Men and Women; how many people have you had sex with this year so far? Watch

willbee
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#421
Report 5 years ago
#421
(Original post by JamesTheCool)
That's not my intention. I want to disprove the dangerous misconception that good looks are a means of happiness and success. For example, I'm a handsome man on the outside, but inside I'm a miserable git who simultaneously loves and hates himself, who has social anxiety.

More to the point, I believe that uglier people actually tend to have relationships and sex more often because their desperation drives them to seek it, in the hope that it will overcome their obvious insecurities. Whereas, without meaning to further blow my own trumpet, I could go out and have sex with some dumb, local shallow chick right now if I really wanted to, but I don't because I'm not a sell-out (I'd rather have intercourse with a female who mirrors my looks and intelligence... unfortunately I don't encounter many who do).

EDIT: Also, being in a relationship is often the reserve of conventional, trendy people who have average-to-below-average intelligence, thus lower-standards and higher capacity fall in love with anything that moves. It is not the reserve of intelligent or good-looking-and-intelligent people. So this school-playground mentality of 'ooh I've had more girlfriends/boyfriends than you' nonsense is actually symbol of one's own obnoxious, embarrassing primitiveness, yet those of us who lean towards asexuality through our own effortless ability to resist sexual urges (and the debilitating social ineptness that often comes with high intelligence) are made to feel like losers. It doesn't make sense...
You do sound like quite a bit of a loser tbf.

Good looks are a means of happiness and success, fact. Good looking people have a considerably easier life than 'ugly' people, because we are naturally predisposed to be friendly to good-looking people and to associate good personality traits with good looks. Just because you're 'a miserable git who loves and hates himself' doesn't mean good looks aren't a means of happiness and success, it just means you probably haven't got any charisma or the required social skills to effectively utilise your looks to your advantage.

Furthermore, your theories on ugly people are terrible. I think because you're so insecure, you're assuming everyone else must be even more insecure because they are so much lesser than you in intellect and looks. It's not a sign of embarrassing primitiveness to have had lots of relationships, it's just a very different personality type to yours, and probably a different outlook on life.

As for asexuality, that is a sexuality not a choice. Your effortless ability to resist sexual urges does not make you asexual, it makes you chaste. If you have sexual urges, you are probably not very asexual. Asexuality is not a choice, it is about a lack of sexuality or desire for sexual experiences. It is not better than any other sexuality, it is just different.

You're very selective of your sexual partners and have a high number of requirements for them to meet and that's your prerogative. Whatever tickles your pickle. But you shouldn't look down on people who have sex, have relationships, are less intelligent or less good looking as 'desperately insecure' because the fact is they're probably not and that's ****ing obnoxious of you anyway.

Your whole post reeks of a total lack of sensitivity and charisma, so I'll be very surprised if you manage to meet someone who meets your requirements who actually wants to be with you. What doesn't make sense is you insulting everyone else from your ivory tower of insecurity, arrogance and chastity.

I'd also be interested in seeing a picture of you, because I get the impression you're not nearly as good-looking as you think you are.

Urgh, there's nothing more annoying than aloof and narcissistic, 'intellectual' loners.
0
reply
JamesTheCool
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#422
Report 5 years ago
#422
(Original post by willbee)
You do sound like quite a bit of a loser tbf.
Fine. I never said I was a winner.

(Original post by willbee)
Good looks are a means of happiness and success, fact.
Calling that a fact is absurd. That makes you sound like a Daily Mail reader. I cared very little about my appearance until my late teens when entered a bout of depression due to fancying a girl who was going out with someone else. I didn't even have a clue I was 'good-looking' until I was informed about it by women and girls other than my mum. Then I googled pics of Hollywood 'hunks', compared their faces to mine and realised that I meet the criteria of what girls seem to like the look of in men (although I don't personally 'get' what they see)...

