Cal, it’s not just him. I also inferred something totally different from what you intended in your post. No offense, but I think it’s the way you worded it. I don’t mean you any disrespect but your post did not say what you intended. If you had simply said what you intended (that everybody in the world does not like the exact same thing) then I would have said there’s some validity to your point, but that is not how your post is being interpreted by some of us. Sorry.
My exact words:
“Johnny Depp doesn’t need muscles & a tan to get success and women. But he sure needs good hair.”
Your interpretation:
"you tried to tell us that Depp doesn’t need hair to get women . . . "
I have to say that I agree with Jarjar and some others here that hair matters to women, EXCEPT for one big point: Women don’t really care about a guy’s looks EXCEPT for the hair part. That is, the average woman will gladly take a guy with a clearly ugly face (and she’ll even joke outright that his face is ugly – she’ll find it “endearing”), AS LONG AS he has a full head of hair. A full head of hair COMPLETELY negates the “ugly” factor. Women talk about men’s facial appearance a lot (just like men talk about women’s facial features a lot), but when it comes down to it, women will gladly take an ugly, or old and wrinkled, male face as long as it’s topped by a FULL head of hair.
You’re right about that Cal. That is what you said about Johnny Depp. My mistake.
That aside, your point is that some men don’t need hair to achieve success but IMO that depends on what kind of success you’re talking about. In your post you’re mixing up different kinds of success. For example, when you talk about success for some guys you are clearly talking about success with women but when you talk about success for other guys you’re talking about political success or stardom success with other guys. You bounce between the different types of success from line to line.
OK Eisenhower didn’t need hair to become President but he wasn’t much of a stud.
Depp needs hair to play some of the parts he’s played but not all of the parts he’s played, For his portrayal of Bugler they made him appear to have less hair so maybe he can do some acting without all of his hair and he can always wear wigs for parts that require hair.
You also talk about how some men don’t need hair to be studs but you have no proof those men are studs. And if those bald men are studs then I posit tat they’re using money to buy the women.
I only used the examples of Vin Diesel and Johnny Depp because they are familiar to all of us. The same principles apply to poorer everyday men too, even though the total amount of success/women is lower than celebs.
As for hair single-handedly bailing out a guy for having an ugly face? I flatly disagree with that.
Oh sure, it works that way for some guys, in the eyes of some women. But with other pairs of people it does not.
Look, I agree that it’s always better to have hair if you have a choice. Even the Vin Diesels of the world are better off with a buzzed-down NW#2 than a buzzed-down NW#7. “I just love shiny-bald guys with horseshoes of hair around the back” - was said by no woman ever.
But exactly how much difference does it make? That varies widely.
What really helps (in all sorts of little ways all over your life) is looking healthy & young & attractive. Hair is one component of that picture. It helps more often than not but some guys have a “look” that needs it more than others. Some guys are better off with their heads totally buzzed down although not the majority.
Some guys suffer very little damage to their appearance from going bald. Others get trainwrecked by it.
Example of a man with an ugly face, but good (full) head of hair where it redeems his looks for women: William Macy. It DOES NOT make him hot, or a stud, etc. He’s still ugly. But women don’t care about his ugliness, because the full head of hair looks youthful and healthy…
Example of a man whose face isn’t bad looking, but whose looks are COMPLETELY spoiled by baldness: Louis CK. Imagine if Louis CK had a full head of hair, and stood side by side with William Macy, who has a full head of hair. Louis CK would clearly be better looking. But I am sure that most women would vastly choose William Macy as he is (with hair), over Louis CK as he is (without hair), based on looks alone. (Louis CK would certainly get some extra points for being funny, but I’m talking about LOOKS ALONE in the eyes of women.)
Women do not care about an ugly mug, as long as that ugly mug has a full, thick, lush head of hair.
Those examples apply more to media careers. I wouldn’t assume Macy would always do better with women than CK in real life.
