Attraction Question

mainelymama

I feel like attraction is important but if it's not there anymore I don't think the relationship is dead. It's important initially but in a relationship there is more to it than that.

cait0902

I absoutely believe that you need to be sexually attracted to you partner. Do people become sexier the more you get to know them? Sure. As far as the scale theory, I don't think so. Because who says he is an 8 or she is a 10? The scale will vary depending on who you ask. I may think the girl within the couple is sexier than the guy, but then someone else may disagree. And if neither can have a higher # than the other, you would have to have the same number....might make things a bit difficult....

Lets say I am a 6, for instance. I am not attractive enough to be going into a club every saturday night and taking a flock of girls home with me. Same as a woman would not even look in my direction if I dont instigate the conversation. I have observed this firsthand. The perception is that if a 6 dates a 10, the relationship is built on false premises, because the 10 is dating at his/her comfort level, and otherwise feels insecure. The 10 knows that the 6 will not stray. It shows low confidence, and on the flip side, it is only a matter of time before the 10 gets tired of what he/she is not getting out of the relationship, i.e. good sex, being out in public comfortably, etc (noone likes the pasty white guy with man-boobs on the beach). That is where I am coming from on that.

Well, then I think you're talking more about the insecurity levels, not physical attractiveness. You can have some smokin hot girl who has a 10 body but her self esteem be real low...which then may cause problems in the relationship, which I believe is pretty similar to what you are saying. But I don't know that the scale for attractiveness is necessarily linked to the scale for self esteem. So I don't agree with the concept of not dating someone "higher" than you.

But doesn't physical condition/apperance kind of correlate with that confidence level? I believe this does. It is the reason that girls dress in skimpy dresses to attract a guy. If she is sporting the cottage cheese, it will not work as well.

Yes, confidence is somewhat linked to appearence. However, if the girl is sporting a bit of "cottage cheese" but doesn't care, and has confidence in herself and is comfortable with her body...wouldn't that make her more attractive then another girl with the same cottage cheese but low self esteem? So you can have the same exact body, and on that note, both have a....7. However, when you bring attitutde and confidence into the mix, one girl may become an 8 or 9 while the other is lowered to a 5 or 6. So I guess it all depends on what influences the scale, and when that scale comes into play. If a guys sees a girl and just based on her looks gives her a 9 while he is a 6, then based on this concept, he should not date her. However, if the guy takes a chance and gets to know her, but she has some insecurites and becomes a 6 as well...he can continue to date her?

sunshine_gem

As a psych student I found this question intriguing. My dissertation is going to be based on this somewhat so I'll be interested to know the answers. What I will say though is that sexual selection for men and women is not necessarily the same. Men (theoretically) are attracted to women who are younger, look fit and have a good waist to hip ratio as this would indicate health and fertility. A man's primal instinct is to impregnate as many women as possible in order to ensure the survival of the human race and all of thos characteristics will mean better success. Women don't just go for looks. They go for personality aswell. They need someone who is successful, reliable and stable. As women are the ones qwho have to carry the child they need to know that their mate will be able to support them and provide for them in the long run. This is all theory however!

Also what you were saying about the 6 and the 10. I see what you're getting at. The idea of 'status' in society (I have that inverted as it's a societal construct not my personal opinion). That people should look within their own 'status' level and blah blah. I think it's crap personally, but a lot of people don't. It is all sort of about confidence and self esteem. If you believe that you belong to a certain class then you won't look outside of it and would be very uncomfortable being thrust into another.

My personal opinion: Sexual attraction is extremely important. To me anyway. If I'm not physically attracted to someone then it just won't work. Vice versa if they were the most physically desirable man on the planet but dull and boring it wouldn't work either. I need a combination of both. I think everyone's just different. People find different things appealing which is good or we'd all look the same.

markhudson1968

bump

RedMan33

for sure.

I am attracted to guys with dark eyes, dark hair, olive skin. Not only can I not resist dark features, but it basically assures me that my children will not be gingers!

Rude...

sunshine_gem

The field you are looking for is "evolutionary psychology" and, yes, sexual attraction is a big chunk of it.

Exactly. But what is sexually attractive and important to pass on to further generations is subjective.

And always open for interpretation. It is best to teach about the person the the look, for humanity is the only species in which the females flaunt their looks to attract the males.

