What do 'nerdy' guys like in girls?

[TheStatutoryApe]

A lot of guys above are saying "but I like nerdy girls" and "what is defined by a hot girl"

Guys who are not attracted to hot girls are exceptions. Homosexuals are also exceptions. In GENERAL a HIGH PROBABILITY of males including nerdy males feel an uncontrolable gut level attraction to hot girls for aforementioned(posts further up) reasons.

A "hot" girl is a girl possessing characteristics that a vast majority of the male human race finds gut level attractrion towards, due to the desire for the better genes. In most cultures we find blemishless faces, unfatness :P, etc and other more specific things attractive i.e. "hot"

My point is that you are taking a rather broad stroke. The aggregate does not necessarily reflect the individual. I could run a study that shows statistically 80% of Americans enjoy spaghetti marinara and claim it is the favourite meal of Americans but this by no means gives any indication of the statistical likelihood that any particular individual will consider it their favourite meal. So I may commonly date women with high cheekbones and my school buddy brad the football star may commonly date women with high cheek bones but this does not lead to the conclusion that Brad and I find the same women attractive.

There is also no need to exclude "nerd girls" from the set of women who are possessed of the particular characteristics that are statistically selected for among men. If nerd guys tend to be attracted to nerd girls who are possessed of these characteristics and jock footballers tend to be attracted to cheerleaders possessed of these characteristics then the statistics accounting only for those characteristics will reflect your assumption. They fail though to take into account other factors and the omission seems to lead you to believe that nerd guys do not care about nerd girls but only those factors accounted for.

Question to the other women here, do you go for jocks and "bad boy" types?

How about skinny brainy physics majors with glasses that wear leather jackets, ride motorcycles, and listen to punk music?

I preferred the intelligent men, at least I could carry a conversation with them.

This is where I think the crux of the issue is. The ability to have a social relationship*. A man or woman may look at someone and find them physically good looking but not have any real attraction for them based on a lack of ability to have a strong social relationship with them. I was having a discussion elsewhere regarding intelligence as a characteristic for sexual selection and the person I was discussing the issue with seemed to not be able to wrap their mind around the idea that a person of lesser intelligence may not be attracted to greater intelligence as they will likely have difficulty communicating not to mention the possibility of feeling intimidated (particularly among males). The worst part was that he seemed to completely disregard any thought that intelligent females would have any particular preference for the intelligence of their mate.

*note: I am using social here to describe all intellectual and/or emotional communication.

 

[GeorginaS]

I'd bet dumb girls get knocked up by bad boy types more often than an intelligent girl and intelligent guy.

Question to the other women here, do you go for jocks and "bad boy" types?

Nah. Give me some heavy-duty brains, coupled with the ability to be compassionate, good at what they do (whatever that may be), and a sense of humour, and I'm booked for the ride.

 

[DanP]

My point is that you are taking a rather broad stroke. The aggregate does not necessarily reflect the individual.

As with any other phenomena who is statistically described. The evolutionary behavior for mating will not account for individual variation.

There is also no need to exclude "nerd girls" from the set of women who are possessed of the particular characteristics that are statistically selected for among men.

Very few humans are selected against. The bottom line is , there are only so many alpha males and females in a society. They probably have the first choice in selecting partners.
The rest will have to realize that the cliche 'she/he is out of your league' stands, and lower unrealistic expectations. This is good news both for species and individual.

This is where I think the crux of the issue is. The ability to have a social relationship*. A man or woman may look at someone and find them physically good looking but not have any real attraction for them based on a lack of ability to have a strong social relationship with them.

In my opinion, I don't think this is the case. You describe what leads to a successful *relation*, not attraction.

I recall someone told me about a psychology experiment where they took ~200something couples which just formed (the subjects where freshman at uni) and the data was a quantification of how attractive each person was, intelligence, SAT scores, and got knows whatever else. They seen that those indexes where statistically uncorrelated in those couples. Then they let 2 years pass, and recalled all persons which participated in the experiment. They asked who of them is still the same couple as of two years ago. They replotted the data. The result was that the correlation between indexes was uncanny strong in the couples who survived. So yeah, the cliche "birds of the same feather flock together" stands.

But the social exchange theory can only explain relationships. It won't offer any good insight in attraction, nor in what triggers "love".

I was having a discussion elsewhere regarding intelligence as a characteristic for sexual selection and the person I was discussing the issue with seemed to not be able to wrap their mind around the idea that a person of lesser intelligence may not be attracted to greater intelligence as they will likely have difficulty communicating not to mention the possibility of feeling intimidated (particularly among males).

Again, this is not about sexual selection and attraction per se. Is about realistic expectations, and very important in a monogamous relationship. But it's of very little importance in sexual selection. An overwhelming percentage of males will respond "yes" to a question like "do you want to sleep with me" put by a women. It;s really not important how intelligent is her.As a male your evolutionary drive is to sleep with as many females as possible, since this is really the only rate limiting step you have for reproduction.

