What do girls/women look for in men?

[Evo]

This is the part you're not understanding, because you're assuming some Hollywood version of what women are supposed to consider good-looking applies across the board.

Thank you! You're like me when it comes to what is attractive.

Yes zoob, there has to be an attraction, what you don't seem to get is that my idea of attractive is not your idea of attractive. I used to go out with girlfiends and they'd be drooling over some guy that I would consider repugnant. It was great, we were never attracted to the same men.

 

[Moonbear]

Before her, I dated the way dogs chase cars. It was fun, but what do you do with one if you catch her?

It sounds funny when put that way, but is an accurate description of the differences MIH also described between those who are out for fun rather than a relationship, and those who have reached a stage of maturity where they are seriously looking for a long-term partner.

In answer to Loren's question, I don't think you could put a set age on it. Different people mature at different ages. It's also not an overnight change, but a gradual shift in attitudes. Some people figure it out pretty young, while still in their teenage years, others are well into their 30s before they finally settle down. I've even met some folks who didn't really seek mature relationships until they were in their late 40s. And some need a few divorces before it dawns on them that they need to take a different approach to finding a lifelong partner. And, I suppose there are people who never get there, who will play the field and choose looks over personality until the day they die...they're the serial divorcees. When you meet someone in their 50s or 60s and on their 5th spouse, all previous marriages ending in divorce, it's hard to imagine they're ever going to realize they're doing something wrong in the selection process.

 

[Astronuc]

I don't think I know anyone who is currently happily married who went out looking to find someone in any purposeful way, they just stumbled into the right person somewhere along the way while out doing the things they enjoyed anyway.

I was actually looking in a purposeful way, but I was having no luck. I met a lot of nice women, but we weren't compatible. My wife and I just stumbled across each other through mutual friends. Her best friend was living with my best friend at the time.

These are important things to discuss before marriage, and I think in a lot of failed marriages, part of the problem is they weren't discussed beforehand. I think a lot of people mistake having fun together as being enough to sustain a marriage. They enjoy going to dinners together, or out to clubs, or doing weekend activities, etc., but that just makes them a good friend and fun person to hang out with.

My wife and I spent hours talking about many things, but most importantly our history and where we hoped to go in life. We both came to the conclusion that we were compatible. We also realize that people change with time and experience, and along the way there have been bumps and surprises, but we work together and get through it.

When I met my wife, she had given up on men. She had been married before and then divorced after 11 months. She had a series of unsuccessful relationships. So when I first met her, she had concluded that she would never get married and especially never having kids. That changed in three months to "definitely getting married and probably having kids," but she had to quit smoking before that. My wife quit smoking (gradually) during the first few years of our marriage. It was tough for both of us, but she succeeded.

 

[matthew baird]

I am inclined to think that luck also plays a big role. Sometimes people can have the finest qualities but never meet someone who they want to be around. I think most people compromise at the end, when it comes to the point of do I want to be by myself or with someone I can tolerate? Perhaps it is that love and marriage do not always coincide for everyone and, for those that it does, they are indeed lucky.

Absolutely! I always wonder how many times I've been close or near someone who would be a perfect match. If the situation isn't right or you just don't talk to each other nothing happens. Interesting though to think about that. Just think you could have been standing in line right behind the right guy/gal but nothing happens, you glance at each other maybe smile, but no words then just go on about you buisiness, missed chance.

 

[Milo Hobgoblin]

This is the part you're not understanding, because you're assuming some Hollywood version of what women are supposed to consider good-looking applies across the board. It doesn't.

WRONG.

there are a very specific set of features.. that women and men find attractive in the opposite sex. Those features are VERY prevalent in that "good looking Hollywood type" (one of the reasons they have the job in the first place)

We are biologically inclined to seek out those traits in a mate... So I guess you are now saying there are all these people out there who arent attracted to those traits.. negating hundreds of thousands of years of biological instinct? LOL. Please... please tell me your kidding.

People considered attractive have many features in common.. men and women. Hair, teeth, bone structure, waist to chest and thigh ratios. They also have certain psychological traits.. various factors giving them a confidence to DISPLAY those traits in an attractive manner.. the bravado of the alpha male.. the sensual stance and walk of that beautiful woman. Those things are BUILT IN and we all have them to varying degrees.