Actually not true. There are many species of birds that do that. But it's unfair to say that women basically sell themselves to get a man because a lot of men do it too, by thinking their looks are the most important thing.

saxmaniac

Exactly. But what is sexually attractive and important to pass on to further generations is subjective.

Some if it is cultural, but a whole lot of it is not. For example, it's been repeatedly shown, that men all over the world find women with specific waist-to-hip ratios more attractive, something like 0.7, regardless of weight.

Women factor in men's physical looks less than they their social dominance, which explains why an ugly old rock-star or real-estate moguls can easily snag a model -- they ARE matched in attractiveness, just not physically.

j_wilson2012

The field you are looking for is "evolutionary psychology" and, yes, sexual attraction is a big chunk of it.

Exactly. But what is sexually attractive and important to pass on to further generations is subjective.

And always open for interpretation. It is best to teach about the person the the look, for humanity is the only species in which the females flaunt their looks to attract the males.

30 percent of CEO's are 6' and higher....fyi.

ErinBeth7

I think that natural selection is at play. I've taken classes explaining why we pick attractive mates. It is very interesting...attractive mates signal good genes, healthy genes; therefore, we naturally gravitate towards them. Not to mention we enjoy the physical aspect.

Don't quote me on this, it may not be 100% correct. I was just going from what I remembered hearing.

carriempls

I absoutely believe that you need to be sexually attracted to you partner. Do people become sexier the more you get to know them? Sure. As far as the scale theory, I don't think so. Because who says he is an 8 or she is a 10? The scale will vary depending on who you ask. I may think the girl within the couple is sexier than the guy, but then someone else may disagree. And if neither can have a higher # than the other, you would have to have the same number....might make things a bit difficult....

Lets say I am a 6, for instance. I am not attractive enough to be going into a club every saturday night and taking a flock of girls home with me. Same as a woman would not even look in my direction if I dont instigate the conversation. I have observed this firsthand. The perception is that if a 6 dates a 10, the relationship is built on false premises, because the 10 is dating at his/her comfort level, and otherwise feels insecure. The 10 knows that the 6 will not stray. It shows low confidence, and on the flip side, it is only a matter of time before the 10 gets tired of what he/she is not getting out of the relationship, i.e. good sex, being out in public comfortably, etc (noone likes the pasty white guy with man-boobs on the beach). That is where I am coming from on that.

This has little to do with "natural selection", at least if you're talking about Darwin. Just sayin'.


As for choosing partners based on attraction, for me attraction is based on far more than looks. Looks are a factor, but one out of many. How a guy smells (and I'm not talking cologne), whether he makes me laugh, if he's smart, sense of style, all of those things are also factors.

Goal_Line

Lets say I am a 6, for instance. I am not attractive enough to be going into a club every saturday night and taking a flock of girls home with me. Same as a woman would not even look in my direction if I dont instigate the conversation. I have observed this firsthand. The perception is that if a 6 dates a 10, the relationship is built on false premises, because the 10 is dating at his/her comfort level, and otherwise feels insecure. The 10 knows that the 6 will not stray. It shows low confidence, and on the flip side, it is only a matter of time before the 10 gets tired of what he/she is not getting out of the relationship, i.e. good sex, being out in public comfortably, etc (noone likes the pasty white guy with man-boobs on the beach). That is where I am coming from on that.

Wow.. this is totally shallow. maybe the 6 is a very interesting person, with the kind of personalty people want to be around....just say'n. Sure looks play a factor, but for a lot of people other factors make people attractive....just say'n

ElizabethRoad

The field you are looking for is "evolutionary psychology" and, yes, sexual attraction is a big chunk of it.

Exactly. But what is sexually attractive and important to pass on to further generations is subjective.

And always open for interpretation. It is best to teach about the person the the look, for humanity is the only species in which the females flaunt their looks to attract the males.

30 percent of CEO's are 6' and higher....fyi.

70% of CEOs are shorter than 6 feet? What's your point?

j_wilson2012

Yes, but you're narrowing the definition of "attraction" down to physical appearance when there are definitely many more factors involved... size of territory, persistence of courting behavior, proof of certain skills and intelligence levels. If you want to compare us to animals (which you should, because we are) then you should compare accurately - the best looking animals aren't the ones who procreate most actively... it's the best looking ones with the biggest territories, loudest voices, most confident struts, and killer dance moves...

