Physical attraction: Some things I've noticed

[L. Declis]

Well, I am a sucker for punishment, but since I also had the same anger once, I'll just try once again.

Confession time: Had a little look about the internet for you. You like Wheel of Time, so I deem you worthy enough for attention.

Also, some quick tips. Your Facebook profile picture looks a big scary. How about a smile? Don't frown on your profile picture, and don't frown in real life. Otherwise, you're a handsome enough chap.

All the confidence in the world isn't going to change if someone is physically attracted to you or not. I get so sick of hearing that bullshit!

When something is often said, it may be true. It's not the only or most significant trait, but if you're confident, it means a lot of other things are going well.

Confidence can come from:
1) You look after yourself
2) You are prideful
3) You are productive
4) You are creative
5) You have a good time
6) You have

Confidence suggests that you have many positive aspects, and as such, is desirable.

If you knew you had a trait that 99% of women strongly desired, wouldn't you be more confident because of it? Big and Tall guys don't even need confidence because they represent the idea quality that is desired in a mate.

Yes. Women also like creativity, productiveness, ambition, charm, kindness, interests, humour, energy, politeness, kindness to family and so on.

All of these are good traits. A tall guy who is a horrible person will get few dates, and none of them will be a quality person.

On the other hand, I have a quality very,very few women desire in a mate. How the hell am I supposed to confident when I know that?

By getting other qualities women like. Not every car is a Ferrari, and some women want a BMW. If you can't be a Ferrari, be a BMW. A different kind of awesome.

You see it all around us and in media. Big = good. Little = bad.

The same way you see that all women should have massive breasts, be virginal, be thin, be calm and perfect. The media isn't true.

Also, I'm 5' 8", the short guy in any group. I do alright because I don't let it affect me. I date below my height and I am awesome in plenty of other ways.

For women it's quite easy. There is a man for every body type out there assuming you're at least somewhat attractive. Hell, some men don't even care. They'll fuck a woman just because she has a vagina.

You need to get out of this mindset. There is plenty of men for women and women for men. But this destructive way of viewing women helps no one. No one should look at someone and assume the worst, you should understand that.

I'm not insecure, I just find it tough coping with the reality that is presented in front of me.

So change that reality. Reality is a mindset. "I think therefore I am" and "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" and all that jazz.

The worst thing you can tell me is just to get rich because only 1% of the population is rich, and I'll never be in that category. I'm more like the bottom 1%.

This is a defeatist attitude and no one finds that attractive.

"Date me?"
"Why? Why are you awesome?"
"Well, I'm not. I'm nobody, women suck, I'm poor and I'll never amount to anything"

That is not a man anyone wants to date. Or even be friends with.

I'm just angry that I have to work 5x as hard as someone who is conventionally attractive even though I do few myself as quite attractive otherwise.

Well, I could point out that it's not 5x as easy to be someone else, but let's not touch that point.

If you have to work 5x as hard, then work 5x as hard. Be awesome. Build character. Earn everything and know you got it because you worked hard.

If you're attractive, you're attractive to someone. Go find that person.

Sure there are people with far greater problems than I face, but I'm simply just trying to be like every other guy. I want to be desired by the opposite sex. As long as you full-fill the menial expectations of what a man supposed to look like then women will be a lot more lenient on the other areas.

Not in the long run. A girl won't date a guy with no prospects, a bad attitude, terrible with family, a bore to be around and views her as a slut for being female.

You want to be like every other guy? Fuck that, be better than every other guy. Work on your appearance, but sort out your attitude, get some hobbies, work 5x as hard and be awesome.

 

[Scars Unseen]

With me, I've found that physical beauty means almost nothing. It's not that I can't appreciate it; there are occasionally women that have a certain mixture of features that catches my eye. But I haven't been interested in someone based on that since High School(and then I was so socially withdrawn that I never acted on said interest).

