Hot Vs Sexy

Take a look at the very hot Betty Draper (aka January Jones):

She is a raving beauty with a sexual philtrum.

Now take a look at the very sexy Rachel Menken (also a Mad Men character):

Don’t you just want to bang her on a kitchen counter after playing pattycakes with her ass cheeks using a spatula?

If you averaged the ratings of 100 men, there’s little doubt that Betty would score about a point higher on the looks scale than Rachel, and their scores would roughly converge around a 9 for Betty and an 8 for Rachel. (Please spare the readers your personal preference. Averages are what matter in the sexual market.)

Yet, I predict that a majority of men would find Rachel to be “sexier” than Betty. Why is that? What nebulous traits imbue a woman with the alluring glow of sexiness?

I’m sure a man steeped in aesthetic sensibility would craft an enlightening essay full of power adjectives and stirring metaphor as a paean to what constitutes female sexiness, and boy will it sound good on paper. But it won’t mean a goddamned thing. Empty words to flesh out a reality that doesn’t exist except in the glorifier’s head. Which pretty much sums up the whole of modern art, come to think of it.

No, sexiness has little to do with face shape, or eye sparkle, or energy, or chi, or mouth curl, or the way she holds a cigarette. Instead, what sexiness means in the minds of men is a lot more pedestrian. When men say a woman is sexy, they mostly mean she is ATTAINABLE.

The average man looks at a hot woman, and he lusts for her, but he entertains scant possibility that he will be able to bed her. But when that man looks at a perceived sexy woman, he couples with his appreciation a genuine feeling that, given just the right ecological conditions, he could actually seduce that woman and enjoy her sex.

None of this should suggest that sexy women aren’t also good-looking women. Nerds, intelligent but mousy artist types, white knights and feminist apologists for plain janes love the “sexy” label because they value its utility as a loophole and ego massager against the unrelenting and immutable beauty standards of the sexual marketplace. Show me a man who calls an ugly woman ineffably sexy, and I will bet you that he is himself an SMV loser.

Sexy women are never the unattractive (or even marginally attractive) totems to an imaginary equalist dating market that fembots and washed up cougars wish they were. Quite the opposite. While sexy women are often not as hot as genuinely hot women, they aren’t much more than a point lower on the universal looks scale. What primarily distinguishes the sexy woman from the hot woman is that she possesses just enough in the way of physical flaws that she catapults from dreamy but distant object of beauty to alluring but attainable perfumed girl sharing a drink with you.

In other words, you can more easily envision your dick in Rachel’s vagina than in Betty’s vagina, and that makes all the difference in perception.

There are other, relatively minor distinctions that make a sexy girl stand out from a hot girl. Obvious markers would include sluttiness of dress, throat-raspiness of flirting, expertise in lowering the eyelids to half-mast for long periods of time, and mastery of the good-to-go vibe. But before you ugly and plain chicks start practicing your eyelid lowering technique, know that no amount of sexy mimicry will transform your face into one that men want to spermally defile. You still need the looks, and for that you have only your parents, and to a lesser extent your self-discipline to push away from the table, to credit or blame.

There are those rare ultrafeminine creatures who coalesce both ethereal beauty and feral sexiness in one package (before she crossed the Rubenesqueicon):





Comments


  1. I haven’t really called a gal cute, hot, sexy or whatever other than on this site and others like it in a long, long time.

    If I spend any time with her, she’s at least cute. If I’m having sex with her, she’s sexy. If I’m doing neither, she’s really not anything but neutral at the best.

    As for people on TV or in the media, just google “(name) without makeup” and you really won’t want your dick in any of them. Horrid.

    Like


  2. A few years ago, John Derbyshire did a post on “sexy, but not pretty” at the corner.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/68450/sexy-not-pretty/john-derbyshire

    Like


    • That is a very interesting list. On that list i would I would wear that Angelica Huston out. She is not that good looking but I would love to hit that for a week end just based on a photograph

      Like


    • Ah, Derbyshire was the one responsible for turning me onto CH a couple of years ago.

      Like


  3. sexy equals perceptible lowering of bitch shields by attractive women?

    Like


  4. January Jones is much better looking, bodywise & facial symmetry.

    But there is indeed something repressed & soul-less in every single one of her photos. I can easily see her say something like, “Put your penis in my mouth? Ew!”

    Like


  5. To me Rachel is sexier because of her confidence, her smile and the fact that there is something innately sensual dark-haired light-eyed women. Betty is hot because she satisfies the traditional archetypes of beauty; light hair and skin, large, wide-spaced eyes, small features and pouty lips.

    Attainability? Erhm, I’m not sure. Betty Drapers toss themselves at alpha males with game (Don Draper, the Don Draper lookalike she fucked in the season 2 finale, Hank Francis), but the again, so do Rachel Menkens. Sexy is all in the manner they carry themselves; how they move, how they walk, talk, act and laugh.

    Christina Hendricks has four features that are attractive; her tits, her ass, her red hair and her height, and the character itself exudes sexuality and femininity (once more, by how she carries herself).

    However, when she doesn’t have her Joan Holloway makeup caked on she’s actually a little scary in the face.

    Said before, will say again, hottest chick on Mad Men…

    Easily.

    Like


    • “…there is something innately sensual dark-haired light-eyed women.”

      I couldn’t agree more.

      Like


    • Sexy is all in the manner they carry themselves; how they move, how they walk, talk, act and laugh.

      Exactly. I completely agree. I really don’t believe it has anything to do with attainability of all things. It’s something more than just the likelihood of a guy having sex with you.

      Like


      • Only a female would take Heartiste’s original sentence — “When men say a woman is sexy, they mostly mean she is ATTAINABLE” — then interpret it as applying to what is “sexy” about a man to women, only to finally reject it on the basis of its not meeting her own personal, newly-imposed, single standard.

        Sometimes double standards exist. It’s OK.

        Like


      • I’m really not following you.

        I didn’t interpret it as what’s sexy about a man TO women. It’s like the topic said, what it means when a woman is considered sexy.

        And obviously my opinion isn’t a “single standard” or unique if others agree. Nor was it “newly-imposed”. What does this have to do with double standards anyway.

        But yeah, I really don’t understand your comment.

        Like


  6. This post is confusing. Would you please make comparisons between mares and ponies next time?

    Like


  7. Menken? What a terrible example. She has a desiccated look to her.

    Sexy is the projection of sexual availability, sensuality (related to ease of orgasm), and sexual dimorphism like big breasts, narrow waist, big ass, big eyes, thick eyelashes, full lips, etc. Eg, Brazilian girls.

    Hot girls are not unsexy because they’re ‘too attractive,’ but because their faces broadcast their bitch shields. And January Jones is famously bitchy in real life.

    I liked Crista Flanagan in Mad Men. She only appeared in an episode or two, very feminine. My heart melts for these kinds of girls.

