It is more important for a heterosexual woman to be sexy than a heterosexual man.
Debate Rounds (5)
Sexy: To be physically attractive to the OPPOSITE gender.
Well I would like to point out that while men attract women with money, success, status or humour. Women attract men with looks primarily.
Most women would go for a less physically sexy but more emotionally securing/pleasing option. On the other hand, most men would put up with a hot girl's b*tchiness if the nice girls she was competing with didn't visually please him all that much (NOT ALL MEN AND WOMEN APPLY TO THIS RULE OBVIOUSLY).
This I propose that for a women to be sexy is a more essential and important issue for her than being sexy is for a man.
It doesn't appear as though you're treating the first round as an acceptance round, so I suppose I'll take this as our opening arguments.
My position will be that it is no more important for a woman to be "sexy" than it is for a man to be "sexy," with the word "sexy" meaning to denote "physically attractive." A man that is physically attractive will get more attention from women, just as a woman with who is physically attractive will receive more attention from men. Don't forget that for both genders, behavior is just as relevant to physical attraction as is appearance. In other words, women who are feminine both in appearance and behavior. Men who are masculine in both appearance and behavior. If there's a dearth or imbalance between these two aspects (appearance and behavior), then the person will appear less attractive.
So often, there are complaints that women will opt to spend time time with jerks as opposed to "nice guys", and this is likely because the jerk exudes some sort of behavior and appearance that the girl prefers, which the "nice guy" lacks. A "nice guy" in this regard could be someone ostensibly emotionally securing, but emotional security pales in comparison to sexiness when a woman is in the mood.
Ultimately, it comes down to what a person is looking for. A man would certainly pass on a beautiful, though biitchy girl, and opt for a chunkier or more homely variation when it comes to marriage. A wise man that doesn't expect divorce, at least.
I also notice that you point out that a man attracts women with moeny, success, status, or humor. Well, that's if he isn't attractive. Attractive men with confidence, especially if they have big diicks, don't need to use anything to attract women. Likewise, women who know how to work their skirts, heels, and makeup don't need to do much to attract men, either. But, those that don't need to rely on other things, like charm, nurturing, and sexual satisfaction.
You have successfully met your BOP of this resolution 'Being sexy is important for both heterosexual men and heterosexual women." You have, however, completely failed to attack, any manner, the theory that "It is more important for a heterosexual woman to be sexy than a heterosexual man."
The fact of men is this: Men compete to get women, it is apparent in all mammalian (especially primate) creatures. They compete via strength, via status, and (in humans) via financial security and the ability to flash off (yet still remain humble, arrogance isn't too hot). Men are all about competing with 'things' with 'what they've done' or 'what they've managed to earn' and the woman they end up with is similarly the 'woman they managed to get' and a large aspect of competing is how 'hot' she is. What evidence do I have? Well before World War two and the massive feminist uprising women were oppressed as hell. This is because men don't want to have to compete with them, it's because they wanted to keep them dependent on them and compete to get them, to own them so to say (financially). Men want to possess, they want to display not what they are, nor what they look like but rather what they look like AMONGST what they have earned (by any means necessary). Sure it's stereotypical but history has shown this nature o men all the time. Who were the greatest fighters? Men. Who were the nastiest criminals? Men. Who were the majority of inventors in this world? Men. Who were most philosophers? Men. Scientists? Men. Rappers? Men. Men, men, men again and again (a little rhyme for you). This is largely because their form and nature of competition was something difficult for the naturally SUBTLE and Hide and don't tell method of female competitiveness it's why women let men rule them for so long, they don't bother to compete physically, financially nor physically with men, this is rather unnecessary. Men ultimately compete with men (remember this resolution only applies to heterosexuals) women are only an obstacle perhaps in a working environment or in a domestic situation whereby she is able to keep your potential wife from marrying you.
