Genderful Attraction

[Killigrew]

So I've come to the conclusion that the general necessary thing for a man to be attractive is reliability, the sense that he is or can become trustworthy.


For a woman, I've the tentative theory that her common denominator is being vulnerable in some way, and it is implied per her character that she is or can become trusting of the person romantically partner to her.


Specifically talking on the fictional sense, but then again, the fictional always reflects the real, so I guess RL is relevant too.


Anyway, what's everyone's thoughts on this?

 

[Atom]

Although my answers were already included in your post killi(GFDI! I wanted to say those again!!!) I shall be content to expand on them.


The following post is opinionated as hell and has NOOOO prior research at all done to it.


In my own opinion a majority of men seem to seek some form of dominance. And no I don't mean that weird fifty shades of @Grey (hehehehhehe couldn't help it) stuff. I just mean to a slight degree, like being a person someone looks to for support or making someone happy by just being a person.


In that definition I can't help but feel that because of that we men are pulled towards those women who show a sense of vulnerability or need for someone to support them or console them. Not all cases are based on that but a majority in my opinion are founded on that in some form.


General attractiveness falls into play as well as most men need to be at least in contact with such a person to feel these thoughts and feelings in these moments. There is a fine line between sympathy and a need to console someone and in my case that fine line happens to be attractiveness. Sorry yea whatever it makes me sound like a total prick who only cares about looks yada yada whatever it's how my brain is wired deal with it.


Anyways, I don't usually get close to anyone at all that I don't find attractive to some degree unless I'm forced into communication to them in some way, like class, sitting next to them on a bus for assigned seats, or fiends by association of another friend like hanging out in a group. Otherwise I don't activily seek communication with someone I find unattractive("boooooo atom is a prick who only cares for looks" there I said it so no one else needs to! > )


Given that there needs to be SOME sort of attraction prior as well as at least a small bit of prior communication, otherwise you reside on the sympathy side of this fine line.


Now for men.


This bit is even MORE opinionated because Atom is a man and has next to no fucking clue what he's talking about but feels the need to strut his experimental knowledge


So in my life I've seen a lot of relationships and ladies I'm sorry but the majority of you seem attracted to a man who shows dominance in some form. Like I stated above. Men naturally need to be dominant in some form and a lot of women seem to seek that, whether it's the bad boy who they want to tame, or the down to earth guy who has his shit straight and just radiates confidence. Confidence in my opinion could be another distinctive form of dominance being shown. Because if you're confident...ehh I can't explain it's just a thought.


Anyways a majority of women seem to seek out a guy who seems dominant in some form. Yea trustworthy nice and reliable are all nice traits but let's face it, the men who were saying this in the SB only wish it was completely that way and the truth is women either like that asshole who is a complete prick or the smart guy who's better than you in everything. Now not to say that this majority is big or such, hell 51 percent would still be majority y'know?


Anyways here's my HIGHLY opinionated post. Enjoy

 

[Idrat]

So I've come to the conclusion that the general necessary thing for a man to be attractive is reliability, the sense that he is or can become trustworthy.


For a woman, I've the tentative theory that her common denominator is being vulnerable in some way, and it is implied per her character that she is or can become trusting of the person romantically partner to her.


If there was anything I learned in my gender studies class, it was that what is considered attractive about men and women changes depending on a culture's beliefs on what men and women should be. There exist cultures where men are selected based on their ability to provide and others where they are selected from their beauty. There are cultures where women rely on their male partners to provide for them and others where they rely on their brothers and sisters, instead.

 

[Killigrew]

Atom, I completely disagree on the dominance thing. I think guys are more attractive when they are reasonable and not following some dominance need nonsense.

If there was anything I learned in my gender studies class, it was that what is considered attractive about men and women changes depending on a culture's beliefs on what men and women should be. There exist cultures where men are selected based on their ability to provide and others where they are selected from their beauty. There are cultures where women rely on their male partners to provide for them and others where they rely on their brothers and sisters, instead.

So am I correct in assuming that you think there is nothing empirical about gender-bound attraction? Do you think everything we are attracted to in the opposite sex is all programmed into us by our culture?

 

[Idrat]

Well, I do think that there is a degree of biological criteria for attraction, in there. But I also believe that a lot of things we "know" about gender are social constructions. How else could the world have such an incredible diversity of gender systems? Why would people freak out over changing gendered norms if it were truly biological, monolithic, and forever?