    Like


    • She ran over a dude with a tractor…that alone gets her into the hall of fame.

      Like


    • Sexy is the projection of sexual availability, sensuality (related to ease of orgasm), and sexual dimorphism like big breasts, narrow waist, big ass, big eyes, thick eyelashes, full lips, etc.

      Yes.

      Hot girls are not unsexy because they’re ‘too attractive,’ but because their faces broadcast their bitch shields.

      Yes.

      Two eloquence points awarded.

      I’ve heard sexyness being described as a heat emanated by body language. I agree this heat is related to ease of orgasm.

      Like


  8. Sexy isn’t always slutty, but slutty is always sexy.

    “Sexy” is a feminine claimed terminology. Rarely have I heard the term sexy uttered by men in a same sex group. And the ones who do are generally parroting the same feminized definition in order to better identify with the women who use it. Most men use the term ‘hot’ or ‘hotter than’.

    Women use the term ‘sexy’ for women they feel forced to acknowledge as being attractive, but less threatened by than a woman who is unquestionably a sexual competitor they can’t hope to match. “Sexy” is a capitulation to recognizing sexual market value with the hope that they’ll be associated with that same sexiness or classiness as the HB8.

    On another note, I’m sure it’s not lost on the Chateau or it’s readers that there is a definite trending for 50-60s era gender nostalgia on TV this season. Pan-Am, The Playboy Club and of course Mad Men who took the chance and set it off to begin with are noticeable amongst the usually feminized TV tripe. It will be interesting to see how true the plots and scripts remain to the era over the course of the season.

    [Heartiste: Noticed. And it’s not just on TV. Banana Republic now has a Mad Men clothing line for men and women.]

    Like


    • Slightly off topic:
      Sexy is also used by men to encourage women to reveal their freaky side.
      “Hey sexy”, “You’re so sexy”… are actually used by men and heard by women. Men love women to be sexy. Of course, the direct purpose is to drain their balls, but I consider this the only shit test that men do.
      They encourage women to become slutty in order to screen out those who are unworthy of motherhood/emotional investment.
      Women who fail that shit test are cock carousel riders/cat ladys, those who pass it and follow their parents advice have better luck starting a family with a masculine man.

      Women who followed “the rules” understood that, but their tricks worked only on beta providers.

      Like


      • I’d never heard of that male shit test before. Well noticed.

        Like


      • Are such shows indicative of a backlash by viewers against repeptitive plots, characters, and most of all, political correctness, throughout TV over the past 10+ years? Mysoginistic themes are camouflaged by period shows where PC would be an anachronism. Then again, Rollo may be right. The writers of such shows may ultimately try to rewrite history….

        Like


      • This leads to a new definition of shit test:

        “I want you do X”

        “ok”

        “Aha! You did X! What kind of a man would do such a thing!”

        And as you mentioned, men can do the same to women.

        Like


  9. I tend to think of the divide as beautiful (which you call hot) vs. hot (which you call sexy). I’m not sure chances of actually scoring are all that relevant. I’ve dated a woman or two who I’d say was pretty (i.e. fairly hot) but just wasn’t that sexy. It may have been an issue of body type or how she carried herself.

    I tend to think of (to use your term) hot women as the type I could simply enjoy looking at; kind of like I could look at a Renoir, but I wouldn’t want to stick my dick in it. In particular, women who are curvier or dress trashier tend to be sexier rather than hotter. That may admittedly relate to bangability. But the issue arises that there are definitely hot women where I just am not as interested in nailing them, as opposed to sexy women, even when both are attainable or where neither is remotely attainable.

    Sexual availability may be a part of sexiness, but I don’t think its absence defines hotness. They’re two different features. A woman’s sexiness is defined by your desire to bang her; a woman’s hotness is defined by something completely different (and I think it’s hot women that women tend to think men find attractive, even if they aren’t sexy). Note that we’re talking about celebrities whom men all have zero chance with anyways.

    Also, that second chick you linked looks like boring-ass plain white girl, the kind you see in herds at most colleges. Maybe it’s the specific photo, but she ain’t doing much for me.

    Like


  10. After years of approaching strange women in every conceivable location and situation, I use the only means of reliable sexual evaluation:

    My Boner.

    Like


  11. January Jones, is a hot-9 on TV ONLY. In person the 5-5-ish (maybe shorter) is a slobbering drunken potty mouth, macking a boyish-girl-body, with about as much class as the packed outdoor bar of Marvins will give her. Pathetic…that would be a blessing. Gross is more accurate. That’s the magic that make-up and klieg lights can do for you.

    Like


  12. I don’t think it has anything to do with attainability.

    Sexy girl = Girl I’d like to bang (might have a sub par face but banging body)

    Hot Girl = Girl I’d like to bang who’s nice to look at

    Case closed.

    Like


  13. “There are those rare ultrafeminine creatures who coalesce both ethereal beauty and feral sexiness in one package.”

    All hot girls have that going for them. Name one girl who’s hot who lacks “feral sexiness.”

    There is a name for women who are attractive, but lack the quality you speak of. It’s called “cute.”

    Like


  14. I’m sick of people talking about how “confident” and “sexy” Joan Holloway/Christina Hendrick is. In the first season, maybe, but jesus has she put on weight since.

    Black Rebel: Yes Pete’s wife is underratedly hot. But without question the hottest chick on Mad Men is Roger’s wife.

    Fuck Don Draper. Roger Sterling is the real alpha.

    Like


    • That, I think is the primary conflict at the heart of the show. Draper/Whitman was born and bred beta, but faked it till he made it. Now he lives this self constructed life that is both real and elaborate facade, not sure about who he really is, constantly in fear of regressing to or being outed as the beta he is/was.

      Like


  15. I suspect that January Jones CAN look hot and sexy as hell when she wants to / that’s what the roll calls for.

    She was meant to seem sexually repressed or at least somewhat that way in Mad Men.

    The secretary Draper married at the end of the last season was both pretty as hell and oozing hotness too. And niceness. Well iirc she does have slightly buck teeth though. Wonder why she never got that fixed.

    Like


  16. Joan — hot.
    Rachel — hot. (You coulda found a better pic)
    Dr. Faye Miller — kinda hot.
    Megan Calvet — hot in some strange way.

    Betty — cold.

    Like


  17. I don’t know, even if i share the chateau’s preference for thinness, i gotta admit that some women look better if they’re zaftig. Christina Hendricks fits the bill. Maybe hot AND sexy women can afford extra pounds, while the others have their smv strongly correlated with their bmi.

    FYI, Christina Hendricks is married to an average looking guy. Doesn’t matter if he’s an alpha or if he got lucky in the beta lottery, but he’s just another evidence (if needed) that looks don’t matter as much for men.
    Given the propensity of hyperfeminine chicks to shit test, i’m sure that he has some kind of game.

