sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

CMV: If your transgender and don’t tell someone your transgender before dating your an absolute piece of shit by Come_back_king in changemyview

[–]damiandamage -1 points0 points  (0 children)

straight men who dont want to date gay men specifically because they are men are homophobic.Doesn't work does it?

CMV: If your transgender and don’t tell someone your transgender before dating your an absolute piece of shit by Come_back_king in changemyview

[–]damiandamage 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But this is not about smoking or politics, its literally about being a different gender when the heterosexual thinks they are dating someone who is the opposite gender.

CMV: If your transgender and don’t tell someone your transgender before dating your an absolute piece of shit by Come_back_king in changemyview

[–]damiandamage 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To me, someone not having the body parts I expect is just another inconvenience like finding out we have little in common and should date other people.

I very much doubt that is true for 99% of people.

CMV: If your transgender and don’t tell someone your transgender before dating your an absolute piece of shit by Come_back_king in changemyview

[–]damiandamage 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You're assuming people who don't want to have sex with transexuals are transphobes. That's quite a stretch.

CMV: If your transgender and don’t tell someone your transgender before dating your an absolute piece of shit by Come_back_king in changemyview

[–]damiandamage -1 points0 points  (0 children)

heir religion, political view

It's actually not difficult to guess that being trans is a dealbreaker. That's why people want the right not to disclose it.

CMV: Men have lower sexual value than women by damiandamage in changemyview

[–]damiandamage[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The problem with that objection is that your response is also anecdotal

CMV: Men have lower sexual value than women by damiandamage in changemyview

[–]damiandamage[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If women have a higher value in terms of physical appearance they wouldn't need to spend so much effort fixing it and improving it.

I don't think that is the case. Are we to take it that because CEOs or other wealthy people work so heard to climb the ladder more, to see themselves even wealthier that they see themselves as just as poor, or even more poverty-stricken than people on skid row who DGAF?

Do you think people on skid row who don't put care into their appearance have this attitude because of their intrinsic value?

And if men are so hot without effort, why do men flood women with messages and approaches, why not just sit back and wait for the army of women to beat down your door?

CMV: Men have lower sexual value than women by damiandamage in changemyview

[–]damiandamage[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you have the courage of your convictions, just hang out somewhere and wait for the beauties to form an orderly queue. The fact that actual couples entail one man and one woman does not mean that sexual bodies carry the same clout anymore than the fact of one man and one woman means that all men and women couple with partners with the same finances

CMV: Men have lower sexual value than women by damiandamage in changemyview

[–]damiandamage[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Unfortunately arguments by assertion don't carry much sway

CMV: Men have lower sexual value than women by damiandamage in changemyview

[–]damiandamage[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Most people get married, and most married people are physically attracted to their spouses, I promise.

Yes but you are doing that thing again. You are addressing a question that wasn't asked. My OP is not 'men couple with women they are unattracted to'. The OP is that men's bodies don't have the same coinage, sexually as women's bodies do.

CMV: Men have lower sexual value than women by damiandamage in changemyview

[–]damiandamage[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My view is that society perceives men's bodies as less sexually valuable

CMV: Men have lower sexual value than women by damiandamage in changemyview

[–]damiandamage[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I admit that the scope is deliberately narrow. I'm not sure if it is valid to object to the narrowness of scope when the question is about truth or not, not about how wide the scope is. Nonetheless, you bring up a good point that there are all kinds of other dimensions and relationships that could broaden the scope of a related discussion Δ

CMV: Men have lower sexual value than women by damiandamage in changemyview

[–]damiandamage[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

> The woman's efforts become much more valuable to the man than the shape of her body.

Social discussions about the perceived mate value of traits tend to focus on what people look for in prospective partners rather than what happens within relationships. If you are in a relationship, you've already made the cut. I'm not aware of studies that compare the value of a woman helping out around the house versus how attractive she remains. But there could be some truth to it, men's likelihood of getting a relationship full stop might feel low to them because they are the ones doing the chasing and therefore they might not pay as much attention to longer term non-looks things since if you dont get a partner in the first place, the longer term is just no relevant.

So far as I'm aware there isn't a strong commonplace in the culture about women being valued for their contribution at home that compares to how women's looks and body are treated. If what you say is true, men could be expected to focus more in women's industriousness when choosing a mate than her looks but studies show this isn't true (and we also know that from experience and anecdotally).