The fact of women is this: Women do not 'compete' they 'destroy competition'. Let me explain the massive difference between men and women and explain why women are often far more willing to share a man sexually than the reverse. I notice my opponent is male which makes it difficult to prove this without evidence, since it's pure theory based on probability but VERY STRONG and justified probability. I can't prove to you this is the nature of women unless you hear my reasoning without prejudice until the end. So women want to marry men who help them get what they want (or did before feminists protested, I'm not attacking them, I'm just saying the world was more raw and natural before them). See unlike men, who want a woman who they can feel proud of having 'earned' so to say, women want a man who makes them feel WORTHY of being earned in the first place. The very fact that the vagina is a hole/goal and the penis is an offensive weapon designed to dive into this hole is a very symbolic representation of the fundamental difference that women have to men. Women KNOW men want them badly, they know that mister Channing Tatum will be sexy as hell in bed and is rich and successful but ask a woman would you actually genuinely want sex with him? Many would scream NO WAY! He's too full of himself! He's interested in girls way above me! OMG! See, if you were to ask a guy if he genuinely would f*ck Cheryl Cole, many would say yes regardless of the fact they know she genuinely prefers men of great status and can get them, men just want to grab the hot one. Women's prioritising system is far, more complex than the man's (on average). They want a rich man, but would pick a poor sweetheart over a rich pr*ck any day(usually). They want a sweetheart but would pick a teasing cocky guy with a slightly sensitive streak than a sensitive, boring guy with a slightly arrogant streak (usually). Their system for choosing men is full of contradictions because that is exactly the issue. Women do not find men. Men find women. Yes I am sexist because it is so true. A woman's role in the species is to bear a child, ultimately, and to find a suitable mate to PROVIDE FOR HER while she does. While his duty is cut out for him PROVIDE PROVIDE PROVIDE! Hers is to convince him, by any means necessary that he should provide for HER and help HER GENES pass on as opposed to miss Lucy-Lou down the other end of the cave (excuse my caveman reference but I think it is very relevant). Ultimately if she isn't able to make him horny he wouldn't even want to have kids with her (he wouldn't be doing his probably ugly daughter any favours would he now?) As brutal as it sounds women do not compete instead they destroy the competitive streak in men by making them 'stunned' so to say. The only real way to do this is to be sexy as hell (unless she is intelligent enough to stun him in another way to make him look past her ugliness).
I am a brutally honest rational madman. If what I say offends the norm's views of ethical discussion of the sexes then so be it. Please understand I am trying to find truth, to reach a conclusion, not to insult anyone but the only way to truly do so in this debate is to address a very hot and heated topic: Sexism.
R1. You have...completely failed to attack...the theory that "it is more important for a heterosexual woman to be sexy than a heterosexual man."
C1. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but this is beginning to seem as though it's going in the direction of a semantic argument. Either way, it appears we've neglected to define "important." For the sake of this argument, we'll define "important" as "conducive to attracting the opposite sex." If this is, in fact, the case, then I directly approached the assertion that it is more important for one gender than it is for the other. First, I presented evidence that there is not any more weight put on women to be physically attractive than there is on men by stating the fact that a man who is attractive will receive attention from women just as an attractive woman would receive attention from men. Then, I presented counter-evidence by referring to the oft-made complaint that jerks receive more attention than "nice guys," as jerks are more physically attractive to women than nice guys are. Finally, I indicated that your suggestion that women are attracted exclusively to status, money, and the like is fallacious, as attractive men do not need to use such things to attract women. They simply attract women, because they're attractive. These things can add to their perceived attraction, but physical attraction is, at first, physical, and relates to appearance and attitude, not the minutiae of the person's life.
Arguments and Rebuttals
A1. Men are all about competing with 'things' with 'what they've done' or 'what they've managed to earn' and the woman they end up with is similarly the 'woman they managed to get' and a large aspect of competing is how 'hot' she is.
R1. There are certainly men that are like that, but I contend that it's all men, or even most men, that carry their lives on in this manner. What you seem to be describing are hyperbolic caricatures dramatized by rappers. In reality, flaunting yourself or your status is a social faux pas. Quality women with whom one can have a fulfilling relationship aren't driven by such things. Most relationships that mean a damn result from physical attraction and compatible personalities alone. This is how all these great romances throughout literature between two people from completely separate walks of life even make sense.
A2. This society is patriarchal.
R2. That is completely irrelevant to women's tastes.
A3. Women don't compete, they destroy competition.