Why do women delude themseleves to such an extreme about this. Its like fighting the tide... you CANNOT deny what you are attracted to.. its built in. These features are attractive because they imply a healthy mate who will produce healthy offspring (barring modern medicine of course.. or plastic surgery)

You may have TRAINED yourself to dislike those features because those "Hollywood Types" have rejected you.. but you are going against your natural instinct for psychological reasons. You may not like them out of a bitter spite.. because in some way they represent something you disregard as trivial or materialistic.. but a l;ittle wine and some attention from one of them and your knees turn to jello.

Geez for a bunch of people who pride yourselves on your intellectual endeavors and your beleifs in the integirty of the sciences... you just let it all fall apart on this thread.


I will say this.. men are much mroe honest about what they are attracted to.. but like I previously said.. get some tequila in a woman.. she becomes much more honest about her desires.

 

[matthew baird]

^^ hahah prepare for a retaliation from the gals...

 

[Milo Hobgoblin]

ya honesty has a way of getting under peoples skin.

Sad thing is science and not emotion backs up everything I've said..

 

[arildno]

Sad thing is science and not emotion backs up everything I've said..

This is such a silly comment. Attraction IS emotions, and any "science" denying that, or contradicting the emotional evidence happens not to BE a science.

A true science does not sweep inconvenient evidence under the rug; it let's the evidence have the last word. At all times. However emotionally compelling the thought construct misenterpreted as science is.

 

[Loren Booda]

The woman I know likes comments on "looks" when they're personal and positive, not characterizing or patronizing.

 

[Astronuc]

ya honesty has a way of getting under peoples skin.

Sad thing is science and not emotion backs up everything I've said..

As one said . . . WRONG! And one is not being honest.

^^ hahah prepare for a retaliation from the gals...

Hopefully, the gals won't waste their time.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Hopefully, the gals want waste their time.

yes, hopefully.

 

[Moonbear]

WRONG.

there are a very specific set of features.. that women and men find attractive in the opposite sex. Those features are VERY prevalent in that "good looking Hollywood type" (one of the reasons they have the job in the first place)

We are biologically inclined to seek out those traits in a mate... So I guess you are now saying there are all these people out there who arent attracted to those traits.. negating hundreds of thousands of years of biological instinct? LOL. Please... please tell me your kidding.

People considered attractive have many features in common.. men and women. Hair, teeth, bone structure, waist to chest and thigh ratios. They also have certain psychological traits.. various factors giving them a confidence to DISPLAY those traits in an attractive manner.. the bravado of the alpha male.. the sensual stance and walk of that beautiful woman. Those things are BUILT IN and we all have them to varying degrees.

Why do women delude themseleves to such an extreme about this. Its like fighting the tide... you CANNOT deny what you are attracted to.. its built in. These features are attractive because they imply a healthy mate who will produce healthy offspring (barring modern medicine of course.. or plastic surgery)

You may have TRAINED yourself to dislike those features because those "Hollywood Types" have rejected you.. but you are going against your natural instinct for psychological reasons. You may not like them out of a bitter spite.. because in some way they represent something you disregard as trivial or materialistic.. but a l;ittle wine and some attention from one of them and your knees turn to jello.

Geez for a bunch of people who pride yourselves on your intellectual endeavors and your beleifs in the integirty of the sciences... you just let it all fall apart on this thread.


I will say this.. men are much mroe honest about what they are attracted to.. but like I previously said.. get some tequila in a woman.. she becomes much more honest about her desires.

What a bunch of complete and utter B.S.! The only studies I know of pick a few features and determine if there is a greater percentage of women who find those attractive compared to some other set of features. They're pretty basic, only pick a limited set of features, and if you look at the actual data, you will see there is no such thing as 100% preference for one feature type over the other. Quite simply, if every woman on the planet liked the exact same set of features, no other features would exist in our current gene pool...sexual selection is a very strong factor in species evolution.

I agree with MIH on this, you sound like nothing but a troll here. And, yeah, get some tequila in me, and I'll be more honest, and you wouldn't like what you'd hear, because I wouldn't show the restraint I'm showing here about telling you exactly what I think of your comments and attitude about women.

