, which should indicate a good career on the catwalk as a female model. Gotta say I prefer less androgeny and more feminity personally…YMMV.
I hope that she isn’t up tight about her perceived sexuality, but I also agree that she isn’t my idea of stunning (so maybe the look is a smart bit of product differentiation). She’s definitely aging better than LL. In a few years LL could model for ‘the scream’ by Munch (but with more hair)
http://oaks.nvg.org/an3ra2.html
oops, I mean
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://oaks.nvg.org/p/muskrim.jpg&imgrefurl=http://oaks.nvg.org/an3ra2.html&h=1036&w=813&sz=295&tbnid=8wDVwZTQcBXDBM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=71&zoom=1&docid=UgJ_hrJXGoWEVM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JsA2T63rLoOk8gOB5YmgAg&ved=0CE0Q9QEwBQ&dur=153
@Rum
“Women grossly over rate what men can tell about their internal mood-states. And sometimes I think that women value mens responses less the more obvious they make their clues”
The trick is not to care…this could be part of the reason that men’s sensitivity is regarded as legendarily bad. It’s the male version of playing dumb so as not to get pulled into the drama du jour.
(p.s. I said ‘part of’, not the only reason)
Susan,
It wasnt sarcasm. It IS a complex cocktail.
I do agree with the guys that the longer the list of traits a woman demands appreciation for, the smaller the pool of potentially interested men. So I have no patience for women who demand to know where all the good men have gone, or to blame men for not appreciating all their traits.
You are obviously a little more perceptive than a lot of women when it comes to this topic but your words still carry the implication that men are somehow “shallow” for not being able to appreciate certain traits in a woman.
A HUGE part of the problem with the mating game today is modern women’s desire to impose attractiveness standards on men, It doesn’t matter what you wish to be attractive to a man; it only matters what is encoded in his DNA.
You would love to be valued for your intelligence (among other things) but the fact of the matter is that anything above average or slightly above average is a negative. Sorry, that’s just the way it is. I didn’t make the rules I’m just trying to make you understand that nature designed it this way and no amount of wishing is going to change it.
If you want to be optimally attractive to men the formula is simple- be feminine. Be the opposite of what you seek in a man. If you try to tinker with the formula you are only going to be met with resistance.
How does Emma Watson’s position on revealing her body demonstrate that she does not understand how to be sexy?
I’ll address this question. Because she CATEGORICALLY states sexiness is LESS IS MORE.
No, not for *most* men. The whole less is more, the “wondering” that is what is sexy for woman about a man. IT DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY FOR A MAN. Most men want to at least see some of the goods so to speak.
Here is an example to illustrate. Few if any women get turned on/sexually excited by male strippers, by some guy shaking his dick in their face. So. Less is more. They’d rather see the guy in the suit or uniform and “wonder”. Most men in contrast will get very turned on by a hot woman shaking her tits and pussy in his face.
Now we have no idea what Emma is like in her private life. Maybe she does dial up the sexiness with just her SO. Again, she may have very good reasons for not putting out a “sexy” image for public consumption. But that is different from saying a boy haircut dressed in a burka is sexy because less is more.
The projection of full-fledged personalities onto these celebrity photos by the men here is fascinating. Maybe it’s all about the visual to start, but from there you branch out and start filling in blanks significantly. It seems that in this conversation at least, male sexual attraction is very nuanced.
Jesus,
I agree that Olsen seems intellectually vacuous, and Watson looks more intellectual. At least that´s what the pictures say.
Yep. I just traced the source of it, thanks to some blogs (Ricky´s Rawness and TLP). Seems like since I didnt have love in my childhood, I go and invest myself on less responding people and try to gain their affection. Which is a bait for narcissists. Lesson learned.
When I picture Olsen as hot though, I imagine her reading a book, that´s what puts the kiss on it. When I picture Watson, I imagine her with that stiff armor around her and keeping it unbreakable.
But you´re right in that sometimes the armor hides something fragile and precious. Thing is will it ever open.
I totally get why either can be attractive. If your girlfriend has the Watson posture, man I wish she does crack and open for you. Still the point here was the sexy vs sluttiness angle.
Check that video on my blog. The stiffness on the mother makes the kid try harder until he starts acting up. Very freaking deep.
@Rum
I agree, it’s not the male’s reponsibility to decipher a woman’s emotions, or to what degree she is “feeling it.” I didn’t mean to imply that. I was just asking if a woman is sexier to you if she’s into it, rather than if she seems indifferent. It’s a theoretical question, so assume an evident gap.
Pretty much agree with everything yohami and mike c and others echoing their viewpoints have said.
I think the those men are taking issue with the overall tone of the post, which seems to subtextually say “I deem this to be the standard of a sexy woman, and you men WILL agree with me.” There’s also the seemingly combative nature of the post’s tone, which will immediately cause a reaction from most “alpha-type” men (i.e. those not afraid to express their viewpoints).
When I read “slutty means sexy” I took it to mean that dressing provocatively, or in some way inducing the idea of being open to sex, is sexy. That is just an undeniable fact for men. Whether that instant rush of attraction is tempered by other factors is a whole other issue.
If Emma Watson were to say “I know what is sexy, but I want to downplay that right now because of x, x and x”, men would react much better than her currently saying “I believe Y is sexy”, where Y is something in direct contradiction to what men find sexy.
Her way of stating things is a turn-off to men because it implies she wants to control her man’s sexuality rather than being someone willing to please her partner.
To be honest though, it’s hard to address the post because it is approaching things from all the wrong angles.
Mike C,
Bingo.
How does it makes sense to say that precious few women know how to turn men on, when most are sluts and sluttiness is always sexy?
Because he was referring to being sexy in a non-slutty way, to turn a man on without resorting to the slutty way of being sexy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2hy6fyheIA (thats sexy without any cleavage or legs or caked on makeup)
It’s interesting that you say this because it reminded me of something. You said that it isn’t good for women to try to impose attractiveness standards onto men, but I feel like men are just as guilty of doing the same thing. Whenever the topic of female attraction triggers come up, you’d think every guy just lost his dog. They become upset and don’t understand why we women are attracted to what we are. What we like is seen as shallow, hypergamous, and juvenile. If women admit that they like men who are tall, good looking, have money, or any other slew of traits, the male uproar is deafening. The truth hurts, in a way, because it highlights just how much men and women are different.