There have been studies that have shown that women with heightened estrogen levels during ovulation appeared as more attractive to men. I also hear things about attraction through pheromones emitted in body odor. However, assumptions about what makes a person attractive to the opposite sex (even the structuring of romantic/sexual relations between opposing social categories) - I believe - are cultural. Humans are not animals, after all. We have the ability to interpret the world in different ways. Depending on what a culture thinks men, women, and whomever else (third, fourth, and even fifth genders exist) should be in their society, it will idealize different characteristics.


So if I'm from a society hit by constant warfare in which someone could chop my head off at any time, I will have been told/shown from before I could talk that warriors make good husbands. If I live in an affluent society with very little violence but a harsh legal system, I won't see the guy as a knight in shining armor - I'll see him as a thug and go for another man who avoids fights and has a good job.

 

[Killigrew]

Yeah, but isn't attraction more versatile than that? I could find each of those examples you gave attractive provided the interior of the person's being was in some way reliable or intriguing.


I honestly only know of two genders. And I am well aware that I am benighted in knowledge. But two genders has been enough so far ive never had contact with a third gendered kind, not animal nor human, so I can't even begin to factor that in.

 

[Idrat]

Sorry xD I'm thinking too much of the sociology and too little of the individual involved

 

[Killigrew]

I gave myself as an example because I am a product of my culture!


...or am I? (>u>)

 

[Atom]

Atom, I completely disagree on the dominance thing. I think guys are more attractive when they are reasonable and not following some dominance need nonsense.
So am I correct in assuming that you think there is nothing empirical about gender-bound attraction? Do you think everything we are attracted to in the opposite sex is all programmed into us by our culture?

Why is a reasonable guy non dominant?


The dominance thing is more of a primal urge thing that is in everything.


Dominance isn't always personified through the examples I gave, that's simply the majority in my opinion.


 
And remember I'm talking majority not minority.

 

[Shining Lotus Sage]

I disagree with the suggestion that culture can't be empirically studied. Arianrhod gave a testable hypothesis, and we could start brainstorming ways to operationalize attraction right now, if we wanted.


In direct answer to the original question, I think you've adequately described a few of the "normal" desirability factors in the anglosphere, anyway. I caution you that "most important factor" is not the same as a sufficient condition, or even a necessary condition. Social sciences tend to pioneer new statistical methods precisely because human behavior is so complicated, and its influences so intricate.

 

[Bone2pick]

[QUOTE="Shining Lotus Sage]I disagree with the suggestion that culture can't be empirically studied. Arianrhod gave a testable hypothesis, and we could start brainstorming ways to operationalize attraction right now, if we wanted.

[/QUOTE]
While I wouldn't suggest that culture can't be empirically studied, I am far more dismissive of the conclusions from cultural studies compared to studies done in the hard sciences. From what I've seen, lots of critical human variables aren't given enough consideration. Sometimes I suspect that's simply a flaw in the study, other times I suspect they're (the variables) left out intentionally to push an agenda.

 

[Shining Lotus Sage]

You're missing the influence of IRBs that won't sign off on anything remotely like what chemists, or even biologists do. A high-energy physicist doesn't have to provide reason to believe the quarks' lives won't be unduly disrupted by their time in the particle accelerator.


In the end, though, most fields have to establish their own methodologies and standards of evidence. If you want to discuss particular studies you think were poorly designed, we should do that in private message. But for the purposes of this conversation, I think that an appeal to authority when making extremely general points is not out of line.


Addendum: Appeal to authority isn't even the topic, though, but whether it's even possible to test whether the levels of violence between men in a society correlate with women's stated and/or demonstrable attraction to men who are disposed toward violence. That would provide evidence for or against a cultural theory of desire, no?

 

[Atom]

This got way too in-depth for me...


Damned people who know what they're talking about... (jk xP)

 

[Shining Lotus Sage]

This got way too in-depth for me...
Damned people who know what they're talking about... (jk xP)

Yeah, uh, sorry for my part in that. But have no fear! There's nothing like a consensus on the origins of desire, just spitballing and pet theories. So it can't carry on in this vein!


I think we're attracted to the people whose interactions with us let us play out the roles that make us value ourselves, by nature, and that cultural factors provide the dramatis personae we select among.

