Physical attraction: Some things I've noticed

[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.

 

[Stasisesque]

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.

I do find it odd. I find any idea of a "type" odd, I understand finding one person attractive and then people of similar looks attractive by familiarity, but never venturing outside of that same particular set of features I find to be bizarre and to my eye, the three women in the OP have very, very similar features. They are all very good looking women, so maybe it's just that, classically attractive hence they look alike.

It, as mentioned in above posts, could simply be down to me not really noticing their bodies, or it could be how I recognise faces and have lumped all three into a similar box. It's probably the latter, as I can't see how Laurence Fishburne and Tom Hiddleston look at all similar (though I will give you Eric Idle and Laurence Fishburne, tentatively).

 

[Eddie the head]

[It, as mentioned in above posts, could simply be down to me not really noticing their bodies, or it could be how I recognise faces and have lumped all three into a similar box.

That was my entire point. That it's arrogant to assume that just because you don't recognize it it's not there. So fine we agree lets move on.

 

[Stasisesque]

[It, as mentioned in above posts, could simply be down to me not really noticing their bodies, or it could be how I recognise faces and have lumped all three into a similar box.

That was my entire point. That it's arrogant to assume that just because you don't recognize it it's not there. So fine we agree lets move on.

I didn't think I said they absolutely were identical, did I? I certainly meant to be subjective, else my point about everyone being attractive to someone wouldn't make any sense.

I suppose it would be arrogant to think your opinion of attractiveness is the be all, end all, but that is definitely not what I meant.

 

[Julius Terrell]

To all those that say I lack confidence, you all are crazy. It takes 10x more confidence to walk in my shoes. Everything about me as always been the opposite of the idea. I usually stand out because I've got the kind of confidence that most people will never have.

I've learned to build my confidence, because I have talents and an amazing personality for those that are willing to get to know me. I never knew I was even short until maybe 3 years ago. I'm in my mid-30s so I never walked around thinking about this height thing until I started people watching when I worked at the airport. I noticed that most of the tall guys had women and kids and wondered why just them.

My dating prospects really bottomed out during my 20s. I rarely had success with women during that decade, but I had no interest in going to the kinds of social places people liked to go(clubs,sporting events, ect..ect). I hate ANY kind of popular music so that makes it plausible.

I've always been able to have nice conversations with women, and do all the right things. It's just that I have a hard time meeting single women. Most women in my age bracket have been off the market FOREVER. I just find the thought of dating older women to be an exercise in misery so I always try to find 20-somethings. Works best for me. I'm rambling.....back on point.

I work in a mall as a cleaner and I see the kinds of men women are interested in. Big and Tall is what I see first and formost. I do see short guys with women too, but struggle is to get where they are(there is a huge Mexican population where I live).

I've tried internet dating, but I've been pretty much ignored there. So why is confidence the most important thing when women SAY they like big and tall guys again. I mean I see it with my eye-balls. All these big and tall guys literally tower over me so how am I supposed to compete with what women desire? Do some research online and it will back up what I've been saying. I've never heard of anyone say I've always wanted a short man. Most women seem to think that there are no 5'3" guys. That's how bad my situation is.

 

[Vault101]

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.
.

yeah they do...its called their sex drives...

 

[rosac]

Yeah I can agree with this. I generally prefer white, more athletic girls with dark hair but also got with asians (Both Japanese and Chinese), curvier girls, blondes, redheads.

For a girlfriend, personality and not being cray-cray is the main selling points. For one-offs, physical attractiveness is probably top.

EDIT:

I'm not sure if it's something women necessarily love as much as it's weird societal expectations.

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'.

I know two very tall girls (well, one is naturally like 6'3" and the other is 5'11"ish and wears heels) and they are very uncomfortable with their height, often ducking or kneeling down slightly when in pictures with their friends.

If It's a picture on their own/selfie they stand up straight, and they're (In my humble opinion, although this could be due to my tastes outlined above, i.e. one is blonde and athletic, the other is brunette) very good looking, one of them is a model for christs sake! If they wanted to, they could catch the attention of any (single) guy they liked.

Just goes to show how social expectations can affect people's confidence really.

 

[Cette]

Mmh. I can't say for sure, since I don't know how many unwanted advances I'd have had if I was a male.

But I think... if there's guys out there who'd date someone only because she has a vagina, then there must be women out there who'd date someone only because he has a wiener. So... isn't it an equal ratio for both genders, if you really just want someone, anyone, to have sex with you?

Not a scientific study here but most women I know with varying levels of attractiveness complain about consistent unwelcome advances from men. Sometimes on as high as a daily basis.

As a middle of the road looking guy at best I've been hit on by usually fairly unappealing women on maybe a once every three months basis. And even then they're a hell of a lot more reserved in how they play their hand.

Though that may come down more to standards about who's supposed to approach who. Maybe some of those guys hit on everything that moves because it works based of getting hits off equally unselecting women.

Plus add in variances for some women's reaction to a given advance changing based on when in the month it's delivered. Men tend to be pretty consistent in desire across the board.

Not sure on how much that last one factors in on average but I know a few women who oscillate between chaste and humping nearby legs based hormonal state and I figure it's gotta be accounted for.