A female response to the idea that pixie cuts aren’t considered attractive by some men is akin to the male response to the idea that being short isn’t considered attractive by women. In a nutshell, no one wants to be knocked out of contention for attention from the opposite sex (or same sex, if your proclivities sway that way).
AM,
Bingo 2.
Rum said
“Women grossly over rate what men can tell about their internal mood-states. ”
In fairness, I’ve often overrated what women can tell about MY internal moods. And I’ve also often overrated my ability to read a woman’s mind. We’re all black boxes to each other.
I think there are different kinds of sexy. I find “Less is more” to be intriguing, provided I’m already interested in the first place.
More is more turns me on, but it’s more of a physical response.
There have always been two sides to sex to me–the tension and the release. And sexy is the knife edge between the two. While I’m sure the balance is different for everyone–I’m an anticipation man myself–a woman is able to walk that line, I find her irresistible.
Is it just me, or is it hard to reconcile:
“It seems that in this conversation at least, male sexual attraction is very nuanced.” (Susan)
with
“Most men in contrast will get very turned on by a hot woman shaking her tits and pussy in his face” (Mike C)
hmmm, gonna have to go with Mike on this one, though I would like to claim that other factors would be involved if I were looking for more than a quick shag. As I said; would like to claim.
Mike C,
Ava Gardner in that video is plenty of sexy, and I dont even like her physically. Yet the smiles, the flirt, the play she puts into it, biting her libs, etc, plenty of sexy. She´s like a butterfly on the romance wind.
Susan,
If so the only remaining option is to slut it up, which is unsatisfactory anyway. But of course there are incentives. Those who play their cards right still can profit from it. Thing is, do they know how?
AM at 337
Spot on 110% to all of it.
@Mike C
In the first comment you quoted, I was addressing what men find sexy. I am well aware that long, flowing hair is a major fertility cue. I have often advised women to grow their hair out on this very blog if they want to increase their attractiveness to men.
In the second comment, I was speaking as an observer of beauty, not sexiness. I don’t get to define what makes men want to have sex, but I can certainly admire beauty in the world, including another woman’s face. The statements I made about short hair emphasizing other features are factual. As I said, pulling hair away from the face focuses the gaze on the face itself, which is why women wear it up when they want to look their most luminous, historically.
So there’s no backpedaling here – it’s apples and oranges.
Re adversary mode, I wrote a response to a very harsh and adversarial post from Rollo. (From a female POV, that is.) I found his statements gratuitous and unfair to Emma Watson in particular, but also to women in general. His tone is very hostile, which is evident in his addressing me as “Aunt Giggles.” He always conducts himself in this manner in his rare interactions with women, as far as I can tell. As he is an adversary, any response will necessarily require that tone, unfortunately. I believe I kept my tone civil in the post; I didn’t call him any names, just matter of factly criticized his article.
I must not be making myself very clear. I have attempted to clarify several times in this thread that the intent of the post was not to critique or praise Emma Watson’s pixie cut, nor was it to say that short hair on women is sexy. You can continue to focus on that, but you’re off topic when you do so. Just like Yohami is off topic in obsessing about which celebrities he wants to have sex with.
The post was a response to Rollo Tomassi’s direct criticism of Emma Watson as knowing nothing about how to be sexy, just like most women. Remember, only “a few of the precious few” understand how to be sexy for a man. He took the words of an 18 year old girl out of context to make her seem asexual and extrapolated to say she resembles most women in that regard. He couldn’t resist a dig at her pixie cut, which he felt explained her asexuality. As several other commenters here have noted, I believe it explains her desire to be seen as something other than a sex object for men.
Ava Gardner in that video is plenty of sexy, and I dont even like her physically. Yet the smiles, the flirt, the play she puts into it, biting her libs, etc, plenty of sexy. She´s like a butterfly on the romance wind.
Absolutely. And that is Rollo’s main point. That most women have lost or don’t have that ability to do what Ava does in those 5 minutes which is seduce the man with her expressions, tone, etc. rather then the cheap sexiness of just pulling her top down and flashing her tits. The problem with Rollo’s post is you can’t separate the message from the messenger so for purposes here the distate of the messenger is making the message impossible to hear without twisting it into something else.
@Yohami
Whoops, my apologies for taking that the wrong way.
@Good Luck Chuck
That is not my intent. I believe that male attraction cues will not be altered by feminism or any other dogma. They are what they are. Women are best off if they understand them.
I have reason to question whether that is true of all men. I have known several men who almost have a fetish for smart women. Perhaps because the IQ gene is carried on the X chromosome. In any case, my husband and I, and also the couples we socialize with, enjoy discussions on a wide range of topics, none of which would be possible with a person of average intelligence (IQ = 100). My husband is probably smarter than me, by a bit, and he’s very, very smart. Perhaps it’s the smartest men who want to mate with the smartest women, IDK.
hmmm, gonna have to go with Mike on this one, though I would like to claim that other factors would be involved if I were looking for more than a quick shag. As I said; would like to claim.
Right, and we are back to the 2 ladder theory of women a guy would just fuck versus relationship material. Sluttiness/slutty appearance is junk food sexiness whereas a more feminine sexiness is like a 7-course meal. They both satisfy hunger but the latter is much better.
Susan
Oh, come on. Everyone knows the answer to this 100%. True Enthusiasm is a massive part of mutual enjoyment. And, like “Sincerity” , if you can fake it you have got it made.
@Susan,
I don’t think that there is a single ‘smart’ gene, I think that there are multiple ones (dozens?) – the more you have the smarterer you might be. I vaguely recall a BBC documentary ‘Horizon’ touching on the subject years ago.
It would be very interesting to know if there are a few that sit only on the Y side…maybe explaining the wider intelligence distribution for males. The Beeb is NOT the kind of organisation to raise such topics, however.
@Mike C.
She said that is her idea of sexy. She is clearly not employing a strategy to maximize her sexiness to “most men.” If anything, it’s clear the opposite is true. That’s the way she wants to deploy her own sexiness. She wants to leave them wondering. I guess that wouldn’t work on you, but there are at least four (?) men on this thread who prefer her strategy. The net/filter metaphor works well her. This woman needs a ginormous filter! And she’s protecting her image as a serious, intellectual actress, which is another part of her strategy. That’s her choice, and it doesn’t mean that she doesn’t know how to be sexy when she wants to.