    Like


  18. The whole retro 60’s thing is done to cater to women. As the Mad Men creator Michael Weiner (ahem) noted, the social gulf/distance between men and women in the 1960’s was problematic for equality but made for bedroom fireworks. His nearly all female writing staff agrees.

    So you have on Playboy Club, a Don Draper clone, rich, elegant, tailored, mysterious past, smooth, every woman wants him, preselected (already has a woman) that the young hot one tries to steal him away from, while bad/dangerous men threaten and seduce the other female characters. Ditto Pan Am, and Charlie’s Angels (1970’s vibe updated). These are things that are interesting for a man to view, in that it encapsulates often a female writing staff view of what makes a desirable man (sexy badness, moderated by sophistication, basically). But it is so utterly feminine as to be really, really annoying to most straight men outside Game study.

    [Heartiste: This sounds about right. Uncomfortable truth: Gender inequality = sexual satisfaction. For both men and women.]

    Like


    • Men fucked up when they started dumping their aging wives and marrying younger hotties. Feminism thrived on these regiments of old frustrated women.
      They should have kept their old partners on the side, and have fun with a string of younger mistresses. That’s what gentlemen do.

      Like


  19. on September 19, 2011 at 4:59 pm The View From Inside A Hot Chick

    Here’s the thing about hot chicks. They believe, nay, they KNOW that if you want to be in a relationship/have sex, you will. That is their experience of the world, and they don’t know anyone for whom it is different. It explains a lot, doesn’t it?

    They do know a few guys who aren’t looking for a relationship, because they are not in one, and they have not approached the hot chick. So they must just want to be friends. These guys are rare indeed, and it would be a travesty to risk that deep friendship on something as silly and easily obtainable as sex. She and they can get that whenever they want, right? Right?

    Also if a guy approaches them and doesn’t meet their 457-bullet-point list, it’s no big deal for him or her, because the guy can get anyone, just like she can, so shooting him down is no big deal.

    So when she finally meets that guy (you, the game-aware) who seems to be able to take it or leave it, they must have found someone just like them. He won’t be clingy like those weirdo creeps, and he can take or leave the relationship aspects of it, so fuck it, lets just have fun.

    Like


    • This looks like a good, useful, helpful comment to me; valuable insight, rare, etc, and I’m puzzled that it appears to be ignored & unappreciated.

      Like


      • Some valuable comments are better left alone.
        That’s what i think when my comments are hanging out alone pathetically : “I’m too awesome for these suckers”.

        Like


  20. Christina Hendricks is still ridiculously hot, although the extra poundage will play catchup on her as the years go by.

    The second best Mad Men girl is Megan the crazy Cajun secretary. Unbelievable.

    Like


  21. I’m confused, cause I think the blonde is the hottest and the sexiest and I want to bang her the most. The brunette does nothing for me and the red-head is in between.

    What does this mean?

    Like


  22. “But before you ugly and plain chicks start practicing your eyelid lowering technique, know that no amount of sexy mimicry will transform your face into one that men want to spermally defile”

    Classic!

    Like


  23. sorry heartsie, but none of them compares to sinead o’connery

    Like


  24. “Nerds, intelligent but mousy artist types, white knights and feminist apologists for plain janes love the “sexy” label because they value its utility as a loophole and ego massager against the unrelenting and immutable beauty standards of the sexual marketplace”

    Chateau had a post a long time who about how all people have an idiosyncratic type to which they respond with desire that’s out of proportion with that woman’s actual looks. I think you actually coined a term for this. So in some cases, conventionally less-attractive women can be a given man’s sexual archetype.

    For me that’s thin, twenty-something, pale, slightly awkward nerd girls with elfin features.

    [Heartiste: Yes, that’s the template. The template is real, but it’s relevance to the workings of the sexual market is tenuous at best. The reason being that girls who meet your template are few and far between, and of the girls who do meet your template, most of those will have met the necessary threshold of beauty as well, under which no template in the world can compensate for lack of looks.
    btw i also love the pale, elfin, tiny-jawed girls with big eyes.]

    Like


  25. I think this thread marks the point where you have pretty much said everything possible about game and there is nothing left to add. This is even worse than the time when the he who shall not be named typed a multiple-paragraph post explaining why hotter women mean better sex.

    [Heartiste: Fact is, hotter women ARE better sex. Of courese, you’d know that if you had the experience.]

    Like


    • Take any woman and make her hotter and the sex will be better. Take two women, and the sex with the 7 can be better than the sex with the 9.

      [Heartiste: Yes, it can be. But take ten 9s and ten 7s, and the odds are that the sex will be better with more of the 9s than with the 7s.]

      Like


    • “Fact is, hotter women ARE better sex. Of courese, you’d know that if you had the experience.”

      It seems that you completely missed the point of my reply, so let me rephrase it for you:
      OF COURSE hotter women are better sex. This is so obvious,

      [Heartiste: So obvious even a feminist could miss it.]

      that it is a complete waste of time and space to even say it, not to mention writing a whole post about it.

      [Fun is its own reward.]

      Better now?

      [Better THAN.]

      Like


  26. on September 19, 2011 at 6:04 pm Vimconte "Willy"

    One of the best things about Mad Men is that the characters on the show actually end up screwing, dating and marrying realistic romantic matchups. Betty Draper is as completely unattainable to Joe Beta as Pussy Galore from Goldfinger. But guys like Don Draper and James Bond can realistically pull that kind of poon. Meanwhile the hardworking, upwardly mobile, single mom prototype, frumpmaster flex, Peggy Olson ends up with 1) some schlub from Brooklyn, 2) a down on his ass, alcoholic Duck Phillips and 3) some beta artist guy. You can find these same realistic pairings throughout the cast of the show.

    Also Don Draper himself is good study of game in action. Sure he’s got the looks, money and success going for him. But his dialogue and body language for pickups is also completely on point.

    Like


  27. on September 19, 2011 at 6:30 pm Obstinance Works

    Women didn’t look that good back in the 40s and 50s did they?

    Like


  28. Just so we’re clear, if it’s Maggie Siff vs. January Jones…January Jones is both hotter AND sexier.

    Like


  29. I recall in college that we said such a woman “reeks of sex.”

    Like


  30. …and the best thing: no pantyhose. It’s stockings or nothing. Talk about sexy, there’s nothing more sexy than stockings being worn as ordinary garments rather than dedicated fetish wear.

    Like


  31. Hmmm, I don’t think you quite have it: I don’t think it is attainability that makes some less beautiful women sexy.

    Beauty is only one element of sexual attraction for men. Of couse, it is usually by far the most important element, but it is not the only one.