With me, it's all about personality and interests. If we share interests, and if I enjoy talking to her, I'll find her attractive in almost all cases. I suppose it's possible that I could find someone physically unattractive enough that personality didn't matter, but it hasn't happened yet. I do tend to avoid women who are overly "girly," preferring women who are confident and geeky for the most part. Basically, I want a romantic partner to be a girlfriend, emphasis on "friend."

 

[Something Amyss]

Uuuhmm, they do all have cute expressive eyes.

Several of them are similar, too. I mean, I don't know if that was the draw, I just picked out on a pattern that certainly ios attractive.

 

[Eddie the head]

snip

I really hate to be "that guy," but that is not supported by any evidence I've ever seen. In fact I was just listening to a lecture by Mark Leary that said just the opposite. Pretty blatantly actually. Due to many biological reasons men who don't distinguish themselves don't have children(or get into relationships).

A simple fact that kind of blows what you said out of the water is that we have twice as many female ancestors as male ancestors. That means most woman had children, where as a grate deal of men didn't. To me that says the woman didn't have to work as hard to have children. You could just say that's the past, but the biological influences are still there. Here is a times article that talks about it much more eloquently then I can.

http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/05/the-missing-men-in-your-family-tree/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0


I'm not saying this to be mean, but the reasoning you have given is poor at best.(if you want a specific reason I would call them anecdotal, and heavily influenced by bias.) And I'm not saying my written reasoning is any better. I do however implore you to look up the lecture I was talking about. It's called "Understanding the Mysteries of Human Behavior" it's on thegreatcourses.com, and it's only like 30 bucks right now.

 

[Something Amyss]

I dunno, it certainly is a possibility.
I myself haven't figured out how I can be attracted to such very different types, but I chalked it down to "they all have strong and eccentric personalities". Maybe?

Well, strong and eccentric personalities ARE awesome.

 

[stroopwafel]

A simple fact that kind of blows what you said out of the water is that we have twice as many female ancestors as male ancestors. That means most woman had children, where as a grate deal of men didn't. To me that says the woman didn't have to work as hard to have children. You could just say that's the past, but the biological influences are still there.

It could also imply many men have less desire to 'have' children than women, or are less willing to make concessions to their lifestyle a child would mandate. To be honest I find it hard to believe men have the same sort of instinctual craving for offspring(I myself have none of the sort) the way many to most women do. When men desire to have children its mostly based on rational considerations rather than emotional/instinctual ones. It's also the reason women have it 'easier' when it comes to obtaining sex/relationships, b/c they pay a much higher 'price' when they make the wrong investment. It's a leftover from our evolutionary history when anticonception wasn't readily available.

Due to many biological reasons men who don't distinguish themselves don't have children(or get into relationships).

This again would imply only the 'fittest' of men would procreate, but one stroll through Walmart and you know this is not true.

Anyways, I personally find many different kind of women attractive. As long as she's tall(as I'm tall myself) and reasonably slender its fine by me. Other than that any kind of ethnicity or facial/physical features can tickle my pickle. The only thing I don't find physically attractive is short or plump. The particular femininity many French women have I also find really attractive(my first time was with a French girl and I remember it till this day), as is sincerity and a good and kind heart. Some women can make you feel euphoric in their embrace, which is no mean feat.

 

[lacktheknack]

Big and Tall guys don't even need confidence because they represent the idea quality that is desired in a mate.

BUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA.

Nope. You're way off the mark. I'm a completely unconfident big-and-tall guy, and women are not into me at all (as far as I can tell).

 

[Cette]

The whole "women have it easier" counts only if said woman has absolutely no standard whatsoever. Because I repeat again: the kind of guys who will flirt with you only because you have a vagina, are the kind of guys you do not want to have sex with.

Not really taking an overall stand on this as getting quality mate is kind of a cluster fuck for most people but wouldn't you say at the very least this means that women with low standards have an easier time getting laid than a man with similar standards?