No one said that. This is Emma being “less is more.”
Is she sexy?
@Mike C
two ladder theory works for me as a reasonable analogy (and an amusing site)
The difference between sexy and slutty isn’t in appearance, but in actions.
A slut is sexually indiscriminate – and usually either drunk or drugged in the bargain. A lady – in the old-fashioned sense – is decidedly not. No matter how attractively dressed.
@Rum
Right. So is a slut with a count > 100 likely to have true enthusiasm in a drunken ONS? Do you feel confident that you can rock her world? If so, then why do men care about the number count at all?
Sassy@340-
Very true, but the difference is that men generally do not try to adopt feminine traits and then shame women into accepting them as being attractive.
Susan
You cannot say things like “the gene for smart is on the X sex chromosome” and then expect to avoid the ramifications of the strong inheritedness of intelligence. Well, you can on your own blog and I think that is entirely fair, btw. But in general the train of HBD thinking is hard to stop once its rolling.
Besides, I know a little about genetics and I rarely hear that something as fundamental as “smarts” is located on one chromosome, especially a sex chromosome. About half on your genes come from dad whether you are male or female. Half is a lot.
Sassy,
Great point. I think a good lover takes into account both the low and the high – hence the 1 of 3 rule combined with a winning personality advice from Susan. Likewise, learning game but also bringing the green light stuff for men. Takes both. Probably better to lead with the instinctive (the sexy) then let the (prospective) partner slowly discover the rest on their own.
There is a huge problem with high-achieving women (and come to think of it, some beta men) refusing to take the instinctive part into account at all, so they end up never getting an opportunity to show the rest. I think that problem is what Rollo is getting at in his own ham-fisted way, but Susan got lost in her own (entirely distinct, however valid, and it is quite valid) public-private point (public sexiness being in some sense slutty in itself – see Lohan/Spears/Cyrus ad nauseum) which had nothing to do with Rollo’s.
I don’t think it was something Susan consciously/intentionally did, although distancing herself from the Ro’s is certainly good business.
“As I said in the post, she’s going for dignity and class, male gaze be damned.”
Seems to me like she cares more about the latter than the former, but I may just be speaking from experience with women of that ilk (see the Finkeldate, Dawkins’ offended atheist on the elevator, etc…).
Third-wave feminism: not taking any shit, and determined to find the maximum amount of shit not to take, whether its there or not.
Susan,
A lot more sexy there than in the aloof cover.
However. The cold / controlling / predatory look is still asexual. Or at least asexual in an hetero way. I think she´s looking inward. There´s something defensive about it. The sexyness she´s pulling is not the feminine kind. A gay guy will know better.
She´s stunning though. For a boy.
@Mike C
That’s a cheap shot. I object to nearly all of Rollo’s posts, and this is the second one I’ve ever posted on.
Mike, please address Rollo’s commentary on Emma Watson. Then, if you would, please comment on why women have the need in this SMP to seduce a man. As I see it, you have yet to respond to the message as included in this post. Not what you take to be Rollo’s intent, his words.
with long hair and a smile she’d get a higher rating.
If that’s the best smile she can raise when trying to look sexy, then she looks a little high maintainence to me…could be emo-flashbacks to my married days though. Life is too short to spend time with miserable birds
Good Luck Chuck,
Nice / beta guys do. Facepalm to them.
“Is she sexy?”
Good God.
I stand corrected.
And, yes, that is a double entendre.
The smart thing is more than a fetish; it is the price of admission.
@Just IX
Ah, that’s not my opinion. I am describing the rather long and involved discussions Yohami and Jesus Mahoney are having about the personality traits, character, and libido of Emma Watson and Olsen. It’s remarkable how much information they’ve provided in response to a single pic.
So – we have men saying one is sexier than the other. Why? Tits? Ass? Nope, it’s about sexual energy, vulnerability, looks like she just had sex, hardness vs. coldness, damaged looking or not, etc. That strikes me as pretty nuanced.
“She´s stunning though. For a boy.”
CLASSIC
“That strikes me as pretty nuanced”
and I thank you for that, it is appreciated…
@ Yohami
That’s what I was getting at Yohami. Hardened and cold women (physically or mentally) are as attractive to men as beta/supplicating men (physically or mentally) are to women. Both groups wish it weren’t so, however.
@AM
No, you’re projecting. The post is a response to one that said, “I deem this flighty bitch to be dry as a river bed, which just goes to show you how women don’t know how to excite us anymore.”
Wait, women dressing modestly is controlling men’s sexuality now? She’s talking about photo shoots not “her man’s sexuality” – the context is clear in the quote. Why are you extrapolating to say that she won’t show her lover her body? This interview was about her public persona, not her private life. Rollo was the one who twisted it completely out of context.
Or you’re threatened and taking things the wrong way. It’s fascinating how worked up the men have gotten over this.
And how does he know that almost no women can do that?
Rich woman- richer man. Smart woman- smarter man.
I am not saying that some men might not find above average intelligence to be attractive, but as a general rule it isn’t something that most guys look for, and unless the guy is a brainiac himself it is likely to be a negative.
I refuse to get worked up over her till she start’s smiling and grows her hair…so there
@Susan
“I have reason to question whether that is true of all men. I have known several men who almost have a fetish for smart women. Perhaps because the IQ gene is carried on the X chromosome. In any case, my husband and I, and also the couples we socialize with, enjoy discussions on a wide range of topics, none of which would be possible with a person of average intelligence (IQ = 100). My husband is probably smarter than me, by a bit, and he’s very, very smart. Perhaps it’s the smartest men who want to mate with the smartest women, IDK.”
I think it’s really important to note the difference between “smart” and “intellectual.”
I consider myself to be smart (went to 2 of the top 5 universities in my field of study, score in the top 5%-10% of standardized tests, etc.), but my tastes aren’t very intellectual or high brow. I don’t think I would have been very successful or happy at an Ivy League type school.
I find that I’m usually attracted to girls that share those qualities. A lot of intellectualism is somewhat of a turnoff for me simply because I can’t relate to it very well. That’s not to say that I don’t have a great deal of respect for their intelligence, but the compatibility just isn’t there.