    1. We’ve all seen exquisitely beautiful women that leave us cold from an attraction perspective.
    2. Female children are often even more exquisitely beautiful in a purely aesthetic sense than grown women, but the thought of doing anything sexual with them is, well, really gross.
    3. We’ve all known women who were lacking in the looks department, yet whom we still really, really attracted to, even in preference to considerably better looking women. They just had something. (Note that I’m talking about women in the 5 to 6 range, not really ugly chicks.)

    Sexual attraction = beauty + something else.

    Like


    • @The Man Who Was…

      I think you’ve got the equation wrong.

      Something else= beauty + sexual attraction.

      Rachel Mencken is the female equivalent of the alpha male and sultriness in a woman is the equivalent of game in a man. A female 7 with sultry is hotter than an 8 without. The beautiful woman speaks to us aesthetically, the sultry woman, sexually.

      Still, because men are so aesthetically inclined a woman has to cross a certain threshold aesthetically before she is even considered sexually. Women don’t have the same aesthetic discrimination as men and that’s why game can improve a man’s chances more than acting sleezy can in a woman.

      Fat chicks acting sultry are a turn off.

      Like


    • “2. Female children are often even more exquisitely beautiful in a purely aesthetic sense than grown women, but the thought of doing anything sexual with them is, well, really gross.”

      Your aesthetic sense is not so pure as you think. “Really gross” in this context means “really punishable by law”. Girls are not human nature’s l’art pour l’art. They are human nature’s prime real estate. Not advocating whatever, just saying.

      Like


      • You may be turned on by girls in elementary school, but I am not. When I said really gross I meant it.

        Like


      • Stop with the shaming, harridans. A purely aesthetic judgment implies no such “be[ing] turned on by girls in elementary school,” which would be apparent to everyone if we weren’t so cowed by the fear of anti-pedophilic totalitarianism (i.e., the single goal under which all other goals must be subsumed). Save the over-correcting pleas (“I really meant it”!) for some other forum whose currency is pleasant untruths.

        Children are beautiful — they are designed that way. They are also asexual. The idea of sexualizing beauty is of very recent vintage, which is why we are so paranoid about expressing our appreciation. Just because I am enraptured by a gorgeous sunset does not imply I want to stick my dick in the sun.

        It is no coincidence that the era that officially scrambled the categories of “beautiful” and “sexual” (Hot vs Sexy, anyone?) has encouraged open season on children (lingerie diapers! bikinis for 5-year-olds!), and the inevitable backlash (the merest indication that any man would even think about having sex with a seventeen-year-old is sick sick sick!). A well-adjusted culture seeks to protect and preserve beautiful things; the sexual “revolution” has encouraged us to exploit them unto their destruction. The difference between a nature preserve and strip mining.

        Okay, my true molester nature having been confessed herewith, you may now affix to my post that icon of feminist servitude, the Pedobear, here: [[[O]]]

        Like


      • King A,

        something for you:

        http://weheartit.com/entry/11781055/via/Mermaidwhore

        She’s 10 years old.

        Like


      • Better than even Pedobear. You’ve researched sexualized children (how did you find them, by the way?) and appended them to my post, wherein I take pains to explain the need to separate the two. Proof positive of the paranoia I described directly above your example of it.

        Is there anything going on between your ears? Or just a dull hum punctuated by spastic reflexes?

        Get your shit together, you child. The people who invent and supply the cliches in which you traffic are obsolescing, leaving you to your own devices, which have turned out to be appallingly meager now that you’ve exposed yourself here for a couple months. And you’re too old to rely so heavily on petulance.

        Go back to my post. Read it again. Spare us your canned outrage gushing all over every post that reminds you of your molester. Learn something.

        Like


      • I posted Thylane because she’s very pretty, young and, you are right to notice that, sexualized. You accused me of things I’ve never said. I definitely don’t see every man as a child molester or whatever you wanted to say.

        The difference between US and Europe: http://fashionista.com/2011/08/why-the-french-arent-outraged-about-those-photos-of-10-year-old-model-thylane-blondeau/

        Like


      • King A,

        I think we didn’t understand each other well. By saying “something for you” I didn’t want to say “something for you to masturbate to” but “something for you to think/comment about”.

        Like


      • King A: “It is no coincidence that the era that officially scrambled the categories of “beautiful” and “sexual” (Hot vs Sexy, anyone?) HAS ENCOURAGED OPEN SEASON ON CHILDREN (lingerie diapers! bikinis for 5-year-olds!), …”

        What’s the number one cause of pedophilia? Sexy kids!

        What’s the best part about babies learning to crawl? They are already in the right position.

        What’s the best part of being a pedophile? Small hands make your cock look bigger.

        [Heartiste: The sexualization of children — see: any prole child beauty pageant — is part and parcel of the decay and decline of an advanced prosperous society.]

        Like


      • Express yourself with more clarity, then, Maya and you’ll avoid wandering into my Line of Ire. These are heavy-weapon proving grounds, no place for your snark-bunny to frolic. Especially when discussing so “sensitive” a topic, the point is to be blunt and uncompromising as a corrective to the bullshit atmosphere of silence and intimidation.

        And you have established a reputation for ignorance with regard to this issue that, far as I have seen, you have never retracted.

        Like


      • KA,

        Superb post. Thanks.

        And look at what follows hard on your heels.

        Unreal.–

        Like


      • What’s sad is that ML and The Man Who Was were saying the same thing but got tripped up in their haste to demonstrate just how much they don’t want to have sex with children. An absurdity, but then we live in absurd times.

        http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703779704576073752925629440.html

        We are gripped by this trendy paranoia. I’m not going to allow the insult that presumes me sick until proven healthy in the eyes of sensitive parents who see Free Candy vans in every alley and fapping pedophiles behind every bush. I’m going to shove it right back.

        And fuck if I’ll stand for this easy condemnation from third parties like Maya, as if these screechers are some kind of hero for taking such a brave stand by declaring their opposition to the most patent evil in the universe. For fucksake, even hardened criminals think prison life is too good for chomos and apply their own brand of extrajudicial punishment in jail.

        Yet here I have to constantly establish my bona fides and scream louder than the last condemner or else be considered pro-predator? Fuck that and fuck you. I wouldn’t touch your ugly half-baked chubby runt even if I skewed to that kink. But maybe I’ll make an exception just this once out of spite, hold my nose and fondle your kid because fuck you.

        Really? Freeborn men stand for this implied slander? Who subjects himself to such casual, lazy mob-think? What kind of coward permits it to exist at all in his midst? You want to accuse me of 9th-circle iniquities — even indirectly and diffusely by virtue of my membership in a class — you’ll have to produce something better than your bric-a-brac of Mommy Neuroses and We’re Just Being Safe and It’s All For The Children.

        Like


    • Sexual attraction = beauty + something else

      As far as that something else it seems to be composed of secondary sexual characteristics and sultriness.