Walrus females just go for the one that is still alive.

pastryari

I don't think you can be with someone that you don't find attractive. What certain people find attractive is subjective, though. Everyone has different tastes.

You might not be attracted to the McLovin type but somewhere out there, there is a girl (or guy) that is.

Attraction is not limited to visual stimuli. To believe so it futile.

I assumed he was speaking about attraction on a physical level since he made a reference to somone looking like McLovin. That is what my response was to.

Don't assume that I think attraction is limited to looks. That is not what I said at all.

carriempls

I think that natural selection is at play. I've taken classes explaining why we pick attractive mates. It is very interesting...attractive mates signal good genes, healthy genes; therefore, we naturally gravitate towards them. Not to mention we enjoy the physical aspect.

Don't quote me on this, it may not be 100% correct. I was just going from what I remembered hearing.

This is correct. And not just "healthy" genes, but a diversity of and complimentary to each other. We want to make sure we're mixing the right genes together.

ErinBeth7

I think that natural selection is at play. I've taken classes explaining why we pick attractive mates. It is very interesting...attractive mates signal good genes, healthy genes; therefore, we naturally gravitate towards them. Not to mention we enjoy the physical aspect.

This is what I was trying to say. Well said.

As a psych student I found this question intriguing. My dissertation is going to be based on this somewhat so I'll be interested to know the answers. What I will say though is that sexual selection for men and women is not necessarily the same. Men (theoretically) are attracted to women who are younger, look fit and have a good waist to hip ratio as this would indicate health and fertility. A man's primal instinct is to impregnate as many women as possible in order to ensure the survival of the human race and all of thos characteristics will mean better success. Women don't just go for looks. They go for personality aswell. They need someone who is successful, reliable and stable. As women are the ones who have to carry the child they need to know that their mate will be able to support them and provide for them in the long run. This is all theory however!

jdploki70

There are two things at work here. There is natural selection, which is simply your ability to survive long enough to procreate. This has absolutely nothing to do with finding a mate, it just means that you are unlikely to, say, die of a horrible disease or starve to death because your food supply is gone. In the human species, there are a lot of people that, under normal circumstances, would not survive to reach breeding age, which is about 13 or so (we're talking biology, not society or morality).

The other factor at work is sexual selection. This is a much harder concept to measure. Basically sexual selection is natural selection that does not take into account survival any more. In nature there are several examples of birds for whom long plumage is considered a sexually selective trait, as they can attract the most mates and therefore procreate more often. The problem with this is that the gene that indicates long plumage is almost always in both the mother and father, so the offspring have even longer plumage. Which, of course, results in their not being able to fly. And they generally get eaten long before they get to mate.

jdploki70

for sure.

I am attracted to guys with dark eyes, dark hair, olive skin. Not only can I not resist dark features, but it basically assures me that my children will not be gingers!

Completely untrue, by the way. Red hair is a double recessive. Which means that the last person in either family that had red hair could be many generations in the past, but you can still get a baby with red hair. Ain't genetics a wonderful crap shoot? On the other hand, if I have a child with a red haired woman, it will have red hair, without exception. Sort of a built in paternity test...unless she has a thing for redheads.

j_wilson2012

I am not implying that a 6 may not be interesting. Heck, a 6 may be the most interesting man in the world (stay thirsty, my friends), but what would he/she have to do to get the attention of that 10? That is what I am gettin at. He/she would have to put forth a ton of effort, and if it does not work out, it would crush the 6. I have gone through this personally, so I can speak from experience. Yes, there are a lot of factors in a relationship, and it is not just about looks...I agree to that. But i was in a state of complete low self esteem. Every guy that my girlfriend came in contact with was better than me on every level. I would see that they were attractive, and I would become jealous, because I felt inferior.

Online dating is a good example for this 6-10 ratio. Online dating is mostly meant for the upper half of attactive people, because most people will judge the picture FIRST. they have that availability to do that, because they push one button and he/she goes away forever. It probably depends on the site, as well, but I cant speak from experience on this, so if it is different, enlighten me.

I am extremely intrigued by this conversation, and it is providing me with some very valuable feedback.

jdploki70

Best pick up line ever in the history of history. You walk up to a girl, any girl that doesn't have a guy with her, and say "hi". Things usually progress from there...