Being smart always adds to a woman attractiveness. The more the better. The thing is, I define “smart” as being able to accurately assess reality and to cope effectively. This is not the same as SAT scores because it places a huge premium on having good judgment.
A really smart woman will grasp how dumb it is to be overweight, for example. She will “get” how make-up should work. She might even, in the right moments, know how to play dumb.
I didn’t prioritise intelligence in my choice of wife, but the lack thereof was a factor in not wanting kids with her. I’m not stupid enough to get married again, but if I were, intelligence would be on my list (under sexy, happy, feminine and appropriately hairy).
So, you see? One can learn from one’s mistakes…but, my biggest lesson is not to get married (but we covered that at christmas, I believe)
I’ll agree with this. The men who have enjoyed my intellect the most have been very smart men themselves. The few guys who were obviously not very intelligent wanted me to sit down, shut up, and look pretty.
The smarter the man, the smarter he will want his mate to be, and vice versa. How could 2 people carry on interesting conversations otherwise?
@Just1X
Re IQ and genes:
http://discovermagazine.com/2005/oct/sex
I heard a story about this on NPR, which summarized by saying that a man should avoid marrying a bimbo if he wants smart sons, while a woman should feel free to marry her personal trainer.
Susan,
Because women in general conflate sexy with slutty. You said there are no incentives to seduce = you concede the point.
No one is telling men who they should find attractive, least of all me. Nor should men tell women how to wear their hair or clothing to please men, when that may not be important to the woman at all.
@SW
“I find the whole concept of being ‘sexy’ embarrassing and confusing”
“What’s sexy about saying, ‘I’m here with my boobs and a short skirt, have a look at everything I’ve got’”
I’m judging her based on what I’ve read here. There may be (and probably are) myriad other facets of her personality. Perhaps she is totally different with a SO than when interviewed by the media. Who knows. I certainly don’t. All I’m doing is judging the version of her that is presented here. Saying I am “extrapolating” or taking things out of context is a completely irrelevant argument. We aren’t trying to understand the true Emma Watson real life person here, just the version presented by the quotes and information in the post. Straw man dismissal.
And I am a bit surprised you chose to use the word “threatened” there. You know very well the implications that word has in these topics, and how misused and shaming it is. I can only assume you quite deliberately meant to use it this way.
I assure you, however, I am not threatened in the slightest. I am sad that women so terribly misunderstand men, and sadder still that this misunderstanding so often seems to be willful and deliberate.
Yohami and Sassy,
The difference is that these low value men aren’t adopting feminine qualities and expecting women to go along with the program. Men aren’t saying “I want to be a kitchen bitch” they simply lack characteristics required to attract a mate. In the women’s case they are ACTIVELY sabotaging their mating value by trying to become more like men.
I disagree that most women conflate sexy with slutty. Those ducklipped girls in the pick are gross, IMO. The idea of a woman shaking her tits and pussy in someone’s face makes me want to retch. That as the definition of sexy is not something any non-stripping woman can understand, for obvious reasons.
The lack of incentives to seduce is attributable to the fact that the most seduceable men are not looking for seduction. They’re seeking P&D, which is the antithesis of seduction.
Thanks for the info, interesting. I wouldn’t say I married a bimbo, but there was quite a difference in intelligence, common sense, stability…best leave it there I think.
The horizon programme was older than yours
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/590919.stm
Thursday, 6 January, 2000, 10:58 GMT
Designing babies: The future of genetics
@Rum
Sorry, missed your comment re genes. I linked to the article at Discover Magazine re the role of the x and y chromosomes. It also explains why there are more super smart men, btw.
In defense of intelligence in a woman I will say that low intelligence is almost as much of a turnoff as high intelligence.
That’s only because Rollo misrepresented Watson’s comments, which were specifically addressing her public sexual persona.
Susan,
So most women in your view conflate sexy with seduction?
@ Good Luck Chuck
I can guarantee you that most women aren’t actively trying to sabotage their mating value or trying to become more like men. It’s funny how a woman cutting her hair is seen as trying to be like a man.
When I sported a pixie cut, my motivation wasn’t to avoid the male gaze. I simply thought the style was easier to maintain and was cute on me. Why is the action of cutting hair seen as having an ulterior motive other than fashion?
Surprisingly, men didn’t avoid me when I had short hair. So much for trying to become like a guy. I obviously failed.
@SW
“No one is telling men who they should find attractive, least of all me. Nor should men tell women how to wear their hair or clothing to please men, when that may not be important to the woman at all.”
We’re not telling women to do anything. We are simply saying certain ways of dressing and acting are sexier than others. If you choose not to do these things, fine, but don’t turn around and say these unsexy things are, in fact, sexy, men’s feelings be damned.
This is why Rollo is saying many women don’t know how to turn men on. Perhaps I would amend his statement to also include “many women do know how to turn men on, but instead choose to do other things and expect that men be turned on by those things instead”.
Sounds like you’ve been reading your Roissy. Anything over 120 is just a pain in the ass, as I recall.
Susan,
“Or you’re threatened and taking things the wrong way. It’s fascinating how worked up the men have gotten over this.”
Whatever.
Let us know when you get off your high horse.
We have to deal with legions of women who don’t have the luxury of Watson’s fame/natural beauty who nonetheless are more concerned with thwarting the male gaze than they are with attracting the love of their lives. Until they wake up and find themselves on the Bolick track, that is.
Why does a woman need to seduce a man in this SMP? I know several that are desperately frustrated by their utter inability to do so. The flip-side of the involuntarily celibate betas. Many would likely make great wives and mothers too. In fact, the frustration is especially acute there.
Wow, this discussion has gone all sorts of haywire.
Couple quick points, as I’m heading back out:
“Please comment on why women have the need in this SMP to seduce a man.”
I’m not Mike, but…maybe because the men they’d want to seduce (alphas) have plenty of options, and they’ll need to differentiate themselves?
Or if they do honestly go for betas, being sexy & seductive would give him a green light and charge his enthusiasm to pursue?
Plus, as MGTOW numbers grow (I received very encouraging news on this front some weeks ago), women will find themselves more & more in need of seductive skills when the law makes things even more difficult for relationships.
“Rich woman- richer man. Smart woman- smarter man.”
Hypergamy’s cold truth right there. I read Stephen Hawking for fun. Wouldn’t even consider a relationship with a woman who couldn’t at least keep up. Only one woman has ever done that in person (and she was married at the time – later dumped her husband for a financier 20 years her senior).
