Thread: Do girls tend to be attracted to guys who look "innocent"?

I wouldn't classify "macho behaviour" as being an alpha male, that just sounds like an attempt to appear strong and get attention.

Exactly.

There's also no reason a woman can't be a protective, far-sighted, natural leader, of course...but when you refer to that type of person an "alpha male," you automatically (albeit unconsciously) exclude women from qualifying. Hence, my dislike for that term.

Good point! I like your dislike for that term.

I'm very serious. And if by "alpha male," you mean "human male who dominates other humans," then yes, I do think that means they're douchebags, because dominating other members of a sentient species is a douche thing to do.

[It's also "natural" for "dominant males" to murder infants they didn't sire, to force the female back into heat to breed more of their offspring...but that doesn't mean that, if a human does it, that it isn't an evil, despicable thing to do.]

My point was not that we don't have biological urges...my point was that, once we became sentient, the rules changed about how those urges got expressed. It's biological to desire mates of a higher status...not for "protection," but simply because we're genetically engineered to desire higher status...high-status animals have less stress hormones and better health. That's the biological aspect.

But what determines status in our human societies has had way more to do with our minds than our genes ever since we started thinking and wondering what we are and what it means.

Why do you see sexy young women with old, decrepit men? Because they're wealthy. Desiring old, rich men has nothing to do with our urge to breed "strong, better" children. In fact, it's detrimental to our biology: older men's children have a higher chance of genetic disease, and old men have no "natural" ability to protect women and children from lions, tigers and bears. But in our society, wealth = status. We ARE programmed to desire high status in our mates...but wealth as a mark of status is totally not biological. Money is something we made up; Nature doesn't know the Fortune 500 from a hole in the ground.

Modern culture is capitalistic; therefore, people with more capital have higher status. It used to be that culture was feudal, and that made "noble birth" a mark of status. Before that, the ability to bash in more heads on the battlefield was a mark of status. Before that, the ability to bring in the most meat on a hunt was the mark of status.

Wanting higher status is biological. What makes a person high-status in sentient societies has to do with our cultural structures, and the myths and stories we tell each other to perpetuate them.

I clearly said it's not ok for humans to hurt each other over females and what not, there are obvious things that don't belong in civilized human behaviour.. But you're taking it to a different level with the greed of women with no self respect that date old men just because of money. My point was merely that animals, which humans are too, breed with the strongest, healthiest partners in order to produce good offspring, and that's it, it's a mere fact that had to be mentioned and doesn't change, because it's natural. Now if some women decide to go against that and be greedy and mate with unhealthy old men so they can get nice and shiny things, that's another issue altogether, and it's their own problem.

Originally Posted by mimihigurashi

I clearly said it's not ok for humans to hurt each other over females and what not, there are obvious things that don't belong in civilized human behaviour....

Granted.

But you're taking it to a different level with the greed of women with no self respect that date old men just because of money.

No, I'm staying at the exact same level. I'm saying that money is currently a symbol of status, and we're programmed to desire higher status.

My point was merely that animals, which humans are too, breed with the strongest, healthiest partners in order to produce good offspring

But they don't. Animals breed with the partners who exhibit traits that they're programmed to respond to; if their species is successful, that means they're programmed to respond to traits that, at one point, indicated prospective partners were stronger and healthier. That doesn't mean those same traits will ALWAYS indicate stronger and healthier; there are evolutionary dead ends, like that of the Irish elk. Females of the elk had a programmed response to bigger antlers; at one time, that indicated a stronger, more successful male. But the antlers got too big, too unweildy; the programmed response became detrimental. Due to the species also being restricted to a small island territory, and being hunted by a very resourceful predator (humans), it didn't adapt (that is, lose or modify that programmed response) in time to recover.

Mate selection is a highly complex subject. Some things - like automatic reactions to specific visual cues - seem to be "hardwired" into most individuals in a given species. Other reactions are more malleable, more prone to being "modified" by the needs of new situations and circumstances...more susceptible to being "hacked," if you will. Among species with complex social structures, it gets even more complicated.

and that's it, it's a mere fact that had to be mentioned and doesn't change, because it's natural.

Natural doesn't mean unchanging. Much of what we tend to think of as "natural" does, in fact, change...especially in primates, which have some of the most complex social structures in the mammal kingdom...and especially in human beings, because we've been essentially "hacking our own programming" for thousands of years.

Now if some women decide to go against that and be greedy and mate with unhealthy old men so they can get nice and shiny things, that's another issue altogether, and it's their own problem.

Is it greed, or is it just a natural desire to mate with high-status members of their species? Perhaps what we call "greed" merely IS the excessive desire for (the symbols of) high status in one's culture....