 

[DanP]

Nah. Give me some heavy-duty brains, coupled with the ability to be compassionate, good at what they do (whatever that may be), and a sense of humour, and I'm booked for the ride.

Birds of the same feather flock together. It's social exchange all the way.

And there was another cliche in relationships "opposite attracts". It also stands true, without contradicting the first. I was told that opposite attracts as long as it brings supplementary value on the table.

I had an very good 6 years relationship with a wonderful women which unfortunately was a too good "copy of myself". (Or I was a too good copy of herself , so nobody accuses me of being sexist). Excellent chemistry, excellent value brought by both on the table (we both had very decent jobs), we loved the same things, she was an ex handball player and loved sports and outdoors so we spent all our weekends out, well, not a dull moment.

In the end too much similitude got us. Especially the fact that both of us where a bit too headstrong and confrontational. We couldn't make the relationship work in the end, since
we where great in everything except the ability to live together in harmony under the same roof. A pity. It was a shock for our friends when we announced we decided to split.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

In my opinion, I don't think this is the case. You describe what leads to a successful *relation*, not attraction.

...

But the social exchange theory can only explain relationships. It won't offer any good insight in attraction, nor in what triggers "love".

...

Again, this is not about sexual selection and attraction per se. Is about realistic expectations, and very important in a monogamous relationship. But it's of very little importance in sexual selection. An overwhelming percentage of males will respond "yes" to a question like "do you want to sleep with me" put by a women. It;s really not important how intelligent is her.As a male your evolutionary drive is to sleep with as many females as possible, since this is really the only rate limiting step you have for reproduction.

It is my opinion that as social animals the social component is important to attraction. Both with humans and with many other species courtship is an integral part of the mating ritual. If you can not court a female you can not sleep with her unless you force yourself upon her. As well when you court a female you may find her response, even a willing response, to be lack luster and move on.

Now I realize that many males likely forced themselves upon females and spread their genes this way back in the day (and still today to some degree) but I do not think that their offspring would be as likely to survive. New mates often dispose of the offspring of previous mates or show them less regard. A mate that sticks around is likely to do this and more likely to produce more than one offspring with their mate. In a species that only produces one or two children at a time the scatter gun approach is not as effective as it is in other species.

Now what I really need is to find a woman who would be turned on by this sort of discussion.

 

[DanP]

It is my opinion that as social animals the social component is important to attraction. Both with humans and with many other species courtship is an integral part of the mating ritual.

Yeah, but IMO a line should be drawn between attraction and mating behavior.

You go out for the weekend. Let's say in mountains. You talk to your friends, have fun and go to a crag for some climbing. You arrive there and see a young hot chick climbing the crag
and for you, she abruptly stands out compared to any other girls / women present at the scene. You are attracted to her. But as for now, you know nothing else about her. You don't know her name, her game, intelligence, social status. In fact you don't know anything except the fact she raised your pulse a bit. (Actually, it may be a bit of arousal transfer from the situation to the person. If you like climbing, the mere fact she is climbing a dangerous route will arouse you, and you may inadequately attribute some of the arousal you feel to the person)

It's anybody;s guess what happens afterwords, but you already felt attraction.

 

[BobG]

Now I realize that many males likely forced themselves upon females and spread their genes this way back in the day (and still today to some degree) but I do not think that their offspring would be as likely to survive. New mates often dispose of the offspring of previous mates or show them less regard. A mate that sticks around is likely to do this and more likely to produce more than one offspring with their mate. In a species that only produces one or two children at a time the scatter gun approach is not as effective as it is in other species.

I wonder if this is really true. I've also heard that men (in general) only care about the children through the woman they're currently involved with. In other words, a lot of men care more about the children of the woman in their current relationship, even if not their own, than their own children when their ex-mate has custody.

I think that's as anecdotal as your theory, and I'm sure there's lots of exceptions to both. I think if the latter is true, it has to do with "out of sight, out of mind", since it is statistically true that divorced fathers that have shared custody are more likely to meet their financial child support obligations than those whose fatherhood has been reduced to nothing more than a monthly check.

I wonder which is more prevalent, though. Fathers caring more about their natural children than step-children or fathers caring more about any children living in their home than any children (including their own) living elsewhere.

 

[BobG]

that's not their only option, tho. some will mate with the stronger bad boy type, then cuckold the brainy provider.

But the important thing is that she be intelligent enough to pull it off. As long as she has one or two of the brainy provider's kids, too, then the brainy provider's goals have been met and one or two intelligent offspring have been produced, as well.

I'm not sure what would give you the impression that's she's mating with the strong, bad boy type, anyway. Quite a few brainy, nerdy types have been known to have some very athletic genes that have just been repressed for a few generations.

(Kind of off topic, but those science experiments where the kid is supposed to go home and make a chart showing the eye color of his entire extended family are always frought with danger. If the kid goes about the task with any kind of diligence, he always winds up with a chart with at least one or two genetic impossibilities. Can you imagine doing that homework assignment and discovering you were the genetic impossibility?)