 

[JasonRox]

What a bunch of complete and utter B.S.! The only studies I know of pick a few features and determine if there is a greater percentage of women who find those attractive compared to some other set of features. They're pretty basic, only pick a limited set of features, and if you look at the actual data, you will see there is no such thing as 100% preference for one feature type over the other. Quite simply, if every woman on the planet liked the exact same set of features, no other features would exist in our current gene pool...sexual selection is a very strong factor in species evolution.

I agree with MIH on this, you sound like nothing but a troll here. And, yeah, get some tequila in me, and I'll be more honest, and you wouldn't like what you'd hear, because I wouldn't show the restraint I'm showing here about telling you exactly what I think of your comments and attitude about women.

I know it sounds like bull****, but I heard about a similar study before.

But the one I saw was mens attractiveness to women, and they found that all men in general are attracted to the same physical features as men around the globe. They even went to isolated tribes and choosing from images they picked on average the same images we do in the modern world.

Of course, it isn't concrete. I'm sure you can find those studies somewhere.

Note: I don't agree with the alcohol to loosen up because after some alcohol the ladies go towards ugly guys and not the Hollywood type he/she is referring to.

 

[twisting_edge]

But the one I saw was mens attractiveness to women, and they found that all men in general are attracted to the same physical features as men around the globe. They even went to isolated tribes and choosing from images they picked on average the same images we do in the modern world.

I ran into that same study. It does exist.

The thing that most surprised me was the average peak age of femal attractiveness. It was like 14. Of course, there WERE a lot of tribal types involved, and people tend to age rapidly in primitive conditions, but the age still seemed young. Poor nutrition should delay sexual maturity a lot. You'd think it would have had an offsetting effect.

The other big conclusion ("young" was the top of the list) was a good hip-to-waist ratio. The preference for fat and thin may reverse between societies, but the hip-to-waist ratio was the other clear universal indicator beyond age.

 

[Moonbear]

I know it sounds like bull****, but I heard about a similar study before.

I just acknowledged there were studies, but they are very limited. For starters, they focus on face shape, most are also limited to only specific parts of the face (chin shape, brow line, etc), and, as I said, there is never 100% of the women tested agreeing on the same face. I've even heard talks from people doing these types of studies, and have asked them if they ever tested for any other aspects of male appearance...body shape, hip to shoulder ratio, etc., and the answer I always get is "no." Now, if I happen to be someone who notices a guy's shoulders more than his face, or don't use appearance to choose partners, and I'm asked to rank computer generated facial features of which I find more attractive, does that actually mean anything about which guy I would find more attractive? A guy might have a face that's attractive (meaning pleasing to the eyes, not necessarily someone I'd want to date), but if the rest of his body and mind aren't what matters to me, he's not someone I'm actually going to date. And, most studies find that the "average" composites are the ones people are most attracted to...in other words, if a lot of features are averaged together, people will find something in it that appeals to them.

Here are some examples:

Proc Biol Sci. 2002 Nov 22;269(1507):2285-9.Testosterone increases perceived dominance but not attractiveness in human males.

Swaddle JP, Reierson GW.

Biology Department, College of William & Mary, Williamsburg, VA 23197, USA. jpswad@wm.edu

Recent evidence suggests that certain features on the human face indicate hormonal levels during growth, and that women judge the attractiveness of potential partners based on the appearance of these features. One entrenched notion is male facial features that are affected by testosterone are used as direct cues in mate preference. Testosterone may be particularly revealing as it is purported to be an honest indicator of male fitness. Increased testosterone may impose an immunocompetence handicap on the bearer and only the best males can carry this handicap. To date, tests of this theory have been indirect, and have relied on digital manipulations that represent unrealistic continuums of masculine and feminine faces. We provide a much more direct test by manipulating digitally male faces to mimic known shape variation, caused by varying levels of testosterone through puberty. We produced a continuum of faces that ranged from low to high levels of testosterone in male faces and asked women to choose the points on the continuum that appeared most attractive and most physically dominant. Our data indicate that high testosterone faces reveal dominance. However, there is no evidence of directional selection for increased (or decreased) testosterone in terms of attractiveness to the opposite sex. We discuss the relevance and applicability of evolutionary interpretations of our data and, contrary to predictions, provide evidence of stabilizing selection acting on testosterone through mate preferences.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=Display&DB=pubmed

Br J Psychol. 2002 Nov;93(Pt 4):451-64. Related Articles, Links

The role of masculinity and distinctiveness in judgments of human male facial attractiveness.

