Attraction Question

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...

apedeb09

Definitely need to be sexually attracted in someway.. but it has alot to do with personality as well.. I've dated a guy before that I wasn't very physically attracted to at first, but then after getting to know him I thought he was very sexy.. And on the flip side there has also been guys who I thought were really cute and we were both physically attracted to eachother but we had nothing in common so in the long run it didn't work out.

RobynC79

I think you are confused about 'natural selection' which only tangentially deals with mate choice. Selection of a mate and natural selection are not the same thing.

Essentially, mate choice follows some fairly universal tenets: Females usually choose the male. Females trade assurance of resource provision (the male's job is to hold onto to, and provide her with, those resources) against an assurance of paternity (provided by the female allowing continued mating opportunity). A male with higher Resource Holding Potential (that's the real term for it) will be chosen by MORE females, not necessarily by females of higher quality.

Generally, females are choosy, males are opportunistic and not selective,.

In humans, mate choice is decided largely on proxy - what is typically attractive in females indirectly signals fertility and fecundity. In males, good looks, fancy stuff and money signal a high-quality mate who provides both good genes and the resources to provide for those offspring.

Like it or not, humans aren't that different to any other species. Highly fertile females are obtained and guarded by highly resourced males. Females require males to demonstrate their resource holding potential (which suggests a solid genetic makeup) before mating, then permit or encourage the male to assume exclusive rights, thereby encouraging continued provision of the resources she needs to bear healthy offspring.

sunshine_gem

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.

Sorry, not true. My family is littered with redheads, at least one in every generation and not all of their children have red hair. And before you say it, no there was no infidelity.

j_wilson2012

I think you are confused about 'natural selection' which only tangentially deals with mate choice. Selection of a mate and natural selection are not the same thing.

Essentially, mate choice follows some fairly universal tenets: Females usually choose the male. Females trade assurance of resource provision (the male's job is to hold onto to, and provide her with, those resources) against an assurance of paternity (provided by the female allowing continued mating opportunity). A male with higher Resource Holding Potential (that's the real term for it) will be chosen by MORE females, not necessarily by females of higher quality.

Generally, females are choosy, males are opportunistic and not selective,.

In humans, mate choice is decided largely on proxy - what is typically attractive in females indirectly signals fertility and fecundity. In males, good looks, fancy stuff and money signal a high-quality mate who provides both good genes and the resources to provide for those offspring.

Like it or not, humans aren't that different to any other species. Highly fertile females are obtained and guarded by highly resourced males. Females require males to demonstrate their resource holding potential (which suggests a solid genetic makeup) before mating, then permit or encourage the male to assume exclusive rights, thereby encouraging continued provision of the resources she needs to bear healthy offspring.

Kudos to that. Yes, the apperance is the tangible trait, but if you have BOTH the attractiveness and the personality, it makes it a ton easier to find a lifelong mate and/or better life than one who lacks one or the other. That would be my assumption. Is that correct?

I am trying to figure out what is going on in my own life to make myself less confident and not as sociable as a lot of people. That is why I am digging into this question. there may be other theoretical questions forthcoming.

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.

Sorry, not true. My family is littered with redheads, at least one in every generation and not all of their children have red hair. And before you say it, no there was no infidelity.

I think you misunderstood me. If a red head (real red, not bottled, not sort of auburn, but really red) marries a real red head, they will have red headed children. I've been having this argument for 30+ years since my grandmother disowned me for being "not her progeny" due to red hair, so by all means, show me the punnet squares that prove your point.

RobynC79

Kudos to that. Yes, the apperance is the tangible trait, but if you have BOTH the attractiveness and the personality, it makes it a ton easier to find a lifelong mate and/or better life than one who lacks one or the other. That would be my assumption. Is that correct?

Sure, although overall appeal is obviously combinatorial - as a somewhat flippant example, if you are weird looking or socially awkward, having plenty of money makes up for a lot of that (see, Zuckerberg, Mark, for example). Alternatively, if you are plain looking but a generally lovely person, of course that helps too. If you've got it all, so much the better, but it's hardly the only way. And ultimately, gaining access to a high-quality mate is no assurance of life-long happiness - that's something totally different that is more about mutual matching of personality, not about matching up genetic traits of similar quality.

I am trying to figure out what is going on in my own life to make myself less confident and not as sociable as a lot of people. That is why I am digging into this question. there may be other theoretical questions forthcoming.

