# Off-Topic Discussion > Extended Discussion >  >  What causes physical attraction?

## changed

What causes physical attraction?  There must be some way that certain qualities turn us on.  For example, big tits turn guys on, but if you think about it they are just sacks of flesh.  What causes this.  Humans are not the only creatures that do this, animals are turned on by certain things as well.  What causes this?

----------


## Maria92

The basic, primitive desire to reproduce with the mate that will give you the most genetically superior offspring possible, so that they will have the best possible chance at survival, and, in turn, will pass on their genes (which are half yours).

----------


## StonedApe

With the case of boobs, they are very fun to play with in my experience.

----------


## changed

lol

----------


## Sornaensis

I like nice, round asses.

----------


## Snowboy

You wouldn't believe how many times I have thought this. Instead, just sit back and enjoy. Worry about it when you lose the ability to be physically attracted to something. It's fun while it lasts. Though I doubt anybody loses it. Whatever. You get my point.  ::D:

----------


## Arra

This is a really complated subject, not easy to answer. When you ask what the 'cause' of physical attraction is, there are a few different approaches that can be taken:

The evolutionary advantage

*of physical attraction in general:* Unhealthy people will often look abnormal. So we become attracted to people who look very normal, with symmetrical faces and well-proportioned faces and bodies. Even some healthy people will still appear ugly to us, for this reason, if they don't have normally proportioned and symmetrical faces.

*of specific physical features:*
      Breasts, hips, other feminine qualities: Basically to advertize a good baby making machine.
      Youthful women: As a woman gets older, it's much more likely for a baby she has to have negative mutations, disorders, etc.
      Men of prime age/intelligence/muscle/leadership ability: Helps protect a woman and her children, more likely for the children and woman to survive to produce more offspring.
      ...I could go on

Biologically: It's just programmed into our brains to find breasts attractive, to find symmetry attractive, etc.

Psychologically:
This is a whole other confusing topic. Why is a skinny waist attractive? Do we only think they are because society tells us they are, or do we naturally find thin waists attractive? The ancient Greeks (the men) often found little boys attractive. Does that suggest most of our feelings of physical attraction are programmed into us by society?

----------


## Arra

Okay, I'm going to explain something I've been thinking for a while with 2 images (Jessica Simpson and Megan Fox):




I chose the two because, to me at least, Jessica Simpson has a very generic pretty look, while Megan Fox has something extra.

Jessica Simpson has a symmetrical face. She looks on the 'pretty' side because her face is symmetrical and well proportioned. But she's too perfect, in a way. She has nothing unique about her, no distinguishing features.

Megan fox also has a well-proportioned, symmetrical face. But we also subconsciously pick up some minor abnormalities, which actually, I think, make her more attractive than she would be if she didn't have them. Her mouth goes abnormally forward, a bit, and her upper lip naturally protrudes slightly. Her cheekbones, I think, are a bit closer to the centre of the face than most people's are, giving her an almost chipmunk-like quality which looks a bit 'cute'. Her eyes also have something unique about them, maybe that they're naturally a bit horizontally large or slanted outward.

I think in general, someone is attractive if all of her (or his) features are in basically the right places - their eyes are a normal distance apart, their chin is of a normal height, etc. Someone occasionally becomes extra attractive if, on top of good facial proportion and symmetry, they have some very minor abnormality. Some abnormal traits complement a person's appearance, while others hinder it. Maybe which traits those are are subjective, and maybe that's why different people find different people attractive.

----------


## StonedApe

> Biologically: It's just programmed into our brains to find breasts attractive, to find symmetry attractive, etc.
> [



I think there's more to it than just simple programming. We see an image. We associate that image with a feeling, either something we've experienced or a projected idea about a future experience. This causes chemicals to be released in the body that cause attraction, arousal.

----------


## Maria92

Oh god it's Megan Fox kill it with fire.



Now THIS I find attractive. Also, small breasts, ftw. Dunno why, but I like them more. Size A to small C is sexy-awesome.

----------


## Arra

See, everyone's view on attraction is a bit different. We can all agree on whether someone is generally attractive or not (as long as a face is symmetrical and proportional), but everyone finds different specific qualities exceptionally attractive.

Even as a straight female, I have a 'taste' in women, meaning I find certain ones more attractive than others. Maybe, if I were a male, that's what my taste would be. Most Asian girls who are usually considered really hot look too childlike to me, like the one above, to be considered hot. I guess most guys like that though. I can still see attractiveness in her, of course (symmetrical face and good proportions, feminine eyes, well places cheekbones, etc.)

----------


## Marvo

She actually doesn't look that young.

----------


## poopman

It is not that complicated for the most part. For guys, T&A is attractive. ya some guys prefer small tits or big asses but its a pretty simple formula. for women, i know most people say confidence, which is partly true. but really its just the $$$$ that matters to women. i hate it when girls are asked what they want in a man. they always say, "i just want a guy who can make me laugh" or some other malarkey like that. do you really believe this women? i have plenty of funny friends that cant pick up women. why are you lying? just be honest. you want a guy that can take care of you and future offspring. and  you want a penthouse in manhattan and plenty of vacations and hand bags.

----------


## Xei

No, you're generalising. I don't personally go for the 'T&A' thing; for me it's mainly about facial beauty, and also a bright personality.

I also don't find Megan Fox attractive, I guess because she seems really boring, and that is reflected in her expression.

Also I think the whole 'symmetry' thing is a load of bollocks. Are you really saying you notice how symmetrical somebody's face is? When you see an unattractive person, do they have unsymmetrical faces generally? No, the only thing that really matters is how close their general features are to those we consider attractive. A handsome guy can have a crooked nose and would be orders of magnitude more unsymmetrical than a plain guy with symmetrical features.

----------


## Man of Shred

I read in some book... I forget where. That, our ancestors species that didn't stand upright, the female part used the curves ov their ass to attract their mate. Over time, when man began standing upright, evolution moved the curvature of the female ass up to the female chest... Creating BOOBIES!

----------


## Caprisun

Read _The Mating Mind_ by Geoffrey Miller. Great book about sexual selection in humans.

----------


## Raspberry

> It is not that complicated for the most part. For guys, T&A is attractive. ya some guys prefer small tits or big asses but its a pretty simple formula. for women, i know most people say confidence, which is partly true. but really its just the $$$$ that matters to women. i hate it when girls are asked what they want in a man. they always say, "i just want a guy who can make me laugh" or some other malarkey like that. do you really believe this women? i have plenty of funny friends that cant pick up women. why are you lying? just be honest. you want a guy that can take care of you and future offspring. and  you want a penthouse in manhattan and plenty of vacations and hand bags.



I don't care how much money a guy has, if he's a dick, I won't go out with him. I won't even talk to him. Money is just a nice add on. The money-grabbing girls are probably girls you wouldn't want to date anyway. They choose material things.

And yeah it's something to do with fertility. Of course, it depends what you personally find attractive. Apparently this is like redder lips, flushed cheeks, shiny hair. Plus curves, although some women don't have curves. It's pretty much signs of health. Mental health probably contributes to this, because we like being around happy people, don't we?  ::D:

----------


## DuB

If I may take the pessimistic philosophical view: I don't think it's possible to answer this question in a satisfying way. Even if I could spend all day describing in great detail the neural and physiological mechanisms underlying physical attraction, this mechanistic account still wouldn't explain why these processes result in the subjective experience that we identify as attraction. At some point the account must simply end with a mighty explanatory leap to, "_and then attraction happens!_" Similarly, listing all of the physical features of people which tend to be associated with the perception of attractiveness (as many here have attempted) doesn't explain _why_ those features are associated with the experience of attraction. One could even take the evolutionary tack, explaining in functional terms that organisms who felt compelled by a sense of physical attraction strove harder to mate, or something along those lines, and that it therefore makes sense that this trait of feeling "attraction" has come to dominate within species. But once again, this doesn't explain where the subjective experience of attraction comes from. We can't get there from here. The experience of attraction just happens, we know when it happens, and it feels nice. So I guess you'll have to decide which non-answer to your question you most want to hear about.

Dennett writes beautifully on this topic (focusing on the experience of pain rather than attraction) in his essays on personal/sub-personal levels of explanation and on building a computer that feels pain.

----------


## Arra

> It is not that complicated for the most part. For guys, T&A is attractive. ya some guys prefer small tits or big asses but its a pretty simple formula. for women, i know most people say confidence, which is partly true. but really its just the $$$$ that matters to women. i hate it when girls are asked what they want in a man. they always say, "i just want a guy who can make me laugh" or some other malarkey like that. do you really believe this women? i have plenty of funny friends that cant pick up women. why are you lying? just be honest. you want a guy that can take care of you and future offspring. and  you want a penthouse in manhattan and plenty of vacations and hand bags.



I suppose I'm a bit strange but I can assert with confidence that money matters not the slightest bit to me. Neither does confidence, actually. If anything, confidence repels me. I've never gotten the 'sense of humor' thing. That seems a random characteristic that wouldn't at all affect what I'd find attractive. So if you're claiming that what you say applies to all women, you're wrong. I understand why you might think that, if the women you tend to be around are all that type (maybe if you live in California or Florida or something? I don't know, it's just the stereotype, maybe it's wrong). But from what I can tell, not all women are like that. It depends on where you go, what people you talk to. If I were to hang out with my aunts and cousins all the time, I'd probably think as you do.

----------


## Zhaylin

I'm not a "material girl" either.  And neither have I ever tried to pursue anyone which the population at large considers handsome or beautiful.  When I was growing up, I never perceived people as attractive or ugly until I spoke with them.  Personality, for me, is everything.
When I was very young, I somehow developed the impression that anyone perceived as handsome or beautiful were players.  I concluded such people would never be happy in a committed relationship.  I became "blind" to looks.  My mom and others used to accuse me of being a "chubby chaser" and of falling for the "under dog".
It simply doesn't matter to me.

Attraction, for me, is anyone with a bit of a tortured soul (I'm a bit of a nurturer) but independent (not clingy- I need a lot of space).  I don't have a sense of humor, so I could take it or leave it lol.  Creativity is nice as is intelligence and self-confidence.  Emotional maturity is a MUST.

Once I got out into the world more and became a stripper, I began to appreciate the human FORM more.  As far as art, I love women.  I love the curves and the softness and the innocence.  But again, there's just something about the eyes that will either grab me or not.  Exotic features are nice too:  Oriental eyes; dark skin with light eyes.. but then I'm attracted to the mystery, difference, and contrasts.

----------


## Zhaylin

Here's a question my 14 year old daughter just asked me.  It seems to be true for the most part:
Why do most teen aged boys first look at a girls boobs but older guys look at the girls butt?

----------


## Arra

> Here's a question my 14 year old daughter just asked me.  It seems to be true for the most part:
> Why do most teen aged boys first look at a girls boobs but older guys look at the girls butt?



That does seem true. I’m just hypothesizing here. I might be completely wrong, and a male will have to explain the real answer.

Maybe it's because breasts are more obvious, a body part that women have and men don't, so it's the main thing males will focus on when they start focusing on females. While with the ass or hips or legs or other female body parts, males have them too but with subtle differences (well to an alien the differences might seem subtle).

Maybe that's how the part of the brain that finds women attractive develops over time. At first, it's simple, and tells the male to seek out breasts and an hourglass figure because those are the most obvious things women have that men don't. As the male gets older, the part of his brain that sees attractiveness in women starts being attracted to more complicated womanly qualities, like the curvature of the legs, ass and other body parts that are distinctly subtly feminine.

And maybe the above is true partly because women change to take on these more womanly qualities as they get older. Teenage girls' bodies are not yet 100% womanly. They're something in between child and woman, most of their future womanly features only partially formed. So the males their age don’t need to focus much on womanly features besides the obvious ones yet.

----------


## DeletePlease

> Also, small breasts, ftw. Dunno why, but I like them more. Size A to small C is sexy-awesome.



This x10. They just seem better proportioned.

I couldn't care less about proportions when it comes to a big plump rump though. =D





> Here's a question my 14 year old daughter just asked me.  It seems to be true for the most part:
> Why do most teen aged boys first look at a girls boobs but older guys look at the girls butt?



Because kids are stupid; what kind of fool would put anything before a behind?  :tongue2:  Or, like Dianeva said, it could also be because younger girls don't usually have much of an ass when compared to older women so _we_ don't notice it for a while.

----------


## Black_Eagle

Attraction is an extremely complex thing that cannot be properly be explained by anyone here. Books have been written and seduction techniques have been formulated in an attempt to explain attraction. Even though people have formulated theories of attraction and have had great success in testing them, they only explain attraction on a shallow, narrow level. 

Funny thing: A lot of people seem to form their beliefs on this subject based on what does and doesn't work for them and based on what they've perceived other people in their immediate vicinity to be attracted to.

@Xei - Symmetry seems to be somewhat of a weak factor in determining physical attractiveness. I would say it's foolhardy to attempt to define someone's attractiveness by how symmetrical you think their face looks, like Dianeva did. You can't exactly judge a person's facial symmetry just by looking at them.

----------


## changed

> Here's a question my 14 year old daughter just asked me.  It seems to be true for the most part:
> Why do most teen aged boys first look at a girls boobs but older guys look at the girls butt?



  I'm fifteen and I look at butts and thighs in tight jeans and short shorts.  Lucky for me, almost every girl my age wears tight jeans, big fashion now a days.  At least at my school.

----------


## DrunkenArse

> Here's a question my 14 year old daughter just asked me.  It seems to be true for the most part:
> Why do most teen aged boys first look at a girls boobs but older guys look at the girls butt?



It's because boys have no clue what you can do to a nice ass.

----------


## MindGames

I've pondered attraction quite a bit. I sort of agree with Black_Eagle on the point that most people form their ideas about attraction based on their personal experiences. I take a more generalized approach, since theories which incorporate the most aspects tend to explain things best.


Here's my take on the subject. Guys are left-brain dominant, meaning they're more logical, and tend to take things more at face-value. Guys are therefore more materialistic. We generally value the physical value of things over the nonphysical/sentimental value of things. If they see an attractive girl, they're instantly attracted to her. If they see an unattractive girl, they tend not to be too interested in her or her personality since she doesn't meet the prerequisite of physical attraction. This is an in-general description of a guy's sense of attraction. Depending on how emotional/sentimental a guy is (this corresponds to right brain activity), he may value girls' personalities more than other guys do.

On the other hand, girls are more right-brain dominant, meaning they're more emotional. They tend to take the sentimentality of things into account more than guys do. Therefore, a girl is generally going to favor a guy's personality over his looks, given that she has already gotten the chance to get to know him. A hot guy who has an unattractive personality will get far less girls than an average-looking guy with a great personality. There are a handful of important factors that go into an attractive personality. (In my opinion, the main factors are: Self-Value (confidence, mild cockiness), Dominance (the man-factor), Overall Positivity, Chivalry, and Sociability.) Above all, the basic emotion that girls are physically/sexually attracted to is dominance. To address the fact that some girls are attracted to rich and successful men, they do tend to be more materialistic and less sentimental than other girls.



Given the fact that girls are generally more attracted to personality, guys can instantly make themselves seem more attractive by changing their personality. I've done this before, and it does seem to make girls more sexually attracted to me. One of my current research projects, (as seen below) is testing personality modification from within dreams. If one were to give himself positive long-term personality traits from within a dream, then theoretically he would be able to make himself more attractive.


 :wink2:

----------


## Maria92

> Guys are left-brain dominant, meaning they're more logical, and tend to take things more at face-value. 
> On the other hand, girls are more right-brain dominant, meaning they're more emotional.



