Why do women love confidence in a man?

[Galletea]

I think the issue her isn't a matter of confidence, but the way you view confidence. Being confident in who you are is not the same as arrogance. So when a girl says she wants a confident guy, she isn't saying she wants a dominant, swaggering sort.

A confident guy is not necessarily the one who knows what he wants, but the one who knows and likes who he is.

So a girl who is comfortable with who she is, is probably more confident, and thus more attractive than the upfront scantily clad types, who are in reality not confident at all, and are overcompensating.

 

[bpm195]

A shy guy that isn't confident may very well be an awesome guy once you get through his shell, but a confident guy is already awesome without the coaxing. There's no benefit to being a shy guy; it's a character flaw any shy person should look to improve upon.

Furthermore, I'd contend that a guy who specifically favors shy girls or girls who lacks confidence, is simply trying to avoid competition. If you're going after a shy girl you're probably only competing against a small set of friends. If you go after a confident girl you're not only competing for her attention over her friends, but also a fairly active social life. It's pretty intimidating to try dating a girl that has such an active life that she has to specifically make time for you. It's much easier to go after a girl that spends all of her time at home alone.

 

[x EvilErmine x]

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you here, we are animals and we are programmed to reproduce.
It's not evo-psyche nonsense. Simple observation of human development and physiological responses shoot massive holes in your argument.

Well, then you'll have no trouble providing me the the peer-reviewed scientific journal that explicitly states all humans are programmed to reproduce. Go for it, it shouldn't take so long if it's so clear.

I can't because the studies have not been conducted. However this does not mean that my point is any less valid. All it says is that there is little scientific curiosity about the matter.

Explain why puberty happens if not to cause an organism to mature to a state that is capable of sexual reproduction?

That's not the same thing at all. Physical maturation grants the ability to reproduce. It is fallacious to assume that reproduction is "the purpose" simply because the species has the ability.

Really? Then what is the point? Why biologically expend needles energy (puberty is a highly energetically demanding process) to give the organism the ability to reproduce sexually if that organism has no desire to engage in sexual reproduction? Evolution does not preserver a trite if it servers no purpose or confers no survival advantages. Puberty and sexual reproduction would have been weeded out long ago in the evolution of our species if it did not confer some sort of advantage.

Why is it that even before we develop to sexual maturation we become aware of the opposite sex and become attracted to it?

Not all of us do. Many are homosexual. Many are bisexual. But even that is beside the point, because the desire to have sex is not programming to reproduce.

Again then I ask what is the point? I'm not speaking socially here I'm talking biologically. Sex feels really really good. The brain gives us a powerful hit of dopamine and endorphins upon orgasm. Our brain is set up in such a way that these chemicals produce a positive feedback loop. This alters our behaviour so we seek that same 'hit' again. In short it gives us the desire to get the feeling again, so we want to have sex again. Sex is pointless[footnote] Biologically[/footnote] if it is not for reproduction. It confers no other survival advantage to the organism.

I don't mean to be offensive but for this discussion we can discount gay and bisexual people. Taken as a percentage of the human population as a whole they do not account for a statistically significant minority. Thus can safely be excluded from our data set. Again i would like to stress that I'm talking scientific data sets here and I am not saying that they don't count as people or anything derogatory like that.

 

[cerebreturns]

How do you people feel about mother and father complexes then?

It is a fairly common enough thing for men to wish to take in much younger women and protect them, take them under their wing, raise them, use them what ever.

But it's not really prevalent in women at all. There are next to no women who seek to take in younger men and help raise/build them. Yes there are women who want to screw younger men but that doesn't play into this. Neither do women who wish to "help mature" men their age, as they ALSO want their men to already be confident.

This is another time where it seems like there should be a somewhat equal number of women, or at least a noticeable amount, that share the qualities a group of men do...but there isn't.


In before "she's easier to control and fuck" because by that argument women should be doing the same...hmm...unless they view the whole world as easy to get laid. Nvm...think I just answered at least part of my own point.

 

[Quadocky]

If you want a more relevant example, Yahtzee.
.

huh?..I dont get it

What I mean is that people like Yahtzee because he is assertive and consistent.

 

[Vegosiux]

I can't because the studies have not been conducted. However this does not mean that my point is any less valid. All it says is that there is little scientific curiosity about the matter.

Opinion, you mean. If you want to present it as a factual point, well, you kind of do need to back it up with some hard data.

Really? Then what is the point? Why biologically expend needles energy (puberty is a highly energetically demanding process) to give the organism the ability to reproduce sexually if that organism has no desire to engage in sexual reproduction? Evolution does not preserver a trite if it servers no purpose or confers no survival advantages. Puberty and sexual reproduction would have been weeded out long ago in the evolution of our species if it did not confer some sort of advantage.

