Is there any scientific study done to show who is more shallow

>>8911712
Define shallow by a number

>>8911725
3

>>8911712

Sure. Find a study comparing who is more willing to pay for hookers.

>>8911772
that's selecting for male behavior. your study is intrinsically biased.
why not find a study on how relationships begin and end?

>>8911791

>that's selecting for male behavior. your study is intrinsically biased.

Why? There should be a female demographic present as well. Paying for sex is probably the shallowest form of finding a sexual partner. Aside from maybe rape.

>why not find a study on how relationships begin and end?

I don't see how would this show anything and there's too many factors involved.

>>8911791
>>8911799
>show pictures of average males with diferent dresses and cars, showing diferent social status
>measure vagina moist and brain waves
>too hard to do for science

>>8911801

But anon asked for difference between the genders. Your test is designed only for females.

>>8911803
>make the same test but for males
>measure penis erection and brain waves

>>8911772
Why would women pay for hookers when they can ride the cock carousel for free 24/7 plese tell me you fucking faggot

>>8911772
Or a study comparing who is more likely to fuck for money.

>>8911809

Why would men pay for hookers when they can shove cocks in for free 24/7?

>>8911799

This works both ways.

Demonstrates that one sex is more willing to pay for intercourse.

Demonstrates one sex is more concerned with exchanging money for intercourse than with aesthetics of their partner.

>>8911815

Maybe that's the conclusion of the study. I wouldn't know.

>>8911813
>>8911813
Because they can't you fucking retarded faggot. Thats the fucking difference, women can go in a club or even on the fucking street and nobody will decline if asked to have sex with her while with men you need to look good, impress, flirt etc to fuck a women

>>8911820

>Because they can't you fucking retarded faggot.

Neither can females. So what's your point?

>Thats the fucking difference, women can go in a club or even on the fucking street and nobody will decline if asked to have sex with her

That makes men are much more shallower than women.

>>8911826
>Neither can females. So what's your point?
Yes they can't even though I showed you just a basic example, fukk history and logikz and shiet nigga
>women who offers herself is supposed to be deeper than the one who just consumes
I'm leaving this brainlet thread

>>8911834

>Yes they can't even though I showed you just a basic example, fukk history and logikz and shiet nigga

You didn't showed any evidence or study.

>women who offers herself is supposed to be deeper than the one who just consumes

And the man who accepts random sex is not shallow? It takes two to be shallow, that's my fucking point.

bitches aint shit but hoes and tricks

>>8911826
You're a dumb piggot

>>8911812
bingo

>>8911772
That's like saying poor people are greedier because they even take degrading jobs in order to earn money.

No one seems to be asking the right questions to come up with a proper way of measurment...
How do you define shallowness?
Fucking only people who look the best?
Fucking only people who earn a high income?

>>8912234
Exactly.

How do you define shallow without defining it's opposite, "deep"?

As I understand "deepness" is an ambiguous, unquantifiable quality.

>>8911826
This just shows it's harder for males to get sex then females.
Even if a female COULD fuck whoever they want they wouldn't. Only those who show a particular trait that they find sexy.
If a male / female couldn't get laid at a club and they go pay for it instead, does it show that person is shallow at all or just horny af

>>8912234
my measure of shallowness is whether they're willing to have sex with me. According to my data analysis, everyone so far is shallow.

>>8911712
Women are far more shallow. They are far better at masking it and manipulating the opposite sex too.

>>8911772
Are there not reasons to want to have sex with someone besides how they look that would still be considered shallow?
Like they have a lot of money or friends or power etc.

>>8912271
Another question. When would you want to have sex with someone for an unshallow reason?
Isn't sex overall a shallow thing? I wouldn't know.
t. virgin

>>8912271
better question, is there any reason any human on earth has ever wanted to have sex with anyone that was NOT shallow?

>>8912274
When you have sex with someone because you genuinely like them and want to make them feel good for a couple of minutes without caring about your own pleasure.

Like when you lick her pussy and hire a big african man to fuck her.

>>8912274
love, you want to make your partner feel good

>>8912280
>>8912281
I don't know if that should be considered unshallow. I would totally want my partner to feel good having sex with me because I'm hoping for more sex out of the relationship.

File: mis4.jpg (1MB, 3596x2102px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3596x2102px

>>8911712
>Is there any scientific study done to show who is more shallow when looking at sexual partners, males or females?
Yes. See bottom right.

>>8912216

I don't understand the analogy.

>>8912245

>Even if a female COULD fuck whoever they want they wouldn't. Only those who show a particular trait that they find sexy.

Precisely my point. I think measuring shallowness is a moot point as it's too hard to define really.

>If a male / female couldn't get laid at a club and they go pay for it instead, does it show that person is shallow at all or just horny af

Which again brings us to the dodgy question of what shallow is. If you want to define shallow through means of hedonism then I guess the most hedonistic reason of having sex is the most shallow. So if someone goes for hookers just to satisfy themselves purely for hedonistic urges; I'd consider that as a shallow act.

>>8912271

>Are there not reasons to want to have sex with someone besides how they look that would still be considered shallow?