Not that dropping them as low as whoever's willing is a good plan just saying the ratio's might be skewed a tad.

 

[V4Viewtiful]

usually when I've talked to women about what they think men find attractive I laugh in there face.

to answer the 1st question) confidence. I don't care what you say, it counts! For women, most dudes with girl I see ooze that stuff out the eyeballs and it catches most ladies attention.
I have confidence but not THE confidence that attracts women and even if I did I wouldn't notice

As for the 2nd Question) I know in general all you need to look like as a women is appear to have a vagina (I know some dogs in my area, men and women), I say that because 1) I've seen it all the time and I know blokes like that and 2) in general men will reach for the lowest hanging fruit unless the highest one looks extra juicy.
Sorry for referring to you women as fruit

Me though? I have no Idea. I mean, I don't think about it enough to give a definite answer.
Saying that, I like that middle, not fat not, paper thin just enough. But the big one for me is the less attachments she has on. No extentions, little makeup. The more of what you are born with I can see

Big and Tall guys don't even need confidence because they represent the idea quality that is desired in a mate.

BUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA.

Nope. You're way off the mark. I'm a completely unconfident big-and-tall guy, and women are not into me at all (as far as I can tell).

You know, it took me till I was 18 to be comfortable being short

As a whole most people who say what they're attracted to (physically) normally don't surround themselves with those favourable aspects, you know who i'm talking about, I know a girl(woman now) who said she wants a guy that looks like Neyo, she's currently dating a white guy.

 

[Relish in Chaos]

I thought we were talking about physical attraction, not finding a partner. What I meant was that it's much easier for a woman to have someone be attracted to them than for a man to have a woman be attracted to him.

For the last time: no. It's not true.

Do you know why you get this weird impression?

1) Socially, males are allowed to be much more open about their intention to flirt with someone. So it's easy to notice a woman being hit on by a dude, but not the opposite. Giving the impression that it's women that always have pursuers.

2) You disregard the kind of people who flirt on said woman. As if any man counts as long as he flirts with her. For some reason, I often got older and kinda creepy men trying to flirt with me on trains and on the street. It pretty much became a recurring joke how good I am at attracting creeps. Does this mean I have it easier than a man, because hey, technically, I've had say 20 (old, kinda scary) dudes try to hit on me, so I am so very lucky? HELL NO, if anything I have it MORE DIFFICULT than a man, because these things don't happen to a guy, and trust me: having creeps trying to flirt with you does not make you any luckier with the guy you actually were interested with.

The whole "women have it easier" counts only if said woman has absolutely no standard whatsoever. Because I repeat again: the kind of guys who will flirt with you only because you have a vagina, are the kind of guys you do not want to have sex with.

Hmm. Maybe. Perhaps "easy" wasn't the right word either. But - again - I was talking more in terms of physical attraction (I believe that?s what the OP was about), rather than the type of guy you'd actually want to date and/or have sex with. And, while men are able to be much more open about their intention to flirt with someone, you can still generally detect when a woman's flirting with you. However, of course, with both men and women, it depends on how you interpret body language and stuff.

I mean, when girls are younger, they're always told stuff like "you're pretty", right? That's because society expects girls to be pretty by default, regardless of whom they eventually pick as a partner. But boys? They're not called handsome when they're little. You'd have to be at least a teenage boy for the word "handsome" to have any kind of believable effect.

This in particular baffles me. You're saying you WISH you were in a situation in which your gender is always expected, nay, required, by society to look pretty and attractive? Think carefully about it.

I'm an average, ok looking lady, but I've always had issues with this whole "having to look pretty because you're a girl". I'm the kind of woman who pays more attention to what goes in her mind than what goes in her pretty little appearance, and it is not pleasant when you feel (and you feel it often at work, when you're a woman) that people pay more attention to your looks than to what you do.
I envy men because they are allowed to not care much about their looks.