R3. There are entirely female sports leagues.
A4. Women are more willing to share a man sexually than the reverse.
R4. I see no evidence for this, apparent or otherwise. In my experience with women, they come in all degrees of jealousy, just like men. However, I've never heard of a group of women running a train on a man. In fact, I hear far more frequently in recounts of lewd experiences about women who indulge in many men, and I rarely hear stories of men who enjoy several women at once.
A5. Women want men to provide for them and give them everything they want and need.
R5. I got all your disclaimers and all this, but that's pretty disrespectful. Some women are like this, but really, there's a lot of guys like that, too. Latter-day society is a far cry from atavism. People no longer copulate due to primal, instinctive interest in gene perfection. People have emotional, complex relationships resulting from all sorts of situations and coming together in all sorts of ways. This is all not to mention the fact that physical attraction is not entirely objective.
Ugly guy who is caring and has money.
Ugly girl who is caring and has money.
Who can get laid far more often than the other? :)
Ultimately I would say there's definitely more pressure on the female gender to LOOK GOOD for the other than it is in reverse.
This is largely because while men have the pressure of getting a good job and basically being rich and dominant, they have little time for health matters (and if they do it's usually doing too much at the gym and ending up with an overly-ripped body). It's true that a hot guy is better off then an ugly one but not true that the ugly guy is nearly as disadvantaged as a female or equivalent ugliness.
The reality is this: If two men, one ugly, one hot, compete for the same woman the head-start the hot guy has is rather minimal if his personality and money isn't nearly as appealing as the ugly one's.
If two women, one ugly, one hot, compete for the same man the head-start the hot woman has is HUGE, EVEN IF the other girl is more successful financially and is kinder at heart. AN ugly girl can't really get her man very hard can she now?
Ultimately the world is sexist.
I'm really not sure on what you're basing your scenarios. People are not cut-and-dry like this. You cannot automatically predict what someone is going to do based on some superficial assessment of the parties involved. In other words, it's impossible to determine how some random man will react to two random women, one less physically attractive in your opinion, and with an amicable personality, and one without an amicable personality, but who is physically attractive in your opinion. These standards are vacuous -- dubios at best. There are all sorts of characteristics about a person that contributes to their physical attraction, including how they carry and assert themselves, how well they care for themselves, and so on. I've lived with a few women in my life, and I can tell you for a fact that a girl that wakes up looking fairly plain can walk out the door looking like a knockout, even without an overabundance of a single thing, like makeup. I can also tell you that there are several manifestations of a girl, and she can exhibit all degrees of physical attraction throughout the spectrum of their personas. When a girl lets herself go, and holes up in her room with unbaked cookie dough without brushing her teeth or washing, she will come out looking ratty and somewhat icky. However, after a shower, some exfoliation, and a little treat (say, painting her nails or something), she will blossom into a beautiful, delicious flower once again.
So, these coarse distinctions by which you're dividing people as though through divine ordainment, are false, if not because these distinctions are meaningless (a good personality and sexiness), then because one requires the other. But, if we were to accept these categorizations as factual and immutable, then they're self-defeating. Anyone in a relationship, man or woman, would be inclined to seek satisfaction elsewhere if they're not attracted to their mate. This is because, they aren't with their mate because they mutually decided that they fancied one another. Instead, one convinced the other to be with him, using money as coercion. Not only does money then define the relationship, making it false in its own right, but it still does not guarantee committment. Those who enter into a relationship due to mutual interest are attacted to one another, period, lest neither would have had the opportunity to enter into a relationship in the first place.
To my voters I must tell you why although it seems my argument has been destroyed, you actually should vote for pro anyway if you observe this objectively.
This is what I have attempted to do throughout the debate:
This is what my opponent has undoubtedly attempted to do throughout the debate:
Now I shall address the closing statement bit by bit:
"it's impossible to determine how some random man will react to two random women, one less physically attractive in your opinion, and with an amicable personality, and one without an amicable personality, but who is physically attractive in your opinion." nothing is random, otherwise everything is and your statement means that this debate should be impossible in first place.