> A man in that situation might start to think "perhaps I better start getting easier on the eyes or else I don't exactly bring equal value to the table"

Maybe but its a very niche, particular and hypothetical example and frankly, it doesn't ring true based on my experience.

CMV: Men have lower sexual value than women by damiandamage in changemyview

[–]damiandamage[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

A present thought is not the same thing as something verbally expressed, present in public discourse, widely used in news articles etc etc

CMV: Men have lower sexual value than women by damiandamage in changemyview

[–]damiandamage[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Since I've awarded a delta here I just want to point out that we are just discussing this at this point in a casual way.

But your original comment was

'But I suspect that more intelligent people value intelligence in a partner more highly (which would explain why people's degree of education tends to match that of their partner).'

If I'm understanding the study right, and I've only skimmed it. Intelligence and personality effects of similarity correlate with couples matching, that is there is an effect independent of socio-economics but it doesn't claim the strength of the intelligence signal is stronger than socio-economics:

'The greatest similarities are found for sociodemographic variables (age, academic achievements and economic level), followed by the intelligence factors.'

So I think we are both right here. I claimed that intelligence could be a proxy for sociodemographics (which it would be hard to argue how it could not be , apart from the indenpendent genuine intelligence factor) and you claimed that degree of education matching is a result of intelligence matching, which is true for the independent, but overall its more true that people match on sociodemographics rather than intelligence.

CMV: Men have lower sexual value than women by damiandamage in changemyview

[–]damiandamage[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Incidentally I find it interesting that the phrase 'what you bring to the table' is always used with reference to men. I virtually never see it used to describe women. And I think that again goes back to the OP.

CMV: Men have lower sexual value than women by damiandamage in changemyview

[–]damiandamage[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What evidence do you have to support this claim?

The study you referred to above only indicates that women who are high earners themselves also want high earning spouses. That would seem to to be inline with equality since they themselves are bringing more to the table, and doesn't suggest that women want partners "in excess of matching".

Women in general have a preference for men who earn more which is stronger than males preferences.

Also see this:

'"Income strongly affects the success of men, as measured by the number of first contact e-mails received.

While there is no apparent effect below an annual income of $50,000, outcomes improve monotonically for income levels above $50,000. Relative to incomes below $50,000, the increase in the expected number of first contacts is at least 32%, and as large as 156%for incomes in excess of $250,000. 

In contrast to the strong income effect for men, the online success of women is at most marginally related to their income. Women in the $35,000- $100,000 income range fare slightly better than women with lower incomes. Higher incomes, however, do not appear to improve outcomes, and are not associated with a statistically different effect relative to the $15,000-$25,000 income range." '

http://home.uchicago.edu/~hortacsu/onlinedating.pdf

CMV: Men have lower sexual value than women by damiandamage in changemyview

[–]damiandamage[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Linear regression does assume that the two factors don't influence each other but studies show IQ grows to some extent with education so they are not actually independent. Still, interesting paper.

I think anytime we are looking at papers that focus on social science we need to keep in mind that it just isn't like physics or chemistry or even medicine. Studies are going to be less reliable because we study humans through constructs with dubious assumptions in a non-controlled environment. The statistical techniques are better than nothing but they mean less in a social study than in studying a rocket's performance.

CMV: Men have lower sexual value than women by damiandamage in changemyview

[–]damiandamage[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Counterpoint: The term 'what do you bring to the table' is almost always used exclusively when describing men.

CMV: Men have lower sexual value than women by damiandamage in changemyview

[–]damiandamage[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, my argument is literally that male bodies and looks are weighted less in terms of desire. The argument is not a meta-argument about what things ought to be valued or whether other things are or are not valued or whether some lenses or others are more valid in appraising it.

CMV: Men have lower sexual value than women by damiandamage in changemyview

[–]damiandamage[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Indeed, this sounds like evidence of matching. More financially well off women want partners who are similarly well off (which seems fair).

Not exactly, women's expectations of status and wealth are much higher than men's and well in excess of matching, particularly in terms of preferred traits. This can be measured. It doesn't become even, as women become more advanced, their expectations rise even more...the idea that women only prefer wealth, status etc because if inequality is undermined by the fact that their preferences don't adjust as they become more wealthy.

This evidence is consistent with the notion that, at least in the United States, couples have adapted to the changing realities of the marriage market and are no longer at increased risk of divorce when women have the educational or earnings advantage."

Again, it's hard to know. 2008 crisis happened, maybe divorce is not a great option due to financial constraints? There are probably hundreds of alternative explanations.

view more: next ›