These are actually myths.

----------


## DeletePlease

Off-topic: Your text makes my eyes wander and the text seem wavy when I read it, MindGames. 'Tis awesome.

----------


## Arra

> Guys are left-brain dominant, meaning they're more logical, and tend to take things more at face-value. Guys are therefore more materialistic. We generally value the physical value of things over the nonphysical/sentimental value of things.
> ...
> On the other hand, girls are more right-brain dominant, meaning they're more emotional. They tend to take the sentimentality of things into account more than guys do. Therefore, a girl is generally going to favor a guy's personality over his looks, given that she has already gotten the chance to get to know him.



The problem I have with outlooks like this one is that I see little reason logic and emotion should be considered opposite ends of some spectrum. They're two completely different things. Everyone uses emotion/instinct/desire in life to decide on their goals at a base level, and then uses logic to decide on how to attain those goals. I think the false belief that logic and emotion oppose each other comes from the fact that when someone is in the heat of some emotion they're often temporarily distracted from using reason.

It seems more likely to me that men and women are biologically wired to use different criteria while judging a potential mate. The fact that the criteria are different might somewhat be explained by the fact that women are generally more emotional, but the difference is probably mostly due to blunt differences in the parts of the brains involved in attraction.

----------


## StonedApe

> These are actually myths.



I don't think that they are true from a biological standpoint, but in this is strongly encouraged in our culture. Logic and emotion don't have to oppose each other either, it's just that in our culture men are taught to repress emotions and women are taught that they don't need to be smart. This obviously isn't the case with all people, it's just encouraged. It's basically just a side effect of patriarchy and treating women as objects.

----------


## MindGames

Whatever the reasons for it, I still hold that men tend to be more attracted to physical traits, while women tend to be more attracted to emotional traits. It isn't necessarily because of the left-brain/right-brain theory, but that's the best explanation I can come up with.


e: After a bit of reading online, it looks like in some cases men primarily use the logical side of their brain. In those same activities, women use both sides of their brain equally. What this shows is that men do tend to be primarily logical in some cases while women also take emotion into account. This supports my theory that women are (obviously) more emotional than men. I believe this also carries over into the processes of attraction.

Source:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...ere.html?cat=4

----------


## Raspberry

> Whatever the reasons for it, I still hold that men tend to be more attracted to physical traits, while women tend to be more attracted to emotional traits. It isn't necessarily because of the left-brain/right-brain theory, but that's the best explanation I can come up with.
> 
> 
> e: After a bit of reading online, it looks like in some cases men primarily use the logical side of their brain. In those same activities, women use both sides of their brain equally. What this shows is that men do tend to be primarily logical in some cases while women also take emotion into account. This supports my theory that women are (obviously) more emotional than men. I believe this also carries over into the processes of attraction.
> 
> Source:
> Gender Differences in Brain Hemisphere Use - Associated Content from Yahoo! - associatedcontent.com



In my R.E class, we are currently learning the topic of gender differences (and where they come from) and in the booklet we're given, it does say that men use the left side and women use both. We're not really told why, but we've concluded that it is from early experiences and influences. 

We were shown a video (although our teacher likes to get us to really think about issues and never gives us a straight up answer, so I don't know for sure, but basically what's in the video is what she's implying). In the video, there was a baby that was dressed as both and boy and then a girl (not sure what sex it was) and then shown to people to see what their reactions were.

When the baby was dressed as a boy, the people tended to hold the baby away, and show the baby objects. They would talk to the baby about what a strong man he would grow up to be, and mostly talked about things the baby would grow up to do and the baby's career. They also played with the baby, using big motions and moving the baby around.

When the baby was dressed as a girl, the people tended to cradle the baby, and "shield" it from what was going on around. They would talk to the baby mostly about her appearance, pointing out physical features (such as the eyes) and saying how beautiful they were etc. They didn't play with the baby and barely moved her at all.

As I said, she didn't give us a straight answer, but she basically said that the way you're handled as a baby determines how you think, which is how men respond with the left side and women with both.

----------


## Arra

It's difficult to tell how much of the differences are due to nature and how much to experience. It may be virtually impossible to know. Thanks Rasberry for the info, it was interesting and makes me want to look up more psychology experiments.

----------


## ClouD

Mental delusion.

----------


## Caprisun

How romantic!

----------


## changed

Being on the football team helps.

----------


## saltyseedog

Having a bird as a spirit animal.

----------


## saltyseedog

Beauty is subjective

----------


## DeletePlease

Quick Q: Ok so having a hairy chest used to be like _the_ thing you needed when it came to getting women but nowadays it's the opposite when it comes to getting girls. I've heard _women_ are still into a bit of hair on a guy's chest but my question is, is that because they were part of that hairy era ( :tongue2: ) or is it just something that girls start looking for when they get older? Kinda like how guys start appreciating bubble butts more and more the older they get.

----------


## Marvo

> Quick Q: Ok so having a hairy chest used to be like _the_ thing you needed when it came to getting women but nowadays it's the opposite when it comes to getting girls. I've heard _women_ are still into a bit of hair on a guy's chest but my question is, is that because they were part of that hairy era () or is it just something that girls start looking for when they get older? Kinda like how guys start appreciating bubble butts more and more the older they get.



You can't really get a general answer to this. Everybody is different. In this case, you're only focusing on very NA centralised culture. Even in Europe we feel very differently about this kind of stuff.

----------


## Arra

> Quick Q: Ok so having a hairy chest used to be like _the_ thing you needed when it came to getting women but nowadays it's the opposite when it comes to getting girls. I've heard _women_ are still into a bit of hair on a guy's chest but my question is, is that because they were part of that hairy era () or is it just something that girls start looking for when they get older? Kinda like how guys start appreciating bubble butts more and more the older they get.



Hairy chests are revolting to me (21), but maybe I won't mind them when I get older. (I tend to like scrawnier guys without much muscle though so it might just be an extension of that preference.) My boyfriend's sister has said that she used to hate hairy chests and started to like them, when she was in her early 20s I think.

----------


## DeletePlease

That's what I meant, North American females in general.  :tongue2:  While we're at it though,  I know it isn't as common as it is here but I've always wondered, is being hairless from the neck down seen as unattractive in Europe or does the majority of the populace not seem to care about it as much as NA folk do?

----------


## saltyseedog

omg we're all brainwashed into whats attractive... I personally don't care that much. I know most girls are super self conscious about how they look and the ones that think they're ugly are super depressed so because of that I try not to judge. I mean you only can do so much with the physical body your given, and I think its whats on the inside that counts.

----------


## saltyseedog

I think lust is the selfish desire

where as love is a gift to another person in which they give something back to you

----------


## tommo

I read a study a while ago which confirmed the symmetrical face thing.  It's because some people who are more likely to get, or have herpes generally have asymmetrical faces.
And yes, you can tell, even if you don't know it.  The human brain is wired to distinguish between human faces, the slightest differences even.  So of course it can tell if a face is symmetrical.

Also Freud's theory about being attracted to someone who looks similar to your opposite-sex parent is true.
There was this study with photos of couples and their parents.  And people had to choose who the females mother's were and the males fathers.  It was a very high percentage (can't remember exactly) who chose the males' partners as the partners' mothers.  The same for the reverse.

That's a bit complicated but basically....

Male    -   Mother
Fucking
Female

People thought the Mother was the females mother because they looked similar.

Of course this is on average and it didn't work out all the time.  Same for the symmetry thing.

But it makes sense because if we share half our genes with each of our parents, we will be attracted to similar things as them.  Most of the time.

----------


## Raspberry

> That's what I meant, North American females in general.  While we're at it though,  I know it isn't as common as it is here but I've always wondered, is being hairless from the neck down seen as unattractive in Europe or does the majority of the populace not seem to care about it as much as NA folk do?



I'm not a fan of hairy chests. I'm from Britain... 

I pretty much agree with everything Dianeva said, and there's six years between our ages. I don't really care about muscle mass, but I prefer the skinny-toned kind of guy over the huge, bodybuilder type. Not a fan of facial hair, chest hair, any kind of hair really. Except on the head, I LOVE a guy with longer, shaggy/messy kind of hair  ::D:  

Eye colour, skin colour, hair colour, doesn't matter. But I don't get in a relationship because of looks. It gets me interested yes, but in the end it comes down to personality. I would much, much rather go for a person with mediocre looks and a great personality over an amazingly hot guy with a shit personality.

I think girls tend to notice all the tiny flaws about themselves that no one else notices/cares about. For example, my stomach, back and arms are ever so slightly more tanned than my face and legs. It's not a big difference, but in the summer when I'm wearing a bikini I go crazy wondering if anyone's noticed. And I don't like fake tan so I don't use it. All my friends just look at me like I'm crazy. It only really changes if I get a tan from the sun, but I prefer being pale.

Everyone sees you differently to how you see yourself. My friends tell me my "waist is tiny" when to me it's average.

I also have really jagged canine teeth. Drives me insane but no one notices or cares.

----------


## Maeni

Even better, what causes deviant attractions  ::o: 

Like me, I'm so far out. Big breasts, holy shit no. Butts? No go away!
Those two pictures on the first page, I honestly can not see what is so "hot" or even pretty about either of them. I think there's even something very masculine about them, somehow...

As everyone already knows, I'm a pedophile, so I like small, rounded faces, completely flat chests and just, well, small bodies. There is absolutely no way to explain that, as there is to normal heterosexuality _(The thing that big breasts and butts are a sign that the woman will be good at producing children, which makes sense evolution-wise.)_

It's a question I've often wondered, too. Hell, I've kinda been forced to think about it when people ask "How can you be attracted to little girls?!", because truthfully I haven't got a clue, it's just the way they look ...
A lot of pedophiles say it's the "innocence", and I kinda get what they mean. But mostly to me, it's just a thing of the visual. And I really have no idea why or what causes it. Usually I find myself attracted to the face, and the chest, even though there's nothing there. Probably a combination, because I don't find little boys' chests attractive, only girls.

My answer is this: The brain is wired to like different things. Heterosexuality is kind of the default, optimal, the one that gives the results that have made humanity survive. Every once in a while, whatever controls this in the brain fucks up and does something else for some reason, which results in deviant sexualities.

I guess we're programmed to release some weird chemicals when we see specific things, like butts and breasts. And for some reason some of us have had that programming fucked up so we release the chemicals when we see different things...

----------


## tommo

My guess is that it hasn't developed past a certain stage.  Whatever "it" is that tells you who is a prime sexual candidate.

----------


## Arra

@tommo
I think it's more likely that people tend to be attracted to people who look like themselves, and their parents only by extension of that. The Freud thing doesn't seem to apply to me. I think of my boyfriend and my dad and I just don't see a similarity (or any more similarity that I'd find between any two randomly selected people). and I'm glad because if it was true it would be pretty disturbing. The Freud thing probably seems to make sense because people tend to be attracted to people like themselves, and people's parents are also like themselves. This is all speculation, what it seems to me, I haven't looked into it at all.

It seems almost all girls are attracted to men who are self-confident and a bit cocky or are rich, but I'm very repelled by those qualities. I often get the sense around guys like that that they're trying to manipulate people. I'm more attracted to shy quiet thoughtful guys, but again I think that's because they're qualities I have, that I can relate to.  I was once incredibly attracted to a guy who I didn't find physically attractive, a customer while I was working (Tim Hortons), just because he was carrying a fantasy book I'd read and after asking him about it realized we both read fantasy and had read a lot of the same books. Sometimes I'll be a bit attracted to someone simply because he's being nice to me. And still other times I've been attracted to a guy based purely on his appearance. I guess there are many different ways to be attracted.

----------


## tommo

Yes that is a possibility too.  Actually now that I think about it, I've thought that before as well, and it's probably more likely, based on my experience anyway.  Hmmmm....  Still you are probably right, there are most likely many reasons, not a single one.  As usual.

----------


## AirRick101

if she has nice tits, cleavage, or a short skirt (sexy legs must be included)...then I will take a mental photograph and remember it forever...but if she has a pretty face, then I'll definitely talk to her.

----------


## Raspberry

Every guy looks better with longer hair. The kinda asian-anime inspired type. I LOVE that hair. Hair can make it or break it for me. But that's attraction-wise, I also include personality in there too, because eye candy isn't everything  ::D: 

Long hair is yummy  :drool:

----------


## Maria92

I know what you mean, Rasp. I'm a hair man, too. There's nothing quite like a well-placed style.  ::D:

----------


## Caprisun

My girlfriend says she'll break up with me if I grow long hair.  Now since she said that, I've started growing my hair out.  Im going for the Fabio look.  That's what happens when women try to control me.

----------


## Jeff777



----------


## Arra

The videos were interesting. Some provided interesting information, but it's hard to tell with this type of thing how true it is. Especially when they don't show the actual statistics, and instead show interviews of people on the street. For example, they might have interviewed 30 people and only shown the one that rated that last guy 10/10.

I can't relate to the first one at all. I have no taste in cars, and wouldn't find a man more attractive because he's successful. If anything, it would be the opposite. I guess the difference between me and those women is that I look more for 'love', I'm usually attracted to males because I feel I can relate to them and see a potential for us to care about one another and bond or something. That requires a feeling of equality, more or less, and I wouldn't feel equal to someone too successful who would have to take care of me. Even the other type of attraction, the instinctual lusty kind, is usually based on physical appearance or an enticing personality, not on success.

I find it depressing that so much of a female's attractiveness is centered on her appearance. Older men, let's say 40s, and older women are both pretty unattractive. But the women are far worse off, almost all attractiveness is gone from her and there's little she can do about it. It isn't just her level of prettiness as perceived by some vain people, it seems like it's her entire character that's downgraded. Older women just seem to be thought of as lesser, their opinions not taken as seriously, their whole character devalued. While even though the man is physically unattractive, it's still possible for him to gain back a lot of his attractiveness if he puts on a good personality, and his character will be treated pretty much the same. Please tell me if you disagree with any of this, anyone. I'd love if it were not true and that my perception is just fucked up, because the thought of aging does feel like a nightmare for the reasons I've said.

----------


## DuB

We have _far_ from perfect access to knowing exactly which qualities about a person are causing us to feel romantically interested in them. Most of us tend to believe that we have pretty good access to that information, but in reality most of that is just us inferential theorizing about our own preferences in a way not unlike they way we theorize about other people's preferences. 

So when Mr. Right happens to roll up in an expensive car and sharp clothes, it may not _seem_, on an explicit and conscious level, that those qualities have anything to do with your romantic interest (or lack thereof) in him; but this fact alone is not good evidence for ruling out that those material qualities _are_ affecting your evaluation of him in very real ways, as reflected in your overt reactions to and behaviors toward him. Maybe you pay attention to his actions just a little closer than you would have otherwise. Maybe you are just a little more willing to overlook when he accidentally misspeaks. Maybe you feel just a little more appreciation at his kind gestures than you would have otherwise. Or maybe not. The point I'm making is _not_ that you probably are sensitive to material qualities--for all I know, and for all you know, you're not--but rather that none of us should fool ourselves into thinking that we have clear ideas about exactly what our romantic preferences are simply because we can construct coherent stories about them. 

Polanyi famously stated that "we can know more than we can tell," but the reverse is probably more often true: we can tell more than we can know.