 

[Dembadon]

... The athletic types may be boy toys for not too brite women, but they're not what intelligent women want in the long run. ...

I would argue that the two aren't mutually exclusive, though. I enjoy a run or a bike ride and have the appearance of being athletic, but I'd much rather have a Star Trek marathon than go to a sporting event.

Maybe it's the difference between athleticism for health reasons or to be healthy, and athleticism as an identity? One sees it as a hobby and the other makes it who they are?

Ok, I agree. But why do you believe that intelligent man is less likely to stray ?

I believe that, in general, intellectuals seem to gain satisfaction and/or affirmation more from learning and knowledge, rather than physical appearance and accomplishments. If one has an unhealthy value for affirmation with regards to physical appearance, you can bet they'll go to great lengths to receive it.

An intellectual, in my experience, is more interested in learning about and with their partner. I often 'study' my wife. Not in a weird way (I don't have a pencil and notepad out), but as we do things together, I take mental notes / notice of the things she likes; dislikes; the ways she reacts to things; what she prefers in given situations; how she feels and responds to everything from food textures to major events in our lives. I want to learn more about what makes her tick as an individual. I never want to get to the place where I think I've got things all figured out. I want to constantly be evaluating where I can improve as an individual which will allow me to support her in fulfilling her life's goals and desires. All of this helps me learn more about her as an individual and enables me to be a safe, trustworthy person. Our relationship is a lifetime journey of discovery, both romantically and practically.

The 'bad-boy' types have rarely been concerned with any of the above, in my experience, and have usually been narcissistic pr!cks. Their main concern is upholding their 'bad-boy' image.

Very true. I have a former friend that looks a lot like Robert Shaw, and he always cultivated that look. He is a rounder and a cheat, and he tried using me (without my consent) as an alibi when he came to Maine to work (which he did) and cheat (which he did) on his wife, whom I loved dearly as a friend. She called one evening asking to speak to my "friend" because he had gotten an offer on a muscle-car that he had restored, and when I told her that I hadn't seen him for weeks, she said "oh" in a tone like I had just gut-punched her.

Not satisfied with your spouse? Be a real human being and cut off the relationship BEFORE you act on your impulses and cheat.

Hearing of instances like this makes me sick to my stomach, literally.

 

[DanP]

I wonder if this is really true. I've also heard that men (in general) only care about the children through the woman they're currently involved with. In other words, a lot of men care more about the children of the woman in their current relationship, even if not their own, than their own children when their ex-mate has custody.

It's an interesting problem to look into. My own intuition says that this doesn't happen too often. Blood is blood. If you don't care for your own blood, you will care even less for the blood of others. It may happen in a situation like : a women has multiple offspring with different males, and the current provider will try to care about his own offspring as better as possible, and in this process will provide equally for the his non-biological kids.

It may happen some males will be unknowingly conned into caring and providing for their non-biological offspring, by the process of women passing those kids as the offspring of current provider. This kind of stunt is not as seldom encountered as it may seem. Many women get away with it for decades. Well, more power to them. If they can pull it off, they worth their salt. But there other interesting cases, since having offspring is not the only way to see your genetic material propagated. The case of 2 siblings, in which one is heterosexual and one homosexual. The both share a great deal of genetic material. So by taking care of his/her sibling's kids the homosexual contributes to the propagation of his own genetic material.
This is a reasonable and intuitively acceptable scenario in which you will provide for your non-biological (but nonetheless genetically close ) offspring.

Other cases are the cases where 2 persons which both have mature children with an other 3rd party. They may decide to enter into a relationship, and then, yeah, they would help to the best of their abilities all their children, biological of not.

Technological and scientific advancement made possible other forms of gene propagation as well. In the past, homosexual couples where deprived by reproduction. Nowadays, 2 lesbians can get each one get artificially inseminated , give births to offspring with unknown biological fathers, and later raise them together as a family, without any discrimination between the 2.

 

[DanP]

I would argue that the two aren't mutually exclusive, though. I enjoy a run or a bike ride and have the appearance of being athletic, but I'd much rather have a Star Trek marathon than go to a sporting event.

IMO this is a very healthy point of view. It may be that the 2 worlds only need to find the bridge. I would never choose Star Trek marathon over being on the field and play something or going in the mountains to enjoy outdoors. But, are you kidding me ?
Star Trek is damn cool. Star Wars is even better. Babylon 5 ? All day long, if I don't have a higher priority thing to do. I think is better to find bridges than despising each other.
We just enjoy life in different "colors" and "flavors". But we may very well be closer in our interests than we are apart.

Maybe it's the difference between athleticism for health reasons or to be healthy, and athleticism as an identity? One sees it as a hobby and the other makes it who they are?