I think generally making a person objectified as a sex toy for yourself is a pretty shallow way of being.

>>8912274

>When would you want to have sex with someone for an unshallow reason?

That entirely depends on what kind of moral ethic you and your society has. If you want traditional western set of values then it would be procreation. Generally I think mutual affection is an unshallow reason for sex.

>Isn't sex overall a shallow thing? I wouldn't know.

Absolutely not.

Sex is just sex get over it.

File: pol mis.jpg (287KB, 1223x1570px) Image search: [Google]

287KB, 1223x1570px

>>8912317
>Sex is just sex

>>8911712
Not aware of any experiments out of my drunken head (this took. Me 3 minutes ti write )
But every test devised (which we've dine al well) proves that women, male (with testicles) animals, niggers and sand people are closer amd quicker to revert to the Limbic System. Otherwise known as the Flight or Flee mechanism. So more primitive.

The length of the index finger (shorter than the ring) shows that the baby was subjected to more testosterone in the womb.

A longer index finger than ring finger means you're gay or something.

And back to my point. If you're a woman with shorter or equal length ring finger you're probably good. You're a woman and find "manliness" attractive your dude probably has a longer ring finger.

>>8912356
Drunk as fuck still.

Who is more shallow. Men or women. I'd can't answer. This is my major but I need some data. Women and the other primitive beings are quicker to resort to primitive measures like monkey's and Muslims. As a Dutchman who identifies as a Dutch white man, who isn't Tumblr and CNN indoctrinated. I can safely say that American women are being indoctrinated, under the disguise of "empowering".

Well I'd assume that males are shallower, our only purpose is to spread our seeds so pretty much anything which can produce healthy offspring should be a viable partner. Females on the other hand have to have a long term plan as they have to carry this child for up to 9 months and then nurture it for a good decade, therefore they have to be more picky with partners

>>8911712
Obviously women, their morals cease to exist if you are not attractive.

>>8912234
I thought they meant how much people look at the outside instead of inside because both sexes would be equally shallow in that case considering the first thing we judge people by is their looks or presentation.

>>8911799
>Paying for sex is probably the shallowest form of finding a sexual partner.
No, I'd say getting paid for sex is even shallower.

>>8911834
Bye incel

>>8912590

People getting paid for sex aren't doing it to find sexual partners which was the original question.

File: woemnratings.png (19KB, 503x644px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 503x644px

>>8911712

>>8912642
I don't think this is evidence that women are shallow. I think it's more evidence that they just don't experience physical attraction nearly as much as men do. Which isn't necessarily a defense of women, but still.

File: Opinions.jpg (173KB, 460x760px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 460x760px

>>8911791
>paying for sex is inherently a male behavior

>>8912651
How much women experience physical attraction is completley irrelevant in this case. This simply shows that if you ask an average women look at an average group of men and decide which ones are very attractive and which ones are very unattractive that they would consider most of the men unattractive.

>>8912651
>more evidence that they just don't experience physical attraction nearly as much as men do
>wow all these guys are fucking ugly
Wew.

>>8911712
>Is there any scientific study done to show who is more shallow when looking at sexual partners, males or females?
Empiricism, not even once.
Sexist, and racist rationalists don't exist.

>>8912743
They do, they just don't publish their shit because they know they would instantly get castigated if they did so.

>>8912763
Oh really? How do I get a hold of these salacious papers?
I think a lot of people would actually be interested in non-biased studies into controversial topics.

>>8912763
My point was gender and race differences can be substantiated by empircal evidence but not by reason.
It would have been better worded as rationalism cannot be sexist but empiricism can. If a so called rationalist happens to be racist or sexist they did not come upon those views by rationalism

>>8912775
That's the thing, generally people who try to publish this sort of stuff get shit on by the academic community as a whole and essentially lose all their credibility for doing so, so most people who have an interest in studying these things either don't do so to keep their careers afloat or do so quietly.

So yea, a lot of people are very VERY interested in these sorts of studies, in much the same way that the Roman Inquisition was interested in Galelio's "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems"

>>8912776
I think I'm following you

>>8912793
From what I can tell people who do these studies generally do a really shitty job and that's why they're shit on.
It would be difficult to get a study like this approved by the ethics board I think.

>>8912815
Men need competence in every aspect of life in order to reproduce, women need to look pretty and be fertile. Men become better at a faster rate than women, because useless men are constantly rejected.

>>8913066
didn't mean to reply

>>8911712
hubby's pretty cute.

both are pretty shallow, OP.
Males just pick looks over status.

Google Ted Talk about research based on porn searches:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-A8GvUehq4

>>8912314
>I don't understand the analogy.
brainlet

Is there really anything that can be done about this bullshit, though?

The fact that I can't think of any way to fix it what's most depressing.

Any study on shallowness should be done with consideration to both the male and female's occupation of choice.

For instance even without raw data to back up a female doctor is on average more trust worthy as a future mate than a female model. This is obviously because the female doctor doesn't need a male for security and is more likely to be in a relationship with you because she desires it rather than needs it.