I’ve had hair to my ass, and been totally bald. I never noticed a difference. If you don’t have an unattractive skull, either is fine with most ladies.
Now 1/2 bald like Larry, he’s right. They are seen as less attractive, confident, and dominant….and not just by ladies. Pick a lane! I went directly from 40”+ hair to 1/4”, then shaved once I tanned.

Hey incel guys, wear a wedding ring. Nothing else I've ever done has attracted more women.
Being unavailable makes you attractive just like being desperately available makes you unattractive.

@ChaosEngine
that article was utter shit.

"friend zone" is a term used to shame women?
how can that possibly be considered an even remotely true statement?

she makes a valid point in that women are not binary creatures,and are mutli-faceted,nuanced and complex.well of COURSE they are,but the "friend zone" is from the guys perspective,not a woman's!

do you know why the majority of some men end up in the "friend zone"? or should we just change that term to be more accurate "i am not interested in you because you put all your cards on the table in the first five seconds,so while i think that is sweet,i no longer am curious about you,because i already got you".

you know..the "friend zone",or as chris rock put it "emergency dick,just break glass".

the problem here is that while relationships are a long slog of compromise,negotiation and mutual respect to work towards a common goal.romantic courtships are akin to a game,a playful dance fueled by curiosity,intrigue and of course:lust.

the men who who get relegated to the "friend zone" do not understand this very basic tenant of courtship.they reveal all their cards up front,and while that may be the most honest approach,and one that women have been openly asking for,it ignores that underneath it all,a woman wants romance,mystery and a sense of discovery that will continually peak their interests.

they want to be woo'd,they want courtship and romance.
when a man shows all his cards he takes that way from the woman,and now that she knows she can "have" him.he no longer interests her.

and what the author of this article so callously ignores is that the "friend zone" is not really a friend at all,but a surrogate for a boyfriend.having a bad day?she calls her "friend".feeling bloated and unattractive? has her "friend" come over to make her feel better about herself.needs a date for her company christmas party and doesn't want to go alone? get her "friend" to come along.

so it should not be a surprise that some men find this hurtful and degrading.

but she has a point,the woman owes them nothing.the woman was honest and forthright and it is the man who has put himself in this position.

and let me be clear before i am accused of being a misogynist pig.

some men do the exact same thing,and i am guilty of it myself.

i grew up with three sisters,so i tend to be more aware and sensitive to women's choices,and i respect their space.i have never been one to push myself on any woman.i was never the one to pursue or as this article describes "persistent",because i saw that as a bit "stalky".

so if i was interested in a woman,and that interest was not reciprocated,i shifted to "friend" mode with no issue.to me it was a win-win.ok,so she was not interested in me in that way,but she is super cool,and interesting and now i have a really interesting and intriguing friend.

now here is an interesting thing that happened maybe half of the time.my new friend and i would hang out,go to pubs,clubs,movies and sometimes just make dinner and watch movies.friends right? she was upfront and honest with me that she was not interested in me in that way,and i can respect that.

and then one day she would have her college friend over for dinner (this is a true story btw,one of many).her friend was cute,smart,witty and had a sick sense of humor.yep,i was digging on my friends college friend,and we were flirting up a storm.we were vibing hard,clicking like we knew each other for years.

now what do you think happened?
i bet you can guess.
and you would be right.
my friend,who was honest with me about not being interested,started to get real shitty with me.like offensive shitty and i really did not understand why.it came out of nowhere,and now she was acting like some jealous girlfriend.

so i pull her aside and i am like..what the fuck is wrong with you? you are being an asshole!

you know what she said to me? and i can remember this clear as day "watching my friend flirt with you,and seeing how much she is into you.i began to see you in a different light.i can see how she sees you,and that you are amazing but you are MY steve! not hers!".

and then she tried to kiss me,which was just awkward,because to me? she was in the "friend zone",and had been for over 6 months.i didn't want her that way.the irony here is that she could not handle that,and our friendship dissolved.which just fucking sucks.

this scenario has played out in my life quite a few times.so while anecdotal,i suspect women have had similar experiences.

so the "friend zone' may be considered a woman's thing directed at men,but in reality it is non-gender specific.most likely because woman are pursued more than men,but both men and women can be put in the "friend zone".

so what can we learn from this?
don't be a sap.
have some self respect and do not allow another person to use you for their own well being and sense of self.
if they are not interested? move on.
if they just want to be a friend? then be a friend,but do not expect anything more.if you cannot handle that,then move on.

pining away from a distance in the slim hopes that the focus of your affections will one day change their mind,is just pathetic.

and for fuck sakes,stop blaming that person for your heartache.
you put yourself in that position,and you can pull yourself out.

and the term "friend zone" is not used to shame women,that is just fucking stupid.the "friend zone" is a place that you put yourself in,because of flawed sense of romance,and you allowed yourself to be used for the betterment of another human being.so while you may be hurt and angry,you only have yourself to blame.

respect yourself yo.
/end rant

For all the talk of the general unattractiveness of the UK, Aisling Bea is very hot. Almost as hot as Jimmy Carr's laugh.

