What Attracts You First? Poll #1 for Women Only

[LitNetIsGreat]

Originally Posted by Neely View Post
This deluded insistence on women being primarily attracted to humour, intelligence and politeness (and eye colour) can be really annoying for men whose past experience tells them otherwise.

Why would you care?

I'm not unpacking the rest of your psycho babble because life is too short - I'm talking about the Jews, Asians and hysterics et al: ('Generalizations are sexist, just like they are racist when you say "Asians are good at math," or "Jews love money.") please point out my racist/anti-Semitism in this thread, anyway, I'll answer this one...

I care because it is somewhat irritating to pretend that the majority of women are initially attracted to such traits in men as: intelligence, humour, kindness and eyes, and supposedly reject, good looks and 'alpha male' confidence and everything that comes with that - even fame, status or money? Are we supposed to genuinely believe that? Do you genuinely think so? Is it just me, Tony and MM etc who are mad then?

I personally care because this is actually an insult to all men who possess at least an element of kindness, humour and/or intelligence and see time and time again that this is not so. What tosh.

[Delta40]

Has it occurred to you Neely that heaps of women out there don't even have their radar on? That they're not even looking for a guy so when it does switch on its because of some guy that has finally penetrated through to them and it wasn't because of his alpha male characteristics, fame or money? I honestly don't know how you're limiting women - whether by age, demographics or what but you're doing a great job at stereotyping women across the board and Juniperwoolf's point about generalisations was well made.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I don't dislike women, this thread just got me riled up. I guess I should have included an emoticon to indicate a lack of complete seriousness with some of my comments (I thought Juniper, of all people, could figure that out--I guess that's an unpleasant surprise, too).

I can't say there isn't a certain bitterness in me if it's channeled, though (it was channeled here, obviously). I'm witty and have a sense of humor. I've made women laugh before. But I know better than most anyone that looks do indeed matter. Humor and charm may be the top of your list, but I can't help thinking anyone (man or woman) who doesn't acknowledge that looks matter is a liar.

All I've commented on is what I've observed in my own life, and that's that it seems like a lot of women date a-holes. So do men. It's usually not the person they end up with, because they realize the guy, or woman, is an a-hole. I've also noticed a lot of these women/men are usually not too bright, which is the opposite of the women on here. I think the women on here may not be the best representation of the average woman. That's a compliment--I feel like I need to point that out.

All the generalization I've made about women are the same ones I make about men. I don't think men and women are completely the same, but when it comes to relationships and attraction, I don't think we're that different. I think women can be just as shallow as men. That's not a sexist statement. It's the opposite. If my generalizations are wrong, then they're wrong for both sexes. Still, the opposite-sex bashing hasn't been all one side. There've been some snide comments made about men on here by women; maybe not as many, but there has. It goes both ways. In my life, I've heard women complain about men way more than vice-versa (men are pigs, insensitive, slobs, etc). Men's discussions on women usually boils down to "I don't understand."

And, one last thing. I think a lot assumed, including me, that these polls about what initially attracted someone to the opposite sex were strictly about physicality, because that is what out initial attraction is based on. I guess for some it was implied that the question "What attracts you first" included a bit of conversation with that person, or something. Still, I can't believe that when a woman, any woman, sees a physically attractive man from across the room, they're not attracted to him until they find out he has a good since of humor.

Edit: FB hasn't helped my views, either. I just logged on and saw yet another meme complaining about men, and it was the third thing down in the newsfeed, organized by most recent posts. This one said, "You're just like a penny. Worthless and found in everyone's pants." I see multiple posts like this daily (I almost never see a guy post similar things about women). My response to these has always been the same--quit dating guys like that (of course they come back with "all guys are like that"). I recently posted this mini-rant on FB: "What's with all this sappy relationship bull**** posts women are making? You want a good guy. We get it. Maybe you should stop dating *******s; that'd probably help." Five women liked it.