      Sexual attraction = beauty + feminine secondary sexual characteristics + sultriness

      (For all the idiots out there, this does not mean that all of those factors should be given equal weight.)

      You can see what I mean by sultriness in this picture of Maggie Siff:

      Its a straightforward portrait, she’s not dressed slutty, she’s not vamping it up or using female “game.” Yet she looks incredibly sensual, indeed smouldering. I can’t quite put my finger on it but it seems to be something mainly in her eyes, eyebrows, and the corners of her mouth.

      Like


  32. Hmm, can’t decide. Maybe if they both blow me…

    Like


  33. I think this post is dead-on, but among me and my friends I think we use “cute” the way you use “sexy” here. I’d rank myself right around the 7 range, so I’m naturally drawn to girls who are about a 7 as well. I can certainly acknowledge the beauty of a ragin’ hot 9, but they don’t push my buttons like more modest girls, I suppose. Probably for the reasons described here.

    I’d take a modest-looking, soft-cheeked Japanese girl in glasses and a sweater over a perfect-proportioned brunette bombshell any day.

    Like


  34. The hottest chick on Mad Men was Abigail Spencer (played the teacher Draper crushed on): http://www.google.com/search?q=abigail+spencer&hl=en&prmd=imvnso&source=lnms&tbm=isch&ei=gNt3TpbfD9DYiALo4tThCg&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=2&ved=0CBUQ_AUoAQ&biw=1512&bih=759

    Beauty is fixed, but sexiness has motion, dynamism, even if it’s just a look. A sexy girl is doing something, preferably me. A beautiful girl will lie there like a dead fish. The difference between the two photos is that the second one is alive.

    Like


  35. Supermodels vs Pornstars would have been a better title….

    Like


  36. Did the men of Marilyn Monroe’s era think she was more attainable than Grace Kelly? I doubt it. Grace had a prettier face but Marilyn had a much stronger sexual charisma.

    Like


  37. Girl 1 – controls her beauty
    Girl 2 – less careful with her beauty
    Girl 3 – strikes a kind of mean

    All girls are attainable.

    Girl 2 is “sexy” because she looks like she’s been bent over, enjoyed it, and would do it again.

    Like


  38. The second one looks like a guy that needs a haircut, and the third has the mother (father?) of all man-jaws.

    Like


  39. I’ve only seen around 5 episodes of Mad Men, but it’s become one of my favorite shows.
    Betty seems like a cold duck to me. Also the fact that she wears granny underwear is not appealing. She reminds me of a plainish blond girlfriend I had when I was in the military.
    Joan is a fat-ass, swinging her ass around. When the guys on the show make comments about her, it reminds me of those guys in high school who made comments about the chicks with big boobs and big asses. They had no idea that those same girls would balloon up 60 pounds after they crapped out a baby.

    Like


  40. But January Jones in X-men: First Class was super, super sexy

    Like


  41. It could be that. Or it could be that you picked a dominant picture for January Jones where she was showing confidence, and a happy picture for Maggie Siff.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1390319/Scientists-happy-men-significantly-attractive-ladies.html

    The least attractive and the most attractive traits.

    Had you shown this picture of her, your point would be harder to make. What sexiness means for men is happy, beautiful women. I’m sure with the right pictures you could reverse your point quite easily.

    Like


  42. Jason Sudeikis from SNL dated Ms. Jones, I believe through the point at which she became visibly pregnant with the baby of a man whose identity she would not reveal – She just had the baby in September, and wikipedia says Sudeikis dated her from January 2010 through January 2011.

    That’s what you call a shit test.

    Like


  43. I disagree heartiste bro… beauty and sexiness usually correlate perfectly in my opinion… betty would get me harder than rachel any day of the week… wanna see the look on her face when I violently yank those golden locks

    [Heartiste: No argument here. Look, I don’t want people to get the wrong idea that beauty is not correlated with sexiness. Fact: Most sexy women are also damned hot. What I was arguing was that the term sexy, as it is used by various demographics, is a psychological reveal that the woman being labeled as such is considered attainable.]

    Like


    • on September 20, 2011 at 9:29 am The View From Inside A Hot Chick

      Yes, and the so-called attainable woman will have a superiority complex and sense of entitlement well outside what her looks would otherwise dictate, because she may actually get approached more than the super-hot chick. But it’s who she is approached by that is really important: they are mewling betas by and large. So her experience of men is that she utterly dominates them and yet they come crawling after her in droves. A terrible combination. This is why hot chicks are better in every way than “attainable” chicks.

      Like


      • Yes, and the so-called attainable woman will have a superiority complex and sense of entitlement well outside what her looks would otherwise dictate, because she may actually get approached more than the super-hot chick.

        Oh – so, sooooo sadly true…

        In modern-day AMeriKwa, and “attainable” woman = merely “just 20lbs’ overweight”.

        LOL…

        Like


  44. Just saw Christina Hendricks in Drive with Ryan Gosling.

    A total smokeshow.

    Like


  45. You can make a merely beautiful girl sexy as hell by fucking her right. That means you can’t be afraid to get a little dirt on your dick.

    You make January (dumb f’ing name) Jones come with your cock in her ass and all of a sudden, well, she’s as “sexy” as hell.

    It’s like a pig: you wanna feast on it, you gotta stick it.–

    Like


  46. Sexy is the combination of fertility and evident, active libido.

    Fertility with no sex drive is just cold. An unwilling sperm bucket.

    Libido with no fertility is annoyance and a waste of time.

    Like Coco Chanel said, “There are no ugly women, just lazy ones.” But then, she was selling fantasies.

    Like


  47. “before she crossed the Rubenesqueicon”

    I’m picturing a cross between Rubensesque and Reubenesque…

    Like


  48. Sexy is a word that women use. Hot is a word that the lower class uses. Men say cute, pretty, and beautiful, in that order.

    Like


    • Then I’m lower class.

      I’m not much interested in beauty or beautiful women. I like hot women. Of course a hot woman is at least somewhat beautiful – but beauty alone is sterile and boring. Calling a hot woman beautiful is demeaning because it diminishes the value of her hotness.

      Like


    • 1 – Hideous
      2 – Drugly (She is so Ugly You have to be Drunk or on Drugs)
      3 – Fugly
      4 – Ugly
      5 – Plain
      6 – Average
      7 – Cute
      8 – Pretty
      9 – Beautiful
      10 – Stunning

      The bell curve for American women in 2011 peaks around 5.5

      Like


  49. In these pictures the blonde is way ahead. The brunette is a smoker and easily available. The blonde will put up some resistance to casual sex. She has status to defend. Look at those pearls. The blonde every time. And, in these photos she’s way hotter.

    I haven’t endured a complete episode of Mad Men. The atavism is so bogus.