My first thought about this video was 'Who doesn't know that the 'fashion industry' mostly wants sickeningly anorexic women that are completely unattractive to most men?'.
I like there to be some woman to my women.
If you need to see their face to be sure they aren't 12 year old boys, that's just not attractive to me...but then, I don't like 12 year old boys.
I have a hard time feeling sorry for this woman. I don't think she'll have any problem finding modeling work, just maybe not high fashion runway model work. She's better off IMO.

Im not racist, problem is political correctness want's to erase preference. I don't find them attractive. That's not racist. I have 3 black women that work for me. I hired them, but I'd never find them attractive. You can't choose a preference. And if I find it very unattractive then that's a preference not racism.

but sjw collectivism folks will try and spin it any way they can to get their way. So spin it however, I know what it is, and that's all that matters.

Individualism will always destroy Collectivism.

Tina Fey is great, but I wish she'd stop the whole "I'm plain and unattractive and no man would want me" schtick. It's patently untrue and I know plenty of women half her age who would love to look that good.

@SDGundamX

So you genuinely believe that make-up has nothing to do with sexuality? Make-up makes women look more attractive to men. That's why it exists. There is no distinction between "attractive" and "sexually attractive." They are one and the same. Society tells women that without make-up, they are unattractive. It's also a double-standard, as men are not expected to wear make-up (unless they're on TV).

And basic hygiene is not a valid analogy. Hygiene is a matter of practicality. If you didn't bathe or wear deodorant, you would stink and annoy those around you, increasing friction and reducing productivity in the workplace. Make-up, on the other hand, is purely cosmetic. It serves no purpose other than making yourself more sexually appealing. It's the same reason why women are expected to shave their legs and armpits and have slim but curvy bodies. It's the same reason why they wear high heels.

Idealized gender representations exist solely for the sake of increasing your sexual appeal. If you don't live up to these representations, society looks down upon you and makes you feel like shit. Women wear make-up because they are insecure about their appearance. They're insecure because society has created notions of beauty that are unattainable through natural means.

One of the many core and wrong ideas in Feminism is that the sex of a person doesn't seem to play much of a role in anything. And in this case, Feminism is responsible for holding back medical science. Feminism is a blight on intellectual discourse. I'm not going to spend the time it takes to unravel a snake like Feminism here, but in brief, it's an untenable ideology.

One of its core philosophies is the idea of the Patriarchy, which is not only theoretical, but creates hypocritical scenarios in Feminist debate.

For instance, Feminists state that the Patriarchy supports and allows men to lead privileged lives. Yet when it is pointed out that men are sentenced twice as long for exact same crimes; men have zero protection of their genitals as babies; that there is FAR more funding for women's schooling, businesses, and health; or that in any emergency situation it is expected that men's lives are forfeit - the argument you'll get back is "See, Patriarchy hurts men too!". This rebuttal is in obvious contradiction to the idea that Patriarchy allows men to live privileged lives.

Another core idea is wage gap which has been disproven over and over for decades, even by some Feminsts:

http://www.topmanagementdegrees.com/women-dont-make-less/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.html

Feminism also focuses a great deal on "objectification", which presupposes that men are (always) sexually attracted to something *other* than the curves of a womans body. This is not only obviously off kilter for anyone with a basic understanding of evolutionary psychology, but has been scientifically proven false. Men are biologically wired to base mate finding on looks.

So the word 'objectification' actually becomes Feminist propaganda for the demonizing of male sexuality.

Furthermore regarding female objectification in society - we all often see the viral videos "How Women's Bodies Are Changed Beyond Recognition in Photoshop!" But consider that 80% of consumer dollars are spent by women. So in essence we have women complaining about women being objectified while women buy into objectification. What exactly do we expect advertising agencies to do?

I've even seen scenarios for men in which, if he found a woman attractive, then he's objectifying her; and if he found her unattractive, then he's shallow for only caring about looks.

Then there is argument from Feminists that Feminism helps to empower men as well. No, it doesn't. In fact much has been shown in the opposite: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/g2eme/feminists_tell_you_that_the_solution_to_mens/

98% of workforce deaths are male. You never see Feminists rallying to take on these jobs on the front lines in combat, or in jobs that involve heavy machinery, working outdoors in inclement weather, inhaling toxic fumes, or apprehending dangerous criminals. Why not? After all, fair is fair! Let's remove the stigma around men being "losers" if they are stay-at-home Dads, while Moms can be the breadwinners for once.

It's clear that Feminism isn't about gender equality. You never see Feminists rallying about how He-Man set an unrealistic body image for boys, but the focus and attention on Barbie has been unreal.

Take into consideration, among everything else I've stated, that words like "mansplaining" are part of Feminist vocabulary, and I think you start to get a picture why no self respecting man has anything to do with Feminism.

There's much much more research, evidence, and articles I can cite, but the final point is that Feminism is a toxic and counterproductive movement.