----------


## Jeff777

> We have _far_ from perfect access to knowing exactly which qualities about a person are causing us to feel romantically interested in them. Most of us tend to believe that we have pretty good access to that information, but in reality most of that is just us inferential theorizing about our own preferences in a way not unlike they way we theorize about other people's preferences. 
> 
> So when Mr. Right happens to roll up in an expensive car and sharp clothes, it may not _seem_, on an explicit and conscious level, that those qualities have anything to do with your romantic interest (or lack thereof) in him; but this fact alone is not good evidence for ruling out that those material qualities _are_ affecting your evaluation of him in very real ways, as reflected in your overt reactions to and behaviors toward him. Maybe you pay attention to his actions just a little closer than you would have otherwise. Maybe you are just a little more willing to overlook when he accidentally misspeaks. Maybe you feel just a little more appreciation at his kind gestures than you would have otherwise. Or maybe not. The point I'm making is _not_ that you probably are sensitive to material qualities--for all I know, and for all you know, you're not--but rather that none of us should fool ourselves into thinking that we have clear ideas about exactly what our romantic preferences are simply because we can construct coherent stories about them. 
> 
> Polanyi famously stated that "we can know more than we can tell," but the reverse is probably more often true: we can tell more than we can know.



I'd do you.

----------


## DuB

But do you know what it is about me that makes you want to do me?  :tongue2:

----------


## Raspberry

Your awesomeness  ::lol::

----------


## Arra

> We have _far_ from perfect access to knowing exactly which qualities about a person are causing us to feel romantically interested in them. Most of us tend to believe that we have pretty good access to that information, but in reality most of that is just us inferential theorizing about our own preferences in a way not unlike they way we theorize about other people's preferences. 
> 
> So when Mr. Right happens to roll up in an expensive car and sharp clothes, it may not _seem_, on an explicit and conscious level, that those qualities have anything to do with your romantic interest (or lack thereof) in him; but this fact alone is not good evidence for ruling out that those material qualities _are_ affecting your evaluation of him in very real ways, as reflected in your overt reactions to and behaviors toward him. Maybe you pay attention to his actions just a little closer than you would have otherwise. Maybe you are just a little more willing to overlook when he accidentally misspeaks. Maybe you feel just a little more appreciation at his kind gestures than you would have otherwise. Or maybe not. The point I'm making is _not_ that you probably are sensitive to material qualities--for all I know, and for all you know, you're not--but rather that none of us should fool ourselves into thinking that we have clear ideas about exactly what our romantic preferences are simply because we can construct coherent stories about them. 
> 
> Polanyi famously stated that "we can know more than we can tell," but the reverse is probably more often true: we can tell more than we can know.



I agree, actually. Even while typing the post I was thinking this, although half subconsciously. I thought for a second of a guy with higher social status, and realized that in some ways I would pay more attention to him, but I'd make a strong conscious effort not to which might cancel out that natural reaction. I don't _want_ to have this natural reaction, and since I make a conscious effort not to have it, I thought I might as well just pretend I don't have it at all. All of this went on half subconsciously, so I'm glad you've said it to bring it directly into my awareness. (In the past I've been unopinionated about almost everything because there are too many sides to everything, and frustrated at my lack of conviction while still taking pride in my courage to admit it. I suppose I've been sick of that and have been trying hard lately to more readily form opinions, pretending I'm more sure of them than I am. Maybe I just need to settle somewhere in between.)

----------


## DeletePlease

> I find it depressing that so much of a female's attractiveness is centered on her appearance. Older men, let's say 40s, and older women are both pretty unattractive. But the women are far worse off, almost all attractiveness is gone from her and there's little she can do about it. It isn't just her level of prettiness as perceived by some vain people, it seems like it's her entire character that's downgraded. Older women just seem to be thought of as lesser, their opinions not taken as seriously, their whole character devalued. While even though the man is physically unattractive, it's still possible for him to gain back a lot of his attractiveness if he puts on a good personality, and his character will be treated pretty much the same. Please tell me if you disagree with any of this, anyone. I'd love if it were not true and that my perception is just fucked up, because the thought of aging does feel like a nightmare for the reasons I've said.



There are a plethora of attractive 30-40 year old women and that's not even taking their personality to count. ._.

DuB makes a good point, there really isn't a formula or checklist to gauge someone's level of attractiveness. Sometimes I find myself attracted to someone from way out left field and I'll have no clue what it is about them - since they don't exactly fit under my idea of my "perfect woman" - that gets me going.

----------


## saltyseedog

Sometimes you may feel very attracted to someone because unconsciously you are feeling their energy. You may be attracted to someone that aren't even physically attractive, but when you are with them it feels amazing, because you have good energy with them.

----------


## Raphael

> For example, big tits turn guys on, but if you think about it they are just sacks of flesh.



Ughh major buzzkill, haha. 





> We have _far_ from perfect access to knowing exactly which qualities about a person are causing us to feel romantically interested in them. Most of us tend to believe that we have pretty good access to that information, but in reality most of that is just us inferential theorizing about our own preferences in a way not unlike they way we theorize about other people's preferences. 
> 
> So when Mr. Right happens to roll up in an expensive car and sharp clothes, it may not _seem_, on an explicit and conscious level, that those qualities have anything to do with your romantic interest (or lack thereof) in him; but this fact alone is not good evidence for ruling out that those material qualities _are_ affecting your evaluation of him in very real ways, as reflected in your overt reactions to and behaviors toward him. Maybe you pay attention to his actions just a little closer than you would have otherwise. Maybe you are just a little more willing to overlook when he accidentally misspeaks. Maybe you feel just a little more appreciation at his kind gestures than you would have otherwise. Or maybe not. The point I'm making is _not_ that you probably are sensitive to material qualities--for all I know, and for all you know, you're not--but rather that none of us should fool ourselves into thinking that we have clear ideas about exactly what our romantic preferences are simply because we can construct coherent stories about them. 
> 
> Polanyi famously stated that "we can know more than we can tell," but the reverse is probably more often true: we can tell more than we can know.



What a beautifully crafted response, it reads like butter yet has a nice intellectual gloss to it. Well done, sir.  :Shades wink:

----------


## Jeff777

> Originally Posted by changed
> 
> 
> For example, big tits turn guys on, but if you think about it they are just sacks of flesh.
> 
> 
> 
> Ughh major buzzkill, haha.



Agreed.   ::lipssealed::

----------


## CryoDragoon

Physical attractiveness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

tadaaaaa! ;p

----------


## Philosopher8659

Every living organism is composed of a number of environmental acquisition systems. With what it acquires, it construsts that which it needs to survive.

There are seven for man--the magic seven. One is not yet completely functional, the human mind. 

An environmental acquisition system of a living organism must acquire something from the environment, process that which it has acquired, for a product that maintains and promotes the life of that organism. 

One should have learned this in basic biology. 

These systems are divided into two classes--one for each of the two elements. (Two-Element Metaphysics--early Greeks, not promoted in history) Some abstract a things form, others a things material difference. etc. etc.

----------


## Kuhnada29

Lust

----------


## CryoDragoon

> Every living organism is composed of a number of environmental acquisition systems. With what it acquires, it construsts that which it needs to survive.
> 
> There are seven for man--the magic seven. One is not yet completely functional, the human mind. 
> 
> An environmental acquisition system of a living organism must acquire something from the environment, process that which it has acquired, for a product that maintains and promotes the life of that organism. 
> 
> One should have learned this in basic biology. 
> 
> These systems are divided into two classes--one for each of the two elements. (Two-Element Metaphysics--early Greeks, not promoted in history) Some abstract a things form, others a things material difference. etc. etc.



Loads of jargon there.. Sounds impressive and all, but I have no idea what you're talking about, nor do I have a clue how this relates to the question. Apparently we haven't had the same kind of education... Care to elaborate?  :smiley:

----------


## Philosopher8659

Well, if you are this lost with the simple, what more needs to be said. 

I fail to see how the idea that you have to acquire things from the environment in order to survive is over your head, unless you have been spoon fed all your life. And if you want to learn about the Two Element Metaphysics, try Plato and Aristotle--just try not to go to sleep when you read it.

And for the word "jargon" you might want to see any dictionary on the term.

Environmental acquisition systems.

1 Ocular system
2 Vestibular System
3 Manipulative System
4 Digestive System
5 Respiratory System
6 Procreative System
7 Judgmental System.

As I said, the last is not yet fully developed in man. 

Deprived of any one of these and you will have an emotional response--before you die.

In somewhat the words of a great philosopher they each are for "to have life and to have it more abundantly." This should be a very basic understanding of anyone.

----------


## tommo

> I find it depressing that so much of a female's attractiveness is centered on her appearance. Older men, let's say 40s, and older women are both pretty unattractive. But the women are far worse off, almost all attractiveness is gone from her and there's little she can do about it. It isn't just her level of prettiness as perceived by some vain people, it seems like it's her entire character that's downgraded. Older women just seem to be thought of as lesser, their opinions not taken as seriously, their whole character devalued. While even though the man is physically unattractive, it's still possible for him to gain back a lot of his attractiveness if he puts on a good personality, and his character will be treated pretty much the same. Please tell me if you disagree with any of this, anyone. I'd love if it were not true and that my perception is just fucked up, because the thought of aging does feel like a nightmare for the reasons I've said.



Totally not true.  Women in their 40's are fucking HOOOOOOOOOOOOOT.  As long as they are attractive in the first place of course.
What I mean is aging doesn't matter.  I'm 21 and I would go for a good looking 40+ year old any day.
Even when I was 16 I would have.  Some women look better older.  And if they are attractive first, they won't be unattractive by 40.
Of course once someone get's to about 60 I think you usually need to be 60 or older as well to find them attractive.  Probably would also need to be with them since you were young, so that you don't notice them aging.

----------


## Raphael

Cougars are hot, but the cut-off age is 50.

----------


## tommo

Nah, some 50's are still good looking IMO.  Some.

----------


## Raspberry

I think that women look better older, no so much men.

The reason I say this, is because I think women have much more factors to their appearance. There are so many makeup, hair and clothes styles. I'm not saying guys don't have them, but they are more open to women.

I think a lot of younger women/teens tend to get these very, very wrong. The amount of girls I see with orange faces, too much makeup and really bad hair is shocking. I find a lot of people overdo it. When women reach their 40's, they know by that time what looks good on them, and have a lot of experience with dealing with it.

So that's why most of the women I think are stunning are in their 30's and 40's  :smiley: 

I do come across guys in their 30's/40's who are pretty damn hot though, and I catch myself and think "No! You're a teenager, that's weird!"

You other week, me and some girl friends had a sleep over, and pretty much spent most of the night eating popcorn and swooning over Johnny Depp in Sweeny Todd  :drool:  He's just toodamn sexy...

----------


## tommo

Which leads me to_ my_ example, Helena Bonham Carter  :For Xox:  :Fame: :bravo: ::holyshit::  ::smitten::  ::hump::  :Bliss:

----------


## DrunkenArse

Yeah. She's super hot.



I'd totally tap that.

----------


## tommo

HAHA, what movie is that from?
EDIT:   Oh, Big Fish, I keep meaning to watch that.

----------


## Raspberry

The problem with using actresses etc is that the majority of them have had work done.

I'd use my mum as an example. She's 43 and I think she looks really good for her age  ::D:

----------


## tommo

Helena Bonham Carter hasn't had plastic surgery.  Guarantee it.

Also I think it's a bit of an exaggeration to say a "majority have had work done".
It's pretty damn obvious when someone does.  And they usually look worse than before too.

----------


## Raspberry

I'm not talking lip plumpers and face lifts, I'm on about stuff like botox (which you CAN get to look subtle. People just use too much) and chemical peels. This make you look younger without over-doing it. There are also laser skin thingys and whatever else I don't know of.

 I was going to mention some celebrities as examples of 30/40 year olds who are looking really good, but then realised that they are not everyday people. They have money, stylists, makeup artists, hair stylists, doctors, nutritionists, personal trianers and whoever else to keep them on the path of looking youthful. So I didn't mention any. I figured we were talking of regular people that we meet everyday.

----------


## tommo

> I'm not talking lip plumpers and face lifts, I'm on about stuff like botox (which you CAN get to look subtle. People just use too much) and chemical peels. This make you look younger without over-doing it. There are also laser skin thingys and whatever else I don't know of.
> 
>  I was going to mention some celebrities as examples of 30/40 year olds who are looking really good, but then realised that they are not everyday people. They have money, stylists, makeup artists, hair stylists, doctors, nutritionists, personal trianers and whoever else to keep them on the path of looking youthful. So I didn't mention any. I figured we were talking of regular people that we meet everyday.



Oh well you mentioned Johnny Depp which reminded me of her.  (They're in pretty much every tim burton movie).

I also know probably 2 or 3 of my friends mums that I've known are beautiful.  But that doesn't provide any meaning to Dianeva.

----------


## Raspberry

I know right? I love Tim Burton. And Helena Bonham Carter is a beautiful woman. I remember seeing her in Harry Potter and being like "whaaa?"

And I'm sure Dianeva can think of a few DILFs  :wink2:

----------


## Raphael

Helena looked pretty hot in Fight Club and Sweeny Todd  :drool:

----------


## Arra

> And I'm sure Dianeva can think of a few DILFs



Not really. I can tell who would be attractive to other women, probably in the same way men can tell what other men might be attractive. But the idea of being with a guy more than maybe 3 years older than I am is repulsive.

I was about to bring up my aunts as some normal people in their 40s who are still attractive, but remembered they have had work done and pay a lot of attention to their appearances.

I'm glad to hear that some older women are found attractive. But that's fixing the problem at a shallow level. My goal is to not care in the first place about how attractive I'm perceived to be. So far it seems impossible, since no matter how much I consciously realize it shouldn't matter (I have a significant other already who I'll be with for life so I'm not trying to attract anyone), it still does. The thought of getting old and wrinkly and ugly is like a nightmare.

----------


## DeletePlease

Well, it _should_ matter to some extent - I'm assuming you'd still want to be seen as attractive to him/her - so there's nothing wrong with that. As long as you're not obsessing over little things, there isn't really anything wrong with wanting to look good (provided you're not worrying too much).

----------


## tommo

Yeah, stress will make you age more quickly.  So STOP STRESSING OVER IT OR YOU'LL GET WRINKLY AND UGLY!!!!

hehe But really, it's not worth it, it's gonna happen, and if someone comes out with some technology that stops aging, well then that's good.
But worrying isn't going to help that process.

----------


## DeletePlease

> Yeah, stress will make you age more quickly.  So STOP STRESSING OVER IT OR YOU'LL GET WRINKLY AND UGLY!!!!



Yup. Better learn to let go of that fear quick, Dianeva; while you're still young.  :tongue2:

----------


## Raspberry

I look at my line-free and youthful face and... don't really think anything. I stay out the sun (and wear suncream), I don't smoke/take drugs, and I try and look after. So I guess I won't be too bad in 30 years time.

But I really like smile-lines  ::D:  

My mum's skin's fine apart from around her eyes. I find it weird since she's a sun-tan freak (she doesn't understand why I stay out of it. "Skin damage!" I tell her, but she doesn't listen) and she used to smoke. She gave up around 10 years ago, but I think she done it for a good while.

I think women who are too focused on looking younger look horrible. Either through getting work done or too much makeup, skanky clothes etc. I think older women look much, much better when they "grow old gracefully"  :smiley:

----------


## saltyseedog

when youd don't care about how you look, you normally look beautiful naturally. Although beauty is subjective.....

----------


## Raspberry

Hmmm I dunno... There's a difference between low maintanence and not caring. I myself am low-maintanence. I look after my skin and hair, but that's kinda necessary. I don't wear much makeup (a little blush and mascara), I don't do the whole wash, blowdry, straighten thing with my hair every morning (just at weekends). My hair's wavy so I just leave it alone. I'm not one of those people who MUST wear the latest fashion and is obsessed with fashion week.. No thanks.