    Like


  50. This is a bit like when guy geeks claim the fact that they are more attracted to girl geeks than to hotter girls is evidence that that they are better than most men because they are going for personality over looks. In reality it just comes down to the girl geeks seeming more attainable in their eyes (not necessarily true, girl geeks get wet for the same guys as the hotter girls do), and that attainability causes the extra attraction.

    Like


  51. I like the brunette best.

    In every picture I’ve seen of the redhead, she has an expression of extreme bovine stupidity, which turns me off.

    Like


  52. “Philtrum” is a great word.

    Like


  53. big blunder here, my friend. this clearly has been written by someone who has dealt for too long with mostly american women who have long lost the gift of sexiness.

    sexiness is in a way akin to game for women. some women have it natural, a by-product of femininity i’d say, many others can learn it. like game it has to do with a mental attitude and manifest itself mostly in behavioral clues.

    case in point, take two equally good looking women, one american and one italian and, on average, the second one will be infinitely sexier than the first one (or for what matters, a swede and a french). full disclosure: i am an italian that lives in the states.

    with unchanged affection and admiration for your knowledge of female soul.

    Like


  54. Maybe it’s a template thing but to me Maggie Siff is better looking and hotter than January Jones…

    Nice to see you back to your amazing and prolific writing bro!

    Like


  55. [quote]Empty words to flesh out a reality that doesn’t exist except in the glorifier’s head. Which pretty much sums up the whole of modern art, come to think of it.[/quote]

    Not to speak of “equality” and identity politics.

    Like


  56. Fucked Maggie Siff when she was back at Bryn Mawr. She has a certain sultryness and depravity in the bedroom that I think matches up with how I interpret sexy, i.e. sultry, sensual, orgasmic (she was very). Still rather marry someone who looked like January Jones though, because I’m all about putting up appearances and leading a picture perfect life with a seedy underbelly.

    Like


    • Cool story bro…tell us about the times you banged January Jones and Christina Hendricks too, k? Just for, you know…a qualitative comparison.

      Like


      • The real accomplishment was getting a Bryn Mawr girl’s face out of a snatch long enough to fuck her in such a way as to be able to recognize her at a later date.

        Like


  57. Interesting post. Never seen the ‘hot v sexy’ distinction before. Over here, they
    mean the same thing.

    I think January Jones scrubs up brilliantly, lipstick & hair makes a huge difference, there was one scene where she had no makeup, wet hair, looked very different – I would say Maggie is more naturally beautiful but her look is less receptive to artifice.

    I agree about the template thing, good point here.

    What do you guys think of the chick who plays Megan? surprised she hasn’t been mentioned yet.

    Like


  58. You know, while I agree with the general point, I find her cigarette and related pose a turn-off. Of course she’s still sexy, but I don’t find it (nor in the picture linked a few posts above) to be something good for sexiness – quite the opposite.

    Like


  59. on September 20, 2011 at 12:34 pm Charlesz Martel

    Have you ever considered whether scent compatibility is what’s really going on? Some women are extremely attractive to some men (all else being equal, of course) because of the way they smell. I’ve met women who were 6’s, at best, that were extremely sexy to me, and i frankly couldn’t figure out why. But every time I ran onto them, there it was. I remember thinking “This girl is rather dumb, not very hot or interesting- what the hell is my boner telling me?” and I realized that it had to be her scent. I’ve discussed this sort of thing with friends from Europe ( I was raised in France) and we have ALL agreed that European women were sexier, but we never knew why (this was years ago- I’m in my mid-50’s). The answer, I believe, was the much lower use of hormonal birth control at the time. Studies since then have backed up my position on this. The scent of sexual attraction is a much-ignored topic in this culture because Americans find the concept distasteful. I’m not simply talking deodorant here. CH has referred to the baby-powder smell of a young girl’s estrogen before. That’s certainly part of it, but the pill makes women smell like they’re already pregnant, which from a Darwinian perspective makes them currently useless for impregnation purposes.

    This would also explain the rash of older women teachers screwing young boys. The pill has desensitized them to the scent of testosterone (many studies exist on female testosterone preferences in males due to where she is in her cycle) to such an extent that only a young boy, reeking of testosterone (which smells sort of sour if you’re sensitive enough to notice it) registers with her as a male sexual partner.

    On a final note- no studies, as far as I have ever been able to determine, exist on the subject of what are the effect on males of their females being on the pill. It’s rather startling when you consider that this may be the greatest uncontrolled biological experiment in history. I personally think we are heading toward a disaster. I also not the strong preference for more rigid sex roles in our culture, as is currently being portrayed on shows such as Mad Men and Playboy and Pan AM. Basically, these shows represent the female YEARNING for traditional male game.

    I wish this blog had existed years ago. I had to figure all this out for myself after returning to the U.S. It took a long time. My advice to young men is to ignore everything your Mothers ever told you about women. Pay no attention to what women say, but pay extremely close attention to what they do. The first time I inadvertently used a neg ( I was slightly pissed-off at an HB9) it worked so well my jaw literally dropped. I remember thinking (This was 20 or so years ago) that acting like an asshole worked, just like men always complained about. At least there exists today (among the denizens of the PUA community) this truism. Years ago, even asserting this basic concept of female attraction to assholes got you called a misogynist!

    Like


    • Charlesz Martel

      Have you ever considered whether scent compatibility is what’s really going on?

      You pose so many rambling, crackpot theories it’s hard to keep track of them all. It’s like some wild Cereal Box of crackpot theories spilling off the counter and spewing all over the floor. Getting trampled underfoot – winding up as crazy crackpot theory dust stuck in between the toes of bloggery.

      Just say The Illuminatii *cue ominous oboe music*
      …are too blame
      get it over with

      Like


      • I believe this one is not totally crackpot. If you like the natural smell of a girl, and she likes yours (not the nasty body odors, let’s say the smell of a shirt that you wore for a couple of nights… after a bath), it means that your immune systems are compatible, and you will make healthy babies.

        It could be an evolutionary adjustment to identify the best partners, or another evo psych extrapolation. Either way, it seems plausible :

        http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090412080748.htm
        (ignore the dating website bullshit)

        Like


  60. There is another large scale study to support this notion of attainability.

    OkTrends reported on this a while back, when studying the massive amount of data the collected on OkCupid. Girls that were slightly LESS attractive than the most attractive girls on the site got more messages.

    Check out the: Male messaging & Female Attractiveness graph
    http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/page/13/

    Like


  61. This discussion about sexyness is too near to that about the objective beauty inspired by that Kanazawa guy.

    But it is objective ( 🙂 ) if a woman
    – wear a feminine dress
    – has not tattoos
    – has not piercings
    then, she is already sexier than the 99% of her peers.

    Like


  62. “… 9 for Betty and an 8 for Rachel. (Please spare the readers your personal preference. Averages are what matter in the sexual market.)”

    I just want to ask why Betty is a 9 and not 10?