[Revolte]

I can't say there isn't a certain bitterness in me if it's channeled, though (it was channeled here, obviously). I'm witty and have a sense of humor. I've made women laugh before. But I know better than most anyone that looks do indeed matter. Humor and charm may be the top of your list, but I can't help thinking anyone (man or woman) who doesn't acknowledge that looks matter is a liar.

You're right on the dot. Looks defiantly matter, they just aren't the only thing that matters. And there isn't much of a definitive trait set for attractiveness either. Although, mythbusters might be on to something. I've always found myself more attracted to women with rounder faces and piercing eyes. Which is probably why I'm so into mexican girls.

But it's true that people like to think looks don't matter, and women are more pressured then men to think that way. After all, you don't wanna be a skank and have a preference, god forbid.... /sarcasm

I had a friend once tell me, though he is a guy and not gay nor bi, that I'm good to have sex with, but would go a little better for dating. As funny as it was, he pretty much hit spot on. I haven't had a relationship lasting longer then two months in a long time. But I've had more partners in the last year then I'm proud of.

So looks do matter, although no one looks exactly the same. And everyone is attracted to someone. I even have a friend who has a preference to "ugly" men.

And why wouldn't looks matter? We are still animals, and still have a sex drive. Yea sure sex is wonderful, but we still have instinct. Do you really want to breed children who won't be fit or have a good chance at reproducing themselves? Even if you say it wouldn't matter, it would.

Our species got this far for a reason.

Personally I think most people are pretty damned hot. But there are certain features that I find to be a turn off. I would imagine it's like that for you ladies here as well. Am I right?


However the same logic suggests intelligence, skill and other not so physical traits are just as important, but that sort of thing won't be an initial attraction in most cases.

[JuniperWoolf]

I'm not unpacking the rest of your psycho babble because life is too short - I'm talking about the Jews, Asians and hysterics et al: ('Generalizations are sexist, just like they are racist when you say "Asians are good at math," or "Jews love money.") please point out my racist/anti-Semitism in this thread.

How on earth did you get to be a teacher? Alright, let's unpack this slowly.

Stereotypes are dehumanizing. This is so because stereotypes strip people of their individualism, they imply that one person from one group is the same as any other from that group, which humans are not.

To make this point clear I offer a commonly socially recognized example (understand that word): it is dehumanizing and socially unacceptable to make a generalized statement about race, such as "Asians are good at math."

You have throughout this thread been making generalized statements about women, ie. "women are self-deluded," "women lie about their attractions," "all women are attracted to the same kind of man," ect.

Your comments are very sexist, and they are dehumanizing to women.

I personally care because this is actually an insult to all men who possess at least an element of kindness, humour and/or intelligence and see time and time again that this is not so.

Well so maybe a few women weren't attracted to your physicality or character enough to return your advances even though you think that your kindness, intelligence, and humor should have been enough for them (which is debatable). You realize they're allowed to say "no," people do have the right to choose their own mates. That doesn't mean you get to lash out at an entire population due to your bitterness at previous romantic rejection, that's just selfish and ignorant.

Still, the opposite-sex bashing hasn't been all one side. There've been some snide comments made about men on here by women; maybe not as many, but there has. It goes both ways. In my life, I've heard women complain about men way more than vice-versa (men are pigs, insensitive, slobs, etc).

That’s true, it’s more socially acceptable for women to stereotype men than it is for men to stereotype women (they still do it, but at least it's not tolerated outright, eg. commercials in which men are portrayed as incompetant children). I think that’s because men have been dominant without question up until about fifty years ago. It’s the same thing with say, for example, black people in the United States. It’s much more socially acceptable for a black person to say something derogatory towards a white person than vice versa. I dislike it, because the rush you get with the "my tribe vs. yours" feeling is addictive and destructive, and retaliation vicious circle blah blah blah.

Still, I can't believe that when a woman, any woman, sees a physically attractive man from across the room, they're not attracted to him until they find out he has a good since of humor.