That to me is low maintanence. I make sure I look neat without going over the top. I keep it simple. I know some people who "don't care" and let's face it... They don't look too pretty. Usually they look like they've just rolled out of bed. I'm not saying that doing your hair, clothes and makeup is essential, but making sure you're clean and neat is good. Natural beauty is the best in my opinion, but you kinda need to help it along the way  :smiley: 

Mind you, I don't think there's anything worse than seeing a girl who's WAAAAY overdone and looks like a tramp. For example:



There are so many girls who look like this at my school  :Sad:

----------


## saltyseedog

well I mean not caring in a sense that you do not look in the mirror judging yourself in negative ways. Rather you see yourself for who you are kind of...
I would like not to look ridiculous or like I just got out of bed because I prefer to blend in. And not have people projecting their thoughts on me as much as possible.
so i do what I can to look acceptable by society or whoever I'm surrounded by so I do not stick out. Most of the judgement people umm experience? is self inflicted. I mean you might think your ugly, but most people don't really care, and aren't judging you unless you stand out.

Another thing thats been on my mind is, if you don't feel lustful towards anyone else, you don't judge yourself by how you look. I mean lustful in a sense of being physically attracted to someone that makes you horny. But maybe you would if the person you longed to be loved by judged you by your physical appearance and saw you unworthy based on their expectations. Expectations and judgment are the only things holding us back from unconditional love.
Physical appearance I think is not that important. When you really love someone it is the most amazing feeling ever.

----------


## Philosopher8659

> when youd don't care about how you look, you normally look beautiful naturally. Although beauty is subjective.....



I have always said that beauty is in the hands of the butt holder. 

I myself perfer a woman who does not use make-up, perfumes, nail polish etc., besides, I am alergic to aromatic hydrocarbons--it causes chemical depression in me--the exact opposite of normal people.

----------


## saltyseedog

I thought you disappeared forever philosopher  ::o:

----------


## Philosopher8659

I did, I am just a latent image.

----------


## juroara

I got a question, how do the boys and men of DVs feel about makeup? For so many women, they wouldn't dare go outside in the public without some makeup on. They believe they look ugly without it. It's insecurity in its glory! Of course you have some women who say "but I only wear a little bit of makeup" but even a little bit of makeup means you looked in the mirror and felt_ ugly_.

What I don't know is how do the guys feel, because sometimes I feel like its all in a womens head, but I dont know. So do you guys find women ugly if she doesn't wear makeup? Or do you just notice a women _more_ if she does? Is it dependent on age and health? If youre in a relationship now with a women, are you horrified when you see her in the morning without her makeup glow? And how long does the effect of makeup have on you? Does it just grab your attention when you first see her face, does it hold your attention, or does after awhile her face is just another face?

Theres a whole science to makeup and why its considered sexy. The blush, the red lips, the eye shadow (if pinkish) all imitate an increase in blood flow when a women is excited. The mascara and eyeliner make you notice the pupils more, as you would if they were dilated. The base creating an even skin tone, an illusion of optimum health and youth.

And healthy is sexy!

Of course outside of an illusion, makeup also has personalities attached to it. The makeup of a goth, of a business women, your mom. Some girls just like to dress up to feel more mature, sexually mature of course. Others claim its a form of self-expression.

Self-expression aside, because I think that's actually rare in the makeup world, _most women are just insecure_! 

Im just curious what the guys think. When and where is makeup attractive, when is it not necessary? Who should wear makeup? How much? Is it a measure of her personality? Social status? And, have you ever found a bare naked female face sexy or beautiful? I'm asking because some guys think a women covered in dirt and sweat is sexy, and she doesn't smell pretty!

----------


## Philosopher8659

I have not seen my Avon Lady in decades.

----------


## Raspberry

I myself started wearing makeup when I was 11. At the time I thought I was old enough, but now I'm like "whoa... 11?" 

The beauty industry uses womens insecurity to sell their product. They make you feel ugly without something, by using a model who's been edited and then offering a product to "fix" something. 

When I was 11, my mum took me to a show. She put a little pink eyeshadow on me, and from then on I started wearing it. I felt SO pretty at that show, even with just a little makeup on. I think that's why I started wearing it. I went a little makeup crazy, I started wearing mascara, eyeliner, eyeshadow, foundation... Ugh. I'm glad I stopped that.

Then I just got used to it. I usually stop wearing makeup in the summer, because it just sweats off and I think it's nice to be all clean and natural in the sun. But in the autumn/winter I wear a little., (mascara, blush, maybe a little concealer for dark circles) It's not from insecurity, I like the way I look without makeup. I'm not the type of person who looks in the mirror and tells herself "Oh my god I'm so ugly." I don't pick things out and critisize myself. I live with it and remember that no one is perfect. But saying that, I like the way I look with makeup _better_.

I like having a glow. In the summer, I tan lightly (even with sun cream) and get it that way. In winter I like a little blush and shimmer because I go pale.

Then again, a lot of my friends NEVER go out without makeup. Ever. I ask them "What if you're just nipping to a store?" and they say nope, they NEED makeup on.

----------


## DrunkenArse

> I got a question, how do the boys and men of DVs feel about makeup? For so many women, they wouldn't dare go outside in the public without some makeup on. They believe they look ugly without it. It's insecurity in its glory! Of course you have some women who say "but I only wear a little bit of makeup" but even a little bit of makeup means you looked in the mirror and felt_ ugly_.




I feel pretty much the same way about makeup and shaving. I like women that just say no. Makeup can definitely fake the signs of youth and ovulation which is why it makes women look "prettier" but it's just a fake. And it's not that I like hairy armpits on a woman but that I like what it can say about the woman. Some women don't shave because it's fashionable within their circles. They tend to be into kooky shit too. The ones that don't shave or use makeup and still value rational thought are pretty much the type specimens of my perfect woman.

----------


## DuB

Let me just put it this way. Some women look better with makeup. Some women look just as good either way. But I've never known a woman who looked _worse_ with makeup. (Assuming it's applied in a reasonable way of course.)

----------


## saltyseedog

> I got a question, how do the boys and men of DVs feel about makeup? For so many women, they wouldn't dare go outside in the public without some makeup on. They believe they look ugly without it. It's insecurity in its glory! Of course you have some women who say "but I only wear a little bit of makeup" but even a little bit of makeup means you looked in the mirror and felt ugly.



Before I changed into who I am now, I felt that girls with more imperfections I was more comfortable with, I think because I would often look in the mirror and see myself as imperfect, and didn't want to feel like I had to live up to the expectations of a girl who thinks she can get a better looking guy because she identifies with how she thinks about her appearance. I was always interested in it for the emotional connection not for the lust. Although many girls did and do find me very attractive. but I just found that girls who look less attractive are different. Like I could empathize for them. Maybe its just because I'm a nurturer. At my egoistic school though I felt self conscious of what people would think about who I am if I was with that girl who was not attractive or did not really fit with my idea of who I was that other people saw me as. I kind of had a overly logical hippy ego identification. Even my parents I felt that they would think I'm weird for being with a girl that others might not be considered "pretty" or in my league, I mean that actually might sound a little exaggerated than how it actually is, but my parents are not emotionally mature people. They are not really intimate at all.
But really more than anything I would find myself attracted to girls not really knowing why. I felt their energy unconsciously. Some of them I even were lovers from past lives. Than that would normally lead to me obsessively thinking about them and having fantasies. Some of these girls were actually attracted to me and thats why I felt attracted to them because I felt it in their energy, but at the same time I doubted they liked me.
anyways... most guys I'm sure don't really care about make up at all. actually most probably like girls without makeup more. And you may look at yourself in the mirror seeing yourself as imperfect and not skinny or something, but most guys find overly perfect looking girls and super skinny girls less attractive.
Really if your more confident that you look fine, or don't care, and confident that guys would like you, they will feel that.

Now I don't want to care at all. I want everyone to be loved. And I just want to be loved and understood. But I do not want to mess up my life path in the process. So I often keep to myself although others hurt, but in the long run its better this way.

----------


## DeletePlease

A little makeup's fine, but some girls overdo it and heavy makeup can be a bit of a turn off. For the most part, I don't really care; a lot of girls look better with very little on, if any. Some can look a little drained without it though so even a _bit_ of eyeliner or eye shadow can make a big difference. When it comes down to it though, it's not really something that'll either make or break a relationship (imo).
-----
Is it weird to gravitate towards girls with emotional baggage (for lack of a better term)? Like if I had a choice between two equally attractive girls to go out with, I'd probably choose the one that's going through a rough time or has in the past. It's not that I'm insecure and lack self-esteem or that I want to be with a depressed submissive, rife with imperfections and a troubled past so I can feel better about myself or w/e. 

There was this one girl that I started spending a bit of time with after she broke up with her abusive ex and, although she left soon after she got herself together, I didn't mind much. Like I really enjoy... nurturing and accommodating I guess. That's not too odd, is it?

----------


## Maria92

> I got a question, how do the boys and men of DVs feel about makeup? For so many women, they wouldn't dare go outside in the public without some makeup on. They believe they look ugly without it. It's insecurity in its glory! Of course you have some women who say "but I only wear a little bit of makeup" but even a little bit of makeup means you looked in the mirror and felt_ ugly_.



I prefer my ladies without makeup, or with very little. It shows confidence, and perhaps just a touch of the "bachelorette frog" lifestyle I kinda dig.

----------


## Raspberry

I do think that if every woman just stopped wearing makeup, we'd all be completely fine. We'd adjust pretty quickly and then actually start to like our appearance as it is. I mean, I liked my appearance before I started wearing makeup. Not in a "I'm so gorgeous" kind of way, but a content way. If guys can live without makeup I'm sure we can too. When girls walk around with a full face of it I just want to take a makeup wipe and rub their face in it. 

The worst thing is probably orange girls though. I hate fake tan.

----------


## Zhaylin

Here's a question and a bit of a rant.

I normally take meds for anxiety.  Even still, I HATE being out and around people.  But when I am, I am always nice, I always smile.
I get a lot of positive feedback.  People smile back if only in a friendly "how do you do" sort of way.  Every now and then I catch a guy with a glint in his eye meaning he's attracted to me.

I'm off my meds for the time.  I'm having adrenaline surges and problems with anger.  I still hate to be out and about, but when I am, I'm still nice.  I still smile.  But I'm in more of a hurry and even I can perceive the giant chip on my shoulder.
MORE guys are physically attracted to me at this time.
My looks haven't changed at all, just my attitude.

Here's the rant:
Even my hubby has responded positively to me.  We've not had sex in almost a year (more like 8 months, but it feels like an eternity).  He frequently gets on my case about having gained weight and for taking my meds.  But I'm the subservient little wifey he knows and loves and I take his grumpiness as part of his personality which I know and love.  (I weighed about 98 pounds when we met, which he loved and I was okay with.  Now I'm up to at least 130 which irritates my bad knees and self-image though it's still within acceptable/normal range for my height at 5'5")
I was helping him move around furniture and boxes the other day.  I was so grumpy I wanted to rip his head off, so I left for about half and hour.
Last night he told me how good I had looked- that I had a glow to me seeing how I'm off the meds "they" have been keeping me doped up on.  Well no.  I'm still taking an ANTI-freakin-psychotic (off labeled use for anxiety).  He knows that.  I looked good?  I reminded him I had wanted to rip his head off.  He just laughed.
He does not accept anger from loved ones well. And if it comes across as a contradiction (from me), then he gets all pridefully male and acts like I just had an affair or something.

What the heck is going on lol  Do men actually like attitude problems?  I can write hubby off as being hubby, but everyone else?
I feel like my world's been turned upside down  ::lol::

----------


## saltyseedog

I think your getting more in touch with your emotions since you've been off the meds. I'm not sure how that works for guys being attracted to you. Maybe you just notice more? Maybe your hubby is just attracted to that side of yourself.

----------


## Zhaylin

"Maybe you just notice more?"
Nah.  I'm one to always look people in the eye (not uncomfortably so though lol).  If someone's physically attracted to me, I notice immediately  ::D:   I don't have very healthy self-esteem so their attraction always takes me by surprise.  And seeing how I'm not "getting any lovin' at home", the carnal side of me especially notices  :Big laugh:  because it's nice to know there's options... even if I'm not the sort of girl to give in to such inclinations  ::shock:: 

As for hubby... I think he's just being himself.  He doesn't mean to be an ass, he just psychs himself out too much.
Like, when I told him I stopped smoking then lapsed and didn't tell him, he still commented on how I didn't smell like cigarette smoke (the smoke was the same but he didn't smell it because he didn't want to).
If I don't tell him I'm off my meds (I run out every once in a blue moon), he still perceives me as being doped up (which, BTW, Celexa does NOT "dope you up").
Thinking on it more, I believe he was more attracted to me because he KNOWS I'm off my meds.  
But he still shouldn't have reacted positive to the anger.  THAT isn't in his nature.

And men say women are hard to understand...

----------


## tommo

Sometimes it's hot when a girl is pissed off.  Or angry or whatever.
Dunno why.  They have to be good looking though lol

----------


## mowglycdb

> If I don't tell him I'm off my meds (I run out every once in a blue moon), he still perceives me as being doped up (which, BTW, Celexa does NOT "dope you up").
> Thinking on it more, I believe he was more attracted to me because he KNOWS I'm off my meds.  
> But he still shouldn't have reacted positive to the anger.  THAT isn't in his nature.
> 
> And men say women are hard to understand...



Maybe he doesn't want you to be on meds, showing anger doesn't always have to be bad, there's the friendly anger and straight out destructive anger,  when one notices that it's not with bad intentions it seems cute and funny, because it's an honest expression but not necesarly a bad one. 
People change and have been changing a lot lately.

----------


## Zhaylin

hahaa.  Thanks guys.
The way I've been feeling, all that's missing is the stiletto boots, leather jeans, whip and motorcycle.  That would be the embodiment of the anger I've been feeling  ::D:   I guess that could be kind of hot  :tongue2: 

And yeah, hubby does NOT want me on meds but that's one battle he just has to lose.  It's either meds or narcoleptic-ish type anxiety.  Having a cataleptic attack while driving will ruin anyone's day.   He might not understand that, but I do.  Thus, meds FTW.

"People change and have been changing a lot lately."  Maybe it's the fast approaching arrival of Spring that's doing it.

----------


## Maria92

I like it when women are sane and calm...and snuggly. Yes, it's very nice when they're in the mood to cuddle. =3

----------


## Wraith500000

I am more attracted to personality then physical beauty for example Rasberry sounds like the perfect girl. All the posts of hers I have read all point to a girl with what is in my opinion the perfect girl. For example she has (from what I have read at least) a very mature outlook of the world and is the epitome of the younger generation that I hope can bring more positivity to this world Now this could just be my tired brain talking but she does seem Perfect.

Now on the physical attractiveness side Maggie Lawson is very beautiful and so is Rachael Leigh Cook(at least in psych I haven't seen her in anything else) so they are what I find attractive with Maggie it is a blend of personality and physical attractiveness and with Rachel it is all about how beautiful she is(well actually to be frank she is mind blowingly hot) and mainly that has to do with the face but you could also say she is well endowed. Anyway sorry if this post seems a bit scattered I haven't had very much practice writing and I have had trouble sleeping lately. So if anyone could give me pointers on how to write better I would appreciate it very much. 