(Original post by willbee)
Good looking people have a considerably easier life than 'ugly' people, because we are naturally predisposed to be friendly to good-looking people and to associate good personality traits with good looks. Just because you're 'a miserable git who loves and hates himself' doesn't mean good looks aren't a means of happiness and success, it just means you probably haven't got any charisma or the required social skills to effectively utilise your looks to your advantage.
There's also the jealousy good-looks create where people are irked by you and literally can't stand the sight of you. You're probably talking about conventional-looking people who merely have trendy haircuts or wear trendy clothes, or people who are just moderately attractive. I'm not talking about Justin fking Biebers; I'm talking about a certain, interesting-to-look-at, sexy type of good looks - people with exceptional non-plastic looks; Hollywood stars like Angelina Jolie and Scarlett Johansson (actually those are the only two genuine examples I can think of lol), or weirdly beautiful rock stars/musicians with interesting/androgynous looks, like Liam Gallagher, Richey Edwards, Kurt Cobain, David Bowie and John Lydon when they were younger, Kate Bush when she was younger, Pete Doherty before heroin ruined him and Kate Bush before cocaine ruined her, etc - these are all sexy people, and I believe they have have it much, much worse. I'm not saying I necessarily fit into this category but I believe it's people like this who are hated to death, and it's all founded upon sheer jealousy.

(Original post by willbee)
Furthermore, your theories on ugly people are terrible. I think because you're so insecure, you're assuming everyone else must be even more insecure because they are so much lesser than you in intellect and looks. It's not a sign of embarrassing primitiveness to have had lots of relationships, it's just a very different personality type to yours, and probably a different outlook on life.
Yes, but on the other hand there is a correlation between people who have low intelligence and high fertility (who are more likely to have that personality type in the first place, and therefore have more relationships and more sex in their lives), so I think there's some truth in what I said. I know it's not a very politically correct thing to say, but it's quite a striking observation, especially when the stupidest, ugliest mothers tend have the most children (5 or more).

(Couldn't be bothered to answer the rest of your posts as I don't have the time and they seem quite unanswerable.)

(Original post by willbee)
As for asexuality, that is a sexuality not a choice. Your effortless ability to resist sexual urges does not make you asexual, it makes you chaste. If you have sexual urges, you are probably not very asexual. Asexuality is not a choice, it is about a lack of sexuality or desire for sexual experiences. It is not better than any other sexuality, it is just different.
I'm asexual in the sense that I'm disinterested in sex, which I didn't choose to be. I don't have sexual urges, hence why I said my resistance to them is effortless.

(Original post by willbee)
Urgh, there's nothing more annoying than aloof and narcissistic, 'intellectual' loners.
Well, whether or not I'm a stuck-up prick who looks down on people from his ivory tower of insecurity (I liked that btw ) at least I'm an interesting person. I'm not accusing you of this, but I'd rather be who I am than some some obnoxious, mainstream, grinning idiot who makes no observations and has no desire to challenge common opinion and change the way people think...

On the 'intellectual' bit; I went to a state comprehensive so that's why my writing style perhaps isn't as coherent as the average TSR user's.
0
reply
Zhy
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#423
Report 5 years ago
#423
(Original post by glousck)
:lol: i nearly spat out my vimto reading this
Holy ****. I haven't spotted someone drinking Vimto for years!
0
reply
glousck
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#424
Report 5 years ago
#424
(Original post by Zhy)
Holy ****. I haven't spotted someone drinking Vimto for years!
Get on the fizzy vimto train. You won't regret it. Low calorie, delicious and gets all the *****es
0
reply
glousck
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#425
Report 5 years ago
#425
(Original post by JamesTheCool)
That may or may not be true. At least I'm self-aware​...

Again, you didn't really elaborate what you were trying to say.
I changed my mind, you sound like about 90% of the people I've meant who had taken cocaine. Self-obsessed, egotistical, psychological problems that mean you can't be as egotistical as you'd like to be.
0
reply
katyness
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#426
Report 5 years ago
#426
(Original post by glousck)
Get on the fizzy vimto train. You won't regret it. Low calorie, delicious and gets all the *****es
LOL I wanted to rep because of this but it didn't let me.
0
reply
N3rd$
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#427
Report 5 years ago
#427
either everyone is lying saying one or two or students in my uni are ...............erm.............. .......friendly
0
reply
Rampant Rabbit
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#428
Report 5 years ago
#428
like 8 .. lol
0
reply
willbee
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#429
Report 5 years ago
#429
Quoting JamesTheCool:

(Original post by glousck)
You sound really self-obsessed
The Response:
(Original post by JamesTheCool)
That may or may not be true. At least I'm self-aware​...

Again, you didn't really elaborate what you were trying to say.
Okay, so you are self-obsessed, and assuming that everyone else on this forum isn't self-aware. However, given that TSR is a forum for students to ask questions on their studying, for people to analyse their own and other's personal issues, and for people to debate current affairs, theories, ideas, or just chat, I think it's fair to say that everyone using this forum is self-aware. It can be safely assumed that everyone on the forum has reached Level 5 on the scale of self-awareness development. Self-awareness is clearly demonstrated by multiple users across all the sub-forums. An example of self-aware users would be im_so_academic, who is clearly aware not only of herself, but of others' perceptions of her, thus some of her answers seem to be deliberately antagonistic, in line with her reputation as an ambitious, academic snob.