You're twisting my words. I never said I wished I was in a situation in which my gender was always socially expected to look pretty, but that regardless of how much effort you put into your appearance, a woman can have a man - whether that be the cute guy who studies in a library, or the creepy 50-year-old who rubs his crotch at you in the bus - attracted with them.

Yes, you're right in that men are socially allowed to not care much about their looks without serious judgement. Also, because they're allowed to care much about their looks, they're much less likely to be noticed by the opposite sex. That's neither positive nor negative.

Maybe I am naive and don't know what I'm talking about. I don't mean any offense. I even concede on some of your points. I'm trying to make this the post of a guy whining "woe is me; I can't get laid 'cos girls have such high standards, wah!" That's not my intention. Merely the conclusions I originally came to based on my observations. But I'll probably ask a couple of my friends - namely, the ones that go out to clubs and other events more than I do, and that have more dating experience too - what they think.

Personally, I guess I don?t make friends easily; therefore, I don?t make girlfriends easily. Just being a ?good person? or a ?nice person? isn?t enough. Humans are complex creatures. There?s no formula.. Being good-looking and/or being confident helps, but it isn?t everything. Either you?re attractive (and I?m talking in all aspects; not just appearance, but personality and whatnot), or you?re not.

 

[Ten Foot Bunny]

I mean, my grandma pities very loudly tall women because they 'can't find a man'.
Not because they aren't attractive, but because a woman being taller is 'inappropriate'.

Weird, if you ask me. (and hopefully just a sign of an older generation)

Sad to say that she has a point. Negative perception of us tall women isn't a relic of times past. Though people talk about not having a problem with our height (especially online) it's mostly just that: talk. When faced with the reality of being around us, lots of people simply vanish into the woodwork. Women disappear because they don't want to be around a girl so tall that they assume is going to attract all of the attention (since they also buy into the myth of others not having a problem with us) and a significant number of men who are shorter disappear because...? Insecurity? Our height is actually a turn-off? I don't know, and I won't pretend that I do. That would be unfair.

On bare feet, I'm 5'11.5" - only half an inch shy of 6'. It's hard to shop for clothes because my legs and arms are so long. My shoe size is 11, 12, or 13 depending on how the shoes are cut, and most women's shoes stop at 10 (occasionally 10.5). Shopping sucks and there are times I walk away in tears because I find lots of things that I like, but nothing that fit me. I'm too tall. And shoe stores? They're hell on earth. Few things ruin my day more than shoe shopping.

I brought all of that up to illustrate how hard it is for me to find outfits that make me feel confidently feminine, fun, or cute. I can't mix and match styles because I can't find enough clothes of different patterns and cuts that actually fit me. My selection is extremely limited. So when I DO find those magical outfits and walk into public feeling great about my appearance, it's a very special thing.

Then along comes the height issue. Nobody notices my clothing. Nobody notices my shoes. My hair, my eyes, my smile, and all the rest of my features disappear into the repetitive chorus of "OMG, yr tallz." Worse still are the people who question my fashion choices because of my height, and that happens frequently. I wear vertical stripes, and suddenly I'm accentuating my shameful height. Wear horizontal stripes and suddenly I'm a barbershop pole (I'm also extremely thin, no hips to speak of, and boobs the size of peas). However, the worst crime of them all is when I wear heels or wedges, and I LOOOOVE wedges. I push 6'4" when I wear them, so that's when I get the most disheartening comments. Even my own mother asks "Why do wear those when you're already so tall?" Thanks, mom... you gave me half of my genes, you know?

It sucks when the things that make me happy are the very same things that others use against me because of a physical feature that I didn't ask for. I've spent so much of my life trying to find my inner beauty and being comfortable with my body, but the vast majority of the feedback I get from the outside world focuses on nothing but my height: a feature I can't hide and one that people use as a springboard to everything else they see wrong about me on the outside.