Again, opinion. Hypothesis, at best.

Again then I ask what is the point? I'm not speaking socially here I'm talking biologically. Sex feels really really good. The brain gives us a powerful hit of dopamine and endorphins upon orgasm. Our brain is set up in such a way that these chemicals produce a positive feedback loop. This alters our behaviour so we seek that same 'hit' again. In short it gives us the desire to get the feeling again, so we want to have sex again. Sex is pointless[footnote] Biologically[/footnote] if it is not for reproduction. It confers no other survival advantage to the organism.

See, most of animals actually do not enjoy the act of reproduction, to most it's uncomfortable, to some it's downright painful. Desire to have sex and sex feeling good is not a universal thing in nature.

And well, an individual organism has no survival advantage in how often it engages in intercourse. In other words, people won't die if they do not have sex.

I don't mean to be offensive but for this discussion we can discount gay and bisexual people. Taken as a percentage of the human population as a whole they do not account for a statistically significant minority. Thus can safely be excluded from our data set.

Numbers, please. I do not mean to be offensive, but you understand that I do not want to take things at face value, yes?

Again i would like to stress that I'm talking scientific data sets here and I am not saying that they don't count as people or anything derogatory like that.

Let us see those scientific data sets then.

In short, all you've done here is trying your damnest to present opinion as fact, without stuff that's required to even be eligible to present it as fact. That's not good discussion.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

guess i'm the odd one out cause i friggn love shy girls, so if you guys are not interested send em my way please.
not to say there isn't a lower limit on it but generally i'd prefer a mousey well presented chick to one that runs around flopping her tits out hoping for everyone approval

....

I hate to break it to you, but Amy Acker isn't shy. She's a TV star and, as of Cabin in the woods, a Movie star.

She plays a "shy" girl sometimes - and other times she plays an angry Elder god. Or a grumpy Doctor.

However, she herself isn't a shy girl - she's anything but shy.

 

[Fuzzed]

Some women are looking for some big confidence below the belt

 

[Fortunefaded]

guess i'm the odd one out cause i friggn love shy girls, so if you guys are not interested send em my way please.
not to say there isn't a lower limit on it but generally i'd prefer a mousey well presented chick to one that runs around flopping her tits out hoping for everyone approval

Coz shy girls become actresses and love to stand in front of a camera?

I dated a girl with no confidence for 6 years and I also had no confidence. 5.5 years in, we get confident and happy with our individual selves and realize we don't fit as a couplke.

Since splitsville I can't stand unconfident women, if they have issues I'll give a tissue but stow your baggage away securely.

 

[Vegosiux]

Coz shy girls become actresses and love to stand in front of a camera?

Pretty sure he meant the character, not the actress. I mean it makes sense that way and all.

 

[x EvilErmine x]

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you here, we are animals and we are programmed to reproduce.
It's not evo-psyche nonsense. Simple observation of human development and physiological responses shoot massive holes in your argument.

Well, then you'll have no trouble providing me the the peer-reviewed scientific journal that explicitly states all humans are programmed to reproduce. Go for it, it shouldn't take so long if it's so clear.

I can't because the studies have not been conducted. However this does not mean that my point is any less valid. All it says is that there is little scientific curiosity about the matter.

Actually, it does. Because you're asserting something for which there is no evidence, which can't be proven. You're making things up because they feel right to you and passing them off as fact. That is invalid.

Fair enough I see your point. However I would like to add that the you saying there is no evidence is also can't be proven as no study has been done so we can't say if there is evidence or not.

Explain why puberty happens if not to cause an organism to mature to a state that is capable of sexual reproduction?

That's not the same thing at all. Physical maturation grants the ability to reproduce. It is fallacious to assume that reproduction is "the purpose" simply because the species has the ability.

Really? Then what is the point? Why biologically expend needles energy (puberty is a highly energetically demanding process) to give the organism the ability to reproduce sexually if that organism has no desire to engage in sexual reproduction?

Your question presumes the unsupportable assumption that there is a point, firstly. Your question implies the outright false notion of intentionality on the part of evolution, secondly.

Evolution does not preserver a trite if it servers no purpose or confers no survival advantages.

Incorrect. Humans have vestigial organs like the appendix and coccyx for a start, which confer no survival advantages.