Nothing wrong with this. We are what we are. If your rearing is as a sportsman, you pursued athleticism for the best part of your life, you later went into coaching , it would be a garbagety joke to deny yourself. Much of your identity will be linked to what you did for the better part of your mature life.

If you fancy sciences , you go for physics degree, master, PHD, I think it's great also. You gave to your passions. It's awesome. It is what you are.

But it really won't make you a better spouse automatically. It's just your identity. You could be very well as much as an ******* as the athlete. You could very well ignore your spouse at home because you value your research , your own ego too much (Ego doesn't distinguish between scientific affirmation and athletic affirmation). You could very well sleep
with your assistant teacher, just because she is there in the long hours of research or work you put in, and ironically you end spending more time with her than with your spouse. And the little question "why not" will raise its ugly head.

I believe that, in general, intellectuals seem to gain satisfaction and/or affirmation more from learning and knowledge, rather than physical appearance and accomplishments. If one has an unhealthy value for affirmation with regards to physical appearance, you can bet they'll go to great lengths to receive it.

True. But being married to "learning and knowledge" may be as damaging as having unhealthy narcissistic behavior. In the end, they will both ruin a relationship. If you are valuing you career above anything else, you will go any lengths to receive gratification for your scientific / intellectual value.

An intellectual, in my experience, is more interested in learning about and with their partner. I often 'study' my wife.

You think that physical man are much different ? Dont you think they want to learn more about them and their spouses ? Its pretty much individual.

I think it;s very much of a preconceived image here.

The 'bad-boy' types have rarely been concerned with any of the above, in my experience, and have usually been narcissistic pr!cks. Their main concern is upholding their 'bad-boy' image.

Yes, some are narcissist pricks. Does intellectual narcissism exist ? I am very sure it does.

 

[BobG]

For males, the equation is pretty simple: nature. Go out there and have sex with as many "attractive" women as possible to spread your genetic material. I think it;s not really important if your targets use birth control, there is still the same evolutionary drive at work.
The rate limiting factor for males to have offspring is just how many available women he can get.
Preferably healthy and younger partners.

It's an interesting problem to look into. My own intuition says that this doesn't happen too often. Blood is blood. If you don't care for your own blood, you will care even less for the blood of others. It may happen in a situation like : a women has multiple offspring with different males, and the current provider will try to care about his own offspring as better as possible, and in this process will provide equally for the his non-biological kids.

If physical sexual desire is the only thing motivating sexual and mating behavior, then an attitude of "care for the kids of the one you're with" would be a perfectly natural genetic adaption. Genetic socialism in a way.

Of course, if physical sexual desire were the only motivation, then he wouldn't hang around the woman and her kids, anyway. The need for emotional support would be a rather interesting and effective adaption that would encourage the male to hang around and help support the kid(s), regardless of whose kids he's supporting. And "caring for the kids of the one you're with" would be the most efficient adaption if the most successful males were having sex with as many women as possible.

The desire to support only your own kids would be one that would encourage monogamous relationships for both sexes.

 

[DanP]

If physical sexual desire is the only thing motivating sexual and mating behavior, then an attitude of "care for the kids of the one you're with" would be a perfectly natural genetic adaption. Genetic socialism in a way.

Not really, because the evolutionary drive is not derived from sexual pleasure. Rather than being derived, it drives the desire for the opposite sex, for the purpose of propagating genetic material.

Of course, if physical sexual desire were the only motivation, then he wouldn't hang around the woman and her kids, anyway.

This does happens when the female chooses one partner for the genes, the "nature" , and
another partner for "nurture". While it may be condemned by social rules, it is a highly successful evolutionary strategy, as long as you can get away with it.

And yes, the other way around, socially the male who fools around and impregnates N females may be considered as a jerk, sociopath, whatever, but at the end of the day, this is again an example of excellent reproductive strategy. What do you want more than having another male providing for your offspring ? You are free from the effort to provide during rearing period of the child, and you can go instantly for other females. No strings.

Society will probably able to tolerate a certain percentage of those highly successful individuals (both man and women) without any side effects. They'll just blend unknowingly for others.

I don't condone here this kind of behavior. I only say it's a highly efficient reproductive strategy for both man and women, as long as you can get away with it. And due to human nature and social rules, and how easy most of the man can be conned, it's simpler to get away with it than it may appear, IMO.

There are downsides to this strategy, and unfortunately they are more sever for women than man. She will loose more likely the current provider. It's garbagety, and nature was really unfair to women here.

Nature has provided safeguards against this behavior in women. In fact, not against the behavior per se, but against a man caring unwillingly for another persons genetic material.

It appears that immediately after birth, the children do reassemble the father much more than the mother. It's a safeguard. Mother it;s always known, she gives birth. Father is more elusive.