    Like


  63. Simpler theory:

    1) “Beautiful women” bear beautiful daughters
    2) “Sexy women” bear alpha sons

    Like


  64. Betty Draper looks like a well appointed manikin.

    Rachel Menken looks like a human being.

    Betty Draper looks like she takes four hours to get her hair and makeup and all the rest of that cr*p in order.

    Rachel Menken looks sexy without all of that cr*p.

    Betty Draper looks like the kind of female who guys whose only experience with women is salivating over a centerfold would go boinkers over.

    Rachel Menken looks like the kind of female who guys who actually date women would enjoy being with.

    Betty Draper looks like she would demand the keys to a BMW (or whatever foreign car was hot way back when) before she’d deign to talk to you.

    Rachel Menken looks like she’d pick you up in her Chevy .

    Any questions?

    Like


  65. I agree with the Real Vince that a large part of what distinguishes sexiness from general beauty is that the former is less a physical attribute than a dynamic quality. For me, sexiness has to do with body language, charm, and charisma–the ‘aura’ a woman projects, the life (the intelligence, dare I say?) in her eyes. While a certain level of physical attractiveness must be present to be sexy, the sexiest women aren’t necessarily textbook hotties. Two men might agree that a woman is objectively attractive, but whether one man finds her an 8 and another finds her a 10 has everything to do with how sexy she is to the individual rater. Or to simplify: hotness defines attractiveness; sexiness defines attractedness. I’d rate both January Jones and Maggie Siff high 7s, 8s when done up to the nines (no pun intended). Both women are obviously good-looking and I wouldn’t pass up a chance with either, but MS appeals to me much more.

    This is how I use the most common descriptors:

    Attractive = Objectively non-ugly and non-fat with no standout characteristics. Decent enough not to bring shame upon the average guy. Most 6s fall in this category.

    Good-looking = Objectively better than average. Might be another guy’s generic “hottie”, does nothing for me personally.

    Cute = Neoteny. Air of innocence. Playful personality. Youthfulness, though not always youngness (Rachael Ray is a good older example.).

    Pretty = Femininity. Really, the hallmark of prettiness is feminine grace in its ideal physical and social presentations. Pretty girls in my mind are all soft voices, long flowing hair, rosy cheeks and lips, high breasts and flirty sundresses.

    Hot = Above average face + banging body and overt sexuality. Hotness tends to be more body-centric than cuteness or prettiness. Style accounts for much of it too. Hot girls are (ironically) cooler than other girls. They’re often trendier and have louder personalities and sultrier demeanor. They’re more made-up and wear bolder, more revealing clothes.

    Handsome (Rare usage) = Mature sexiness. Handsome women tend to be 35+, admirable more so in a purely aesthetic rather than a viscerally sexual sense. They’re reserved, classy and almost regal in bearing. More often than not there is something suggestive of the ‘masculine’ in their nature or person: they might be big boned or unusually broad shouldered and tall. Cate Blanchett and Katharine Hepburn fall into this category. Many women who are beautiful in youth age into a kind of handsomeness once the bloom is off the rose (see Catherine Zeta Jones, Jane Seymour).

    Beautiful = High facial symmetry + one or more stunning features.

    Gorgeous = High facial symmetry + stunningness of all features + exquisite bone structure + the unity of cuteness/prettiness/hotness/sexiness. Only two things separate gorgeous women from merely beautiful women. The first is fineness/near perfection of facial contours. The second is that gorgeousness brings together all the different elements of female attractiveness into a harmonious whole.

    Jolie-laide = Sexy despite some major distracting, off-putting feature (big beak, bug eyes, fish lips, etc.)

    Like


  66. None of the women shown are hot or sexy. But they are better than average because average is unappealing.

    Like


  67. There is another large-scale study to support this idea of ​​accessibility.

    Trends reported here some time ago, when studying a wealth of information collected on OkCupid. Girls were slightly weaker on the most attractive girls were more messages.

    Check: Female Attractiveness and Indicator Posts

    Like


  68. This whole show is just more feminist propaganda/social conditioning designed to make women think they’re being opressed today. Thoughts?

    Like


  69. @Alpha Cat. You are absolutely right. It is an parody of actual attitudes in the early 1960’s. There were pluses and minuses and it doesn’t show them. It is how a particular wing of feminism wishes the past was. I do not recognize the life of my mother or my aunt in this at all.

    Like


  70. on September 21, 2011 at 2:05 pm Charlesz Martel

    Response to Matador and Firepower:

    Sorry if I sounded rambling to you- I don’t have the time to write a lengthy discourse on the theory.

    But the basic idea is that pheromonal/scent attractiveness is overlooked or ignored in our culture. We know that women’s ability to detect immune system compatibility and testosterone levels is a function of where they are in their ovulatory cycle, and that this ability is severely compromised or non-existent when they are pregnant or on the pill (the pill mimics pregnancy). This is a logical extrapolation of these studies. We also know that men find ovulating females the sexiest. Women on the pill do not trigger these scent receptors.

    Since men have lower testosterone levels than they used to, and phthalates block testosterone receptor sites, my theory on why some women look for uber-testosterone men seems to make sense.

    Retro -TV reflects a yearning for traditional male dominance. No?

    Putting the majority of a nation’s breeding age females into a state of artificial pregnancy for 30 years or so is one gigantic leap of faith, to put it mildly. We know the pill changes women’s tastes in men. Ever wonder what might have screwed up our world? Women are legendary for being irrational when pregnant-let’s put them in a state of artificial pregnancy for 30 years, then let them vote, and see what happens! Should be fun!

    Matador- keep looking into this, if you care to. There’s something here that’s ignored by the conventional wisdom.

    Like


  71. Martel, that’s food for thought for sure. Anytime I spend in the woods away from women, the T spikes higher than otherwise. Deer hunting and fishing buddies say the same. Anecdotal? Yeah, I’m no specialist. Just have twenty years of observed pattern. Personal lesson: go outside. Often. And compete. The ladies agree.

    Like


  72. I went to high school with the actress who plays Rachel Menken.

    Time is extremely cruel.

    Like


  73. Hot= aspirational

    Sexy= fuckable

    Like


  74. Maggie was easily a 9.5 20 years ago.

    But that was 20 years ago.

    There are no beautiful 37 year old women.

    Like


    • Go to Tokyo. You will be surprised.

      There are 37 year old women there who look 27 — at most — and have spectacularly unlined faces and bodies. When their teeth are corrected, the most beautiful among them are certainly the most beautiful women who have yet lived.

      It is scandalous and almost impossible to imagine for a white man who has been obliged to endure the sight of endless, old, fat white women, the most hideous women on earth.

      Like


  75. Waaaaay off base here, but then again my definition is way advanced tech on this and i’m not willing to share on this one. It sounds like a bunch of people agreeing they are second best! Wtf chateu. Wtf.