Little AC, Hancock PJ.

School of Psychology, University of St Andrews, UK. acl3@st-andrews.ac.uk

Masculinity and distinctiveness have been found to influence the attractiveness of human male faces. The relationship between masculinity and distinctiveness, however, has received little attention. In Expt 1, we examine how current averaging techniques and manipulated sexual dimorphism influence ratings of attractiveness, masculinity, and distinctiveness. In agreement with previous studies, composite faces were found to be more attractive than individual faces. Averaging resulted in increased ratings of attractiveness but decreased ratings of masculinity and distinctiveness. This supports both that attractiveness is related to averageness and findings showing a preference for feminine traits in male faces. When controlling for attractiveness, no significant relationship was found between masculinity and distinctiveness. Manipulating sexual dimorphism did not alter distinctiveness ratings, indicating that feminized and masculinized faces are equally distinctive. These results are suggestive that masculinity and distinctiveness are separable components in face perception. In Expt 2, we look to improve on previous studies utilizing composite faces by examining how averaging in texture-only or shape-only changes perceptions of attractiveness, masculinity, and distinctiveness. Averaging in both shape and texture were found to increase attractiveness independently, showing that the increased attractiveness of composites is due to the combined action of these two manipulations.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=Display&DB=pubmed

Proc Biol Sci. 2006 Jun 7;273(1592):1355-60.
Correlated preferences for facial masculinity and ideal or actual partner's masculinity.

DeBruine LM,
Jones BC,
Little AC,
Boothroyd LG,
Perrett DI,
Penton-Voak IS,
Cooper PA,
Penke L,
Feinberg DR,
Tiddeman BP.
School of Psychology, University of St Andrews, St Andrews KY16 9AJ, UK. lisa@debruine.info
Studies of women's preferences for male faces have variously reported preferences for masculine faces, preferences for feminine faces and no effect of masculinity-femininity on male facial attractiveness. It has been suggested that these apparently inconsistent findings are, at least partly, due to differences in the methods used to manipulate the masculinity of face images or individual differences in attraction to facial cues associated with youth. Here, however, we show that women's preferences for masculinity manipulated in male faces using techniques similar to the three most widely used methods are positively inter-related. We also show that women's preferences for masculine male faces are positively related to ratings of the masculinity of their actual partner and their ideal partner. Correlations with partner masculinity were independent of real and ideal partner age, which were not associated with facial masculinity preference. Collectively, these findings suggest that variability among studies in their findings for women's masculinity preferences reflects individual differences in attraction to masculinity rather than differences in the methods used to manufacture stimuli, and are important for the interpretation of previous and future studies of facial masculinity.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=16777723&query_hl=3&itool=pubmed_docsum

 

[Hurkyl]

Why do women delude themseleves to such an extreme about this

*shrug* Why do you delude yourself of the notion of an irresistable alpha male?

 

[JasonRox]

For starters, they focus on face shape, most are also limited to only specific parts of the face (chin shape, brow line, etc), and, as I said, there is never 100% of the women tested agreeing on the same face.

I certainly wouldn't think it would be a 100%!

Yeah, I'm familiar with some of those studies, but I remember one what was more focused on hip size, and chest size. Like the actually proportion of the body itself. Males were given images of the front, back, and side of all types of figures. In a silhouette style picture, and on average, most males picked one of the specific figures. There were like 10 or maybe more to choose from, so it wasn't like skinny, athletic and fat.

 

[Moonbear]

I certainly wouldn't think it would be a 100%!

Yeah, I'm familiar with some of those studies, but I remember one what was more focused on hip size, and chest size. Like the actually proportion of the body itself. Males were given images of the front, back, and side of all types of figures. In a silhouette style picture, and on average, most males picked one of the specific figures. There were like 10 or maybe more to choose from, so it wasn't like skinny, athletic and fat.