There is also the behavior of the female's family after giving birth. They are most likely statistically to say "oh.. the child looks like it's father" than the male's family. It's yet again a safeguard, but this time acting on behalf of the mother. Females also appear more prone to attribute a child to the current partner of the women. Interestingly enough, I had a personal experience with this. 15 years ago I was dating a women which had a child. We where traveling in a train, and we got some social interaction going on. There was a women there which was melted after my partner's kid, and she considered him great, and told me "this kid is a copy or yourself ... " or something like that. Needless to say, the child was bearing no physical resemblance whatsoever to me. He was a carbon copy of his maternal grandfather, if anything.
Later on, I have observed the same behavior in other females judging children. I realize that my observations are empirical, and has no real scientific value.

There are downsides to this strategy. Unfortunately, they are more of a consequence to a women than to man. The women may loose the provider, which is of a important consequence. It's a gamble, but players will go for it.

The need for emotional support would be a rather interesting and effective adaption that would encourage the male to hang around and help support the kid(s), regardless of whose kids he's supporting. And "caring for the kids of the one you're with" would be the most efficient adaption if the most successful males were having sex with as many women as possible.

I have yet to see a single *male* doing this. Unless he is caring for a mix of his children and other mans children, I don't see it happen.

The issue is, why would you doit ? Except for earning a Darwin Award. You got involved with a female who is reluctant to carry your kids ? Say goodbye and move on. The sea is full of fish. Get another female.

The efficient strategy for males is not carrying for another man's child. It is having your own children being cared for by another man.

The desire to support only your own kids would be one that would encourage monogamous relationships for both sexes.

Exactly ! But as I said before, there is a percentage of individuals who will go for more efficient strategies, despite the risks. Monogamy is the safe strategy. But not always the most efficient one.I want to be clear of one thing. What i wrote here should not be considered in any way as condoning what society calls "immoral behavior". They are my views on evolutionary behavior. They should not be considered excuses for a "immoral behavior".

 

[BobG]

The issue is, why would you doit ? Except for earning a Darwin Award. You got involved with a female who is reluctant to carry your kids ? Say goodbye and move on. The sea is full of fish. Get another female.

Except when you start the throwing the benefits a social culture provides for all of the individuals in the society. Behaviors that might seem disadvantageous individually become outweighed by behaviors that provide advantages to the entire society, because your offspring would be unlikely to survive if your group were just the parents and kids.

Behaviors that benefit your entire group start dominating behaviors that benefit a single individual. Not that completely selfish behaviors can't thrive as a minority, but societies where that became the dominant behavior would start getting smaller if they had to compete against other, more social groups.

Females also appear more prone to attribute a child to the current partner of the women. Interestingly enough, I had a personal experience with this. 15 years ago I was dating a women which had a child. We where traveling in a train, and we got some social interaction going on. There was a women there which was melted after my partner's kid, and she considered him great, and told me "this kid is a copy or yourself ... " or something like that. Needless to say, the child was bearing no physical resemblance whatsoever to me. He was a carbon copy of his maternal grandfather, if anything.
Later on, I have observed the same behavior in other females judging children. I realize that my observations are empirical, and has no real scientific value.

Unless you're a divorcee dating someone with kids of their own? Equally anectdotal, but I was kind of surprised to have a date remark how my kids don't look like me at all. Actually, the one she specifically remarked about takes after my dad (while I tend to look more like my mother) - you look at really young pictures before his first haircut and you'd think it was the same kid.

 

[DanP]

Except when you start the throwing the benefits a social culture provides for all of the individuals in the society.

(personal beliefs following )

Well, being a man who was raised in a communist country(Romania), I can tell this is an utopia. Of course, you may find individuals in any society who believe that social "equality" is a great thing. It is not. It only serves the weak ones. And it is unnatural. I do agree however to supporting the weak through reasonable means, such as better health systems and better social care.

Many idealists in capitalist societies like to tell that we are born equal. We are not. We inherit a gene pool which may provide significant advantages through life. If you are lucky,
you may even be born in a wealthy clan, and thus you will automatically benefit of superior upbringing and (in most of the cases) education. There is nothing wrong with this. Competition is what keeps us going forward. And it's great, because it keeps not so lucky ppl to push forward at any cost, refusing to settle, to close the gap. I think this is awesome for both individuals and the species.

Behaviors that might seem disadvantageous individually become outweighed by behaviors that provide advantages to the entire society, because your offspring would be unlikely to survive if your group were just the parents and kids.

Ok, but even in this case, why would you care about the offspring of another male ? Your concern is your own blood. It provides no biological advantage, and no social advantage otherwise, Biologically, for an apex predator species like humankind, the fierce competition comes from the members of the same sepcies.

The society gain is derived from the everlasting competition between individuals. We compete for the same kitty pool and for the same food pool *(resources).

Behaviors that benefit your entire group start dominating behaviors that benefit a single individual. Not that completely selfish behaviors can't thrive as a minority, but societies where that became the dominant behavior would start getting smaller if they had to compete against other, more social groups.

IMO we are in no danger as ending up as "socialist" beasts genetically. The best behaviors are those who encourage competition between the individuals.