Thing is, I have a personality. I have a sense of humor. I have interests that I hope others share. I'm wickedly smart. I'm a writer and a musician. I'm NOT just "that tall girl" who supposedly has the world at my feet. A pathetically low number of people don't (or don't care to) realize that.

 

[Stasisesque]

All three of the women featured in the OP look identical to me. I don't know who the first two are, but I wouldn't be surprised if they turned out to be the same woman. Yvonne Strahovski just looks like a slightly skinnier blonde version. There's absolutely no diversity there as far as I can tell, and I find that bizarre.

My taste in men ranges from Tom Hiddleston to Eric Idle to Laurence Fishburne, I don't know what that says about me. I appreciate a good-looking man, but, for example I don't find Hugh Jackman attractive in the slightest. Thus I have concluded, everyone is different and therefore someone is going to find every one attractive.

 

[Eddie the head]

snip

To the first point. It could mean anything you want it to mean, but biological factors don't support what you said. And the notion that "men are more rational" is completely false. Men are just as likely to make emotional dissensions as women. Like I said I don't have the rhetorical skills to make much of a point other then "that's just wrong." You would need to look up the sources if you want a real point by point argument.

Second. No. No. just...god no. That is a complete misunderstanding of what evolution says and dose. It's not the fittest, it's not the smartest, it's not the strongest. It's the one that's most likely to survive and procreate. For males that means you need to distinguish themselves in some way. Social or otherwise.

All three of the women featured in the OP look identical to me. I don't know who the first two are, but I wouldn't be surprised if they turned out to be the same woman. Yvonne Strahovski just looks like a slightly skinnier blonde version. There's absolutely no diversity there as far as I can tell, and I find that bizarre.

Because you don't know what to look for. I don't like rap music because I think it all sounds the same. But I'm not so arrogant as to assume that's what others hear. This is the same reason people will say people form other races all look the same, they simply don't notice the difference. And frankly I don't know what the difference between what you said "ranges" and just two random people.

 

[Stasisesque]

All three of the women featured in the OP look identical to me. I don't know who the first two are, but I wouldn't be surprised if they turned out to be the same woman. Yvonne Strahovski just looks like a slightly skinnier blonde version. There's absolutely no diversity there as far as I can tell, and I find that bizarre.

Because you don't know what to look for. I don't like rap music because I think it all sounds the same. But I'm not so arrogant as to assume that's what others hear. This is the same reason people will say people form other races all look the same, they simply don't notice the difference. And frankly I don't know what the difference between what you said "ranges" and just two random people.

I don't really understand your last point, I was just giving a quick example of three different men I find attractive. Range was simply used to mean a variation on type.

As for my comment about the three women featured in the OP, I did repeatedly suggest my view was subjective: "to me", "as far as I can tell", as such building up to my final point that everyone is attractive to someone. All three women in the OP, to me, look the same, that's not to say they're not attractive, but if I had to pick one out of a line up I don't think I could.

 

[Pieturli]

All three of the women featured in the OP look identical to me. I don't know who the first two are, but I wouldn't be surprised if they turned out to be the same woman. Yvonne Strahovski just looks like a slightly skinnier blonde version. There's absolutely no diversity there as far as I can tell, and I find that bizarre.

Because you don't know what to look for. I don't like rap music because I think it all sounds the same. But I'm not so arrogant as to assume that's what others hear. This is the same reason people will say people form other races all look the same, they simply don't notice the difference. And frankly I don't know what the difference between what you said "ranges" and just two random people.

I don't really understand your last point, I was just giving a quick example of three different men I find attractive. Range was simply used to mean a variation on type.

As for my comment about the three women featured in the OP, I did repeatedly suggest my view was subjective: "to me", "as far as I can tell", as such building up to my final point that everyone is attractive to someone. All three women in the OP, to me, look the same, that's not to say they're not attractive, but if I had to pick one out of a line up I don't think I could.