And would you marry a woman based on nothing but her silhouette from across the room?

 

[twisting_edge]

And would you marry a woman based on nothing but her silhouette from across the room?

Sure: sounds as good as any other method of committing suicide.

 

[Leah]

The "thing" that attracted me to my husband was his thoughtfulness and attention. I met him in a bar and I was asking him for quarters to put into the pistachio machine. He excused himself and said he would be right back. He had gone to the grocery store and bought me a jar of pistachio's. I know then that he was the man for me!

 

[Astronuc]

And would you marry a woman based on nothing but her silhouette from across the room?

I don't think Jason was suggesting that. I think most people begin with visual cues or attractiveness, and then go from there.

Anyway, a woman recommended -

The Guy’s Guide to Deciphering a Date
http://www.additudemag.com/selfhelp.asp?DEPT_NO=401&SUB_NO=28

Actually, women do send signals to let you know how they feel about you. You can learn to decipher any date by listening to both her words and her body language. Here, we color-code their communications for you:

Green Light

Verbal

• Statements like, “I really enjoy spending time with you;” “Perhaps we can get together again;” “You are very sweet/ kind/thoughtful…” or “Here’s my phone number.”
• Attempts to reschedule or develop an alternate plan if unable to get together.
• Asks many questions about you.

Nonverbal

• Actively engages in eye contact along with open body language, smiles and perhaps even blushing.
• Stays when you approach and might even move to be closer to you.
• Dresses well when she knows she will be seeing you.
• Looks interested when you talk.
• Laughs at your jokes.

Red Light

Verbal

• Statements like “I’ll get back to you,” or “perhaps another time;” “Let’s just be friends;” “I don’t want dating to get in the way of our relationship.”
• No back up or alternate plans or time frames given if unable to get together.
• Asks very few questions about you.

Nonverbal

• Avoids or has limited eye contact, few smiles and closed body position.
• Frequently checks her watch or the clock.
• Seems to leave quickly when you approach.
• No special attention to appearance if she knows she will see you.
• Looks annoyed at your jokes.

There's also yellow.

 

[Astronuc]

Sure: sounds as good as any other method of committing suicide.

Does this statement equate marriage with suicide?!

 

[Astronuc]

Marriage Experts Say to Hang In There
http://www.additudemag.com/selfhelp.asp?DEPT_NO=403&SUB_NO=20

Divorce is a common side effect of AD/HD. But getting a divorce doesn't necessarily mean that you will live happily ever after.

Findings from the first scholarly study of unhappy marriages challenges conventional wisdom. Conducted by a team of leading family scholars headed by University of Chicago sociologist Linda Waite, the study found no evidence that unhappily married adults who divorced were typically any happier than unhappily married people who stayed married.

Even more dramatically, the researchers also found that two-thirds of unhappily married spouses who stayed married reported that their marriages were happy five years later. In addition, the most unhappy marriages reported the most dramatic turnarounds: among those who rated their marriages as very unhappy, almost eight out of 10 who avoided divorce were happily married five years later.

The research team used data collected by the National Survey of Family and Households, a nationally representative survey that extensively measures personal and marital happiness. Out of 5,232 married adults interviewed in the late Eighties, 645 reported being unhappily married. Five years later, these same adults were interviewed again. Some had divorced or separated and some had stayed married.

The study found that on average unhappily married adults who divorced were no happier than unhappily married adults who stayed married when rated on any of 12 separate measures of psychological well-being. Divorce did not typically reduce symptoms of depression, raise self-esteem, or increase a sense of mastery. This was true even after controlling for race, age, gender, and income. Even unhappy spouses who had divorced and remarried were no happier on average than those who stayed married. "Staying married is not just for the childrens' sake. Some divorce is necessary, but results like these suggest the benefits of divorce have been oversold," says Waite.

