[Polyhedron] Are women interested in this type of fantasy?

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Hmm, I should probably modify my stance against ineffectual.

If the question is simply whether or not women are attracted to ineffectual men, than a lot of my prior rant is all off.

I imagine most heterosexual men would also say they would not be attracted to someone who lets others take advantage of them, has no talents or abilities, and needs to be rescued all the time. High-maintenance is a polite slang phrase for such a character.

If on the other hand, you were to translate the real scenario behind romance adventures into more general terms I am certain you would get a roughly universal response from both genders.

Try asking women,

"How would you like to go on an exciting adventure free of real risk and full of moral accomplishment, athletic achievement, and exotic beauty at the end of which we hook you up with a cute guy?"

The guy described at the begining of the thread didn't sound to ineffectual so much as poorly posed, noone wants a muscle bound anything hanging uncomfortably, and dangerously, off of their leg. Now if the muscle bound guy had been clinging slightly lasciouvsly to the woman in a properly balanced stance I am certain the effect would be much more attractive and less subversive.

Would love to see that picture by the way.

As for the idea that woman don't like men who grovel for their attention... ...compare a poster of Star Wars with Leia at Luke's feet, there's something else that turned out to be more than a little subversive, with a poster of Gone with the Wind where Scarlett is surrounded by her many many suitors.

 

[Uzumaki]

This is... a kinda strange topic. I'm a video game RPG nerd, so I'll put this in terms in which I think. If I were Cloud (minus the schizotypal disorder and the blond hair), and he were Aerith, hell yeah, I'd still go for him. Why not? Cute, nice, smart, sorta mysterious; so what if he gets in trouble. Everybody does.

Granted, I'm an atypical human being, male or female. I like flowers, video games, chocolates, cars, football, cats, surfing, and lifting weights. I don't like hugs, porn, spending a long time in the bathroom, perfume, or farting.

You can't really nail somebody's behavior down just because they're a man or a woman. Sure, there are differences, but they're probably outnumbered by similarities. And social conditioning plays a huge factor in the way everybody behaves. Studies done on preschoolers? The girls and the boys act differently because they've been treated differently since the moment they were born.

 

[Morbidity]

Kahuna, I'm not being hypersensitve. I'm not even threatened. Let's not escalate this.

I am simply asking if women in general are attracted to ineffectual men (the magazine's words, not mine). Its simply a curiosity.

I think the number of women attracted in ineffectual men is probably not all that different to the number of men attracted to ineffectual women. It never ceases to amaze me when someone intelligent and eminently capable hooks up with someone clearly their intellectual inferior who often seems to live their life somewhat through the other person. However the couple themselves are happy, so who am I to judge.

I think the majority of people are happier in a partnership where talents are spread equally between the two ... a girl/guy who is ineffectual in some areas can be quite attractive (stereotypes of incredibly intelligent people who completely lack common sense come to mind) - but someone who is ineffectual in all areas?

In terms of the game, I see no reason why there would be a problem with rescuing a guy. Even the most effectual and capable guys must after all find themselves in situations they need to be rescued from now and then - if they needed rescuing though because they were completely ineffectual though I would question why I would bother when clearly they are just a victim who will need rescuing again next week from someone else.

 

[rounser]

I think the number of women attracted in ineffectual men is probably not all that different to the number of men attracted to ineffectual women.

I don't think it's mirrored perfectly for the shallow end of mating. From what I know of people, shallow men are less likely to care if a woman is "ineffectual" so long as she's beautiful, and shallow women are less likely to care for the other failings of a man so long as it appears that he has means (e.g. cash, power, a future etc.)...which usually implies being "effective" to some degree. For more permanent relationships and not-so-shallow people, yeah, I think you're more likely to be correct.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Kahuna, I'm not being hypersensitve. I'm not even threatened. Let's not escalate this.

I am simply asking if women in general are attracted to ineffectual men (the magazine's words, not mine). Its simply a curiosity.

One, as pointed out earlier, the magazines words were actually "somewhat ineffectual".

More to the point, with respect and the understanding that you may not be aware of your own tone (happens to me enough) you were not simply asking. Quotes from your orriginal post :

"Poly tried to reinforce this suggestion with the cover art ..."

"It seems they are trying to turn human nature upside down. "

"In this case, the stereotype is based on reality. "

"Men want to be the protector, women the nurturers. Women want to be protected by the men they are romantically interested in. "

"It is just saying that women are generally not attracted to men that are physically weaker than themselves (as indicated by their need to be rescued)."

It is only in the final paragraph that you bothered to indicate that you were looking for any actual data from more than one woman (or perhaps from the women in Poly's target audience). The rest of your post was very strongly worded as the 'facts' of how (all) women and (all) men think, and as such was fairly insulting to a woman who does not conform to your assumptions.