As for the whole “avoiding the dreaded male gaze” stuff, that’s her prerogative. I said before, it’ll bite her later.
I am very glad I don’t have to deal with ALL of this nonsense.
“Gillian Turner, professor of medical genetics at the University of Newcastle in Australia, agrees that the X chromosome is a natural home for genes that mold the mind. “If you are thinking of getting a gene quickly distributed through a population, it makes sense to have it on the X,” she says. “And no human trait has evolved faster through history than intelligence.”
The X chromosome provides an unusual system for transmitting genes between sexes across generations. Fathers pass down nearly their entire complement of X-linked genes to their daughters, and sons get their X-linked genes from their mothers.”
I wonder if they have the whole story, or are telling the whole story? I thought that the Y chromosome was the fast evolving one (most different to chimps etc)…not an expert though
@Just1X
Wow, that is really an extraordinary statement. I hope you find a brainy, sexy woman to cohabitate with
Yeah, I think it’s a compatibility issue. Of course, some men don’t select women on that basis either. “Conversation” is not the goal.
@Sue:
Exactly. At 40 I was hardly going for ingenue roles. My coach suggested I cultivate a “look” and I really did start getting more parts after that – everything from the grumpy 30-something spinster to the soccer mom running errands.
Being attractive to men other than my husband was irrelevant. In fact, I think one of the reason that women cut their hair as they age is to convey the message that they are not available. If a woman is happy in her relationship, she dreads being approached by other men. I’m not talking about mild flirting, but the kind of feeling when you know someone else’s husband (or your personal trainer :-/ ) is very attracted.
LOL, I’m not getting that look from you at all. I see “90s chick.” You could be younger as well. Everyone had that haircut in the 90s. Well, except for guys – they had hair down to their butts.
But yes to the haircut. My mom got a short haircut when her divorce went through, to show she was angry at men. Now that she’s 60, she grew it out, and looks a lot younger than she does, so the men are paying attention again – and she’s switched to long-distance relationships as a defense mechanism.
I do not envy her or wish to emulate this approach, let’s just say.
@Jesus:
So wait, you mean you steer clear of them now that you’re married. Respectable, but not exactly admirable. Most women steer clear of men of all sorts once they’re married.
Naw, sorry, before I met hubs. My grammar and formatting are pretty shit throughout this entry. Sorry for the muddle. This will be my only post today most likely.
One of the great things about him is the catholicity of his tastes and the breadth of his talents. He’s a decent songwriter, but he’s an amazing vocalist. He also happens to be a very warm, friendly, and down-to-earth individual with a good sense of humor.
Seriously. I got back into pop music because of him. Even disco. He’s been interacting with fans more on his FB page, too, which is great to see (even if some of the fans are so crazy to be on the same Internet as Patton that they have meltdowns!). It sounds like you met him in-person, and if so, lucky you!
Sassy- I’m not saying that women are making a conscious choice to become unattractive to men when they choose to adopt masculine behaviors. Becoming less attractive is simply a consequence of the action.
@AM
No, Rollo is overtly taking issue with Emma Watson not doing more to turn men on. He says so explicitly. In truth, she isn’t asking anything from men. She’s showing a well-turned ankle, and we’ll see how many takers she gets. She has every right to display as little or as much sexuality as she chooses, and to reassess her strategy as needed, and as she ages. (She was 18, folks!)
So cutting one’s hair, as a woman, is a masculine behavior?
It’s funny how much power women have in dead cells.
“Nor should men tell women how to wear their hair or clothing to please men, when that may not be important to the woman at all.”
Which is why you never tell men to stop being supplicating doormats, when attracting women may not be important to those men at all. The name of your blog is Hooking Up Smart, for goodness sake. Don’t blame us for assuming that context.
“That’s only because Rollo misrepresented Watson’s comments, which were specifically addressing her public sexual persona.”
Maybe. It wasn’t clear to me that she was distinguishing between her public sexual persona and her sexual persona in general. Heh – all roads lead to Paglia.
I used to follow Roissy but the whole alpha/beta schtick got to be too much for me. That doesn’t change the fact that he is spot on about female IQ and how it affects attraction, however.
Actually I found you through Rollo. Had lunch with him awhile back and he mentioned your blog. Saw your link on his Sexy post and here I am.
I don’t see the need for conflation. I think women focus more on feeling sexy, as the source for our being sexy in our actions. (Not as the source for our ability to attract the male gaze.) Seduction is defined as “the act of winning the love or sexual favor of someone.” In general, women focus on the former, men the latter. Women often believe, somewhat erroneously, that winning the sexual favor of someone will produce love as well. This is why women hook up in dead end situations – they’re being unrealistic.
Winning the sexual favor of a male hardly seems to require much in the way of seduction. Which is why so many middling attractive women can get one night with a hot guy. Beauty is only a lightswitch away.
Women seduce men for love over time, through the behaviors we’ve talked about here so many times – showing respect and appreciation, doing nice things for him, being feminine – adding to his life in good ways, essentially. That takes time, and it’s very difficult for women to do in a culture without dating.
“I hope you find a brainy, sexy woman to cohabitate with”
it’s a nice thought (mostly), but I’m not holding my breath. Thanks for the sentiment though.
The kid decision only occurred to me around the time of break up (just as she decided what a great idea it would be). If I’d worked it out earlier I wouldn’t have got married to her, though there were good parts to the relationship. If she’d succeeded the last ten years would have been decidely worse, so could have been worse…
Sassy- the act of cutting one’s hair is not masculine. It is the message that the short hair conveys that is masculine.
Interesting. Is this even possible?
If the desire/need for sex is as great as it has been described by the men on here, one would have to assume that attracting women would always be a priority with men, unless they preferred sex toys or sex workers.
On the other hand, I have known a few women who couldn’t give two shits if they attracted men or not. Their focus was on something else. They felt that they could switch their desire for male company on and off whenever they felt like it. In a way, it’s true. Until a woman reaches the age range where her looks take a nose dive, she lives in a land of plenty (for the most part). The opportunity to find male attention (albeit short term attention) is readily available, for most women. Putting men on the back burner of their minds happens frequently because getting male attention after the hiatus is almost guaranteed.