Why doesn't divorce typically make adults happier? The authors of the study suggest that while eliminating some stresses and sources of potential harm, divorce may create others as well. The decision to divorce sets in motion a large number of processes and events over which an individual has little control that are likely to deeply affect his or her emotional well-being. These include the response of one's spouse to divorce; the reactions of children; potential disappointments and aggravation in custody, child support, and visitation orders; new financial or health stresses for one or both parents; and new relationships or marriages.

Sometimes the going gets rough - but you just keep working together. Marriage is a full partnership - both partners having equal equity.

I also never give up on my friends.

My parents will celebrate 50 years of marriage in two weeks time. And they are still going strong. My father's parents were married for 52+ years until grandma died, and my mother's parents were married almost 50 years when her mother died from an misdiagnosed illness. Both grandfathers were devoted to their wives and families.

 

[Astronuc]

How Full is Your Bucket?

From Publishers Weekly
In this brief but significant book, the authors, a grandfather-grandson team, explore how using positive psychology in everyday interactions can dramatically change our lives. Clifton (coauthor of Now, Discover Your Strengths) and Rath suggest that we all have a bucket within us that needs to be filled with positive experiences, such as recognition or praise. When we're negative toward others, we use a dipper to remove from their buckets and diminish their positive outlook. When we treat others in a positive manner, we fill not only their buckets but ours as well. The authors illustrate how this principle works in the areas of business and management, marriage and other personal relationships and in parenting through studies covering a 40-year span, many in association with the Gallup Poll. While acknowledging that most lives have their share of misfortune, the authors also make clear that how misfortune affects individuals depends largely on their level of positive energy and confidence. The authors also underscore that our human interactions provide most of the joys or disappointments we receive from life. The book comes with a unique access code to www.bucketbook.com, which offers a positive impact assessment and drop-shaped note cards that can be used to give praise and recognition to others.

http://www.bucketbook.com/

The Theory of the Dipper and the Bucket

Each of us has an invisible bucket. It is constantly emptied or filled, depending on what others say or do to us. When our bucket is full, we feel great. When it's empty, we feel awful.

Each of us also has an invisible dipper. When we use that dipper to fill other people's buckets -- by saying or doing things to increase their positive emotions -- we also fill our own bucket. But when we use that dipper to dip from others' buckets -- by saying or doing things that decrease their positive emotions -- we diminish ourselves.

Like the cup that runneth over, a full bucket gives us a positive outlook and renewed energy. Every drop in that bucket makes us stronger and more optimistic.

But an empty bucket poisons our outlook, saps our energy, and undermines our will. That's why every time someone dips from our bucket, it hurts us.

So we face a choice every moment of every day: We can fill one another's buckets, or we can dip from them. It's an important choice -- one that profoundly influences our relationships, productivity, health, and happiness.

 

[Moonbear]

Sure: sounds as good as any other method of committing suicide.

Very funny.

If anyone is really curious to see the sort of frequency distributions observed, the first abstract I cited has a link to a free full text article. They had a range of faces representing everything from pre-pubertal (i.e., the type of features you'd see in a boy with delayed puberty) to excess testosterone. The rankings chosen by the women were fairly evenly distributed among those facial features normally observed in men...not the extremes of low testosterone (not many adult women are going to look for a pre-pubertal boy as a date) or very high testosterone (though, the authors report individual women did select over the entire range).

There is also another paper cited in the references that emphasizes that women are less interested in physical features for attraction to men.

Mate Choice Trade-offs and Women's Preference for Physically Attractive Men
David Waynforth
Abstract: Researchers studying human sexuality have repeatedly concluded that men place more emphasis on the physical attractiveness of potential mates than women do, particularly in long-term sexual relationships. Evolutionary theorists have suggested that this is the case because male mate value (the total value of the characteristics that an individual possesses in terms of the potential contribution to his or her mate's reproductive success) is better predicted by social status and economic resources, whereas women's mate value hinges on signals conveyed by their physical appearance. This pattern may imply that women trade off attractiveness for resources in mate choice. Here I test whether a trade-off between resources and attractiveness seems to be occurring in the mate choice decisions of women in the United States. In addition, the possibility that the risk of mate desertion drives women to choose less attractive men as long-term mates is tested. The results were that women rated physically attractive men as more likely to cheat or desert a long-term relationship, whereas men did not consider attractive women to be more likely to cheat. However, women showed no aversion to the idea of forming long-term relationships with attractive men. Evidence for a trade-off between resources and attractiveness was found for women, who traded off attractiveness, but not other traits, for resources. The potential meaning of these findings, as well as how they relate to broader issues in the study of sex differences in the evolution of human mate choice for physical traits, is discussed.