No one made that claim, of course everyone is attracted to attractive people (the women on this forum have gone on at length about various celebrities that they find attractive so obviously they're not trying to convince anyone that they're blind), but their level of attraction would increase very much once they talk to him and discover that he's a pleasure to be around, whereas were she to discover that he had a personality trait which she found very unattractive (let’s say, for example, he’s socially inept in a way that makes her uncomfortable) her attraction would very much decrease. That's obvious, right? Attraction for most people, men and women, is a combination of physical and non-physical traits, like a balancing act.

[cacian]

I really personally think that the whole attractiveness business is much much deeper then all of this sometimes it is simply not that simple to explain why one is attracted to another.

[Babyguile]

Stereotypes are dehumanizing. This is so because stereotypes strip people of their individuality, they imply that one person from one group is the same as any other from that group, which humans are not.

Just to take a detour from the tedious and knuckleheaded 'argument' going on in this thread, stereotypes are bad because, on exposure (through any of their many manifestations), they affect a person's self-perception. Humans are multi-faceted and we put on various fronts (i.e. personalities) to suit situations we find ourselves in.

Pedalling a stereotype (as Neely is gleefuly doing) will breed more stereotypical behaviour, as people pander to the dominant stereotype within their social or professional groups in order to fit in. In short, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

It sounds simplistic, in fact it sounds very simplistic, but this is how our brain works.

Something as trivial as watching an air-headed young women or a babbling man (as you mentioned) on an advert can influence a person's behaviour and alter their expectations of themselves in the short term. But of course adverts, films, music, music videos, magazines, and the bombardment of these images in popular culture, as well as the peer-pressure thus created, means that we are subjected to a constant stream of harmful stereotypes (which are being reinforced at every turn), and which put our identity under threat.

I sound like a true bleeding heart liberal here, which is not good for MY self-esteem, but the truth is you can't deny the huge scientific consensus in publication right now, and it is being expanded and fortified as I type.

[stlukesguild]

I always find it fascinating that people will accept the notion that the images presented in commercials and ads have this profound impact upon the individual and even influence their behavior... which would seem logical... otherwise corporations wouldn't be investing billions in these very advertisements... and yet when the issue of the impact of violence in film or tv or music or video-games is raised, there's an absolute denial of any link.

Returning to the topic at hand... Neely simply seems to be suggesting... and perhaps not doing as good of a job of it as he is capable of... (Neely! lay off those Belgian Ales before posting!)... that women are no less attracted... first and foremost... by appearances than men. We are all visual beings and our visual perceptions are probably the first upon which we base our opinions of another person. A sense of humor, stellar personality, wit, intelligence, etc... these are all things that take a bit longer to discern. Neely suggested that perhaps women are being less than honest or kidding themselves when they suggest "kindness", "humor", "intelligence", and "eyes" as the first thing that attracts them. I somewhat concur. These may be important attributes... and in the long run more important than appearance... but are they really what first grabs your attention? I can't speak for others... but I suspect that some may indeed choose attributes other than the visual so as to not appear shallow (Perhaps men are more willing to appear like dogs... after all that's how we're often portrayed anyway.). I can't help but remember how Alex was taken to task as being inherently shallow and a bad person for admitting that his perceptions of a person are based first of all upon appearances... including dress.

I will also say, in Neely's favor, that it may be difficult not to imagine that something as "shallow" as material wealth is a major factor in sexual attraction... especially when one of the first questions many women will ask in the bar/nightclub situation is "So, what do you do?" This is followed with a clear recognition that answering "I'm a doctor" or "I'm a lawyer" or "I'm an investment banker" is far more likely to impress than declaring "I'm a school teacher" or "I'm unemployed at the moment". Of course, this could also be the result of the context. One might presume that women on the prowl for a wealthy husband may frequent the nightclubs more often than they hang out in the book stores, library, etc...