Oh come on, why waste energy on something that serves no function? I think you miss understand me when i say what's the point? To clarify I mean that if there was not a point[footnote]read survival advantage[/footnote] in maintaining sexual reproduction and the desire for an organism to procreate then why do nearly all eukaryotic organisms maintain it as a method of reproduction? Asexual reproduction is a much more efficient method of procreation. If we are getting down to basics here. You are incorrect about the appendix, it does appear to have a function [http://www.news-medical.net/news/2007/10/08/30907.aspx]. Also The coccyx has plenty of function [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coccyx]

Citation the first: Amplification of dopaminergic signaling by a positive feedback loop [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC18851/]

Citation the second: Dopamine and oxytocin interactions underlying behaviors: potential contributions to behavioral disorders. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20557568]

As we are talking about 'programming' we essentially are talking about DNA, which mean that we are talking gene pools. Since gay/asexual couples can not reproduce sexually then they can be left out of the equation. Or maybe not [http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/how-nature-allows-the-gay-gene--to-flourish-543613.html], it's possible that if there is a genetic predisposition to being gay then from a population genetics point of view this may be an advantage.

Anyway it's late here and I'm very tired, also we seem to be derailing thins thread something rotten so if you want to continue this discussion further then PM me or something and i'll get back to you when i've had some sleep and can think straight.

 

[Fortunefaded]

Coz shy girls become actresses and love to stand in front of a camera?

Pretty sure he meant the character, not the actress. I mean it makes sense that way and all.

By George you are correct - it is late for me.

 

[sunsetspawn]

Being attracted to confidence is LEFTOVER MONKEY SHIT, like all human mating behaviors and most other behaviors. A confident MALE monkey is more likely to acquire more resources, and therefore natural selection caused the female monkeys to simply start being attracted to that confidence because it would later result in more stuff to be able to care for more baby monkeys. So now we have woman that don't even want children still desiring a confident man because it's been bred into her, and her reasoning will always be whatever nonsense-of-the-day is on her mind, but she's really just justifying LEFTOVER MONKEY SHIT.

Whenever you have a question about human behavior just look back to the leftover monkey shit.

Men preferring wider hips on a woman => more likely to survive childbirth => genetic line more likely to continue

Both sexes preferring facial symmetry on their partners => stronger immune system => genetic line more likely to continue.

 

[Loonyyy]

Correlation != causation.

I'm tickled pink by you following this up with a causational argument.

I wouldn't argue that I think that it's the answer though. It's stated in no uncertain terms by the OP, and many others, that women are more attracted to confident men. I wonder if the effect is entirely due to that, as opposed to the fucking obvious statistical effect. Correlation != Causation means that a statistical correlation does not prove, in deductive terms, that one event causes another, especially, that correlation does not show that one event on it's own caused another. You see what I'm getting at here?

I think it's a more plausible alternative that the biases in the experiment haven't been eliminated. I think that the whole thing is a probabalistic mess of multiple factors, and I think that attributing it entirely to an attraction to confidence is a mistake. Especially since the observation that confident men are more successful with women is the basis of that. That's the most simple correlation. But unless you rate each group over the same sample size, you'll have a problem.

From what I've seen, there's no evidence supporting the position that "Women are more attracted to confident men" as opposed to "Confident men are more likely to be successful with women.". The link between these two is assumed to be cause. I'm asking if it's not more likely that the thing is a statistical effect, a decidedly non-causational statement.

I've heard recently mentioned a few times by younger acquiantances and relatives of a study quoted by their driving instructors, wherein it was found that most car accidents happen within a certain distance of home. The quoted reason for this was that "People relax there, and then make mistakes."

But if we look at this for a moment, and consider other statistical inputs, we realise that the one point common to most car trips is the home. Going to the supermarket? Home is the start and finish. Work? Same. Picking up kids from school? Buying a new shirt? Clearly the home is a more likely place for accidents to happen, simply because you are near it more often. There may be some effect at play, but you need to compare car accidents with time in area, or distance travelled in area, rather than by circling the house and going "Hey, most of the accidents occur around here."

So, what I'd like to see for the attraction hypothesis is to compare the success rate in limited encounters. Heck, I can even design the experiment right now: You get a bunch of dudes, get them to fill out questionaires that rate social confidence, and then go on to have them interact with a bunch of women, and then get them to rate them, and see how confidence relates to their percieved attractiveness by women.

I should hope this is the nature of the evidence for the claim, and people just aren't mentioning it because they're repeating a meme as fact. But I'm doubtful on that one. It's entirely possible that these sorts of studies exist. My search for them was pretty shallow, but hey, it's possible everyone's repeating well known conclusions of studies I'm simply ignorant of.

But hey, call my questioning of the statistical rigorousness of the position a causational argument if you will. That's clever. It shows a deep understanding of biases and control or data sets.

 

[uzo]

*snippy* Women (and I hope I don't raise a shit storm by saying this), at least here, are bipolar cowards. *snippy*

El-oh-el.

When you say 'I hope I don't raise a shit storm', closely followed by the terms 'bipolar cowards', you can pretty much guarantee one thing - you're raising a shit storm.