They are also extreme examples. Macy’s hair looks so perfectly styled and cut and dyed. That hair is more photogenic in that pic than a lot of guys have when they are teenagers.
Louis CK’s baldness-emphasizing haircut is arguably out of style today. He might be better off shaving down shorter. Hair length needs to go down when the Norwood gets that high or it just draws attention to the MPB.
Money is always the great equalizer and as we get older, money trumps hair.
Nope.
Bruce Willis recently lamented that he had a lot more women when he was a bartender than he has now that he’s a celebrity.
When I was young I had women all over me. They supplied more money to the relationships than I did. Now I’m getting older, I have lots of money, little hair and very few women.
You are dead wrong.
Would you want your sons to grow up bald?
Well women don’t want to have bald kids either, so why should they mate with bald men?
(Unless the woman is ugly or old or fat or crippled/disfigured or retarded or unhealthy or smells bad or is herself bald, and so has no other options. Or if she has hairy children already from her hairy ex-husband, then she may actually prefer a bald “nice guy” she can control, and who in exchange for her sexual favors, will pay for the raising of the kids she made with her ex husband–and who may also drop a kid or two for the bald guy to 1. better tie him to her, and 2. to hedge her own unconsciously made evolutionary bets, in the event that bald men one day turn out to be better fitted for survival. Who knows, with the onset of global warming, maybe being bald will turn out to be an evolutionary advantage because it keeps you cooler).
It’s called age. That happens to all men regardless whether they have hair or not. In fact Jarjar, I willing to bet if you had a head full of hair you would not have anymore women. Sorry, hair is nice but if you are young and good looking, women will flock to you regardless if you have hair or not. You could have a head full of hair, but if you are old, well you are not going to be attractive to the women. It is what it is!
That’s the cool thing about being on the internet and proclaiming stuff - you can allege any ole bs. And in fact, you ARE wrong.
If I got my hair back tomorrow I would have a lot of women hitting on me. I’m in my 40s, not my 70s.
I have virtually NO wrinkles or skin damage of any kind.
I live in the Pacific Northwest with a lot of cloud cover and I work indoors. I have recently put a wig on at a department store just for laughs and if I got my hair back today I would like almost exactly the same as I did in my 20s.
You can bet any ole false crap you want to but just to keep the record straight I will inform you that what you are saying about my looks is CRAP.
Oh and also science is getting closer and closer to reversing the entire overall aging process anyway so they may make me 21 again in the next 10 years or so. Check this out:
How many times I gotta say it? The voters had to choose between Eisenhower and the equally bald or balder Stevenson. So of course a bald candidate won that year.
Plus, TV campaigning was then just beginning, with a large proportion of voters still having radios with no TVs.
But by the next election TV campaigning–i.e., very visual campaigning–was the norm (just a dozen years earlier, campaigning was still done by whistle stops from the back of trains, by radio, and in print).
And so from Kennedy onward most voters looked at TV to decide who to vote for.
And what the voters saw started to make a difference.
Example: people who watched the Kennedy/Nixon debates on TV, thought the better looking–and hairier–Kennedy won the debates.
But people who still only listened to the debates on the radio, thought that Nixon won the debates.
Oh, come on. People here are out of touch with reality in their perceptions of what women are attracted to.
Actually, most women skew to being attracted to somewhat OLDER men. This is a fact. An older man with a full head of hair, even graying hair, and some wrinkles or “character lines” (assuming he also keeps his body reasonably fit) can be extremely sought after by women who are even 20 years or more younger than he is. He is considered “sexy”,“distinguished”, “suave” or “debonaire”. Even if he doesn’t have a ton of money, with a reasonably trim body AND a full head of hair, he can still pull lots of significantly younger women. Even if he’s poor, he can still be considered a “rake”, an “alley cat” or a “dawg”.