Personality just is - there's not much you can do to change yours, nor can you change anyone else's. I'm a severe introvert - that's how I am and there's no changing it. Remember - confidence is a performance. Perform enough and it starts to be more natural - it's a learned behaviour. In my opinion, there is a fairly weak relationship between objective measures of mate-quality and confidence of the owner of them.

Just pretend. Sometimes it works! ;-)

crisanderson27

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!

Why, hello there.

More seriously...for me, I need to be physically attracted to my partner initially, but once I'm in the relationship...if that changes, I don't fall out of love...or cheat. My physical attraction is based on a lot of things, and oddly enough...many times the physical part of it is surprisingly small.

Also, never in my life has what my kids might look like with someone ever crossed my mind lol.

Jules2Be

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!

Why, hello there.

More seriously...for me, I need to be physically attracted to my partner initially, but once I'm in the relationship...if that changes, I don't fall out of love...or cheat. My physical attraction is based on a lot of things, and oddly enough...many times the physical part of it is surprisingly small.

Also, never in my life has what my kids might look like with someone ever crossed my mind lol.

Chris, I am glad you're here...when i read her answer my heart broke a little bit.

Lift_This_

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!

screw that...i want lots of baby gingers running around my house!!!

crisanderson27

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!

Why, hello there.

More seriously...for me, I need to be physically attracted to my partner initially, but once I'm in the relationship...if that changes, I don't fall out of love...or cheat. My physical attraction is based on a lot of things, and oddly enough...many times the physical part of it is surprisingly small.

Also, never in my life has what my kids might look like with someone ever crossed my mind lol.

Chris, I am glad you're here...when i read her answer my heart broke a little bit.

Ahh Jules! Who could resist all that fuzzy red hair? I mean...the teeth are a bit offputting...but at least they are out there in the open for everyone to see right?? No surprises with you pretty lady!

Except the good ones of course!

:flowerforyou:

Contrarian

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!

Wow. Did you even consider how insensitive this comment was before you typed it? There are lovely people with all kinds of hair colours and complexions.

I hope you have a delightful ginger baby who totally changes your attitude.

fat2fitKara

I know the old cliche:"Its what is on the inside that counts." But do you really want the nicest, smoothest guy if he looks like McLovin?

YES. Especially if he's wearing a vest and looks like aladdin.

JeaninePaige

t it basically assures me that my children will not be gingers!

ಠ_ಠ

Ditto. WTF

MrsRipdizzle

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!

Wow. Just wow. How incredibly shallow and rude. I add red to my hair because, quite frankly, it's gorgeous and a true ginger is such a rare beauty.

Afterblue

My graduate degree is in Social Psychology. I consider Evolutionary Psychology to be...er..dubious. There is a reason why they can never prove any of their major theories in a peer reviewed journal. And why they cannot explain why their theories do not work across cultures when we have all descended from the same "people".

A lot of what Evopsych claims to be the result of evolution is nothing more than culture at play.

That is my personal view anyway.

AABru

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!

Interesting theory...my husband is a brunette with dark eyes, and I am a brunette with blue-grey eyes...guess what? We have a beautiful red haired, brown eyed girl...love, love, love my ginger!

roachhaley

natural selection isnt about your kids "looking good".

for example, a reason why fair skin is sometimes "superior" is because it is easier to spot disease on people with fair skin - NOT that their skin tone is more "attractive".

TriThreat

while I think physical attraction is very BIG part of a relationship, I think that LOVE isn't completely about physical attraction.

LOVE is what makes you want to grow old together.

LOVE is what keeps you there when you "lose" your looks

LOVE is partially physical attraction, but it's more about WHO you are and not HOW YOU LOOK.

Physical attaction will be a factor, but LOVE will be the big thing for me and that's in my lil arrogant opinion haha feel free to disagree, I truly believe it's all subjective

AABru

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.

I teach this in my 10th grade Bio class... nicely worded. Sexual selection is a completely different animal. I joke that I married my average height/weight husband in a feeble attempt to cull my gene pool for my children. The men in my family are well over 6 feet (brother is 6'8"), and we are all built like trucks. But really that attraction was because he never pushed me to do anything I didn't want to, made me laugh and has perfect kissable lips. :blushing:

Jacwhite22

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!

I hope you end up with a house full of Annie's