Yet you felt it was important enough to drop a pic of your 40 something self in a pixie cut on your post,..hmmm,..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyNyHark4xk
@ Good Luck Chuck
Now we are getting somewhere. What message does short hair send?
I don’t think women know that it sends a message at all. That’s the issue. If you could give us an idea, perhaps women would be able to understand the male psyche a bit better.
Huh. Sassy, you’re forgetting about MGTOW. I haven’t been doing my job too well, it seems.
@Sassy
the power of dead cells?
One of these was on my university room wall for three years, the other not. Bet you can guess which was which.
http://www.amazon.com/Whole-Story-Kate-Bush/dp/B000002UA7
http://www.amazon.com/Sensual-World-Kate-Bush/dp/B0012GMUQI/ref=pd_sim_m_3
I’m glad she wasn’t smiling as well, would have been bad for my blood pressure.
p.s.
Susan, if you know anybody looking like this…please drop me a line
Susan,
Aha. So in order to be sexy, what do girls, most women, etc, do?
A) taint him sexually, show skin, let him you you might be DTF.
B) be attentive, caring, feminine, make him feel good, add value to his life.
*A) taunt him sexually, show skin, let him know you might be DTF.
@AM
But the conversation was about photo shoots. Not dating. Not relationships. She feels embarrassed and confused when Vogue wants her to lie naked with a cobra wrapped around her private parts. I linked to the full interview, but I also pulled from it in discussing her encountering a photographer on the floor with his lens up her skirt at her 18th birthday party. This is very straightforward. Rollo plucked the quote out of context to imply that she hates feeling sexy. It’s ridiculous.
See, that’s where the threat is, right there. Willful and deliberate. Which is precisely what I accuse Rollo of doing – reworking a teenager’s comments about being a media star to deliberately misunderstand his “female-centric imperative.”
I feel extremely sad, frustrated and threatened that men feel they can categorically state who is fuckable, or that Emma Watson’s priority should be catering to male sexuality. When the baseline male demand is for sexy and seductive, only sluts will get male attention. Perhaps that’s why some men claim that all women are sluts. The rest are invisible to them.
@ Just1X
Hair cells are dead. The only living part of a strand of hair is the follicle, and that’s the part of the hair beneath the skin.
Women have so much sway over men with a mountain of dead cells. It’s kind of funny to me.
That was meant to be self-effacing, as I am well aware of how men feel about long hair (see my comments to Vox and my admission that my husband asked me to grow it out).
In this SMP, A. There is no opportunity to deploy Plan B.
I gotta go. Perhaps it’s best that I leave this contentious thread right now, anyway. Back later.
Well, I must admit that 25 years ago the Kate Bush package was my-thang. There was more to it than her barnet*, in particular those eyes….(sigh).
Typing is getting hard as my eyes are steaming up, so time for bed, I think…good night
(rhyming slang ‘Barnet Fair’ – hair. Thought I’d add to the educational aspects of this post. The genetic stuff was interesting)
‘night Susan, have a nice evening
Susan,
Then women do conflate sexy and slutty as the same thing. And not enough women know, or do, plan B.
That´s putting the blame somewhere else.
I agree though, that´s how the SMP is. Its ruled by a few alphas and a whole big bunch of women. And this is how women handle it. Show more skin, be DTF, etc. Not enough of femininity or seduction. Who´s to blame aint the issue, but if we were forced to assign blame, it has to fall on the people doing the actions, so, women.
Someone like Watson downplays the slut and ends up with nothing, because she doesnt have the B on her either. Unlike Gardner.
I’m chiming in way late here, so maybe someone already said this, but I’ll say it anyway.
I read the original Rollo post, and I thought it was interesting. Essentially, he’s saying that the entire mass media (including Emma, who’s just a very small part) has chosen to define sexy in a specific way. In order to be sexy, you must be slutty (it reminds me of my favorite Jesus Mahoney characterization of the media “rubbing the public’s junk”). Emma is essentially saying “if that’s what it takes for me to be sexy, I don’t want to be sexy. I don’t want to put my body on display.” But she’s still thinking of “sexy” as purely physical when she says “less is more” (and of course she thinks of it that way, she’s 18 and the media has sold her on a very specific definition of “sexy”).
Meanwhile, Rollo is rejecting the entire thing. According to him, the media doesn’t know what’s sexy, and neither does Emma. He’s not launching a personal attack against Emma, he’s challenging the notion that sexy is all about physical appearance (albeit in rather harsh terms, but Rollo doesn’t apologize for his viewpoints). He’s using Emma as a proxy to represent the mass media image of “sexy,” and he’s saying that the media has it wrong. He proposes that there are many ways to be sexy without being slutty, that just because you don’t want to be slutty doesn’t mean you have to reject what is sexy. I think it’s a valid point.
Olive,
Cheers.
Olive, what´s your briggs/myers fenotype again?
ENFJ. Same as Susan’s. And yours I think.
Olive, yeah, same as I.
You and Hope should start a family and have 1,000 daughters.
Sassy- the message is MASCULINE.
No if’s and’s or but’s about it- 99% of the time a woman looks more sexually attractive with longer hair. If women want to make themselves less attractive to men, consciously or not, that is their prerogative. The issue is women trying to move the goalpost. Our blog host’s protestations to the contrary, the underlying message of this post is that women should be able to do whatever they damn well please and men should learn to appreciate it.
@Sassy, hair is not just dead cells. The outer layer of skin is technically dead cells, too, but it’s another health and therefore fertility cue.
Most fertility cues are related to health. Sick, malnourished people would not grow longer, shiny hair. Their hair often fall out in patches and cannot grow long. Likewise their nails often become brittle and break.
A healthy person also has clear, elastic skin due to good amount of collagen, and a layer of subcutaneous fat that makes it soft. He or she is not too fat or too skinny.
Now a man can look at a woman with very short hair and think logically: “she only cut her hair; it can grow back.” But viscerally their initial reaction is “what is wrong with this adult-aged woman that she cannot grow long hair?”
So that is the male gut instinct reaction to pixie short hair on even a beautiful woman. Her other fertility cues are there, but hair is a big mental shortcut for men, all of whom are visual. That’s why men like long hair.
@ Good Luck Chuck
I don’t feel this way. I think people should be authentic to themselves and hope that they find someone who likes them that way. I say this because attraction triggers span the gamut for both sexes. I’ve known some men who love long hair on a woman, and I’ve also known men who swoon over short hairstyles. It’s the same way the amount of dominance needed to attract a woman varies from person to person.