(Original post by JamesTheCool)
Fine. I never said I was a winner.



Calling that a fact is absurd. That makes you sound like a Daily Mail reader. I cared very little about my appearance until my late teens when entered a bout of depression due to fancying a girl who was going out with someone else. I didn't even have a clue I was 'good-looking' until I was informed about it by women and girls other than my mum. Then I googled pics of Hollywood 'hunks', compared their faces to mine and realised that I meet the criteria of what girls seem to like the look of in men (although I don't personally 'get' what they see)...
It has been scientifically proven that individuals respond more kindly towards good-looking people, and are more likely to associate positive personality traits with people who have symmetrical faces, and similar aesthetically pleasing features. These personality traits include assumed intelligence and honesty. See this Wiki article on 'Lookism':

Physical attractiveness is associated with good things, such as beautiful princesses; in contrast, physical unattractiveness is associated with negative things, such as wicked witches. Many people make automatic judgements of others based on their physical appearance that influence how they respond to those people. Research on the "What is beautiful is good" stereotype shows that, overall, those who are physically attractive benefit from their good looks: physically attractive individuals are perceived more positively and physical attractiveness has a strong influence on judgement of a person’s competence.[3] In return, physically attractive people benefit from these stereotypical beliefs. Research shows that on average, physically attractive individuals have more friends, better social skills, and more active sex lives. However, attractiveness does not have any effect on the level of happiness experienced by the individual
Furthermore, scientific studies have shown that good-looking people attain a higher grade average than plain-looking students, and that looks significantly effect your life-long earnings, with 'ugly' people earning up to considerably less than their 'handsome' counterparts.

There's also the jealousy good-looks create where people are irked by you and literally can't stand the sight of you. You're probably talking about conventional-looking people who merely have trendy haircuts or wear trendy clothes, or people who are just moderately attractive. I'm not talking about Justin fking Biebers; I'm talking about a certain, interesting-to-look-at, sexy type of good looks - people with exceptional non-plastic looks; Hollywood stars like Angelina Jolie and Scarlett Johansson (actually those are the only two genuine examples I can think of lol), or weirdly beautiful rock stars/musicians with interesting/androgynous looks, like Liam Gallagher, Richey Edwards, Kurt Cobain, David Bowie and John Lydon when they were younger, Kate Bush when she was younger, Pete Doherty before heroin ruined him and Kate Bush before cocaine ruined her, etc - these are all sexy people, and I believe they have have it much, much worse. I'm not saying I necessarily fit into this category but I believe it's people like this who are hated to death, and it's all founded upon sheer jealousy.
While this phenomenon certainly exists, it is not as common, and it is significantly less common a scenario for men than for women. Usually, good-looking people are prized by their communities, it is only if they are perceived to be a real threat that they are shunned. I think your insistence on your perceived persecution for your looks shows a profound lack of self-awareness, people who are replying to you on this thread are doing it not because you think yourself attractive but because you insult everyone you consider unattractive, and suggest that they are overcompensating for the fact that you don't want to date them by having relationships, and having sex and raising children. That suggestion is why I've responded so strongly and probably why glousck said you sound really self-obsessed.


Yes, but on the other hand there is a correlation between people who have low intelligence and high fertility (who are more likely to have that personality type in the first place, and therefore have more relationships and more sex in their lives), so I think there's some truth in what I said. I know it's not a very politically correct thing to say, but it's quite a striking observation, especially when the stupidest, ugliest mothers tend have the most children (5 or more).
again, I have to disagree. I think the stereotype of 'the stupidest, ugliest mothers' having larger families is more a product of society demonising the lower-socio-economic classes, than a social truth. Even if it is true that lower class families have more kids, this is probably less to do with fundamental insecurities based on looks, and more to do with a lack of family planning or similar socio-economic factors.

Also remember, that attractiveness is subjective, and that different ideals of beauty exist among the different social classes. I find the looks of the people on TOWIE and MIC to be unattractive, but on both shows characters like Spencer and Amy Childs are considered by many of the audience to be the epitome of physical attractiveness. Just because you don't find these 'low intelligence, mainstream' people attractive, doesn't mean they're not attractive. They may not tickle your pickle, but they're probably attractive to other people.