    Proximity and attainability are for lazy boring fling bullshit sex. You cum because you decide not to beat off to porn that night in some girl you arbitrarily decided to label a number based upon features you find valuable upon a set of characteristics you are to afraid to discover the means to.

    We all do it, but that isn’t hot. It isn’t sexy. Your wasting creativity if that’s what your getting about. Why not discover new and interesting ways to shoot that load or squirt that gush? Are you not bored with this?

    Like


  76. I imagine there’s some correlation between sexiness, sex drives, and testosterone. Although pretty, Maggie Siff appears to have somewhat masculinized features in the few photos I’ve seen, and as has been discussed on this blog and elsewhere, masculinization (heavier jaw, deeper voice, hairy arms, lower digit ratio, etc) correlates with a higher sex drive. Increased drive –> greater likelihood of putting out –> increased attainability –> “sexiness” as the OP uses it. Mind you, I’ve never watched the show so I don’t know how well this applies to Ms. Siff.

    Recently I overheard an interesting conversation between some guys at uni. They were discussing attractive women and came on the subject of one girl I knew particularly well. Two of them began going on at length about how sexy she is (incidentally, this girl had developed a reputation for putting out even though I personally knew she hadn’t been with that many men – it’s just that her escapades always became highly publicized). The third guy, who happened to be the most masculine of the three, flatly stated that “she is a man”. The comment struck me at the time because I would have expected masculine men to have greater appreciation for women who supposedly put out, but then I remembered the polarity in male-female sexual goals and it made perfect sense.

    Like


  77. I don’t think it has anything to do with “attainability.”

    None of these 3 women are attainable by the likes of me which you would think is perfect “lab setting” for this theory and still, Rachel is the one I’d most like to bed.

    Like


  78. H,

    “The sexualization of children — see: any prole child beauty pageant — is part and parcel of the decay and decline of an advanced prosperous society.”

    Could you explain that? Our mums also polished our nails and put make up on our faces when we were 8 or 9. We thought it was fun. I also had bikini at 10 and I didn’t feel sexualized/sexy.

    [Heartiste: So you’re saying your parents were sick freaks.
    Or chavs. Same difference.]

    Like


    • No, my mum was not sick freak (I didn’t have father).

      [Heartiste: The plot thickens.]

      It was completely normal where I lived.

      [Doubtful. But you go on lying to score internet points.]

      All mums did that. Please, read the link I posted about the different response to this young Vogue model in Europe and in US.

      [You smarmy euroweenies love to righteously preen that you’re more “tolerant” and “open-minded” about sex than Americans, But study after study shows we have more sex than you do. It’s all bullshit posturing, just like how euros are always conveniently forgetting the USA has multiple races whenever they crow about their lower crime rates.
      Anyhow, your reply is irrelevant to my point. I was speaking of these absurd beauty pageants put on by weirdo parents who cake makeup and hair spray on their 5 year old daughters and have them parade around on stage mimicking adult model catwalk behavior. Few countries in Europe have a general culture that exalts or even tolerates that sort of blatant and gross sexualization of kids. It’s a sick society that does.]

      We’re just not that hysterical here about those things.

      [Pim Fortuyn would weep if he were alive.]

      All little girls try to wear make up, girlish clothes.

      [Dumbass. Do you not get what I’m saying, or are you being deliberately obtuse to avoid humiliation? No shit little girls like to play dress up. The issue isn’t that. It’s when the parents dress them up into pint-sized sturmpets that we have evidence for mental sickness.]

      I only learned that it’s dangerous to be feminine/pretty when I was about eleven or twelve and since than I never wanted to feel or be feminine/sexy again.

      [You are a cauldron of psychological issues. You might want to do something about that.]

      I did everything to lower my SMV.

      [It’s working.]

      Still, I walked around half-naked because I was a feminist and like those slut-walkers couldn’t understand that half-naked women are making men nervous.

      [Then you obviously didn’t do everything to lower your SMV.
      Do you normally contradict yourself in the space of two sentences?]

      Like


  79. Re: “There are no beautiful 37 year old women.” Yes, there are – but you aren’t seeing them. In fact, if a woman takes care of herself, her peak physical attractiveness can occur as late as 40. How do I know this? I am married to such a woman. Of course, my conception (no pun intended) of what is beautiful, sexy, “hot” – has changed over time also. Some men, on the other hand, never mature in their tastes, and hence are dirty old men – guys who at sixty still can’t get past teenaged girls.

    CharleszMartel, re: “But the basic idea is that pheromonal/scent attractiveness is overlooked or ignored in our culture.” Indeed it is. You are correct that the biology of pheromones is well-established and proven. When two people fall in love, in a sense their noses are falling in love for them. Scent is extremely important in signaling health and sexual receptivity and fitness. You are on the right track concerning lower testosterone levels and phthalates – so-called “xenoestrogens” in the environment. Some truly frightening and bizarre mutations in fish and other vertibrates has been seen. The cause is thought to be not only phthalates, etc. but vast amounts of waste birth control pills, et al. flushed into natural water supplies. Agree with the basic premise that oral contraception is a giant “experiment” without precedent in history, re: “Putting the majority of a nation’s breeding age females into a state of artificial pregnancy for 30 years or so is one gigantic leap of faith.”

    Like


  80. My two-cents worth on physical attraction, “sexiness,” “hotness,” etc.
    Female attractiveness is much more than the mere presence of physical beauty, i.e. symmetrical and pleasing appearance, good health (skin, hair, teeth, eyes, etc.). A truly sexy woman carries herself differently than one who is attractive but lacking in that special something. There’s an allure that certain women have. They are feminine, and reveal just enough (but not too much) of their body to attract you. They realize that a woman’s “mystery” is among her most her powerful sexual assets. That’s why baring it all is a mistake for any woman in the public eye. Where else is there to go after that? Answer: Nowhere. Sexy is in her voice, the gentle sway of her hips, her seductive look, her scent – a world-class, sexy beauty has all of these. She is also witty, intelligent, and enthusiastic about life. Without personality, beauty means much less. If you are lucky-enough to meet one of these amazing women, you’ll never forget it – it literally bowls you over. If you are even more fortunate, you’ll get to spend your life with her (I guess I’m lucky on that score).

    Men, please remember that a woman’s beauty lives not only on her face, but in your heart. A beautiful, sexy woman – really beautiful – looks and acts wonderful no matter what her age. I’ve met young women who looked like supermodels, who lack even the most rudimentary notion of sexiness and beauty, and grandmothers who are hotter than a smoking pistol. It’s all in the head, it really is. The most potent aphrodisiac is the brain.

    [Heartiste: Feel-good horseshit. No 90 year old woman is going to look hot. No 45 year old MILF is going to look more beautiful than she did at 21.
    Thank you for playing.]

    Like