On the other hand, an older man who is balding or bald and hits on younger women is seen as a shlub, a weirdo or a “dirty old man” and is never sought after by younger women, unless he is very wealthy, and even then, it’s in a cynical way.
[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by roger_that[/postedby]
Oh, come on. People here are out of touch with reality in their perceptions of what women are attracted to.
Actually, most women skew to being attracted to somewhat OLDER men. This is a fact. An older man with a full head of hair, even graying hair, and some wrinkles or “character lines” (assuming he also keeps his body reasonably fit) can be extremely sought after by women who are even 20 years or more younger than he is. He is considered “sexy”,“distinguished”, “suave” or “debonaire”. Even if he doesn’t have a ton of money, with a reasonably trim body AND a full head of hair, he can still pull lots of significantly younger women. Even if he’s poor, he can still be considered a “rake”, an “alley cat” or a “dawg”.
On the other hand, an older man who is balding or bald and hits on younger women is seen as a shlub, a weirdo or a “dirty old man” and is never sought after by younger women, unless he is very wealthy, and even then, it’s in a cynical way.[/quote]
Very good job of shooting down an assertion that nobody made.
Cal, I hate to say it but you appear to have some cognizance issues. Are you OK?
Let me remind you what’s going on in this discussion:
-
According to you, YOU yourself tried to advance the idea that people like different things. It appeared you were really trying to make the point that there are lots of women who don’t care about men’s hair and this is proved by the fact that some balding men have success with women, however it should be noted that you were erratically bouncing all over the page with many types of success, rather than just success with women. In some cases you were talking about success with women while and in other cases you were talking about financial success and in other cases you were talking about political success and in other cases you were talking about military success and in other cases you were alluding to Hollywood success.
-
Since it appeared you were mostly trying to focus on success with women I DISAGREED WITH YOU and I pointed out that you were confusing the issue by moving from one type of success (success with women) to many other types of success. And with regards to success with women, I pointed out that I had lots of women when I had my hair and since I’ve lost a lot of hair the overwhelming majority of those women are GONE.
-
Poster “Superhl” challenged my assertion by indicating it’s my overall aging process, rather than my hair loss, that has made women lose interest in me. By challenging my assertion “Superhl” was SUPPORTING YOUR POSITION, including your position that there is a good amount of women who truly don’t care about men’s hair.
-
Roger correctly pointed out to “Superhl” that men who age with their hair retain a good measure of their ability to attract women whereas the men who lose their hair as they age do not.
In the macro-sense Roger’s response to “Superhl’s” post is totally connected to the overall general discussion you started and in the micro-sense Roger’s response is totally connected to “Superhl’s” post that it’s aging rather than hair loss that has caused women to lose interest in me. I don’t understand why you don’t recognize this.
It appears you might have some cognizance issues - perhaps related to depression about hair loss.
Sometimes I have to wonder if cal is all there…
I am (consistently) arguing that people are not as predictable & consistent as you two think. I guess it makes perfect sense if you struggle to follow me.
loose associations
Also found in: Dictionary.
Farlex Partner Medical Dictionary © Farlex 2012
loose as·so·ci·a·tions (lūs ă-sō’sē-ā’shŭnz)
A manifestation of a severe thought disorder whereby the patient’s responses do not relate to the interviewer’s questions or one paragraph, sentence, or phrase is not logically connected to those that occur before or after.
Synonym(s): loosening of associations.
Cal,
-
I said I had lots of women when I had my hair and now that I have lost a bunch of hair almost all of those women are gone.
-
Superhl said my loss of women is because I have aged rather than because I’ve lost hair.
-
I said that other than losing hair my looks have changed very little as I have aged.
-
Roger added that older guys retain their ability to attract women as long as they keep their hair.
-
You then said Roger’s post was not in response to anything said to that point even though Roger’s post fits very nicely as a response to Superhls post.
Cal, why do you think Roger’s response to Superhl’s post doesn’t work as a response to Superhl’s post?