Dunno what to tell you man, they sure look extremely different to me. Perhaps if the second lady had a picture showing her entire body, it might be more obvious. Trust me, they have plenty different builds.

 

[Stasisesque]

Dunno what to tell you man, they sure look extremely different to me. Perhaps if the second lady had a picture showing her entire body, it might be more obvious. Trust me, they have plenty different builds.

Ah, I don't really notice builds. I'm much too concerned with my own than that of other womens', I suppose.

The first woman looks normal, Yvonne Strahovski looks "Hollywood normal" and the girl in the middle could go either way from what little you can see. However, even if they were standing naked in front of me, I'm much more likely to scan their faces for differences in appearance, not bodies. I don't know if this is a particularly female thing or if it's specific to a certain way of differentiating people from one another, but as their faces are so very similar to my eye, I struggle to see any obvious differences.

For reference, I think Michael Cera and Jesse Eisenberg could be brothers.

 

[Pieturli]

Dunno what to tell you man, they sure look extremely different to me. Perhaps if the second lady had a picture showing her entire body, it might be more obvious. Trust me, they have plenty different builds.

Ah, I don't really notice builds. I'm much too concerned with my own than that of other womens', I suppose.

The first woman looks normal, Yvonne Strahovski looks "Hollywood normal" and the girl in the middle could go either way from what little you can see. However, even if they were standing naked in front of me, I'm much more likely to scan their faces for differences in appearance, not bodies. I don't know if this is a particularly female thing or if it's specific to a certain way of differentiating people from one another, but as their faces are so very similar to my eye, I struggle to see any obvious differences.

For reference, I think Michael Cera and Jesse Eisenberg could be brothers.

I agree with the Cera and Eisenberg thing, with the exception that Eisenbergs face is not as punchable in the movies.

Hmm, maybe it is a female thing... I dunno. My ex girlfriend always told me that she and her friends tend not to look at builds, unless they are remarkable in some way (astonishingly fit, corpulent mess, malnourished etc.). Who knows?

 

[stroopwafel]

And the notion that "men are more rational" is completely false. Men are just as likely to make emotional dissensions as women. Like I said I don't have the rhetorical skills to make much of a point other then "that's just wrong."

I never said 'men are more rational' I said that for men the issue of wanting children isn't as emotional(or deep-seated) as it is for many to most women. So when they do want children there is mostly a rational consideration rather than an instinctual desire. I don't think many men walk around with the urge to conceive.

Second. No. No. just...god no. That is a complete misunderstanding of what evolution says and dose.

It was merely to illustrate how quickly your little theory falls apart.

 

[Eddie the head]

I don't really understand your last point, I was just giving a quick example of three different men I find attractive. Range was simply used to mean a variation on type.

As for my comment about the three women featured in the OP, I did repeatedly suggest my view was subjective: "to me", "as far as I can tell", as such building up to my final point that everyone is attractive to someone. All three women in the OP, to me, look the same, that's not to say they're not attractive, but if I had to pick one out of a line up I don't think I could.

Yes and I don't see the differences in the men you find attractive. It was just and example.

Second. You called it bizarre. I don't know what your intent was, but the wording you chose made it sound like you not understanding was some kind of oddity. And it's just not odd for different people to notice different things.

And the notion that "men are more rational" is completely false. Men are just as likely to make emotional dissensions as women. Like I said I don't have the rhetorical skills to make much of a point other then "that's just wrong."

I never said 'men are more rational' I said that for men the issue of having children isn't as emotional(or deep-seated) as it is for many to most women. So when they do want children there is mostly a rational consideration rather than an instinctual desire. I don't think many men walk around with the urge to conceive.

Second. No. No. just...god no. That is a complete misunderstanding of what evolution says and dose.

It was merely to illustrate how quickly your little theory falls apart.

First. I understand what you meant it's just wrong. It's just not supported by any evidence. "I don't think" is not evidence.

Second. It can't do that because it attacks a strawman. And again no evidence.