Most stereotypes have a degree of truth to them... which is why they arose in the first place. Both of my Asian studio-mates are quite good in math... having taken advanced classes in the subject. Their families... and those of a great many Asians... place the highest value upon education and absolute respect for educators. But ultimately such stereotypes may not represent anywhere near the majority of the group the purport to represent (women, Blacks, Asians, etc...). JBI dashed a great many illusions about the highly motivated Chinese with his observations of Chinese students during his stay in China. My Korean studio-mate, contrary to the stereotype of the passive Asian women, is a stay-at-home-husband in contrast to his physician wife... and contrary to the stereotype of women hunting for rich husbands, he consciously sought out a wealthy wife by scoping out the pool and gym at the university where many med-students worked out, with the full recognition of the fact that medical students are often so overworked that they have little or no social life. As sleazy as it sounds, it's worked out for him as they've been married over 15 years now,

[LitNetIsGreat]

{edit}

(Neely! lay off those Belgian Ales before posting!)

Ha, ha, I did have a few beers and it was not far off 2.00am, never a good idea you are correct.

As to your other points (I don't have time to answer fully or it will end up being 2.00am or something, but in short yes I agree with the bulk of your points). I also wonder if some people have merely picked out traits that they find attractive, as opposed to what first attracts. I still think there is a difference between what say and actually do though, in many situations too, not just with this topic - for both sexes. I'm still not buying the fact that looks don't feature strongly though no chance. (Did not one female poster mention workmen with tops off or something earlier too? Good sense of humour they had was it???) I like the parallel between this and Alex's fashion comments yes.

Anyway, apologies if my ramblings (astute observations) have offended 'the feminist crowd'. I must learn that there is just no arguing with women because they know best, all of the time, in all things... So as way of apology, I've found you something you should enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTiBK...feature=relmfu

[papayahed]

At first I'm attracted to wavy hair, brown eyes (they're so soulful), and a guy's laugh. Certain musicians. Not necessarily famous guys but the lead singer of a local band and the guitar player of a rock a billy band are two of the sexy men I've ever seen. And hands, I like manly hands (and no I can't describe it) and proportionate wrists.

[Delta40]

are 'the feminist crowd' attracted to men?

[JuniperWoolf]

Neely suggested that perhaps women are being less than honest or kidding themselves when they suggest "kindness", "humor", "intelligence", and "eyes" as the first thing that attracts them.

First off I really need to get this straightened out: why do you two keep suggesting that eyeballs aren't physical? What else are they? Not many people have mentioned them anyway, at least not once we stack eyeball admiration up next to genital admiration.

Okay, moving on. I think if you read over the first page again, you'll see that this thread might have just gradually changed in the first page from "what initially attracts you" (the first post mentioned being largely physical) to "what do you desire in an optimum mate." It just altered course is all, as threads often do, before Neely jumped in.

Also, see Mutatis here:

I think a lot assumed, including me, that these polls about what initially attracted someone to the opposite sex were strictly about physicality, because that is what out initial attraction is based on. I guess for some it was implied that the question "What attracts you first" included a bit of conversation with that person, or something

I think he's right, some modicum of initial brief interaction was implied; otherwise Calidore wouldn't have included intangible qualities, unless he's implying rather that litnet is psychic.

I can't speak for others... but I suspect that some may indeed choose attributes other than the visual so as to not appear shallow (Perhaps men are more willing to appear like dogs... after all that's how we're often portrayed anyway.).

I think that both the men and women were unwilling to appear shallow, wasn't "smile" one of the first ones mentioned on the For Men thread? Also Charles said, regarding the physical vs. intangible:

I had to vote for both because they go hand-in-hand

Followed by almost no posts at all for weeks (except two about bottoms, but like I said the ladies and also Pip have been very open about their admiration of male genitals, so there you are). You might be forgetting, it was other men who berated Alex for being shallow (mostly Mark I think). In the original "Attraction" thread, the first three posts were by women and were physical, whereas the fourth and fifth were by men and were as follows:

If she's crazy, I'm usually attracted to her. I'm always drawn to the crazy ones. I don't know why.

Evidence of a brain..?