Thanks,
Wraith500000

[edit] 
About the make up I find that it is mostly unnecessary as girls and women are beautiful the way they are and don't need something to enhance their appearance (however a girl wearing Ancient Egyptian make up certainly doesn't hurt her appearance  :smiley:

----------


## Raspberry

> I am more attracted to personality then physical beauty for example Rasberry sounds like the perfect girl. All the posts of hers I have read all point to a girl with what is in my opinion the perfect girl. For example she has (from what I have read at least) a very mature outlook of the world and is the epitome of the younger generation that I hope can bring more positivity to this world Now this could just be my tired brain talking but she does seem Perfect.



I am flattered, thank you  :smiley: 

And your writing seems fine to me  :Cheeky:

----------


## Maria92

> I am more attracted to personality then physical beauty for example Rasberry sounds like the perfect girl. All the posts of hers I have read all point to a girl with what is in my opinion the perfect girl. For example she has (from what I have read at least) a very mature outlook of the world and is the epitome of the younger generation that I hope can bring more positivity to this world Now this could just be my tired brain talking but she does seem Perfect.



Back off she's mine! *challenges to a duel*

----------


## Raspberry

*Blushes*

----------


## DrunkenArse

Raspberry is too young for me and I'm probably not emotionally mature enough for her but I'll toss in on the duel here anyways. I could use someone to cook and clean for me. So after I kill Mario and Wraith, she has to come out to Maui and spend her days cleaning up after me (so it's still sorta like a relationship). If she still has time to meet her true love, then I won't interfere and I'll sell her to him/her for a reasonable price.

----------


## DeletePlease

> I like it when women are sane and calm...and snuggly. Yes, it's very nice when they're in the mood to cuddle. =3



But the damaged ones are the ones that need to be hugged more often.  :tongue2: 
-----
I find Raspberries rather tart; strawberries are the way to go.

----------


## Raspberry

> But the damaged ones are the ones that need to be hugged more often. 
> -----
> I find Raspberries rather tart; strawberries are the way to go.



... LOL

@PhilosopherStoned: You're in luck that I'm a good cook. My speciality is a sort of chinese/italian chilli mince stir-fry hybrid  :Shades wink:  Or fried tuna.

Maybe that's what causes attraction  ::lol::  What's that saying? A way to a man's heart is through his belly?

Something like that  :wink2:

----------


## Wraith500000

> Back off she's mine! *challenges to a duel*



Your on. * pulls out links master sword from twilight princess and brings it to guard* ::D:

----------


## Maria92

> @PhilosopherStoned: You're in luck that I'm a good cook. My speciality is a sort of chinese/italian chilli mince stir-fry hybrid  Or fried tuna.
> 
> Maybe that's what causes attraction  What's that saying? A way to a man's heart is through his belly?



You cook, too? Come with me...together, we shall make delicious meals the likes of which the world has never seen. 





> Your on. * pulls out links master sword from twilight princess and brings it to guard*



Pssh, that toy won't defeat me. *Draws Cloud's gigantic sword*

----------


## DeletePlease

I think it's cute the way you two use this fight over Raspberry as an excuse for you guys to get together for a duel with your "swords." A clever ruse indeed, gentlemen. :]
-----
Anyone else think those "Dimples of Venus" on a girl's lower back are... well... awesome?

----------


## DrunkenArse

*shoots Mario and Wraith*

Asian-Italian fusion is actually my specialty. No joke. It's quite a coincidence. I guess I can cook for myself (unless you do mexican. I haven't got a hang of that yet) but I am still in _ desperate_ need of someone to clean up after me.

*shows Raspberry where the mop is.*

----------


## Raspberry

*Pulls out Angel's Dagger*

I refuse to be a housewife aka slave  :tongue2:  

And you killed the romance between Mario and Wraith! It's tragic. I must avenge my friends  :Pissed: 

I am a ninja  ::evil::

----------


## Wraith500000

[QUOTE=GavinGill;1624121]I think it's cute the way you two use this fight over Raspberry as an excuse for you guys to get together for a duel with your "swords." A clever ruse(end quote) 

What!  ::shock::   :Pissed:   ::idea::  *Goes back in time grabs the Tsar Bomba with spirit powers now that I am dead and drops it on GavinGills head*  :mwahaha:   ::evil:: 

Lol ::D: 

(edit)
About the dimples of Venus I don't really see what is attractive about them.

----------


## DrunkenArse

> *Pulls out Angel's Dagger*
> 
> I refuse to be a housewife aka slave 
> 
> 
> And you killed the romance between Mario and Wraith! It's tragic. I must avenge my friends 
> 
> I am a ninja



*shoots Raspberry too*

Dammit. Who's gonna clean up after me now. I knew I never should have moved out of my mom's house.

----------


## Maria92

> I think it's cute the way you two use this fight over Raspberry as an excuse for you guys to get together for a duel with your "swords." A clever ruse indeed, gentlemen. :]
> -----
> Anyone else think those "Dimples of Venus" on a girl's lower back are... well... awesome?



Hahah, I lol'd. 

I dunno about the dimples. I'm sort of neutral there, I suppose.

----------


## SusyS

I read in my friend's university books that faces that are mathematically average are attractive. They took 2 sisters and created an image based on both of their faces, the average distance between each feature and size of each feature itself. The woman that created was beautiful. I think it's because, like someone said, average faces are healthy. Giant noses and messed up teeth make you wonder "what's wrong with that person?" lol. Even if subconcious. 

As for big breasts, hour glass figure, etc... these things just make a person seem fertile. And man was created to reproduce...

----------


## DeletePlease

> And man was created to reproduce...



 I'm pretty sure I was created because my parents wanted another kid.  :tongue2:

----------


## SusyS

Yeah and that desire to want another kid is ingrained in our make up, the desire to reproduce.

----------


## DrunkenArse

The point though is that humans weren't "created" to reproduce, we were "created" _because_ our ancestors reproduced.

----------


## SusyS

What came first, the chicken or the egg?

----------


## Maria92

> What came first, the chicken or the egg?



The common ancestor.

----------


## SusyS

Lol! Who was the FIRST ancestor.

----------


## Maria92

If you want to get abstract, the big bang.

----------


## saltyseedog

> Yeah and that desire to want another kid is ingrained in our make up, the desire to reproduce.



Giving birth and raising a child is an amazingly intimate bond. Women who are pregnant it changes them. They carry another soul within them. Their love for each other is pure. The energy of the family, its an incredible thing. Of coarse it is not always as I describe. Children are raised like they are objects. TV teachs them to be stupid. Born pure, tought to be dark.

----------


## DrunkenArse

> What came first, the chicken or the egg?



The egg. Chickens can be traced to either the red jungle fowl or a hybrid of the red and green jungle fowls. Eggs (in the form that you're probably talking about) have been present since the amniotes specialized from the rest of the tetrapods (you might say amphibians). So the egg came first by a couple of hundred million years.

----------


## theMagician

It has been said the inherent mission of life is to reproduce, securing the continued survival of our species.

As Dave Matthews puts it, "we climb on two by two, to make sure these days continue. Things we can not change." -Two Step

Can't be stated any better. Men and women are, by instincts, attracted to different things n the opposite sex. Men are very very visual. 

Women on the other hand must be far more cautious when choosing a mate. They are attracted to a mans survival value. is this man going to be around and provide security to the family unit? They are attracted to the mans personality, more so than his looks, they want the alpha male. Social, intelligent, and adventureous.

----------


## theMagician

> I read in my friend's university books that faces that are mathematically average are attractive. They took 2 sisters and created an image based on both of their faces, the average distance between each feature and size of each feature itself. The woman that created was beautiful. I think it's because, like someone said, average faces are healthy. Giant noses and messed up teeth make you wonder "what's wrong with that person?" lol. Even if subconcious. 
> 
> As for big breasts, hour glass figure, etc... these things just make a person seem fertile. And man was created to reproduce...



A lot of attraction is unconscious. But that is correct. Even size and evenness of breasts, and waist to hip ratio is a big factor.

----------


## Arra

> Yeah and that desire to want another kid is ingrained in our make up, the desire to reproduce.







> It has been said the inherent mission of life is to reproduce, securing the continued survival of our species.
> 
> As Dave Matthews puts it, "we climb on two by two, to make sure these days continue. Things we can not change." -Two Step
> 
> Can't be stated any better. Men and women are, by instincts, attracted to different things n the opposite sex. Men are very very visual. 
> 
> Women on the other hand must be far more cautious when choosing a mate. They are attracted to a mans survival value. is this man going to be around and provide security to the family unit? They are attracted to the mans personality, more so than his looks, they want the alpha male. Social, intelligent, and adventureous.



A mistake I often see people make is to confuse the _evolutionary reason_ for something and the _psychological reason_. The evolutionary reason we're attracted to certain qualities in the opposite sex is that our genes will more likely survive, but that doesn't necessarily mean the psychological reason is the same. I doubt that my reason for being attracted to intelligence, even subconsciously, is because I think an intelligent guy will be more likely to provide for and protect me and my future children. The allure of intelligence is just there in the brain. Same with attraction to body. You aren't attracted to breasts because you're thinking about the milking opportunities for your future offspring with her. There is just an ingrained attraction to breasts. Which got there by evolution, yes, but the attraction itself has nothing to do with some subconscious desire to pass on your genes. My (recent) attraction males with a bit of muscle has nothing to do with a subconscious desire to be protected (well not for me, anyway) - it just looks good.





> What came first, the chicken or the egg?



In addition to what PhilosopherStoned said, assuming evolution is true, the egg would have to have come first. Even if the 'egg' in the question refers only to 'chicken egg', the first egg wolud have to have been the one that the first chicken came from, which was laid(layed?) by a non-chicken. This is assuming that we're forced to draw a line between 'chicken' and whatever species came before it. They would be able to mate with one another because they're so closely related, but if we could observe every step of evolution we'd end up forcing ourselves to choose where to draw the lines between species.
EDIT: I've suspected that this question is really a creation vs. evolution question in disguise. For the reason above, if evolution is true the answer is the egg. But if creation were true the answer would be the chicken.

----------


## DrunkenArse

> assuming evolution is true



*Not* assuming. It's a fact.

----------


## theMagician

> A mistake I often see people make is to confuse the _evolutionary reason_ for something and the _psychological reason_. The evolutionary reason we're attracted to certain qualities in the opposite sex is that our genes will more likely survive, but that doesn't necessarily mean the psychological reason is the same. I doubt that my reason for being attracted to intelligence, even subconsciously, is because I think an intelligent guy will be more likely to provide for and protect me and my future children. The allure of intelligence is just there in the brain. Same with attraction to body. You aren't attracted to breasts because you're thinking about the milking opportunities for your future offspring with her. There is just an ingrained attraction to breasts. Which got there by evolution, yes, but the attraction itself has nothing to do with some subconscious desire to pass on your genes. My (recent) attraction males with a bit of muscle has nothing to do with a subconscious desire to be protected (well not for me, anyway) - it just looks good.



I don't look at breasts and think that my offspring will be well fed...

I only brought up the desire to pass on ones genes as our inherent mission in life.

As a man, like any man, I am attracted to legs, soft skin, tight but, breast size, proportionate features such as face, hip to waist, ect. I see a girl, and it's automatic, attraction is not a choice.

----------


## DrunkenArse

> I only brought up the desire to pass on ones genes as our inherent mission in life.



Passing on our genes is not our inherent mission in life. This is a gross misreading of the facts. We do not exist _too_ make copies of our genes. We exist _because_ our ancestors made copies of _their_ genes. Therefore, we can expect that the genes that we have are good at getting copies of themselves made.

That's all you can say.

You can not extrapolate from that to any of this nonsense about "inherent missions" or anything like that.

----------


## AlienDiplomat

Don't forget those nasty nature-evolved mind poisons known as pheromones! 

Both sexes have them, and they, like the matrix, are biochemically programmed to dull your logic and reason, to take over your thinking mind and blur consequences for the purpose of forcing you to incarnate yet another generation of thinking mortals into this planet better suited to the animals among us.

Or course things like alcohol and corporate propaganda help push the unnatural aspect of attraction even further, to where it has little to do anymore with the person themselves, but rather, their arsenal of sexual WEAPONS. 

Axe body spray with pheromones, anyone?

So, instead of pushing our corrupt medicine for profit cartels and murderous government regimes to fund immortality research, and defense against bio-tech, for a future that might be worth looking forward to, we see the hyper-sensationalizing of sex as a product.

Priorities... Just my 2c.

----------


## Maria92

> Don't forget those nasty nature-evolved mind poisons known as pheromones! 
> 
> Both sexes have them, and they, like the matrix, are biochemically programmed to dull your logic and reason, to take over your thinking mind and blur consequences for the purpose of forcing you to incarnate yet another generation of thinking mortals into this planet better suited to the animals among us.
> 
> Or course things like alcohol and corporate propaganda help push the unnatural aspect of attraction even further, to where it has little to do anymore with the person themselves, but rather, their arsenal of sexual WEAPONS. 
> 
> Axe body spray with pheromones, anyone?
> 
> So, instead of pushing our corrupt medicine for profit cartels and murderous government regimes to fund immortality research, and defense against bio-tech, for a future that might be worth looking forward to, we see the hyper-sensationalizing of sex as a product.
> ...





It's like a conspiracy theory raped some devout evangelical rant and this post is the bastard offspring of this unholy union.

----------


## DeletePlease

I like girls that are friendly, try to keep an open mind, aren't quick to judge, take care of their appearance without obsessing over it, and expect the same from me.

Why are you guys complicating things with your theories of "sexual weapons" and whatnot? D:

----------


## MindGames

Personal preferences vary greatly, and shouldn't really be taken into account when considering the overall underlying causes of physical attraction.

I think I've stated this before, but from what I've deduced, women are attracted mostly to emotional appeal, and men are attracted mostly to physical appeal. Neither emotional nor physical appeal is the entire cause of attraction in either sex, but each is generally the main determining factor in attraction for each sex respectively. To explain this in real-world terms, women are generally sexually attracted to dominant men. (Guys who have money, mainly at the center of attention, unpredictable, sociable, intelligent, classy,...) Of course, each woman has their own slant on what they like, given their individual personality. There are many factors which go into what a girl's personality is and therefore what she likes, but I'm not getting into that. A lot of women also tend to take a man's physical traits into much more account.

Obviously most guys are primarily sexually attracted to the physical appeal of women. If you disagree with me there, you're either just trolling or stupid.  :smiley:  Keep in mind this is just about sexual attraction, not relationship-type attraction. If this thread concerned relationships, I'd also get into that.


So basically, any more in-depth of a description than what I've given would either be a specific biological description of sexual attraction or would just concern one's personal preferences.


Feel free to challenge me on this paradigm if you think differently.

----------


## theMagician

> Passing on our genes is not our inherent mission in life. This is a gross misreading of the facts. We do not exist _too_ make copies of our genes. We exist _because_ our ancestors made copies of _their_ genes. Therefore, we can expect that the genes that we have are good at getting copies of themselves made.
> 
> That's all you can say.
> 
> You can not extrapolate from that to any of this nonsense about "inherent missions" or anything like that.



Whatever, you are missing my point. Survival and replication, all the way back to the caveman days. If it wasn't, you or I would most likely not be here.

I'm not talking about cloning and making an exact copy of my genes, I'm talking about our control over the continued survival of our species.passing on my bloodline to the next generation and so on and so on. 

If it wasn't inherent instinct to find, meet, attract and reproduce, we may have become extinct already. You know, human nature... So where does human nature come from... Oh yeah, our instincts.

Think of pandas who won't fvck to save their species

----------


## DrunkenArse

> Whatever, you are missing my point. Survival and replication, all the way back to the caveman days. If it wasn't, you or I would most likely not be here.



No, you're missing my point. None of that makes it our "inherent mission" or any such similar bullshit. We are free agents that can exercise our will in anyway we want.