 

[Bone2pick]

[QUOTE="Shining Lotus Sage]You're missing the influence of IRBs that won't sign off on anything remotely like what chemists, or even biologists do. A high-energy physicist doesn't have to provide reason to believe the quarks' lives won't be unduly disrupted by their time in the particle accelerator.

[/QUOTE]
That's a major difference, certainly.

[QUOTE="Shining Lotus Sage]
In the end, though, most fields have to establish their own methodologies and standards of evidence. If you want to discuss particular studies you think were poorly designed, we should do that in private message. But for the purposes of this conversation, I think that an appeal to authority when making extremely general points is not out of line.

[/QUOTE]
If you desire to present or perform a cultural study I wouldn't consider that "out of line." But depending on the methodology of the study and reasoning of it's conclusion I may dismiss it as being flawed. Again, with a higher percentage of dismissal compared to a biological study.

[QUOTE="Shining Lotus Sage]
Addendum: Appeal to authority isn't even the topic, though, but whether it's even possible to test whether the levels of violence between men in a society correlate with women's stated and/or demonstrable attraction to men who are disposed toward violence. That would provide evidence for or against a cultural theory of desire, no?

[/QUOTE]
It could. The terms would need to be clearly defined, which many cultural studies fail to do. Violence would need to be defined, as in what exactly constitutes violence. Desire/attraction would need to be defined, sexual desire vs psychological/emotional desire. And how the desire is actually measured could come under question due to possible inaccuracies in the measurement method. Some social studies present self-reporting as evidence for their conclusions.


Could studies be done that provide evidence for or against a cultural theory of desire? I believe so. Could poorly reasoned and executed studies misrepresent evidence for or against a cultural theory of desire? I believe so.

 

[White Masquerade]

Kill, you have to say which kind of attraction you're looking for. If it's physical, those who were saying it's rooted in culture, are mistaken. It's bodily chemicals, bone-structure (such as jawline & the shape of shoulders), tone of voice, etc. This is why it's possible to be physically attracted to someone you mentally hate. Atom is in the right when he says, he looks first. Sounds offensive, but it's really not. Guys are naturally meant to be visual.


In opposition to an earlier comment, humans are indeed animals. We're really not as high-class as we think we are. There are animal instincts that drive us whether we choose to recognize them or not. Just because you close your eyes, doesn't mean what you're looking at isn't there anymore. With that said, it highlights where the cultural-influence argument is coming from. Culture and such influences the mental part of attraction. In some cases, mental attraction overrules the physical. I've met people who I've become interested in after a quick glance, but once we got to talking and found there was no connection there mentally (whether it was religious views, maturity, blah-blah-blah), took steps back. If relationships didn't need talking it'd be perfectly fine, but you know that's not the case.


As far as attraction having nothing to do with the physical...I have no idea. Just to give you a complete answer, I'll take a swing at it though. Something broad. For an attractive guy...one who gives you security in whatever you're searching for. Financial, emotional, the rest. For an attractive gal...one who gives support in all that you do. Thinking of switching jobs? She'll be the first one to say yes, and spend more time looking through the classifieds than you do.


Good question

 

[Shining Lotus Sage]

And yet physical lust isn't immune to editing by the executive, either. Symmetrical features and clear skin are pretty absolute standards. Everybody responds well to those, rates them as more attractive, experiences more vasodilation and pupil dilation in response to them. I don't want to sound as though there are no basic meat-beast factors in play. But those aren't the only things we think of as physically attractive, right? And the other things do vary, from place to place and across time. Things that twig our heuristics and indicate that this person is probably the kind of person we desire for reasons other than the most basic genetic propagation urge. Sex is rarely just about thinking someone's pretty.


Totally in favor of clarifying terms, though. You're right, that "attraction" is terribly vague and not useful for serious analysis without more detail.

 

[White Masquerade]

:5/5: Excellent. I do agree with everything you've said. Just wanted to point out that mental is everything. There are two attractions at play.

But those aren't the only things we think of as physically attractive, right?

Who knows. I'm just under the impression if humans were placed in a lab setting from when they were babies, and were placed in front of two of the opposite gender, they'd overwhelmingly prefer the one with attractive biological traits.

• The setup would be Choice One, has all the ideal pluses, while the Choice Two, has none of the biologically attractive features. I'd wager even giving Choice Two a Neuroscience PhD, and title of president wouldn't make a difference.
  

What influences the non-physical half of us is the million dollar question =/. Nothing else to say but you and Arian are right. It's spatial and temporal variation in preferences.