Intangibles. So, if Neely is using these threads to judge women as, on the whole, more self-deluded or less honest than men, he appears to be ignoring evidence to the contrary because he is biased as he takes this issue personally (as he noted above: "I personally care because this is actually an insult to all men who possess at least an element of kindness, humor and/or intelligence"); which, ironically, would make him deluded about delusion.

I will also say, in Neely's favor, that it may be difficult not to imagine that something as "shallow" as material wealth is a major factor in sexual attraction... especially when one of the first questions many women will ask in the bar/nightclub situation is "So, what do you do?" This is followed with a clear recognition that answering "I'm a doctor" or "I'm a lawyer" or "I'm an investment banker" is far more likely to impress than declaring "I'm a school teacher" or "I'm unemployed at the moment".

This is seen by a large chunk of women as one of the most humiliating female stereotypes and I like it that women argue against it, because I hope that it ceases to be so prevalent. Do you not see how devoid that notion is of pride for someone who works hard to develop themselves to hear someone say “women are attracted to big wallets?” The way we’re talked about, it’s like older men think we’re all schemers who are looking for a free ride. 61% of Canadian university graduates were female in 2007, there are more females with at least a bachelor's degree in my country than there are men. Top of the class was female for every class I've had except three.

I’m not saying there’s no such thing as a woman who is financially dependant on a man: I come from an old-school place, and many of the women who end up staying here marry miners or lumber workers, staying in the home, having babies, and they have to because the work in the mine and mill is VERY physically demanding even to most men, so they can't get jobs in the industry (there are a lot of married couples who both work at the prison though). I just don’t see why all women should live with the stereotype that they’re seeking to be financially dependant on a man when the number of women who actually are financially dependant on men are in the minority (only 7% of Canadian women are unemployed). So if it isn't true for the majority (whereas for example Japan really does score higher in math), then why does the stereotype persist?

"What do you do" is how people are weighed and measured in modern society, it's how you frame someone's identity and worth in your mind when you meet them. It's not fair to blame that whole trend on women.

Did not one female poster mention workmen with tops off or something earlier too? Good sense of humour they had was it???

That was me. Once again, although a woman’s brain might be small, we are capable of being attracted to the abdomen of one man if that’s what is visible at the time and the humor of another during a completely separate encounter.

Anyway, apologies if my ramblings (astute observations) have offended 'the feminist crowd'. I must learn that there is just no arguing with women because they know best, all of the time, in all things... So as way of apology, I've found you something you should enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTiBK...feature=relmfu

Haha, that was a very smooth final barb and swift exit. Not obvious at all, your pride must be thoroughly intact.

[Scheherazade]

I cannot help but wonder whether the term "attraction" is causing a little confusion as well.

I take the term to mean the strong liking encouraging one to find out more about someone else. It is possible to look at a guy or a girl and acknowledge that they have nice hair, eyes, smile or body but those in themselves do not make me decide that they would be worthwhile -from my point of view- to get to know.

Someone who shows signs of intelligence and of similar interests is more likely to make me take a double take and encourage to find out more about him. And, for me, that is what attraction is.

As a side note, one thing that is surely not attractive is contempt shown towards modern women in these threads; labeling them "superficial" or "dishonest" simply because they can differentiate between "Such lovely eyes" and "Please, please, please talk to me!"

I feel I should not go into "wallet-hunters" business at all as it already rather embarrassing for the guys here even to have made such immature claims. Well, for most of them at least.

For others, it is nothing less than expected.

[papayahed]

Someone who shows signs of intelligence and of similar interests is more likely to make me take a double take and encourage to find out more about him. And, for me, that is what attraction is.

oh absolutely, a guy could have the waviest hair in the world but that goes out the window if his hobby turns out to be kicking puppies and knocking old people over.

[Scheherazade]

oh absolutely, a guy could have the waviest hair in the world but that goes out the window if his hobby turns out to be kicking puppies and knocking old people over.

Oh, I am sure you can overlook those if his wallet is full enough!