Personally, there mere thought of ending in a situation like you describe raises all my hair along the backbone.

Unless you're a divorcee dating someone with kids of their own? Equally anecdotal, but I was kind of surprised to have a date remark how my kids don't look like me at all. Actually, the one she specifically remarked about takes after my dad (while I tend to look more like my mother) - you look at really young pictures before his first haircut and you'd think it was the same kid.

Yeah, it would be cool to gain more insight into this. Perhaps anyone knows about some studies of such nature ?

 

[Astronuc]

So what I've learned from the last two or three pages is that women need to be more discriminating with respect to their mates, and most men should probably keep their genetic material to themselves.

With respect to jocks and bad boys, most should probably be avoided, and actually probably all the 'bad boys' should be avoided.

As far as I can tell from observing friends and various celebrities, people who indulge in casual sexual relationships do for personal pleasure rather than investing in long term (and otherwise healthy) relationships, i.e., there is no assumption of responsibility to the other partner.

An intelligent and athletic mate is probably most desirable, and I'd add prudent and diligent.

The intelligence makes for an interesting person to be with. Prudence and diligence mean a good provider - someone who can support the mate and any offspring - and can provide for late in life as the couple ages, and probably one who would not stray. Athletic is important from the standpoint of health, particularly later in life when a large portion of the population encounters coronary and pulmonary problems, diabetes, and/or various cancers. I would imagine each partner/mate in a couple would like the other to be healthy so as to avoid long term companionship not encumbered by chronic health issues or disabilities.

 

[DanP]

An intelligent and athletic mate is probably most desirable, and I'd add prudent and diligent...

You've hit the nail in the head. IMO there is no need to debate between physicality and intelligence. They are both valuable. Some of us may feel more intimidated towards one or another,but in the end, they are both desirable qualities.

 

[Astronuc]

You've hit the nail in the head.

Better than my thumb.

IMO there is no need to debate between physicality and intelligence. They are both valuable. Some of us may feel more intimidated towards one or another,but in the end, they are both desirable qualities.

Also - a good sense of humor is important - especially when all else fails.

 

[Hurkyl]

Has nobody commented on the fact that as you get to know someone you like, they become more attractive? And as you grow to dislike someone, they become less attractive?

Or am I the only one weird like that?

 

[DanP]

And as you grow to dislike someone, they become less attractive?

Or am I the only one weird like that?

Like in, I hate my wife who nags me all day long , and I so much fancy the 25 years old grad student who thinks I'm a so cool ?

Joke :P

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Yeah, but IMO a line should be drawn between attraction and mating behavior.

You go out for the weekend. Let's say in mountains. You talk to your friends, have fun and go to a crag for some climbing. You arrive there and see a young hot chick climbing the crag
and for you, she abruptly stands out compared to any other girls / women present at the scene. You are attracted to her. But as for now, you know nothing else about her. You don't know her name, her game, intelligence, social status. In fact you don't know anything except the fact she raised your pulse a bit. (Actually, it may be a bit of arousal transfer from the situation to the person. If you like climbing, the mere fact she is climbing a dangerous route will arouse you, and you may inadequately attribute some of the arousal you feel to the person)

It's anybody;s guess what happens afterwords, but you already felt attraction.

There are more factors than mere physical looks (check bones, eyes, buttocks, ect) there are also body language cues, the sound of her voice, the manner in which she dresses, the fact that this particular female is apparently engaged in an activity which you yourself enjoy, ect.
I think our main disagreement though comes from difference in opinion on what defines "attraction". I would not consider a twitch in the pants to equal "attraction". I consider the initial physical response to be only one element of attraction personally.

I wonder if this is really true. I've also heard that men (in general) only care about the children through the woman they're currently involved with. In other words, a lot of men care more about the children of the woman in their current relationship, even if not their own, than their own children when their ex-mate has custody.

I think that now this is more prevalent than it would have been in ages past, though I have no evidence only conjecture based on the activity of other animals. In todays society step children are often treated with less regard and as you point out the new children in a new relationship are sometimes treated better than children from previous relationships. There are also the cuckolded which is something I am sure probably happened fairly often.

I am only theorizing, based on current cross cultural tradition, that the standard family evolved to be a stable social unit as opposed to females typically being impregnated by which ever male decided to have them and then move on to the next (or vis versa I suppose).

 

[GeorginaS]

Has nobody commented on the fact that as you get to know someone you like, they become more attractive? And as you grow to dislike someone, they become less attractive?

Or am I the only one weird like that?

Nope. You're not the only one who is weird like that. I can relate entirely.

 

[Proton Soup]

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0009042"

PLoS One. 2010 Feb 5;5(2):e9042.

Optimal waist-to-hip ratios in women activate neural reward centers in men.

Platek SM, Singh D.