With that being said, I think it’s important for people to be aware of the odds of success with each strategy. There may be differences in the percentages of men and women who like a particular trait. More men may prefer longer hair to short hair. More women may prefer more dominant men to less dominant men. If you pick a strategy and stick to it, I think it’s important to get a good idea of the preferential breakdown for a trait. It’s a good way to determine whether one’s odds of success increase or decrease depending on one’s product presentation.
In summary, I think women should be able to do what they please, but I also think they need to be aware of the fact that their presentations may limit their odds of success in attracting a mate.
@ Hope
I knew all of that already. I just commented on how ironic it is for something that is dead to have so much influence. I’m waxing poetic here.
Olive @ 421…
YES! Perfectly said:
I’m particularly impressed with this part:
He’s not launching a personal attack against Emma, he’s challenging the notion that sexy is all about physical appearance (albeit in rather harsh terms, but Rollo doesn’t apologize for his viewpoints). He’s using Emma as a proxy to represent the mass media image of “sexy,” and he’s saying that the media has it wrong. He proposes that there are many ways to be sexy without being slutty, that just because you don’t want to be slutty doesn’t mean you have to reject what is sexy.
Now what I can’t figure out is why you can read that piece and interpret it 100% correctly, and take away the exact, correct main point being made while others cannot. The piece isn’t about picking on Emma, as you correctly note she is simply a proxy to make a larger point.
@Sassy, you want to talk about irony?
There is actually a cultural reason for the pixie cut being seen as an “ironically” pretty.
In some more traditional places, hair on young, pre- or barely pubescent girls is kept very short, partially to keep away “the male gaze” until such a time that she is deemed suitable for marriage. When I was growing up, from age 3 until 8 or 9, I had very short boyish hair in the summertime. The older women never cut their hair that short. It was also less maintenance for them because I still needed adults to take care of my hair.
When young girls begin to hit puberty around their teens, they also begin to show other fertility cues. In such cases, the very short boyish haircut is actually a “give-away” in combination with the other cues that she has not yet been married off and is still very young and innocent. It is not deliberately a “sexy” signal, but a signal of “cuteness” and “girlishness.” Hence the name “pixie,” which in folklore are often depicted as having childish features.
Children are not supposed to be sexy. They are supposed to be youthful, innocent, pure, and ignorant about matters of sex. That is the ironic appeal of the pixie haircut, which we seem to have forgotten. Emma Watson didn’t want to be seen as a sex object anymore, which is why she picked the pixie cut. Let’s not call this look “sexy.”
Mike C,
I can. You can too if you reproduce the steps. First pick something you strongly disagree with or offends you, and while that burns inside shake your head and say lalalala to anything else. That will do the trick.
Mike C,
You should read Bellita’s post. She raises an entirely different point about preserving innocence by “deflecting the male gaze.” If I’m able to interpret Rollo’s article, Bellita’s able to bring new ideas to the discussion. She’s thinking 10 steps ahead of me.
If the media is saying “give up your virginity” and Rollo is saying “give it up in the right way, Bellita is saying “don’t just give it up.” And poor Emma is confused. I think I felt similarly at 18 or 19.
Don’t forget all but a few of the precious few of women. None of us knows what’s sexy either. As for not launching a personal attack, I thought the language was very personal to her and mocked her appearance as confirmation of her cluelessness.
There’s no question that the media and the culture promote a slutty, Girls Gone Wild sexuality. We’ve discussed it here often. In contrast, Emma is actually talking about the beauty of subtlety, the power of the imagination. She rejects the media definition, she doesn’t represent it. Yes, she’s focusing on the physical, because she is talking about the way that the media wants her to pose for photographs. She is not looking to sell sizzle. Many other serious actresses have made the same choice. In short, she’s not the poster girl for what’s wrong with the media definition of sexuality.
Because Olive plays for Team Man?
How was Olive able to go through it and pick the real meaning? options
A) she hates women, feed her with all the female criticism there is, she´ll want more. it makes her feel superior as in “Im not like them”
B) she did get offended, but she´s a neurotic masochist and wanted more. At the end she felt disappointed the main point wasnt that strong.
C) she has aspergers so the emotional content didnt get to her. She only looked at the logic articulations and the rest was invisible.
D) she´s in control of her emotions and is able to separate judgement from self defense mechanisms and reason. In this case she was able to look past Rollo´s feelings and got to the main issue.
E) she´s just smart.
F) she´s drunk.
Now we are getting somewhere. What message does short hair send?
I don’t think women know that it sends a message at all. That’s the issue. If you could give us an idea, perhaps women would be able to understand the male psyche a bit better.
Well…this very comment thread is proof of one of the messages it *potentially* sends which is sort of a “I don’t give a fuck what you men find sexually appealing”. That’s all well and good. I mean whatever floats someone’s boat, but I know I wouldn’t want to be with a woman who puts being sexually appealing to me very low on her priority list, and essentially says “Fuck you, I feel sexy the way I am, and you better just like it”. That type can hit the road as far as I am concerned but again some guys would accept that.
@Yohami
Funny, during this thread I was picturing you in a total catatonic state over the photographs, not hearing a word.
Mike C,
You should read Bellita’s post. She raises an entirely different point about preserving innocence by “deflecting the male gaze.” If I’m able to interpret Rollo’s article, Bellita’s able to bring new ideas to the discussion. She’s thinking 10 steps ahead of me.
Link?
D) she´s in control of her emotions and is able to separate judgement from self defense mechanisms and reason. In this case she was able to look past Rollo´s feelings and got to the main issue.
E) she´s just smart.
I vote for these 2
Susan,
If I start “hearing” the words that would be a problem.
@Olive
Is giving it up by date three to avoid getting dumped what you mean by the right way?
Bellita’s post is great – the idea was first floated in this thread by Vox, and she did a nice riff on it.
Susan,
I do agree with you here. I think this particular quote pasted on this particular image served Rollo’s point well at the moment (and my guess? It was being circulated on facebook by women who are tired of trying to be physically sexy). But Rollo’s saying “hey ladies! you’re missing the point! sexy isn’t just physical, it’s an attitude and a demeanor that must be learned, so stop being pissed about the media’s definition of sexy and go learn how to be sexy, for real!”