So you're right that it's not PC for you to make that statement, but it's also not a striking observation because it's ignoring the fact that there are other, more credible causes for this correlation between low intelligence and high fertility, (though if you could provide a source for this, I'd consider it more seriously).



Asexuality:

I'm asexual in the sense that I'm disinterested in sex, which I didn't choose to be. I don't have sexual urges, hence why I said my resistance to them is effortless.
If you don't have sexual urges, then you don't resist them. That puts you on the asexual spectrum. Saying your resistance is effortless is saying that there is resistance to your sexual urges but that it is not hard for you to resist your sexual urges. This doesn't make you asexual, it makes you chaste. You're essentially saying I'm chaste, but I don't find it difficult to be.



Well, whether or not I'm a stuck-up prick who looks down on people from his ivory tower of insecurity (I liked that btw ) at least I'm an interesting person. I'm not accusing you of this, but I'd rather be who I am than some some obnoxious, mainstream, grinning idiot who makes no observations and has no desire to challenge common opinion and change the way people think...

On the 'intellectual' bit; I went to a state comprehensive so that's why my writing style perhaps isn't as coherent as the average TSR user's.
Again, most people on TSR are interesting people, who make observations and challenge common opinions in their engagement with the debates on the forums. As for the intellectual bit, I'm fairly certain most people on TSR went to an average comp, as do most people in the country, so I don't know why that is relevant to your poor writing style. I think you're just not as smart as you think you are, because generally intelligent people are good at explaining themselves coherently, and they don't tend to do it in such an offensive, generalising manner.
0
reply
JamesTheCool
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#430
Report 5 years ago
#430
(Original post by willbee)
Again, most people on TSR are interesting people, who make observations and challenge common opinions in their engagement with the debates on the forums. As for the intellectual bit, I'm fairly certain most people on TSR went to an average comp, as do most people in the country, so I don't know why that is relevant to your poor writing style. I think you're just not as smart as you think you are, because generally intelligent people are good at explaining themselves coherently, and they don't tend to do it in such an offensive, generalising manner.
That comment I made wasn't specifically aimed at TSR members; it was aimed at people in general who seem to be raised on common, set-mentalities which I find irksome (one example being the cruel assumption that looks = happiness and that that's 'all that matters', which I have no tolerance for, especially since I know what it's like to be deliberately made to feel inadequate about my appearance, having experienced some very negative comments which I'll never forget from girls (and boys) at school, even though my appearance is generally better-received these days).

As far as I'm concerned, most TSR members display an attitude that would suggest a typical self-righteous grammar/private school mentality. I only tend to write coherently in essays when it's essential. Otherwise I cut the crap and get straight to the point, taking more of a 'stream of consciousness' approach.

Intelligent people exist in all walks of life, but raw intelligence and environmental intelligence are not the same thing. You seem to be making the generalisation that all intelligent people come from well-nourished backgrounds who are brought up to sound 20 years older than their actual age, communicating in an overly sophisticated and well-mannered way for the sake of 'presentation'. I think genuinely intelligent people are more likely to think against the herd and be true to their real opinions (especially when given anonymity), communicate how the **** they like, and give less of a crap about what some irate online users who are on a stupid, non-free-thinking wavelength think.

Please explain how my writing style is 'poor'; I'd appreciate some feedback - preferably with detailed annotations.
0
reply
ForgetMe
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#431
Report 5 years ago
#431
-1
1
reply
willbee
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#432
Report 5 years ago
#432
I like how you conveniently ignored the rest of my post to focus on a tiny bit and whine about that.

(Original post by JamesTheCool)
That comment I made wasn't specifically aimed at TSR members; it was aimed at people in general who seem to be raised on common, set-mentalities which I find irksome (one example being the cruel assumption that looks = happiness and that that's 'all that matters', which I have no tolerance for, especially since I know what it's like to be deliberately made to feel inadequate about my appearance, having experienced some very negative comments which I'll never forget from girls (and boys) at school, even though my appearance is generally better-received these days).

As far as I'm concerned, most TSR members display an attitude that would suggest a typical self-righteous grammar/private school mentality. I only tend to write coherently in essays when it's essential. Otherwise I cut the crap and get straight to the point, taking more of a 'stream of consciousness' approach.]
Okay, well firstly it's a shame you've met so many people that judge others solely on appearances, but I think its one thing to judge you on how you look naturally, and another to judge you on how you present yourself. I think most people will make harsher judgements on the latter than the former, although young adolescents, especially teenagers, will say all sorts of nasty things because it's just what they do at that age.