That said, I do actually agree with you, although mainly in regards to younger women. All through university I remember the female students 18-23 or so as being something not dissimilar to what you say there. However, once they hit 25 years old and have a couple years of experience (sexual and otherwise!), they tend to chill out a bit. It's around then I have found many women actually do start looking for that 'nice guy' and get sick of dating tools.

It's possible to be nice and confident, too, I'd like to add to the discussion. I'm not saying I'm either, mind you. I'd consider myself on the arrogant side of confident (due to my towering intellect, dashing good looks, and my sexual prowess, of course). As far as 'nice' goes ... hmm ... I like to consider myself a gentleman, and rather consistent in my manner, but that doesn't mean I'm going to go out of my way for anyone.

But enough about me. In short, girls like confidence because they are conditioned to, whether that's a societal thing or an instinctive/biological thing I'll leave to Katatori-kun to rumble about.


Now, what would *really* be interesting, would be checking with gay men and women. Are gay men attracted to subs, or doms? It seems that there would have to be both, as a gay man would, I presume, generally 'prefer' the sub or dom role. The same could be said for gay women, as well, I guess? Would one of the pair generally be more confident/assertive than the other? And what of bisexual men and women? Would a bi-man go for sub women, but dom men? Or the reverse?

I think when you incorporate a variety of sexualities as we have in the above paragraph, rather than just presuming everyone is heterosexual and has sex in the missionary position for the express purpose of procreation (kinky bastards!), you will find that the answer swings towards a 'preference' issue. Some people, men and women, prefer confidence; some people, men and women, don't. I hope I haven't answered your question clearly because, as with most things sexuality-based, there isn't a clear one-size-fits-all answer.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

Coz shy girls become actresses and love to stand in front of a camera?

I think you meant to quote that to lechat rather than to me. I said basically the same thing you did.

 

[Lonewolfm16]

I think men also like confident women, you just seem to associate confidence with masculinity, which isn't very accurate. Confidence doesn't mean the same as swagger or dominance. Confidence is produced by a healthy amount of self-esteem, it is simply believing in yourself. Being comfortable in your own skin. What man doesn't find that attractive? Or rather, how many guys have you seen seek out the opposite? "Man, I really want a piece of that mousy girl in the corner who dresses like shit because she has no self-respect and looks like she'd rather be anywhere else but here."

Why men don't point it out as something they find attractive as often as women I can't say, but being a female myself I think I can guess why women feel the need to point it out. When growing up, guys tend to establish their pecking order by who has the most swagger, the most strength. They wrestle, they chase, they climb, arm wrestle, all those little contests to establish who's king of the hill. You bring another guy down a notch by outmatching him in those games.

Girls, on the other hand, establish their pecking order through psychological contests. They form cliques, and engage in psychological warfare. They tear other girls down by ripping into their self-esteem and self-image. Rather than subduing them with a chokehold, they subdue them by making them question themselves and their worthiness to be higher up on the totem pole.

When you spend your entire adolescence fighting these sorts of mental battles, you become attuned not only to your own self-confidence but also the confidence of others. So since self-confidence is a valuable resource in order to survive those sorts of psychological wars, of course girls are going to pick up on it faster and of course they are going to take notice when they see an abundance of it.

Of course that's all just speculation on my part based on stereotypes, but hey isn't that what psychology's all about?

To be fair quite a few guys find things like clutzyness, shyness, and things like that adorable. Partially because seeming weak and defenseless can be very endearing and partially because it gnerally feels good to have someone who relies on you. Of course these aren't always indicitive of a lack of confidence, but still these tendencies exist and could be caused by our societies more traditional gender roles (males dominant, head of house, person who seeks out relationship, provider and protector, females submissive, person who is seeked out, protected and provided for ect ect.)

 

[Lonewolfm16]

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you here, we are animals and we are programmed to reproduce.
It's not evo-psyche nonsense. Simple observation of human development and physiological responses shoot massive holes in your argument.

Well, then you'll have no trouble providing me the the peer-reviewed scientific journal that explicitly states all humans are programmed to reproduce. Go for it, it shouldn't take so long if it's so clear.

Explain why puberty happens if not to cause an organism to mature to a state that is capable of sexual reproduction?

That's not the same thing at all. Physical maturation grants the ability to reproduce. It is fallacious to assume that reproduction is "the purpose" simply because the species has the ability.

Why is it that even before we develop to sexual maturation we become aware of the opposite sex and become attracted to it?

Not all of us do. Many are homosexual. Many are bisexual. But even that is beside the point, because the desire to have sex is not programming to reproduce.

Really? Not all humans are programmed to reproduce? While there can be some changes that cause humans not to want to reproduce, on a biological level that is the basis for all behavior. Its basic evolution, everything about a organism is for the express purpose of continuing their gentic legacy. Of course homosexual similair behavior exist but this is just changes in natural reproductive urges that screw with their purpose.