That's not what I meant.. But you keep lengthening the issue and adding unnecessary things that have nothing to do with my initial point, so nevermind, I need to get back to work, no offense, there are more productive things to do than talk to a stranger who keeps going their own way.

Oh....sorry.

It's fine.

One thing I have noticed on online chats is that a lot of girls seem to love when there is a constant sexual tension between them and the guy, but also a playful respect and ability to carry on a conversation and care about each other's lives.
It seems like some guys become too sexual too quickly and put off girls that way, and personally I think it's much more fun when that "sexual" part is more of a continuous "feeling".
Some conversations might be something like, for example, the girl mentions a certain type of clothes or whatever, and then I respond like "that always looks so beautiful on girls, I love that", indicating in some way that I find that sexually attractive, and then she might in some cases show a picture of herself where she has those clothes and I will respond like "oh wow, that's so cute on you".
Maybe not exactly those words (it's very hard to convey exactly what I mean with just a couple phrases, haha ), but basically, it seems like having a kind and respectful, but still very flirty attitude is a winner with most girls.
I know that if I were a girl then I would definitely enjoy a guy who managed to combine those two factors.

That's a tricky balance, though - too much kindness will make you friendzoned, and too much raw flirting and sexual implications will make you a desperate creep.
It should be some kind of smart combination between both of those things.
That's how I have grown to understand girls.

Higher status reflects stability and one's ability to be responsible for and account for all the member of one's family, tribe, pack, etc. This in turn also reflects one's dominance. Dominance's role may have changed over the years, the fighting may no longer be physical, but the competition still exists, it has merely been updated for the times. I'm of a mind like mimihigurashi, ShinyAeon. You are viewing dominance as being the equivalent of a bully. Bullies are insecure, and insecurity does not reflect dominance, which is a state of confidence that exists in one's abilities to adapt, to provide for subservient members of the pack, and to maintain cool-headed leader ship despite challenges by those who more easily lose control in stressful situations and come at you with anger and contempt because of fear-driven motives.

It appears your definition of dominance, like many others (including many, many males), ShinyAeon, is the insecure male who tries and beat down others to prove something. Real dominant leaders have nothing to prove until a challenger steps up, and then they handle the situation as it needs to be handled. Especially in the case of humans, they take into account the needs of others and what they have been through. He would not be an enabler, not like a mother who simply says you are in the right no matter what because they can't stand to see you feel bad. He is a teacher, a mentor, in other words, acts like an actual father. Enabling people's emotions does not help them survive, it causes them to depend more on others. It's the difference between teaching somebody to fish and putting a rule in place saying all fishermen must distribute their catches to those who still have the ability to learn and actually physically do it because they are simply too weak willed or otherwise ignorant or lazy. The idea that dominance is like what you see with the fetishes or that it is like a schoolyard bully is a very childish understanding of dominance.

You clearly have an understanding of what dominance is on some level, but you are wanting to name it something else when it already has a name, and demonizing those who happen to actually be true alpha males (not betas, like you are describing) for being that way, which is honestly more detrimental to society than helpful. What should be happening is learning the difference between the misconception of what dominance is and what it actually is.

If you do research on differences in neurochemistry in the case of dominance, it is nearly always the case that alpha males and females have higher levels of serotonin than do the submissive members of the family/tribe/pack. Higher levels of serotonin generally (I italicize because nothing in neurochemistry is really this simple) are more content (and with that more faithful), experience less stress and are able to better handle stress, make more use of higher thinking, are more considerate, more able to realize what has to be done for the good of the team, and allows you to better control emotional instability and random outbursts. It shows that alphas do not lead with an iron fist, if members of the pack want to leave they are free to do so, but the alphas are simply more fit to lead because they actually lead. They lead by example, make the tough decisions, do things as right as possible for everybody, and most importantly show mercy. Why show mercy? Because they can afford to, they do not think so highly of themselves in the sense that they are better than others that they view submissive members as actually lower, they recognize that everybody has a part, a role to fulfill. Each role is equally as important as their's. This does not mean they are not confident in their abilities though. There is a fine line between confidence and arrogance, just like there is between pride and vanity. Once you really start to think about what makes a successful pack leader, the more you realize what dominance really is.

Well if we are going to talk about dominance, lets be specific with some definitions:

Dominance
1.
rule; control; authority; ascendancy.
2.
the condition of being dominant.
3.
Psychology. the disposition of an individual to assert control in dealing with others.

Dominance is not really what you guys seem to be talking about. You guys seem to be talking about leadership. Leadership is the ability to lead a group in effectively and efficiently in a way that will be good for said group. This includes things such as being accountable for others' health and happiness, being able to solve problems peacefully, etc. Dominance is simply being above others or control of them.