Department of Psychology, Georgia Gwinnett College, Lawrenceville, Georgia, United States of America. splatek@gmail.com

Secondary sexual characteristics convey information about reproductive potential. In the same way that facial symmetry and masculinity, and shoulder-to-hip ratio convey information about reproductive/genetic quality in males, waist-to-hip-ratio (WHR) is a phenotypic cue to fertility, fecundity, neurodevelopmental resources in offspring, and overall health, and is indicative of "good genes" in women. Here, using fMRI, we found that males show activation in brain reward centers in response to naked female bodies when surgically altered to express an optimal (approximately 0.7) WHR with redistributed body fat, but relatively unaffected body mass index (BMI). Relative to presurgical bodies, brain activation to postsurgical bodies was observed in bilateral orbital frontal cortex. While changes in BMI only revealed activation in visual brain substrates, changes in WHR revealed activation in the anterior cingulate cortex, an area associated with reward processing and decision-making. When regressing ratings of attractiveness on brain activation, we observed activation in forebrain substrates, notably the nucleus accumbens, a forebrain nucleus highly involved in reward processes. These findings suggest that an hourglass figure (i.e., an optimal WHR) activates brain centers that drive appetitive sociality/attention toward females that represent the highest-quality reproductive partners. This is the first description of a neural correlate implicating WHR as a putative honest biological signal of female reproductive viability and its effects on men's neurological processing.

PMID: 20140088

 

[DanP]

I am only theorizing, based on current cross cultural tradition, that the standard family evolved to be a stable social unit as opposed to females typically being impregnated by which ever male decided to have them and then move on to the next (or vis versa I suppose).

Monogamous strategies always made sense in reproductive behavior of humans. It's the safe route.

You seem to believe that sometimes in the past females gave into "whichever male decided to have them", which I don't believe it was ever the case.

IMO There doesn't exist any drive whatsoever for the women to act like this, and it never existed in past. It really never made sense for a women to act like that. from an evolutionary point of view.

 

[zoobyshoe]

For males, the equation is pretty simple: nature. Go out there and have sex with as many "attractive" women as possible to spread your genetic material.

There is no male drive to spread genetic material. Genetic material gets spread incidentally as a result of the male drive to have a lot of sexual experiences.

Some of the people in this thread are unwittingly standing with one foot in Natural Selection and the other in Intelligent Design. There is no drive behind evolution. We're not headed anywhere. Things mutate. Some mutations are accidentally better adapted to the circumstances at hand.

Any sudden environmental change will shift the parameters of what constitutes a successful trait. Today's strength can become tomorrow's liability, and visa versa.

 

[DanP]

There is no male drive to spread genetic material. Genetic material gets spread incidentally as a result of the male drive to have a lot of sexual experiences.

The result is the same thing at the end of the day.

Of course you are not born with knowledge, you are only born with instincts which cause behaviors. In this case behaviors of having sex.

But in the end of the day, why do you have those instincts, and behaviors ? For the simple reason they cause reproduction. They do exist only because of this. The ultimate reason for any of those instincts and behaviors is reproduction.

If sex would not cause reproduction and transfer of genetic material, it would not exist.

Some of the people in this thread are unwittingly standing with one foot in Natural Selection and the other in Intelligent Design. There is no drive behind evolution. We're not headed anywhere. Things mutate. Some mutations are accidentally better adapted to the circumstances at hand.

Nobody in the thread claimed that there is a plan for evolution and it's heading in any special direction. You can replace it with 'sex instinct'. Drive for reproduction.

Any sudden environmental change will shift the parameters of what constitutes a successful trait. Today's strength can become tomorrow's liability, and visa versa.

Irrelevant. Really.

 

[BobG]

(personal beliefs following )

Well, being a man who was raised in a communist country(Romania), I can tell this is an utopia. Of course, you may find individuals in any society who believe that social "equality" is a great thing. It is not. It only serves the weak ones. And it is unnatural. I do agree however to supporting the weak through reasonable means, such as better health systems and better social care.

It's a utopia for large societies. It's a very effective system for small groups; especially small groups that have to compete with other small groups. And, even in small groups that have a "socialist" mentality, that doesn't necessarily mean they believe in social equity. It just means the "weak" ones have to receive a benefit that outweighs what they could achieve on their own - at least until a society has developed to the point that the "strong" can just force the "weak" to support them (through slavery, etc).

There is no male drive to spread genetic material. Genetic material gets spread incidentally as a result of the male drive to have a lot of sexual experiences.

And zoobyshoe hit on the key. He just stopped a little short. There's also a drive to obtain an emotional bond and that drive to obtain an emotional bond is what expands sex drive into a motivation to provide for a female and whatever kids she may have - which hopefully, but not necessarily, are his.

As long as more of his own kids survive in that type of social environment than would survive in some alternative social environment (cares only about sex with no desire for emotional attachment, for example), then the behavior will tolerate some "imperfections".

I think that now this is more prevalent than it would have been in ages past, though I have no evidence only conjecture based on the activity of other animals. In todays society step children are often treated with less regard and as you point out the new children in a new relationship are sometimes treated better than children from previous relationships. There are also the cuckolded which is something I am sure probably happened fairly often.