> I don't know if you know this or no,but when you mate and reproduce, both partners genes get passed, not an exact copy, duh. I'm not talking about cloning and making an exact copy of my genes, I'm talking about our control over the continued survival of our species.passing on my bloodline to the next generation and so on and so on.



Most genes that do get transmitted will have an exact replica of them made. Each gene (and we're really using the term loosely here, we should be saying allele) has a 50% chance barring meiotic drive. What's your point? "Survival of the species" has nothing to do with evolution.





> If it wasn't inherent instinct to find, meet, attract and reproduce, we may have become extinct already.



That's what I said. Again, this does not mean that it's our "inherent mission" to reproduce. It just means that the genes that build us are good at getting copies of themselves made. The equip us with an inherent instinct to "meet, attract and reproduce." None of this makes it our "inherent mission".

----------


## theMagician

> No, you're missing my point. None of that makes it our "inherent mission" or any such similar bullshit. We are free agents that can exercise our will in anyway we want.
> 
> 
> 
> Most genes that do get transmitted will have an exact replica of them made. Each gene (and we're really using the term loosely here, we should be saying allele) has a 50% chance barring meiotic drive. What's your point? "Survival of the species" has nothing to do with evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I said. Again, this does not mean that it's our "inherent mission" to reproduce. It just means that the genes that build us are good at getting copies of themselves made. The equip us with an inherent instinct to "meet, attract and reproduce." None of this makes it our "inherent mission".



BTw, this all theory, but it makes the most since. Survival and replication value is really about primal instincts; we don't go off survival and replication value in a realistic environment anymore (because modern life is more than just about surviving and having sex--see Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs), but they are the foundation of the attraction switches, as in, triggering an attraction switch inherently indicates that you do have higher survival and replication value. Together, survival and replication value make up your "value", or how attractive you are as a possible mate. When women judge men, they look for the highest value mate because he is most likely to increase her chance of survival (and again, it happens subliminally). Similarly, when men judge women, they look for wide hips and large breasts because those indicate high replication value (even though, naturally, we don't know why we like it, we just do). This thread is about what causes attraction, therefor you must know where it comes from. 
Modernism surfaced around the end of the Middle Ages, it's a relatively a new concept.

----------


## theMagician

Forgot, you also mentioned that survival of a species has nothing to do with evolution.... Survival of the fittest ring a bell?

----------


## DrunkenArse

> Forgot, you also mentioned that survival of a species has nothing to do with evolution.... Survival of the fittest ring a bell?



Only in the context of gross misrepresentations of evolutionary theory. Also, it's normally applied to individual organisms so I don't see what it has to do with species. A more accurate statement would be "survival of the fit enough to survive."

----------


## theMagician

> Only in the context of gross misrepresentations of evolutionary theory. Also, it's normally applied to individual organisms so I don't see what it has to do with species. A more accurate statement would be "survival of the fit enough to survive."



So you are saying that survival of a species has to do with evolution, right?

----------


## Arra

> Together, survival and replication value make up your "value", or how attractive you are as a possible mate. When women judge men, they look for the highest value mate because he is most likely to increase her chance of survival (and again, it happens subliminally). Similarly, when men judge women, they look for wide hips and large breasts because those indicate high replication value (even though, naturally, we don't know why we like it, we just do). Modernism surfaced around the end of the Middle Ages, it's a relatively a new concept.



In most cases I doubt it happens subconsciously nor 'subliminally'. Consider this situation. A person designs and makes a clock to tell the time. But the clock itself isn't _trying_ to tell the time, it works due to whatever internal mechanisms make it work. Similarly, evolution can be thought to have 'designed' male attraction to breasts to help with gene survival. But the reason males are attracted to breasts isn't because they're _trying_ to help their genes survive. The phychological subconscious reason probably has nothing to do with survival.

The reason we exist is because we've undergone evolution and our species has survived, but that doesn't mean we have an inherent mission to survive. Only we can assign value to things and decide what our goals will be. Nothing else can assign value because everything else is mindless and physical. Just because we got here via evolution doesn't mean we should base our goals or morality off of it. That kind of thinking might lead a person to advocate eugenics.


(Unrelated to above)
I think I have a pretty good idea of what the average guy will find attractive in a girl, what I thought being confirmed by posts on this site, and I'm sad and happy to say that I don't fit the description. But it's alright, I would really rather not be a perfect sweet friendly anime-ish girl with no character flaws nor depth.

----------


## DrunkenArse

> (Unrelated to above)
> I think I have a pretty good idea of what the average guy will find attractive in a girl, what I thought being confirmed by posts on this site, and I'm sad and happy to say that I don't fit the description. But it's alright, I would really rather not be a perfect sweet friendly anime-ish girl with no character flaws nor depth.



But you have boobs, right?

----------


## Arra

> But you have boobs, right?



Honestly, what do you expect me to reply to this?

----------


## dajo

what? the anime-ish type is what the average guy finds attractive? huh...

----------


## Arra

> what? the anime-ish type is what the average guy finds attractive? huh...



Friendly, sweet, positive. In anime it seems exaggerated, but something like that. A few people on this thread have given descriptions similar to that while describing their idea of the perfect girl. Maybe I'm wrong, I don't care. Holy crap I just typed a lot of stupid nonsense and have deleted it. I'm too tired for this.

----------


## dajo

You should realize that there is no average attraction and that tastes, just like looks, are great in variety. If you limit yourself to one "average" and usually media driven ideal, you will never gain the self acceptance and self love that will make you appealing to others in the first place. Regardless of what people write in this thread, I'm sure many give an "ideal" of what they think they find most attractive, but if it comes to actually meeting and falling for a person, a variety of factors play a role that are much more subconscious then anybody realizes. The diverse trend will be increasing the older you get, as people will gain experiences from shallow relationships and mature their own identity independent of their surrounding. 

And just to strengthen my point a little and to explain why I picked out the "anime-ish" description in your post, I want to state the following. I am sure that you would find very different consensuses on the perceived attractiveness, if you were to start a survey at: a) a rock concert b) a cultural center/ museum c) a football stadium d) high school and e) an online forum. There are many sub-cultural groups even within ones own nation that define and view beauty very differently. All of them interact daily with each other with their different morals and perceptions. So my point is to throw any "standards" over board and to live by your own. 

And one more thing, I hope in time it will make you more happy than sad that you don't seem to fit into the "average description".

----------


## Arra

> You should realize that there is no average attraction and that tastes, just like looks, are great in variety. If you limit yourself to one "average" and usually media driven ideal, you will never gain the self acceptance and self love that will make you appealing to others in the first place. Regardless of what people write in this thread, I'm sure many give an "ideal" of what they think they find most attractive, but if it comes to actually meeting and falling for a person, a variety of factors play a role that are much more subconscious then anybody realizes. The diverse trend will be increasing the older you get, as people will gain experiences from shallow relationships and mature their own identity independent of their surrounding. 
> 
> And just to strengthen my point a little and to explain why I picked out the "anime-ish" description in your post, I want to state the following. I am sure that you would find very different consensuses on the perceived attractiveness, if you were to start a survey at: a) a rock concert b) a cultural center/ museum c) a football stadium d) high school and e) an online forum. There are many sub-cultural groups even within ones own nation that define and view beauty very differently. All of them interact daily with each other with their different morals and perceptions. So my point is to throw any "standards" over board and to live by your own. 
> 
> And one more thing, I hope in time it will make you more happy than sad that you don't seem to fit into the "average description".



I agree with about everything you've said and I might have given the wrong impression about my mindset. I was tired last night while responding, typed a lot and erased it. It's a fact though that an average preference exists, and it probably is what I described. I was realizing I didn't fit into that description and so there are a lot of guys who probably dislike me. It was bothering me a bit for the first time, usually it wouldn't. Not bothering me because I'm ignorant that there's a variety of guys and that some will have different tastes, I know that. I wouldn't for a moment want to fit into an average description. The opposite, in most cases. If anything, wanting too much to be different is my problem. Again, I'm very tired (wbtb), so don't take what I say too seriously as it doesn't deserve a well thought out response from someone who is thinking clearly.

----------


## DeletePlease

> I was realizing I didn't fit into that description and so there are a lot of guys who probably dislike me.



I doubt anyone would go as far as to _dislike_ someone because they didn't fit their idea of the perfect man/woman. They might not be asked on a date but that doesn't mean they'll develop a distaste for them or not take kindly to them.

Unless you simply meant "won't like me in _that_ way."

----------


## MindGames

> I doubt anyone would go as far as to dislike someone because they didn't fit their idea of the perfect man/woman. They might not be asked on a date but that doesn't mean they'll develop a distaste for them or not take kindly to them.
> 
> Unless you simply meant "won't like me in that way."



I disagree. I find ugly women repulsive. And some of them pick up on this feeling and try to make themselves look more attractive to me, which is equally annoying. That's not to say that I dislike average girls, but I definitely try to avoid the ugly ones. Not to sound like a dick; I don't tell it to their face for this reason.

----------


## DeletePlease

You wouldn't even have a friendly chat with someone at the bus stop because you didn't find them sexually appealing? I don't mean to put you on the spot, come across as one of those internet-white-knights, or anything like that, but I really don't see the sense in that train of thought. =/

----------


## dajo

Wtf, why? Define ugly. Do you find ugly men repulsive?

----------


## MindGames

I'm sure everyone here knows what the term 'ugly' means, no need to define it. And I did not say that if a woman lacks sexual appeal that I will avoid her. I said I specifically find ugly women (and yes, that includes ugly people in general, since you asked) to be repulsive, and I will avoid them. In general, I have found that they have personalities that I dislike, and are often annoying and clingy. Let me remind you that I'm not a dick in person, and I won't treat them badly. However, if I do come across a girl with a great personality and we click, I'll completely disregard how she looks.

----------


## Maeni

> I'm sure everyone here knows what the term 'ugly' means, no need to define it.



Actually, there can be holy shit load of confusion as to what that word means. Just like "tall", "soft", "good", "pretty", no-body has the same idea, so you actually do need to define it, or at least elaborate.
I think, if there's one thing in the world that kills discussions, it's that words don't mean the same to anyone.

----------


## MindGames

When I speak of somebody being 'ugly', I mean 'ugly' as in physically unattractive; repulsive. It's not a matter of one specific trait, such as not being tall enough, not the right cup size, too much makeup, etc. If that's what I meant, I would have made sure to have said so. My mistake for assuming everybody was on the same page of the definition of ugly. Go ahead and take a look at the definition on Wiktionary or Webster if you're still confused.  :smiley: 

The majority of semantical confusion can be avoided if people just take the time to think about the meaning of the word in the context of what the original poster is saying. In this case, I think it was quite obvious what I meant by ugly, since we're talking about physical attractiveness.

----------


## tommo

Ugly is still subjective.  Some people think pugs are ugly.  Some people think morbidly obese people are cute (I think, I saw a show about this guy once who fed his wives heaps to get them huuuuge, it might have been bullshit though).

There's been a couple of girls who everyone I know says are ugly but I think they're cute.  Ugly is definitely not objective.
Also people say ugly when they really mean "I wouldn't have sex with her".  They don't feel sick when they look at them, but they say ugly anyway.
So that could have changed it's meaning a bit for some people.
Haven't you ever seen a female and you find out they're married with kids and you're just like "WTTTTTFFFFFFFFBLURRRGGHGHGHGHGHHHHHHH SPIT SPIT KILL ME NOW!"
?

----------


## MindGames

Like I said, I didn't mean ugly in the subjective sense. Of course everybody has different ideas of what constitutes ugly, but I'm sure everybody agrees on what 'ugly' itself means. Unattractive, repulsive, or unappealing. That's what I mean. For the purpose of my original post, the specific traits that I find unattractive are rather unimportant.

----------


## tommo

oh.... ok, I agree then.  :smiley:

----------


## DrunkenArse

> So you are saying that survival of a species has to do with evolution, right?



No I'm not saying that. What about my post would lead you to think that that's what I was saying?





> Honestly, what do you expect me to reply to this?



Well if your opinion of the average man is so poor, then it seems like you would know that what the average man wants is boobs. So as long as you have those, you're set. We also like people to cook and clean for us.

----------


## Arra

> Well if your opinion of the average man is so poor, then it seems like you would know that what the average man wants is boobs. So as long as you have those, you're set. We also like people to cook and clean for us.



Okay, maybe not the average man, but the average man who cares a lot about personality will tend to like the characteristics I described (which isn't surprising).

----------


## strael

> I disagree. I find ugly women repulsive. And some of them pick up on this feeling and try to make themselves look more attractive to me, which is equally annoying. That's not to say that I dislike average girls, but I definitely try to avoid the ugly ones. Not to sound like a dick; I don't tell it to their face for this reason.



that is immensely shallow.

----------


## MindGames

> that is immensely shallow.



Sure it's shallow. I've always had high standards.

----------


## mowglycdb

> that is immensely shallow.



It isn't shallow actually, it's knowing what you like and dislike.

----------


## strael

> I've always had high standards.



if that's what you want to call it

and yes mow- avoiding people because they aren't physically attractive is shallow.

----------


## MindGames

Shallow has a negative connotation, so I won't apply that to myself, thanks. And in the same way that you reject 'having high standards', I reject your point of view, since I prefer to hold myself in a better light. The simple fact is that I have a higher appreciation for class. If you dislike that aspect of my personality and are going to hold it against me, then that is quite simply, your problem.

And by the way, I never said that I avoid people because their lack of physical attraction. I specifically said that I avoid sexually unattractive people, because they are repulsive to me. If you think that I am a jerk because of that, then you are wrong. There's no harm in avoiding someone. I am simply choosing who I interact with. And if you still think I am a jerk after taking that into consideration, then you probably just have personal issues with someone having high standards.

----------


## mowglycdb

> if that's what you want to call it
> 
> and yes mow- avoiding people because they aren't physically attractive is shallow.



no it isn't, he has no obligation to get to know someone he doesn't like. Probably you'd feel offended if someone did that to you or  a friend of yours.

I think it's worse to be cynical and show you are interested, the fake play will show soon or later, it's stupid to do something you don't like, unless you have an important personal reason, in his case I assume he doesn't mind.

----------


## saltyseedog

> I specifically said that I avoid sexually unattractive people, because they are repulsive to me. If you think that I am a jerk because of that, then you are wrong. There's no harm in avoiding someone. I am simply choosing who I interact with. And if you still think I am a jerk after taking that into consideration, then you probably just have personal issues with someone having high standards.



Umm... loneliness, feelings of worthlessness, depression, hating themselves

----------


## Maria92

> Umm... loneliness, feelings of worthlessness, depression, hating themselves

----------


## Photolysis

When it comes to what I'm attracted to, intellect is the big key for anything beyond superficial lusting. A strong-willed personality is important too. One girl I once knew had the personality of a sponge; she was so weak-willed that she seemingly had no personality of her own. It was quite pathetic really.

Looks aren't too important as long as someone is moderately attractive.






> Umm... loneliness, feelings of worthlessness, depression, hating themselves



The same can be said when you avoid people who are very unlikeable. But I don't think many would make the claim that anyone is obliged to befriend them or spend time with them.

----------


## strael

> And by the way, I never said that I avoid people because their lack of physical attraction. I specifically said that I avoid sexually unattractive people, because they are repulsive to me.



first off, that means the *same exact thing*.
and yes, you did say it.




> When I speak of somebody being 'ugly', I mean 'ugly' as in physically unattractive; repulsive."