Waynforth, D. 2001. Mate choice trade-offs and women's preference for physically attractive men. Human Nature 12: 207-219.

 

[twisting_edge]

Does this statement equate marriage with suicide?!

The whole point behind it was the "clarity" of the signal.

That is to say, it was deliberately ambiguous.

 

[Moonbear]

Green Light

[*]Stays when you approach and might even move to be closer to you.

Red Light
[*]Seems to leave quickly when you approach.

If someone can't figure out those two, there's really no hope for them.

 

[twisting_edge]

This ad (I think it is bogus, for obvious reasons) might help answer part of the question what men look for (or at least either gender goes about simulating such an effect):

 

[Astronuc]

Most people just want to find that one special person who will simply love them, as much as they love that person.

Very intimate relationships, particularly marriage, which should be the most intimate, expose one to the greatest vulnerability, that of opening up oneself to another. It is a great treasure to share one's most innerself to another and be fully accepted. That's what most people want - and that's why rejection hurts so much.

 

[Moonbear]

Does this statement equate marriage with suicide?!

I took it as equating choosing a woman by only her silhouette with suicide. This must be why Evo is so smitten by him with his clever words.

 

[Astronuc]

I took it as equating choosing a woman by only her silhouette with suicide.

Oh - I don't get it. Must be the Asperger's.

I never got body language either. If a woman smiled at me, I would simply intepret that as being friendly or nice, and nothing more.

 

[Evo]

This ad (I think it is bogus, for obvious reasons) might help answer part of the question what men look for (or at least either gender goes about simulating such an effect):

 

[Moonbear]

This ad (I think it is bogus, for obvious reasons) might help answer part of the question what men look for (or at least either gender goes about simulating such an effect):

So, even though I don't wear the makeup and am willing to buy the guy way better beer than Miller, I still can't get the dates. Just goes to show that guys say one thing and do another.

 

[twisting_edge]

Just goes to show that guys say one thing and do another.

Nah, see, in this case, he's already stuck with her. The beer is just an anesthetic. Buying a guy a beer merely serves to remind him he may shortly need to rely on such tricks himself, and highly counterproductive.

Unless, of course, you buy him a lot of beer. Then it doesn't matter.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Yes zoob, there has to be an attraction, what you don't seem to get is that my idea of attractive is not your idea of attractive.

No. What I'm saying is that what people assert as their idea of attractive is almost never comprehensive. People don't know the full range of people they'll find physically attractive in practise. And, the "idea" of what is attractive is usually artificially limited to what they believe they can comfortably get away with admiting. For example: it is not socially acceptable when in the company of some guys, for a guy to openly admit to any attraction to a woman who is "overweight". The meme guys generally spread to each other is that overweight women are automatically unattractive. That being the case, a guy will just not admit any attraction to an "overweight" woman, or, he will admit it jokingly as an abberation or character flaw, keeping the meme intact.

The notion of a "type" of person we are attracted to, physically, is a kind of artificial construct we put together to have something to say when this subject comes up. We put it together from our history, so it ends up being more or less accurate and genuine, but it is also limited to what we've experienced: A guy meets four "overweight" women in a row and finds them unattractive. So, he decides his "type" does not include overweight women. Then a fifth one come along who is somehow very different. Despite not being his "type" he finds her very physically attractive. The notion of "type" is pretty much shattered. His original notion of "type" wasn't a lie and wasn't inaccurate, but suffered from the flimsy strength of the very notion of "type". "Type" is a meme. We learn that we're supposed to have a "type" and so we mentally construct a little essay to present to people on this subject. It's also convenient shorthand for "I'm just not attracted to that person": we throw out the excuse "X is not my type."

I believe you have an authentic history of being attracted to the academic/nerdy "type" but that this is no more written in stone than last weeks grocery list, and it's by no means comprehensive.