"There are all sorts of characteristics about a person that contributes to their physical attraction, including how they carry and assert themselves, how well they care for themselves, and so on." That doesn't mean that I didn't include care for oneself and how one carries themselves around as factors affecting physical attractiveness, of course they do.
"I've lived with a few women in my life, and I can tell you for a fact that a girl that wakes up looking fairly plain can walk out the door looking like a knockout, even without an overabundance of a single thing, like makeup." And would you deny that she greatly benefits from this? Of course not, point proven. Why do you think women wear make up far more commonly? They NEED it to compete so to say.
"When a girl lets herself go, and holes up in her room with unbaked cookie dough without brushing her teeth or washing, she will come out looking ratty and somewhat icky. However, after a shower, some exfoliation, and a little treat (say, painting her nails or something), she will blossom into a beautiful, delicious flower once again." But why would she bother if she didn't gain a huge amount from it? EXACTLY!
"So, these coarse distinctions by which you're dividing people as though through divine ordainment, are false, if not because these distinctions are meaningless (a good personality and sexiness), then because one requires the other." If you are a good person but are ugly and are a woman you are not likely to find a mate compared with a sexy b!tch want to know how I know? Well, a man would be scared to marry such an ugly wife I mean better to not enter the relationship than have to tell her, to her face in bed, that she's too ugly for you to get hard (women don't have to get wet to have sex, lube is sufficient and they can even enjoy it eventually by rubbing the clitoris a lot whereas a man cannot masturbate at the same time as f*cking her can he now?).
" Anyone in a relationship, man or woman, would be inclined to seek satisfaction elsewhere if they're not attracted to their mate." The deal-breaker for men is largely based on how ugly or fat she is.
"This is because, they aren't with their mate because they mutually decided that they fancied one another. Instead, one convinced the other to be with him, using money as coercion." My point is that money would not really work in the reverse gender's scenario to even begin with coercion.
"Those who enter into a relationship due to mutual interest are attracted to one another, period, lest neither would have had the opportunity to enter into a relationship in the first place." Men enter it for looks predominantly, fascinated by the woman's 'beauty' often delusionally saying to friends "SHE IS A 10/10 dude so ridiculously hot!" whereas women would probably say "He's so kind, so sweet and ARRRGH he has the whole package, money, humour, Looks(but it is one of MANY factors) argh EVERYTHING!"
Thanks for the debate, may the best debater win.
Perhaps I wasn't clear in my initial arguments, but my point for asserting that a woman can transform herself is to indicate that physical attractiveness is relative. I'm not sure how you perceive the dating arena for men, but scroungy men that don't wash have just as hard a time picking up women as do frumpy women have attracting men. In fact, I notice that ugly men have a hard time ever getting laid at all, whereas unattractive women mostly complain about the caliber of men they attract. In that regard, women attract men no matter what. Some men simply don't have standards. And, this is usually because something's wrong with them, and that's why they're so lonely. If they're ugly, at least you know what the problem is, lol.
A point that you never approached is that a relationship built on money isn't real. It's essentially a purchased friendship with benefits, depending on the amount spent and the type of girl she is. Many women respect themselves enough, however, to seek relationships based on other standards, rather than the amount of money she can glean from him.
Ultimately, men who are "attractive" are considered "attractive" because they easily attract attention from the opposite sex. In this regard, there's just as much pressure on men to be attractive as there is on women. A guy with pit-stains, sweat under musky cologne, oily hair, dandruff, etc. -- these characters get no love.
As for your assertions about performance, men can masturbate before engaging sex with an, er, "ugly" girl. And, gee whiz, that's a trooper, a girl who would simply use lube and "wait for it to eventually feel good by rubbing the clit a lot." Oh-my-word. Talk about a history of men with performance issues. In any case, I don't imagine most men get away with that nonsense. If that kitty isn't wet, you're probably not putting anything in it.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Neither side provided any evidence to support their opinion, and that's a gross deficiency in a debate involving generalities. That leaves readers to judge based upon what seems to be true in society. I'll give Pro the edge, but it's a close call. One could vote for Con based upon believing Pro did not meet the burden of proof because he offered no evidence. I think it's obvious enough to give the edge to Pro.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.