Edit: I don't really think male-female attraction is really about such basic survival functions. Yes, all feelings we have stem from primal roots, but that does not mean that they still are. As Ann Hathaway mentions in Interstellar (although the context of this is quite unrelated), it is odd how you can have love for someone long after they are dead or even if they have given you plenty of reason not to love them, like leaving you. The answer is very simple. Not everything in our minds is basic survival instinct. We have evolved beyond that point, and now we have individual thoughts and personalities not directly controlled by instinct. Whether you are attracted to someone or not could vary based on thousands, probably even millions or billions of factors, not just the basic "will they increase my chance of survival". If it were that simple, homosexuality would be impossible. It is entirely impractical to love someone of the same sex (I don't mean in a family/friend way) as you cannot reproduce with them, and yet people still do. That is because their/our preferences are not as basic as one would think.

You bring up interesting points avian, but what about loving someone after they are dead suggests it is beyond animalistic drives based on biological imperatives? When you love someone, are you not really just loving their memory anyway? Why should love stop once the lover has left your sight for any length of time? Love causes us, as a social group, to care for each other and promotes not only others' survival, but your own because then they will help you. The more genuine the feelings are, the more likely you are to save each other in lethal situations or at least situations that could lead to dying earlier or suffering. Furthermore, continuing to love a dead one shows the group you belong to that you belong to the group socially. You have feelings like they do, and it causes them in turn to care for you in your mourning. Any way you break it down, love seems to be a function of survival. Is it at times completely separate from sex? Absolutely, in fact it seems to be as often as not.

Now, I definitely believe humans have the capability of making decisions, programming themselves, and feeling things that are not related to animalistic drives or survival, but I feel like in this case, it is still rooted in it and to say otherwise is to be turning a blind eye to the plethora of evidence suggesting it to be so.

If our love was based on survival and all of it had a direct connection with increasing likelihood to survive, people would feel no remorse for death. Being sad, of course, hinders your ability to deal with situations and your ability to survive. Loving something that doesn't exist can be distracting and potentially dangerous.

Originally Posted by Avian

If our love was based on survival and all of it had a direct connection with increasing likelihood to survive, people would feel no remorse for death. Being sad, of course, hinders your ability to deal with situations and your ability to survive. Loving something that doesn't exist can be distracting and potentially dangerous.

I respectfully disagree. The grief is a motivational factor in wanting future generations to survive. Flat out depression is entirely different than grief. I really don't see how what you're saying makes sense, could you explain it a bit more? I am willing to admit that I may be wrong, but I see absolutely no reason why being sad will always hinder your ability to deal with situations, and I don't see how it follows that if it were about survival, people would not care about the dead. You have to keep in mind too that back in those days, you were always in shape and getting vigorous exercise. Exercise is a major factor in helping you deal with depression, sadness, and grief--and even in dealing with stress. It actually gives you a clearer mind and more energy. You seem to be basing your observation and hypothesis on the lifestyle's you see today in even third world countries. First world countries? Forget about it. There are more factors to this than simply sad = bad, therefore it has no evolutionary advantage as a biological imperative. Sociopathy is not the norm, and it stands to reason that it is only popping up in such numbers because of our lifestyles and the genes that are not dying off. Someone without feelings for the others in his/her tribe would surely be abandoned... well, a male would for sure, anyway. You are suggesting that the social nature of human beings has not been at least to a degree, naturally selected. I personally believe you're wrong for the simple fact that even when it has nothing to do with survival anymore, it's still the norm. In primates and other animals, it is the norm. It just makes sense.

Well no, of course our nature is naturally selected, but my point is that you can't boil it all down to basic instinctual drives. Thus, you can't decide whether a girl will like you or not depending on your survival ability.

This thread always makes me laugh. ^^

As you were.

I haven't read the entire thread....just the first page, and I decided to drop a post. Girls are attracted to whomever they like. Be it shy, loud, charming, ugly, nerdy, sweet, romantic or whatever. There isn't a science to attraction (when it comes to humans) and there never will be. I spent a lot of time trying to figure out "what girls want in a guy" only to figure out, that they want just about as much as what we (guys) want. And we don't know until we really know, but the bottom line is that we want to feel comfortable and happy with whomever we are around.

Actually while this isn't entirely incorrect, there are alot of psychological factors that can change attractiveness. What you are talking about, the entire "whomever they like" thing happens to fit directly into gender roles. There are alot of things in a man that women subconsciously notice, and it plays into the game entirely. Along with gender roles there is also Status, Confidence, Security and a hella lot of other things. Of course though if we are talking about true sincere love, none of that will matter. It all depends on the level of attraction and what the woman is looking for whether it be just a friend with benefits or a serious relationship.