It's not that i reject having high standards( standards to me does not include judging someone based foremost on the way they look- to me this reeks of shallowness, but hey, you can have _shallow standards_), it was the way you seemed to be attaching negative character traits to someone who doesn't fit your ideal of being sexually attractive while knowing nothing at all about them as a person. 





> it isn't, he has no obligation to get to know someone he doesn't like. Probably you'd feel offended if someone did that to you or a friend of yours.
> 
> I think it's worse to be cynical and show you are interested, the fake play will show soon or later, it's stupid to do something you don't like, unless you have an important personal reason, in his case I assume he doesn't mind.



I never said that he has an _obligation_  to get to know people he doesn't like, it was the wording- ugly women repulse me- that made it seem like he bases his interactions with women on whether or not they are sexually attractive. The part I found really presumptuous and shallow was when he went on to attribute negative character traits to people he knows nothing about.





> In general, I have found that they have personalities that I dislike, and are often annoying and clingy.



You have every right to judge based on what you think is important in a person. if this must include being sexually attractive, wonderful, but just keep in mind that other people have every right to think what they want about this requirement of yours, and the judgements you make about people who do not fit your standard of physical attractiveness.

----------


## mowglycdb

> first off, that means the *same exact thing*.
> and yes, you did say it.
> 
> It's not that i reject having high standards( standards to me does not include judging someone based foremost on the way they look- to me this reeks of shallowness, but hey, you can have _shallow standards_), it was the way you seemed to be attaching negative character traits to someone who doesn't fit your ideal of being sexually attractive while knowing nothing at all about them as a person. 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that he has an _obligation_  to get to know people he doesn't like, it was the wording- ugly women repulse me- that made it seem like he bases his interactions with women on whether or not they are sexually attractive. The part I found really presumptuous and shallow was when he went on to attribute negative character traits to people he knows nothing about.



I see that you don't like his way, well he's honest and I do like that he says it, he can be proud of being that way if he wants, there's nothing wrong with being shallow.

----------


## saltyseedog

> The same can be said when you avoid people who are very unlikeable. But I don't think many would make the claim that anyone is obliged to befriend them or spend time with them.



Well if they are disliked only by whats on the outside, their physical appearance, thats kind of mean. If you dislike them for who they are on the inside thats different. some people can't help what they look on the outside, but they can be beautiful inside. 
And feeling disliked by people because of their physical appearance can make them miserable.

----------


## Photolysis

> If you dislike them for who they are on the inside thats different. some people can't help what they look on the outside, but they can be beautiful inside.



That's a fair point. But equally people can't really control their reactions either. If someone really is that repulsive for the sake of argument, I can't really blame a person who wishes to avoid that person to avoid experiencing those feelings.

----------


## DrunkenArse

> Well if they are disliked only by whats on the outside, their physical appearance, thats kind of mean. If you dislike them for who they are on the inside thats different. some people can't help what they look on the outside, but they can be beautiful inside. 
> And feeling disliked by people because of their physical appearance can make them miserable.



What makes you think that people can control what they are "on the inside"? Can someone that's autistic control it?

----------


## MindGames

> first off, that means the *same exact thing*.
> and yes, you did say it.



No, it doesn't. An average-looking girl lacks physical attraction, which I don't mind. An ugly girl is repulsive to me. In other words, her overall features are repulsive, disregarding sexual attraction. When I said unattractive, I meant it in the sense of a girl being ugly. Which should have been obvious anyway.

So no, I didn't say that.





> It's not that i reject having high standards( standards to me does not include judging someone based foremost on the way they look- to me this reeks of shallowness, but hey, you can have _shallow standards_), it was the way you seemed to be attaching negative character traits to someone who doesn't fit your ideal of being sexually attractive while knowing nothing at all about them as a person.



I dislike ugly people because I am repulsed by the way they look. If I dislike the way they look, I'm not going to be interested in them or their personality. Sorry if that hurts your feelings. (Not really.) I consider physical looks to be more important than personality much in the same way that you consider personality to be more important than physical looks. I'm not interested in your values, though, because I'm not you. And the fact that you're arguing with me about MY personal preferences tells me that you're the one with the problem here, since you're the one getting upset over something which is completely acceptable and, quite frankly, none of your business to fuss over in the first place. 





> I never said that he has an _obligation_  to get to know people he doesn't like, it was the wording- ugly women repulse me- that made it seem like he bases his interactions with women on whether or not they are sexually attractive. The part I found really presumptuous and shallow was when he went on to attribute negative character traits to people he knows nothing about.



Nope. I base my interactions with everyone based on many factors. And one of those factors is that I will not choose to interact with someone who I find repulsive. An average-looking girl's lack of attraction will not prompt me to avoid her, but I will avoid interacting with an ugly girl. Ugliness is a negative trait. And I have also found that ugly people generally have personalities that I don't like, which is part of my reasons for choosing not to interact with them.

It's human nature to judge people. I just take physical traits into more account than you do. I'm sure you judge people based on their personality. There is essentially no difference, no matter which traits you take into account when judging someone.





> You have every right to judge based on what you think is important in a person. if this must include being sexually attractive, wonderful, but just keep in mind that other people have every right to think what they want about this requirement of yours, and the judgements you make about people who do not fit your standard of physical attractiveness.



Thank you for your input.

----------


## theMagician

> No I'm not saying that. What about my post would lead you to think that that's what I was saying?



this





> Only in the context of gross misrepresentations of evolutionary theory. Also, it's normally applied to individual organisms so I don't see what it has to do with species. A more accurate statement would be "survival of the fit enough to survive."



You just said that survival of a species has everything to do with evolution.

And about the individual organisms and not the entire species... Tell that to the dinosaurs.

----------


## DeletePlease

> Tell that to the dinosaurs.



He can't, they're dead. :[

----------


## stormcrow

> He can't, they're dead. :[



Man that was a really sad statement. I wish dinosaurs were still around ::cry::

----------


## DrunkenArse

> this
> 
> 
> 
> You just said that survival of a species has everything to do with evolution.



No I didn't. I said that a more accurate characterization of evolution is "survival of the fit enough to survive". In context of what I said previously one would expect that an intelligent person would read that as "survival of the organisms that are fit enough to survive". Oh well.





> And about the individual organisms and not the entire species... Tell that to the dinosaurs.




Technically birds are dinosaurs but whatever. Let's assume that the dinosaurs are extinct. The reason that they're extinct is because _there were not any individual dinosaurs that were fit enough to survive_. What does that have to do with "species"? Where does "species" come into that? Please use your brain. Evolution is a local phenomenon. A "species" going extinct is a global phenomenon. Evolution does not happen "to" prevent our "species" from going extinct. There is no "to". You are thinking teleologically. It is a good way to think about people. People do stuff "to" cause things to happen. It is not a good way to think about other stuff. Stuff happens. There is no "to". Evolution happens because organisms that are fit enough to survive and reproduce survive and reproduce. This can have the consequence that a "species" doesn't go extinct. 

To take this back on topic, we do not want to reproduce so that our "species" doesn't go extinct. Our "species" doesn't go extinct because we want to reproduce. There's a very powerful principle in evolution called "The Extended Phenotype". It says that "a behavior behavior benefits the genes that encode for it." In this case, a gene that causes us to want to reproduce will spread through the population and a gene that causes us to not want to reproduce will not spread through the population. Hence a "species" evolves. 

Please educate yourself before you post on this topic again. I'll know if you've educated yourself because your response will be something along the lines of "OMG PhilosopherStoned. You're absolutely right. I really had no fucking clue what I was talking about. Thank you for taking the time to correct my very basic and obvious error. I was essentially postulating that evolution is magic. I was really making a creationist out of myself on that one."

----------


## Arra

> In general, I have found that they have personalities that I dislike, and are often annoying and clingy.



Replace 'ugly people' with 'black people' or 'women' or 'homosexuals' and the issue is the same. Someone judges a certain group of humans who are born into that group to tend to share some negative trait. I don't necessarily think there's something wrong with you for choosing to avoid ugly people, but I dislke your choice and it seems rather mean to me. It's strange that you find that 'ugly people' tend to have bad personalities. Maybe it's because I don't interact with people often, but I haven't seen evidence of that in my own life. If anything, it seems attractive people tend to be more likely to have bad personalities, since people like them based on their looks already so they don't need to develop alluring personalities.

The issue reminds me of a few I've been thinking about recently. What would happen if we had good scientific evidence that black people really do tend to have below-average IQs? Or if it were to be realized that women tend to have lower iQs? That may already be true, although I think they purposely make IQ tests now to give equal balance to both of the genders' brain strengths. But maybe that's been done as an example of the fear of rational inequality I'm bringing up. There was some study I heard about a few months ago which actually concluded that 'attractive' people tend to have higher IQs than average people, and the results were pretty substantial. It was something like a difference of +11 IQ points for women and +13 for men. I have no idea how reliable that study was, someone can correct me if they know better. I guess I'm just saying that issues like these are difficult, figuring out we have rational reasons to believe people 'inferior' that's more than blind prejudice, when we're striving for equality. Are any real differences just going to be ignored, and should they be?

----------


## mowglycdb

> It's strange that you find that 'ugly people' tend to have bad personalities. Maybe it's because I don't interact with people often, but I haven't seen evidence of that in my own life. If anything, it seems attractive people tend to be more likely to have bad personalities, since people like them based on their looks already so they don't need to develop alluring personalities.



I think personality doesn't have to do with physical appearance, so I'd preffer the good looking person.

----------


## theMagician

> Only in the context of gross misrepresentations of evolutionary theory. Also, it's normally applied to individual organisms so I don't see what it has to do with species. A more accurate statement would be "survival of the fit enough to survive."







> No I didn't. I said that a more accurate characterization of evolution is "survival of the fit enough to survive". In context of what I said previously one would expect that an intelligent person would read that as "survival of the organisms that are fit enough to survive". Oh well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Technically birds are dinosaurs but whatever. Let's assume that the dinosaurs are extinct. The reason that they're extinct is because _there were not any individual dinosaurs that were fit enough to survive_. What does that have to do with "species"? Where does "species" come into that? Please use your brain. Evolution is a local phenomenon. A "species" going extinct is a global phenomenon. Evolution does not happen "to" prevent our "species" from going extinct. There is no "to". You are thinking teleologically. It is a good way to think about people. People do stuff "to" cause things to happen. It is not a good way to think about other stuff. Stuff happens. There is no "to". Evolution happens because organisms that are fit enough to survive and reproduce survive and reproduce. This can have the consequence that a "species" doesn't go extinct. 
> 
> To take this back on topic, we do not want to reproduce so that our "species" doesn't go extinct. Our "species" doesn't go extinct because we want to reproduce. There's a very powerful principle in evolution called "The Extended Phenotype". It says that "a behavior behavior benefits the genes that encode for it." In this case, a gene that causes us to want to reproduce will spread through the population and a gene that causes us to not want to reproduce will not spread through the population. Hence a "species" evolves. 
> 
> Please educate yourself before you post on this topic again. I'll know if you've educated yourself because your response will be something along the lines of "OMG PhilosopherStoned. You're absolutely right. I really had no fucking clue what I was talking about. Thank you for taking the time to correct my very basic and obvious error. I was essentially postulating that evolution is magic. I was really making a creationist out of myself on that one."



Have you smoked yourself retarded? You said a more accurate statement about evolution is "survival of the fit enough to survive" after you said survival of a species has nothing to do with evolution.... Really?! Which is it, you are confusing to listen to.

----------


## DrunkenArse

> Have you smoked yourself retarded? You said a more accurate statement about evolution is "survival of the fit enough to survive" after you said survival of a species has nothing to do with evolution.... Really?! Which is it, you are confusing to listen to.




Please explain to me how "survival of the fit enough to survive" has anything to do with species.

----------


## strael

> I dislike ugly people because I am repulsed by the way they look. If I dislike the way they look, I'm not going to be interested in them or their personality. Sorry if that hurts your feelings. (Not really.) I consider physical looks to be more important than personality much in the same way that you consider personality to be more important than physical looks. I'm not interested in your values, though, because I'm not you. And the fact that you're arguing with me about MY personal preferences tells me that you're the one with the problem here, since you're the one getting upset over something which is completely acceptable and, quite frankly, none of your business to fuss over in the first place.



no need for insincere apologies, my feelings weren't hurt, I just believe that judging people the way you do is mean, so I said it. When you put your ideas out there on a _discussion_ board be prepared for other people to reply to what you say. :smiley: 





> There is essentially no difference, no matter which traits you take into account when judging someone.



there is a huge difference between judging someone based on looks vs judging based on personality as they are two entirely different aspects of a person, but whatever floats your boat.

----------


## mowglycdb

> no need for insincere apologies, my feelings weren't hurt, I just believe that judging people the way you do is mean, so I said it. When you put your ideas out there on a _discussion_ board be prepared for other people to reply to what you say.



you have to note  that when he says  that he finds ugly people repulsive, he's not judging  it's a personal observation of what happens to him while seeing someone he feels is ugly. I think he worded it wrong  :tongue2:

----------


## Arra

> no need for insincere apologies, my feelings weren't hurt, I just believe that judging people the way you do is mean, so I said it. When you put your ideas out there on a _discussion_ board be prepared for other people to reply to what you say.



It's like when I got in an argument a few years ago with those people on that _Men Are Better Than Women_ website. One of them finally said that his 'evidence' that women are inferior is his observations, that he's observed throughout his life that women tend to be stupid, that it's obvious to him that it's true. There isn't really anything else you can say to people like that. Observing the world is how we come to a lot our conclusions. Maybe they're seeing something you aren't, maybe they're being blind to reality, maybe he lives somewhere where he's only being exposed to certain types of people... I think it's mean too though and I don't see his reasons. It seems no better to me than avoiding someone of a particular race because you don't like them. But I doubt he isn't expecting people to reply and have problems with what he says.

----------


## Sornaensis

> It's like when I got in an argument a few years ago with those people on that _Men Are Better Than Women_ website. One of them finally said that his 'evidence' that women are inferior is his observations, that he's observed throughout his life that women tend to be stupid, that it's obvious to him that it's true. There isn't really anything else you can say to people like that. Observing the world is how we come to a lot our conclusions. Maybe they're seeing something you aren't, maybe they're being blind to reality, maybe he lives somewhere where he's only being exposed to certain types of people... I think it's mean too though and I don't see his reasons. It seems no better to me than avoiding someone of a particular race because you don't like them. But I doubt he isn't expecting people to reply and have problems with what he says.



He isn't making a generalization about an entire group of people though. He's just saying that if he sees someone whom he finds repulsive, he will tend to avoid them. It is absolutely nothing like saying that any specific group of humans is superior/inferior compared to other humans at all.

----------


## Arra

> He isn't making a generalization about an entire group of people though. He's just saying that if he sees someone whom he finds repulsive, he will tend to avoid them. It is absolutely nothing like saying that any specific group of humans is superior/inferior compared to other humans at all.



It's this quote I was thinking of: 



> In general, I have found that they have personalities that I dislike, and are often annoying and clingy.



But I don't think he asserted the generalization since then, and he does seem to be saying now that he just chooses to avoid them because he doesn't like their physical appearances, so you're probably right.

----------


## strael

> An average-looking girl's lack of attraction will not prompt me to avoid her, but I will avoid interacting with an ugly girl. Ugliness is a negative trait. And *I have also found that ugly people generally have personalities that I don't like*, which is part of my reasons for choosing not to interact with them.



^he has repeated the generalization. Roxxor, I have a hard time looking at this and thinking that he hasn't generalized a group of people(physically ugly) and attributed to them negative personality traits that may or may not be grounded in reality.

But dianeva is right, it is pointless arguing with someone like that.