Perhaps there will be "equality between the sexes" when the likelihood of men becoming estranged from their children and families after a divorce is the same as it is for women... Or when the expectation of "supporting" one's family is actually spending time with them and not simply being their "wallet"...

I'll see equality when the life expectancy between men and women is the same... Or when the risk of becoming homeless is the same... Or to become a victim of violence (or simply being suspected of violence or threatened with violence due to ones gender) is the same.. Or when the probability of dying by suicide is the same. . . Perhaps we'll all be equal then.

I agree, I restricted my point to things that can easily be changed. That was intentional. Those were the sorts of comments she was complaining about (e.g. that she's being "intentionally unattractive"). Men would receive similar criticism. If straight up sinewy stud wore baggy assed stained hoodies to his weatherman job, or thick rimmed glasses and a pocket protector with suspenders then a handful of people would give him shit for it. I promise you. They would. A handful more will talk about how they don't give a fuck and want to jump on his magnetic pole. The rest will talk about how they hate "wintery mix."

You seem to miss my point. I think it's demeaning to suggest that being sexualized is the problem, or even that it is gendered. Cat calls, come ons and so forth should be seen for what they are. Compliments. The problem is exactly what you said in the last paragraph. What you look like, and the value of what you say should be seen as completely orthogonal dimensions. Unfortunately, in this world they aren't. That's lame.

If you have children with serious conditions, you still have to worry about small to medium sized businesses finding some reason to terminate you due to your child making their premiums go up. I mean they could do it to the employee, but chances are if you have something fairly serious it'll affect your job at some point and have to be mentioned before too long.

Or people who would rather not get treated for conditions because it puts them in a "high risk" category. While their insurance may not know exactly what they have, getting certain scripts will make it clear soon enough. So you run into the situation where the person is putting their health in the backseat to keep premiums low. Something that comes to mind here is Diabetes, and off the top of my head two reasons. 1) CDL Truck drivers and probably as some point in the future, regular licenses have to get tested and approved more often if they have diabetes and have more restrictions on them. Makes you unattractive to trucking companies, you can't conceal it easily since you have to make it known to get your license.
2) It puts you at a higher risk for other health issues or is often linked to other health issues. So your premiums are going to go up because of this. If you're on a tight budget, it might not be within the realm of out of pocket costs if you have to carry your own insurance.


As much as companies bitch about health care costs, they really have some people by the nuts with how it's setup.

And I don't think he's making the point that money should be given to anyone, he's making the point that having it tied to businesses puts you at a severe disadvantage if you have a urgent NEED for healthcare due to chronic conditions. The case and point being the guy who needs "catastrophic coverage" and pays out 10 grand a year before his insurance kicks in. A very large company can absorb people like that, even a medium to large could. Small and even mediums could not without a really lucrative cash influx. It really limits your options, because unless you are making more than the same people in your position...they will find a way to replace you if you get too expensive. They do it all the time, they just need to find one reason to terminate you. And it's pretty damn hard to be perfect, especially when you're sick and have to deal with the issues that come with it.


It's a really messed up situation if you're not a very skilled sick person or a very healthy unskilled person (with no sick family).

Have to look at other government ran healthcare systems for examples of maybe what he wants. I don't think the US is going to get there....too many people with lobbying power making bank on your health. Which is pretty much happening across the board in many markets, they aren't controlling themselves because the people profiting have too much power over them.

From a feminist friend of a friend:

“This is nice and it’s cool for a straight guy to talk about having a new perspective on the male gaze, good for him. but the fact that it’s gone so viral is a little upsetting to me. do we really expect so little of men that Dustin Hoffman recognizing that, you know, beauty doesn’t necessarily accompany substance (and vice versa) is inspirational?”

So, what's his big revelation here? That unattractive women are interesting, too? Really? Not impressed.

He admits to working his fame on attractive women and then felt guilty for it, and made Tootsie to make up for his guilt (and cashed in, in the process). I don't hold it against him for having a "come to Jesus" moment, by dressing up in drag. I don't even care that he got emotional when he shared it with the American Film Institute, as some sort of cultural revelation.

What bothers me is that we live in a culture that feeds off these momentary glimpses of heart, when we all know that there is really so much more. And that this admiration for such a minor insight really sets the standard far too low.

Let's not mistake a sincere moment with actual, you know, integrity.
Sure, it's a sweet video and a sweet message (maybe a bit saccharine for my tastes). And Tootsie is, for sure, a great flick! But, crying on camera is not the limit-case for what constitutes a touching and meaningful moment, particularly one like this, devoid of any real context and depth. It's emptiness masquerading as meaning.

Crocodile.

Because men aren't trying to be attractive to men. Men are trying to be attractive to heterosexual women.

However, the woman in this video is incentivized to be attractive to lesbians, so It seems unintuitive that she would try to look manly when she knows that is unattractive to lesbians like herself.

I don't have a problem with it, whatever makes them happy, but it is a bit odd, right? Your reply and the video don't get at the real issue -- why are there different types of lesbians. Sexuality is complicated.

her character always looks so disheveled and rather unattractive imo. But here, wow, she looks VERY sexy.