I noticed you said upthread that Rollo thinks Emma should serve herself up on a Girls Gone Wild platter. I don’t think that’s what he was trying to argue (and perhaps he would’ve done better to not mention the hairstyle. Bellita and Hope have fascinating thoughts on that particular topic, though).
Yohami,
It’s a combination of A and F.
Options A and E most closely describe Olive’s MO these days, without the feelings of superiority. Olive would never behave that way. She’s totally honest, but yeah, she doesn’t have much use for women at the moment.
I am not saying that some men might not find above average intelligence to be attractive, but as a general rule it isn’t something that most guys look for, and unless the guy is a brainiac himself it is likely to be a negative.
Sounds like you’ve been reading your Roissy. Anything over 120 is just a pain in the ass, as I recall.
Hmmm, I am unable to fall in love with women below a certain range of intelligence. My guess is this range is somewhere arround an IQ of 130. Women that don`t meet my intelligence requirement I can get superficial crushes for but not really fall in love with.
Susan, entirely unrelated, it just ocured to me that the male contraceptive pill might change a lot of things in the direction you/we want. Because cads will then be able to make sure they don`t have children and because they often don`t want children betas who do want children will be much, much, much, much, much more in demand. It will bring back a lot of the power betas had in the old days. Once it sinks in after one generation of seeing how this plays out the next generation of women will know they will have to make them self a catch for a beta willing to be a father if they are to have hopes of snagging one. By then it will be evident what betas think of slutty women and a bunch of other issues and THEY will hold ultimate power in the SMP.
Over time the dark triad genes will diminish in the gene pool because even though they will still get laid the most I am certain a higher proportion of them do not want to have children.
In addition to this cuckolding will be near impossible. The guy women want to impregnate them can`t be fooled into it any longer and the guy she wants to be the dad won`t by her getting pregnant when he is taking his own pill.
I think we might all be surprised to see how few men actually will make the concious choice to have children. I just read abut a survey that found 42% of women said they were willing to lie about contraception in order to get pregnant with an unwilling man. When that willingness is so high pregnancy rates can have been held artifically much higher than they would had men had a pill.
Olive,
That puts you in the B (neurotic) classification. Im rooting for smart though.
Maybe some very attractive betas will even be in such a strong demand that they end up with several wives:)
The whole eggs are precious sperm is cheap thing gets turned totally arround. Eggs will be fairly available while father sperm not so much.
Mike C,
It’s trackbacked.
Susan,
LOL. I don’t read Rollo regularly, so no that’s not what I meant.
I just mean that when a woman gets to the point of actually giving up her virginity (and Rollo has not offered any insights on timelines in this particular post), she should do it in a way that’s seductive, not necessarily in a way that says “hey look at my huge boobies!!”
It turns out I have a few more things to say. Hopefully I am writing clearly this afternoon.
@GL Chuck:
I used to follow Roissy but the whole alpha/beta schtick got to be too much for me. That doesn’t change the fact that he is spot on about female IQ and how it affects attraction, however.
Rather than taking Roissy’s maxim as an insult, I take it as a compliment. I’m too smart and much too old for Roissy – and I’m built like an upside-down triangle rather than the perfect hourglass he wants – so he’d ignore me at a bar, and I think that’s awesome! I’ve seen his photos courtesy of the Laidy Raine debacle, and I don’t find him attractive whatsoever…kinda old and strange-looking, IMO, with an air of smarminess about him. But if he is indeed banging teenage girls left and right, more power to him.
Guys with smarts at the upper end of the bell curve wouldn’t agree with Roissy’s maxims, however. Some of them tend toward the Asperger’s end of the spectrum, and I find them to be good company. We “get” each other, and we can sit there and babble on about computer/software/programming/science crap for hours and dig it. But other folks don’t want to listen to this and that’s cool too. Intelligence is a gift and a curse. The higher you test, the likelier it is you run into trouble grasping the social sphere. Women tend to “fake it” by studying other people, TV, and movies, and using those as aids to model social interaction. Men don’t do this as much, which is why socially awkward or even Asperger’s traits are more pronounced in men.
This discussion also relates to my point further back in the comments, which was that intelligence and academic giftedness have been portrayed as negative traits for men in the second half of Generation X. For that slice of the population, our youth popular culture depicted intelligent men as creeps and social rejects – and accordingly, the early 90s were when we started to see women surpassing men at school, but was also a time when academic institutions still used academic tracking and individual competition instead of standardized testing and group work. I bet Millennial/Gen-Z culture also portrays smart men as losers, and this, combined with the asinine NCLB standards, and the new view of school as training grounds for the docile office worker, is responsible for the widening achievement gap.
It seems that Americans don’t like or value intelligence generally, unless it’s highly creative and/or used to make a vast fortune, a la Steve Jobs. Some men may say they don’t like smart women, but our culture at large generally has little tolerance for smart men either. The trope of “high IQ and/or academic achievement=reject, loser, and creep” is alive and well, and always will be. I don’t like it, and don’t find it to be true on the whole, but if it works for some folks, it works, and who am I to say?
This actually sounds awesome, in my opinion. I don’t want kids, so this wouldn’t bother me.
That’s very true, from a personal standpoint.
Having said that, Emma seems like a sweet girl, and I always sort of self-identified with Hermione as a kid. I mean no disrespect to her, and Bellita (and Hope, and VD) raises a good point about deflecting the male gaze. I was mostly thinking of the quote box in the context of images circulating around facebook.
Although Emma did go to Brown, and that was my first choice when I applied to college… *shifty eyes*
As Hope pointed out, women make decisions about their appearance for many reasons, not all of which aim to maximize sexual appeal. I don’t understand why a man would look at a stranger’s short hair and take offense. It’s her choice, her decision. Presumably, only men who like her as she is would pursue her. If she makes herself unattractive to men, either deliberately or not, isn’t that her choice? Why should anyone be obligated to consider how the public will feel about their appearance? She’ll suffer the consequence, why should men care? If one is already in a relationship, of course that’s different, but that’s not the case here.
In any case, I think Vox Day was exactly correct. Her strategy was to convey serious acting and intellectual gifts, not sex appeal. I’m sure she gets the attention of many suitors regardless.
« 1 2 3 4 5 … 12 »
{ 3 trackbacks }