----------


## Sornaensis

> ^he has repeated the generalization. Roxxor, I have a hard time looking at this and thinking that he hasn't generalized a group of people(physically ugly) and attributed to them negative personality traits that may or may not be grounded in reality.
> 
> But dianeva is right, it is pointless arguing with someone like that.



Ugly people doesn't specifically define a group of persons. It's a highly subjective word. What is ugly for one person may not be for the next, etc.

Also perhaps he finds people terrible personalities ugly, thus making it seem that most ugly people he meets have awful personalities.

----------


## MindGames

I still believe that it is completely fine to avoid people I don't like because of their physical ugliness. Everyone who is against my personal preferences simply cites their own, such as thinking that personality is more important than physical attraction (or ugliness for the purpose of this discussion). That's just looking at another facet of them and judging their personality instead of their physical properties. What's the difference? There is no difference, since you are still judging that person. You're just judging another aspect of them based on your own personal preferences. So if I choose to judge someone based on their physical aspect of being ugly, it's no different from judging them based on their bad personality. Same shit, different smell.

Also, I'm just avoiding people. It's not like I'm pointing at them and laughing. They don't miss out on anything but a little conversation. Ugly people still have ugly friends, and they seem fine to me. (Not that it concerns me. It's their life to live, not mine.)

----------


## DrunkenArse

I really don't see why avoiding people because of how they look is any different than avoid people because they have bad social skills. Nobody seems to find the latter to be shallow and pretty much everybody does it. They both lead to people feeling rejected by their society and so are both vicious things to do. The difference is that most people don't reject people so completely because of how they look so 'ugly' people can still feel like they're part of society.

----------


## kookyinc

It's likely been said before, but here's my info: sexual attraction is due to culture, instinct, and personal psychology. Big boobs, bums, and hips are all signs of fertility, and thus they are often seen as sexy. Society can condition someone to feel one way or another sexually. Finally, personal psychology leads to fetishes and personal taste (e.g., I like tall girls, but my friend likes short girls).

----------


## MindGames

What are your views on the gender-specific aspects of sexual attraction?

----------


## NeoNoez

Well this has always been an odd subject for me. I doubt many believe me, but I'm not even sure of how much I pay attention to the physical features of even the people I know and see all the time. Sometimes I do wonder if I have mild facial recognition problems as I never could describe details of even people I have known for years. I swear I never look quite the same twice any time I look in a mirror as well.

I remember someone asking me how tan my friend was once, only to guess horribly off. Said friend is a heck of a lot more tan than I ever noticed apparently. I will remember more stand out traits, like a booming voice that makes your eardrums vibrate at any level, strong or offensive odors, giant beard, really fat, really skinny, etc. Though these traits usually accompany a memorable personality, for better or for worse. 

I'd be one of the worst people to bear witness to what some suspect looked like. You'd likely get more useful info from a blind man, given how acute others senses tend to get to compensate. That's an interesting thought, what's physically attractive to someone blind from birth or even blind later in life? Sight is only one of the 5 physical senses, after all.

The thing about beauty and the mainstream of sexiness is that it ends up being so superficial and over the top that it's nauseating. If it were up to me, cosmetics and any kind of cosmetic surgery would be outlawed, period, no ifs ands or buts. I hate the polished up look of 'beauty' and ideas of who finds what attractive. What I call the "soulless doll look" is downright terrifying, especially if accompanied by an act of stupidity to seem 'cute'. Celebrity anything is a far removed world I could care less about.

Honestly, all of my friends that I have gotten to know, basically anyone who made it past being an acquaintance, I first met overhearing them in some conversation of interest or through another friend who I met in such a circumstance. I never thought about it until recent years, but when I get to talking with someone, I get into this focus of the conversation, general atmosphere, and personality of the people participating. This is what I'll remember most afterwards. 

After walking away, I'll be damned if I could even halfway accurately describe what anyone I was just talking with looked like at all, but I could tell you all about what we talked about and did. If you aren't very interesting and we have little to nothing in common, you could be the spitting image of "beauty" and I'd still soon forget everything about you afterwards. If I saw you again after that and if anyone said anything, it'd be you who remembers me, putting me in one of those awkward "do I know this person?" situations.

----------


## InvisibleWoman

>

----------


## tommo

> 



Looks like Aquanina  ::lol:: , a bit.

----------


## khh

There are several important factors when it comes to evaluating physical attractiveness. In general both sexes look for signs that the partner has good genes. In addition, males look for signs of fertility and females often looks for signs of stability and dependability, though these aren't physical.

The symmetry of a person is therefore important. This is not just limited to the face. Symmetry is a sign of good genes, as genetic errors will often produce unsymmetrical results.

Another important feature is how "average" the face is. Studies have shown that if you merge several pictures of attractive females (or males) together to produce an average face, the outcome will be prettier than the faces that makes it up.

In males, typical "masculine" characteristics can be important. Because these masculine characteristics signify a high level of testosterone, and because testosterone adversely affects the immune system, it's assumed a masculine guy must be robust (that is, have good genes) to live to the age where he's a possible mating partner. 

As previously stated are signs of fertility important in females. This includes obvious things like youth and supple breasts. However the hip-to-waist ratio of women has also been shown to be important. Depictions of pretty women ranging from ancient cave paintings and statutes to modern beauties all tend to have generally the same hip-to-waist ratio. Whether a girl is skinny or well-rounded does not have as much to say, as long as it does not deviate too far from a normal. I believe this attention to hip-to-waist ratio is attributed to it being a sign of fertility.

When you know someone, what you think of them will affect how physically attractive you find them. That is to say that a person you like will seem more physically attractive, and a person you don't like will seem less physically attractive.

All the above is based on information contained in the book _How the mind works_, with the exception of the last paragraph, which I have from the book _No two alike_.
It is of course general, so exceptions can and will be found. Much of it also happens with the concious mind happily unaware of it.

----------


## Maria92

Holy fuck it's khh. Welcome back, mate!

----------


## khh

> Holy fuck it's khh. Welcome back, mate!



Thanks

----------


## dreamquotes

i think it is all about chemicals in the brain...

----------


## tommo

> i think it is all about chemicals in the brain...

----------


## Savy

I've actually seen several different studies on this. Some theories: 

Pheromones, meaning the smell of different people (though sweat or whatever). When they asked women to smell sweaty T shirts worn by different men, one of the men being their brother, women consistently rated their brother's scent the worst. This suggests that may be some kind of biological mechanism which makes us less attracted to those with very similar genes to ourselves, thus preventing inbreeding, and instead makes us more attracted to those very genetically different than ourselves, thus promoting diversity and further evolution. 

Another I'm sure everyone knows about is symmetry. The more symmetrical someone's face is, the more attractive we may find them. This is thought to be because symmetry may have an unconscious link for us to health. Health, ability to produce healthy offspring and pass on desirable traits is a main part of this. For example, why are taller men more popular with women? Because the taller someone is, and this is a generalization, the stronger they have a potential to be. A women, speaking in pre-historic terms, wants a tall strong man who can protect her and her offspring from attackers. On the subject of health, we also favor people with clear skin, bright eyes, etc because we see them as more likely to survive and as having good qualities to pass on to our children.

Women with big hips? It's thought that a small waist and big hips represent a woman more able to easily have children, which is appealing to pre-historic men. Also I've read somewhere there a full butt represents fertility in the male mind, and that because the cleavage of big breasts look very similar to a woman's butt, these are also considered attractive. 

Also, some women may prefer men with somewhat feminine features because they see the more feminine man as more nurturing and more likely to stay with her and take care of their offspring. I've also read somewhere that less attractive men and women will tend to go for other men/women around the same level of attractiveness as themselves. May be that they see others as out of their league/below them, or perhaps they can relate more to the less attractive man/woman. Not sure. 

These are all things I've read on the subject, so feel free to dispute them. I don't necessarily agree with some of the points myself, and I don't have the sources seeing as this is just random knowledge I've gathered over time, so it's not unlikely that the information could be wrong. This is all just on a purely biological level, though. Beyond that, I would say it's not only appearance that is important. It may sound like I'm just trying to be PC, but I personally would never go for someone attractive if they were a jerk, whereas I actually can develop crushes on guys I don't normally find attractive if I like their personalities.

 I think that it's a really complex mixture of factors, biological, physical, mental, social and sometimes pure luck. I doubt science will ever produce an exact formula to attraction, but there are definitely some hints in biology and psychology.  :tongue2:

----------


## Philosopher8659

Sex mangnets, big freaking sex magnets.

----------


## khh

> I've also read somewhere that less attractive men and women will tend to go for other men/women around the same level of attractiveness as themselves. May be that they see others as out of their league/below them, or perhaps they can relate more to the less attractive man/woman. Not sure.



Yeah, I've also read this. And it makes sense if you think about it evolutionary. Even if you can't get the top notch "merchandise", it's still better to get something than to get nothing. There it would make sense if a system evolved that made us more likely to focus our energy on wooing potential matches, and not spend it all running after those we'd have no shot at.

----------


## stormcrow

Not sure if this has been brought up before but is it possible that the ability to recognize beauty is innate? I remember reading an article about how babies prefer to look at attractive faces. Im not really trying to argue for the existence of a platonic form of beauty but I think it is very interesting that babies can decipher between pictures of attractive faces in contrast to unattractive faces. They showed alot more attention to the pictures of attractive faces despite race or gender(of the babies and the pictures).

I am aware that beauty is subjective, I personally find an intelligent, articulate girl to be more desirable than a girl who resembles a barbie doll. But on the other hand I think most people KNOW an attractive face from an unattractive one so it is possible that beauty is objective. No one watches the sunrise with a feeling of disgust, I think most people can recognize the beauty in that. But I guess that is getting of topic since beauty in general is not the same as physical attractiveness but oh well.

----------


## Arra

> I am aware that beauty is subjective, I personally find an intelligent, articulate girl to be more desirable than a girl who resembles a barbie doll. But on the other hand I think most people KNOW an attractive face from an unattractive one so it is possible that beauty is objective. No one watches the sunrise with a feeling of disgust, I think most people can recognize the beauty in that. But I guess that is getting of topic since beauty in general is not the same as physical attractiveness but oh well.



I guess it depends what 'objective' means. I bet there is at least one person in the world who genuinely finds sunrises repulsive. Does objective mean that it's true independent of what anyone thinks, or that it's true for almost every person? Now that I write it out, it's obviously the latter. I've read about the study too. There are obviously certain characteristics (and usually those characteristics fall under the category of 'normal') that the human brain is programmed to find attractive. It applies to all humans, except for maybe some few people whose brains have developed abnormally for whatever reason.

----------


## Maeni

> Does objective mean that it's true independent of what anyone thinks, or that it's true for almost every person? Now that I write it out, it's obviously the latter.



Whaaat? I would say it's obviously the former o.o

I mean, most people think Hitler was a bad person. But it's still subjective. If it's possible to disagree, then it's subjective. If just 1 person disagrees, it's subjective. Hell, even if nobody disagrees, it's still subjective.
We can't have true objectivity. We can say that Hitler caused the death of many people, and that is probably true and objective. But maybe it isn't. Probably, but maybe not. Maybe he was just a scapegoat in some wicked, intricate conspiracy.
Point is, there is an objective truth _somewhere_: Either he did it, or he did not. However, we can never know. And that's not just for this example.





> There are obviously certain characteristics (and usually those characteristics fall under the category of 'normal') that the human brain is programmed to find attractive. It applies to all humans, except for maybe some few people whose brains have developed abnormally for whatever reason.



Yeah, but normal does not equal objective. Whatever anyone likes or dislikes is subjective. I bet we can all agree that torture is not a very pleasing sensation, but it's still subjective. If someone had a brain that had developed abnormally and actually liked being tortured then lo and behold, he would have a different _opinion._ The fact that he can have a different opinion makes it subjective.

In fact, the first description you made of objectivity is what I think is the definition. An objective truth means something that is true regardless of what anyone thinks. The latter is just a whole shit load of people who agree on a certain subject... Hmm. I like how the last word in that sentence.. Never mind.

----------


## tommo

Objective >> Object.  That's how you know what it means.  It means based in reality and not of thought (subject).  I'm sure there's a better explanation if you look up the etymology but that's good enough.
Just remember object is like, a table, and subject is like the person viewing it.

----------


## Arra

> Whaaat? I would say it's obviously the former o.o



I agree with everything you've said and that's how I've always understood the word 'objective' too. But I have heard people use the word to mean "true for almost every person". That is literally the first time I've used it in that way myself, and usually don't like when people do. But since it seemed stormcrow was using it in that way, I thought maybe it isn't that uncommon, and that in the context (of stormcrow's comment) the latter definition would have to be applied.

----------


## stormcrow

I meant objective as in a reality independent of the mind. I probably should have just said "the ability to recognize beauty is innate and not arbitrary."

----------


## Maeni

> I agree with everything you've said and that's how I've always understood the word 'objective' too. But I have heard people use the word to mean "true for almost every person". That is literally the first time I've used it in that way myself, and usually don't like when people do. But since it seemed stormcrow was using it in that way, I thought maybe it isn't that uncommon, and that in the context (of stormcrow's comment) the latter definition would have to be applied.



Ah, I get ya.

I had that discussion in class with my teacher as well. We were discussing the word "truth", and the discussion was quite annoying... My teacher was arguing that truth is simply what the majority of people agree is the truth, which I just think is plain wrong.

----------


## Philosopher8659

> Ah, I get ya.
> 
> I had that discussion in class with my teacher as well. We were discussing the word "truth", and the discussion was quite annoying... My teacher was arguing that truth is simply what the majority of people agree is the truth, which I just think is plain wrong.



And they let such morons teach. All your teacher said was that the absolute is relative. How in the hell can anyone teach when they cannot even think? 

Truth is the state of being true. Two or more things are true when by some means of measure no difference is found in the results. (i.e. same is not different)

More to the real point, there are only two primitive abstractions, neither can be defined, but can be descibed such that one is not the other, the boundary is not the difference in the boundary, the point is that which has no part, etc. 

same and  is not different.

Listing synonyms for the same concept, and the denial of predication are not definitions, they are, however, descriptions. Descriptions can only lead one to a source of abstraction, they cannot make the abstraction for someone. The inability to make the abstraction denotes a dysfunctional acquisition system of an organism. Plato called that mind asleep, Aristotle a veggie, Scripture the dead. Biological definition, dysfunctional, or dead. Me, those people who tend to get pissed at me the most.

----------


## Arra

The argument makes some sense with the word "knowledge". Since almost anyone who's thought about it will agree that you can't know anything with 100% certainty (apart from perhaps "I think therefore I am" and "there is an experience of ______", etc), but the term 'know' technically means "to know with 100% certainty". If you recognize that, then the term "know" becomes useless in everyday life. Anyone who has thought about it can't use the term without lying. So people start saying that "knowledge" means "close to 100% certainty". I'm not sure what to think about it.

----------


## Philosopher8659

> The argument makes some sense with the word "knowledge". Since almost anyone who's thought about it will agree that you can't know anything with 100% certainty (apart from perhaps "I think therefore I am" and "there is an experience of ______", etc), but the term 'know' technically means "to know with 100% certainty". If you recognize that, then the term "know" becomes useless in everyday life. Anyone who has thought about it can't use the term without lying. So people start saying that "knowledge" means "close to 100% certainty". I'm not sure what to think about it.



To know means to perceive. Knowledge is comprised of two words Know and ledger, i.e. book of perceptions, or memory. Wisdom is the ability to meanipulate knowledge in accordance with the truth of things.

A self referential statement is not a definition.

----------

