Women Happier With Less Attractive Husbands, Study Says

Lol, I've been espousing this strategy for years, but from the guy's perspective. I'll always try to bang wimmin who are superior to me on the looks scale, but I consciously decided like 10 years ago that I'll only date chicks who are inferior to me in that regard. I'm a solid 8/10 and 203-0 in streetfights so this leaves my options pretty open here. But the point is that inferior (looks scale) gfs are much more manageable. They will be obsessive with you, but that's easily dealt with
 
revoltub said:
if a woman is hotter than the man, she will cheat on him with someone more attractive to fulfull her desires the ugly husband can't. She will have the emotional attachment to her husband of course but she will look for sexual satisfaction elsewhere
Click to expand...

 
IIIIIIII said:
and that's why i have to bang 10's. i'm considerate of the 9's and below :)
Click to expand...
10 is too broad, there's the conversion rates to consider

Boise
LA
Detroit

Detroit 10 is obviously a Boise -10
 
An average-to-unattractive guy will treat a beautiful woman like a queen, because he knows he may not ever get that chance again.

A man with options has options.
 
This took a study to figure out?
 
j123 said:
10 is too broad, there's the conversion rates to consider

Boise
LA
Detroit

Detroit 10 is obviously a Boise -10
Click to expand...
I've seen some other good conversion rates on this board like:

Florida
Mordor
Purgatory
 
I'm definitely going to encourage my daughter to "think long-term" with her choice of husband. It's certainly a more practical mode of mating...and doesn't preclude love being a part of the equation, either.

Works for guys too. Settling down with the youngest, hottest chick that will have you is almost always a mistake. Common sense really.

But you still both need to be somewhat close in attractiveness if you really want it to work, IMO.
 
"The study had “Beauty and the Beast” results — women were happier with less genetically blessed hubbies, who compensated in the relationship with acts of kindness, including giving gifts, sexual favors or completing extra housework, according to Esquire UK."

<{outtahere}><36><{katwhu}><puh-lease75>bork1}<DisgustingHHH>{<jordan}

























































































<2>
 
Well sure.... if the guy has money. Women favor money over looks generally speaking.
 
Jack Reacheround said:
First of all, the couples were not married very long. All couples are disproportionately happy at the beginning of their marriages. Second, "happiness surveys," and just surveys in general, rely on self reported data, which has been found to be fairly unreliable. That said, I realize there aren't any other ways to determine people's happiness.

And that's just what I noticed skimming through a few paragraphs. Generally, psych students are pretty terrible about mixing up correlation with causation, and a whole host of other statistical misinterpretations. Then, on top of that, you have a journalist who is completely unequipped to do so interpreting that data. And the actual results of the study, which wasn't very scientific in the first place, being distilled down to a sentence in a retarded game of telephone being that payed by people who don't even speak the language in which the message originated - statistics.
Click to expand...

OK, you're not saying that the study is not scientific or not very scientific because it's either scientific or its not. What your talking about is the quality of said research.
 
Reminds me when Irina Shayk broke up with Ronaldo bc he was too pretty, lmao

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-girlfriend-feel-ugly/?utm_term=.7b3cf96faf54

“I thought that I had the perfect man, but no,” said the 29-year-old model (via Goal.com). “I felt ugly and insecure beside him.”


I think this could be a problem for me on multiple levels, but it's all about making your woman feel cherished so that this isn't a concern. They were still individuals, not a unit. There is no separation in a unit, there is no room for judgment or comparison like this as a unit.
 
JackWhite said:
"The study had “Beauty and the Beast” results — women were happier with less genetically blessed hubbies, who compensated in the relationship with acts of kindness, including giving gifts, sexual favors or completing extra housework, according to Esquire UK."

<{outtahere}><36><{katwhu}><puh-lease75>bork1}<DisgustingHHH>{<jordan}

























































































<2>
Click to expand...


10/10 emoji use
 
Phlog said:
OK, you're not saying that the study is not scientific or not very scientific because it's either scientific or its not. What your talking about is the quality of said research.
Click to expand...

No, this is not a binary situation. There is positive science, like astronomy. Then there is normative science, like psychology. And there are degrees of how much positive science is involved and how much normative science is involved. For instance, the fact that they use math to evaluate their results is more of a positive science thing. But the fact that those results are based on self reported data which attempts to quantify happiness is more of a normative science thing. So when something does not involve a ton of positive science, I think we can call it less scientific than something that does. But I guess the correct word would be subjective.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,074
Messages
55,465,642
Members
174,785
Latest member
JoyceOuthw

Share this page

Back
Top