Serial monogamy has a long enough history that the "evil stepmother" is a staple of literature. For a female that can only have a very limited number of children, preference for her own children would logically be very strong. You don't see the same "evil stepfather" stereotype in literature. For a male that could theoretically have an unlimited number of children, any single child, including his own, would have less importance. It would be easier for other instinctive desires to outweigh emotional attachments to his own kids.

Of course, traditional roles about which gender does the child rearing and which gender does the providing result in the mother's feelings about children/stepchildren having a greater emotional impact on a person's childhood experiences than the father's, so literature doesn't exactly provide a conclusive story. It just makes the idea at least plausible.

And, yes, a change in environment (a more mobile society where a male may lose all emotional connections to his own children) would make behaviors that lurked under the surface a lot more apparent.

In any event, I wouldn't conclusively say that's the dominant line of male motivation - just that that type of behavior is a lot more common in males than females.

(I mean, I'd say I have a pretty strong emotional attachment to my kids, so there's at least exceptions. In fact, there are many instances where a male's emotional bonds with his kids are strong enough that he'd accept "less than optimal" emotional bonds with his wife for quite a long time.)

 

[zoobyshoe]

Nobody in the thread claimed that there is a plan for evolution and it's heading in any special direction. You can replace it with 'sex instinct'. Drive for reproduction.

No. The distinction between sex drive and the fictional 'drive for reproduction' has to be understood and maintained. There is no 'drive for reproduction' or for passing on your genes. The intent behind looking for sex is to have pleasure. The fact this, incidentally, results in reproduction does not mean there is such a thing as 'drive for reproduction'. That's like saying since drinking often leads to hangovers people drink in order to get a hangover, that there is a 'drive to get hungover'.

 

[hellbike]

I don't see the reason why people who like science would be any different than other men when it comes to women and relationships(especially when they are in college or undergraduate studies).

And if you ask about shy and not self confident persons, that not the science that makes them shy.

 

[DanP]

No. The distinction between sex drive and the fictional 'drive for reproduction' has to be understood and maintained. There is no 'drive for reproduction' or for passing on your genes. The intent behind looking for sex is to have pleasure. The fact this, incidentally, results in reproduction does not mean there is such a thing as 'drive for reproduction'. That's like saying since drinking often leads to hangovers people drink in order to get a hangover, that there is a 'drive to get hungover'.

Genes gives cues for behaviors. The only reason for which we have a sex drive behavior is reproduction. If sex would not cause reproduction, than we simply would not have any kind of behavior linked to sex.

Reproduction is not an accident due to the fact we feel good when we do sex. The whole behavior of having sex exist to serve reproduction.

 

[BobG]

I would imagine each partner/mate in a couple would like the other to be healthy so as to avoid long term companionship not encumbered by chronic health issues or disabilities.

Actually, that's not a behavior that would receive genetic reinforcement since they've had their kids by that time. Health issues that affect a person during their child bearing years would be more important.

None the less, it's a cold hearted world where a couple learns the true meaning of "in sickness and health". Often times, the healthy one decides that was a really bad promise to make and decides it's time to renege.

How understandable or immoral was it for Michael Schiavo to develop a relationship with and even have a child with Jodi Centonze while his wife was permanently disabled in a persistent vegetative state?

You see a lot of other less severe cases where a spouse just becomes tired of living with a person plagued with chronic disabilities that are only going to get worse and decides it's time to divorce the disabled spouse - hopefully with as little financial obligations as possible since the healthy spouse might still be young enough to find a new relationship. Probably one of the more cruel side effects of no-fault divorce since divorce almost always terminates the disabled spouse's entitlement to employer provided health insurance.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Genes gives cues for behaviors. The only reason for which we have a sex drive behavior is reproduction. If sex would not cause reproduction, than we simply would not have any kind of behavior linked to sex.

Reproduction is not an accident due to the fact we feel good when we do sex. The whole behavior of having sex exist to serve reproduction.

Logic like this is why I said some people unwittingly have one foot in Intelligent Design.

 

[Evo]

Monogamous strategies always made sense in reproductive behavior of humans. It's the safe route.

You seem to believe that sometimes in the past females gave into "whichever male decided to have them", which I don't believe it was ever the case.

IMO There doesn't exist any drive whatsoever for the women to act like this, and it never existed in past. It really never made sense for a women to act like that. from an evolutionary point of view.

In the past women rarely had the option of who to marry, this was usually decided by the parents, this still continues in many 3rd world countries.

 

[DanP]

Logic like this is why I said some people unwittingly have one foot in Intelligent Design.

It has nothing with intelligent design. You seem to believe that it does involve a design. No. It doesn't.

 

[DanP]

In the past women rarely had the option of who to marry, this was usually decided by the parents, this still continues in many 3rd world countries.

I'm talking about a much larger time span than what happened to women last century.