There's no such thing as a "hot" woman

You may have noticed that I generally use the word "attractive" to refer to good-looking women. This isn't something that I only do on the blog, I've also been doing it in my personal life for the last few years.

Adriana Lima could walk down the street and the most you'd get out of me is "She's a very attractive woman."  In fact, it occasionally stuns my female roommates when I'll describe someone as "attractive", which has a modest sound to it, and then they'll see a picture and they'll be like, "uh, YEAH, she's attractive."

But on college campuses across America, it's the exact opposite.  Frat boys use words like "hot", "bangin", or "perfect" to describe women.  They hype physical attractiveness instead of downplaying it.

This is a huge mistake.

Men would be better off if we dropped these words from our vocabulary altogether because they pollute our mind.  They strengthen our desires, and by doing so, make us slaves to them.  Better words are "attractive", "good-looking", "cute", or in special cases, "totally cute".

As with anything concerning sexuality, you can always flip the script.  It's not actually a good idea for women to refer to a wealthy man as "rich", "filthy rich", or "loaded."  When I hear these words coming out of a woman's mouth, I think one thing.  Better words are "well-off", "well-to-do", or "successful."

Again, for both men and women, this advice is in line with Old Money, which tends to downplay over-the-top displays of wealth and uses more modest language. Men who use over-the-top language to describe women's looks are signaling that they haven't spent a lot of time around someone with such a large biological inheritance. If you want to fit in, best not to bring it up.

It takes practice, but anyone can do it.

----

Note: The original idea for this came from a blog that is difficult to link to because of intentionally offensive content.

Enough to do anything

"I want to give my kids just enough so that they would feel that they could do anything, but not so much that they would feel like doing nothing." - Warren Buffett

I recently wrote about youth and beauty as a potentially-corrupting biological inheritance -- and as such, it might be useful to learn from the existing wisdom on financial inheritances.  So here is the corollary to Buffett's nugget of wisdom above:

"I want to give my kids just enough [beauty] so that they would feel that they could do anything, but not so much that they would feel like doing nothing."

That is to say, if I had children, I would want them to be attractive, but not exceedingly attractive.  The same principle would apply to sons and daughters -- as with a financial inheritance -- but since beauty is a greater source of female sexual power, it would be more relevant to daughters.  There's some game theory I'd have to think through, but if in some crazy techno-genetic designer-baby dystopian future I could choose the attractiveness of my daughters, I don't think I would push the "Lindsey Lohan" button.

Someone a little more visually flawed might be more beautiful in the long run.

Sympathy vs. Empathy

I've always confused the definitions of 'empathy' and 'sympathy'.  In the title of my posts "Sympathy for being objectified" and "Sympathy for misers", it would have been better to use the word 'empathy'.

Sympathy - "harmony of or agreement in feeling, as between persons or on the part of one person with respect to another."

Empathy - "the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another."

Since the point was to directly experience being objectified and being a miser, I have re-titled them "Empathy for being objectified" and "Empathy for misers".  The links remain the same.

Syndicate content