Even after a woman had posted to make it clear that there was AT LEAST one very real woman who did not fit your assumptions, and challenged the broad application of those assumptions, your response was this :

"Randomling, there is a human nature - or more specifically, male and female nature. Scientists have recently discovered what wise men and women have known for centuries. That is, men and women are different. Their brains work differently."

Combined with your earlier absolute comments, this is not an inquiry anymore, this is you telling us (including women) how woman DO and more importantly SHOULD think. It is insulting, especially with the comment about "wise" men and women having thought this way. (It is also guilty of a common misinterpretation of scientific results which makes me absolutely buggy as an experimental design/stats wonk.)

Combining this with other posters who seem to interpret marketing to a modern audience as a plot to socially engineer impressionable youths with 'political correctness' (whatever that means this week ) and I feel my response was not an escalation, but a honest reaction. If the overall tone of your postings was unintentional, I would love to start over and discuss what it is about gamers/geeks/fans that makes the 'women rescueing men' idea more acceptable than it might be to your coworker.

Kahuna Burger

 

[jdavis]

Man, I completly agree with Kahuna Burger, that in and of itself sort of scares me. But I do agree with her interpretation of what was said. Anytime you say "Men think this way" or "Women think this way" then you are wrong, everybody thinks about things differently, there is no universal truth or all encompasing answer to any question on how 6,301,586,713* people think.
* http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/popclockw

Your presentation of the question seems to be based around the person being rescued being a total helpless victim who lacks the physical strength to defend himself, where does physical strength=effectual come into this. Hulk Hogan is a huge man but he would be pretty ineffectual in hand to hand combat with a tank, but a 80 pound chemo patient with a remote control missle launcher would have a pretty good chance at beating the tank.

The Nurse-Patient thing was brought up in this thread too and it is a prime example of this. By your own statement women want to nurture, falling in love with a person who can't take care of himself seems to be a extension of this.

Now to apply this to the actual question asked. The style of the books in question always ends up that the person rescued is A. extremely beautiful and B: a perfect match for the hero. The question you should be asking is: "Would a woman hate her perfect idea of a romantic partner if she had to rescue him?" Would the fact that he isn't wind up Bruce Lee on a stick take away from the fact that they are perfect for each other in every other way? The only thing implied here is the guy was "somewhat ineffectual" at rescuing himself. Nowhere did it say he was a 70 pound weakling, or that he was ugly, or that he was untalented, or completly inept. He could be the best looking being in the galaxy who just couldn't beat a lazer wielding army of mutant warriors, or he could of gotten shot in the leg and is not able to escape on his own anymore, maybe he is the chief of a less advanced tribe whose spear tossing warriors are somewhat ineffectual against a science fiction based martian army. There are dozens of ways to interpret this that doesn't involve the male being a completly inept victim in life.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Man, I completly agree with Kahuna Burger, that in and of itself sort of scares me.

hey, you and me both. But that sort of backs up the central point here - even when you are talking about individuals you can't just say "Kahuna Burger and Jdavis think differently" and have it be true all the time

Kahuna Burger

 

[Buttercup]

You know a male that needed to be resuced in some circumstance, need not be ineffectual and weak. He could have actually been a pretty tough guy, but was just a little stupid when he got himself into a fight he couldn't handle.

Ding ding ding! You win the cheesy stuffed bunny. And to answer Semper Jase, I don't think it's impossible that some character of mine might in future become interested in a man she had to rescue. It hasn't come up yet, though.

 

[KWARF]

Randomling, there is a human nature - or more specifically, male and female nature. Scientists have recently discovered what wise men and women have known for centuries. That is, men and women are different. Their brains work differently.

You landlubber! I'm sure the pop science or punditry magazine that you've been reading tells you this, but there's been no real reason to give scientific creedence to the statement that men and women have fundamental mental or gender differences that arise from brain differences.

The only places such claims have been made are in the opinion sections of reputabile journals or in the publications of those trying to sensationalize such a claim, either for profit or political gain. Some people like to throw around claims that science has proven that men' brains are butchy and women's brains are frilly, but they never quote (or often cite) an article or a study, do they? Yes, we're all different, but then we all went to school, didn't we. I remember fondly my days with the school, amongst the reefs.

My axe has split open a bunch of brains, and I can't tell the difference.

 

[KitanaVorr]

Originally posted by SemperJase
So ladies, I'm curious as to what you think. Is it reasonable to say that women would generally not be interested in romantic adventures in which they would be resuing the men?

I like to play the conflict type of romance. Basically a romance without a plot wired in there sort of sucks. I like equals sort of duking it out - give and take - witty sarcasm all the way. Love-hate type of thing.

Those of you who have found themselves in conflict to my PC's should recognize this a bit.