As for your assumption that most TSR members are grammar/private school educated, I think you're not taking into consideration the number of users on this site compared to the number of people that go to independent schools. It is significantly more likely that most people on here had state funded educations (and grammars are also state funded schools), but that aside, I don't think it's fair to generalise all grammar or private school students as self-righteous, as I really don't think that is the case. I think they are aware of their privilege and good fortune, but that doesn't make them self-righteous. Some are indeed, but I went to a grammar school for four years, so I can vouch that the majority of people I knew at my own grammar and the local girls' weren't self-righteous, aloof or superior.

(edit: you can now find out what sort of education your fellow TSR users had from their own mouths, here)

Furthermore, writing coherently in essays means cutting the crap and getting to the point, which you do well in this post quoted, but poorly in your some of your other posts. It seems your writing style is more direct when your reaction is anger rather than self-pitying.

Intelligent people exist in all walks of life, but raw intelligence and environmental intelligence are not the same thing. You seem to be making the generalisation that all intelligent people come from well-nourished backgrounds who are brought up to sound 20 years older than their actual age, communicating in an overly sophisticated and well-mannered way for the sake of 'presentation'. I think genuinely intelligent people are more likely to think against the herd and be true to their real opinions (especially when given anonymity), communicate how the **** they like, and give less of a crap about what some irate online users who are on a stupid, non-free-thinking wavelength think.

Please explain how my writing style is 'poor'; I'd appreciate some feedback - preferably with detailed annotations.
I wasn't making the generalisation that all intelligent people come from well-nourished backgrounds, just pointing out that most intelligent people can express themselves pretty well. Whereas you keep having to re-explain what your sweeping (and rather insulting) generalisations mean. But you don't sound like such a self-absorbed moron in this post, even if you are still generalising left, right and centre.

I think genuinely intelligent people can still share their true opinions in a way that other people can understand, that is the whole point of communication.

Also, if you're implying that I'm non-free-thinking, I'd argue that I'm only non-free-thinking insofar as I tend to try and make well-informed opinions so when it is based on something that is debatable but that there are relevant scientific studies too, I look at those and take them into consideration.

The fact that I have cited sources to back up my opinions in fact makes me more free-thinking than you, because I have genuinely considered outside opinions, whereas you seem to be suggesting that one can only be free-thinking if they agree with you.

But whatever, the fact that you had to ignore the rest of my post to focus on that one paragraph and redirect the debate to a question of intelligence tells me that I've won the argument here, which was originally a question of whether or not it is a harder life for those that are naturally attractive, than those who are plain or ugly. The answer is no.

Ultimately, judging on your responses, you seem to be the type of person who is very self-pitying, and likes to blame their lot in life for their poor circumstances, rather than take any credit or responsibility for their own situation.

You say you've been persecuted for your good looks and that you can't find anyone who is good enough to be with you (looks and intellect), but that this is a problem with everyone else and not, in fact, with you. Also, your inability to express yourself has been attributed to the fact that you didn't go to a grammar or private school. Given that most of my best friends were state school educated, as was I my entire life, (including the four out of fourteen years of my schooling that was at a state grammar) I think it is insulting to insinuate that if you are state-educated you are not good at expressing yourself coherently. We're all affected by our environments, but we're also responsible for our own behaviour and responses to those opportunities (or lack of them) and it isn't self-righteous to point that fact out.

Seriously, stop moping about your misfortune and take responsibility for your own life.
0
reply
Welsh_insomniac
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#433
Report 5 years ago
#433
2 girls. But I was in a relationship for about 7 months of the year. Lets hope next year is better (either in casual or relationship wise!)
0
reply
gemmam
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#434
Report 5 years ago
#434
(Original post by N3rd$)
either everyone is lying saying one or two or students in my uni are ...............erm.............. .......friendly
Its probably most likely because theyre in/have been relationships.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
uktotalgamer
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#435
Report 5 years ago
#435
Bout tree fiddy OP.

Can guarantee most girls in this thread are lying... At least double it.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How did your AQA A-level Business Paper 1 go?

Loved the paper - Feeling positive (189)
22.74%
The paper was reasonable (383)
46.09%
Not feeling great about that exam... (154)
18.53%
It was TERRIBLE (105)
12.64%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise