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

Originally Posted by mimihigurashi

Don't want to disappoint you or anything, but girls who finds guys innocent/cute/shy like them as friends. I can't speak for every girl, but most are attracted to confident and dominant males. It's merely an evolutionary/survival thing, confidence and dominance are traits of power. Power = he will be able to protect her and their children so their species will continue on.

People give WAY too much importance to the "evolutionary/survival" theory of attraction. Isn't it just a little coincidental that the kind of "confident, dominant" male that we women are supposed to desire for "biological" reasons just happens to be identical with the "macho warrior" male role-model that our war-oriented culture has been portraying as the ultimate male "ideal" for centuries?

Biology is behind our desire to breed. Biological psychology/instinct (for tribe-oriented primates) means we desire mates with high status. But once we crossed the self-consciousness threshold, what determined "high status" in our tribes became more a social/cultural issue. Sure, in cultures where women don't have much power, it's natural for women to desire "powerful" men for protection...but that's not biological.

And, for the record, I like shy guys, because I find nerdboys (that is, members of my social tribe, if not my biological one ) sexy. But then, I was a weird kid. I've always found "bad boys" to be overrated...maybe because that describes a lot of the males in my family, so I grew up with a real clear view of their weaknesses and unattractive traits...

Originally Posted by ShinyAeon

People give WAY too much importance to the "evolutionary/survival" theory of attraction. Isn't it just a little coincidental that the kind of "confident, dominant" male that we women are supposed to desire for "biological" reasons just happens to be identical with the "macho warrior" male role-model that our war-oriented culture has been portraying as the ultimate male "ideal" for centuries?

Biology is behind our desire to breed. Biological psychology/instinct (for tribe-oriented primates) means we desire mates with high status. But once we crossed the self-consciousness threshold, what determined "high status" in our tribes became more a social/cultural issue. Sure, in cultures where women don't have much power, it's natural for women to desire "powerful" men for protection...but that's not biological.

And, for the record, I like shy guys, because I find nerdboys (that is, members of my social tribe, if not my biological one ) sexy. But then, I was a weird kid. I've always found "bad boys" to be overrated...maybe because that describes a lot of the males in my family, so I grew up with a real clear view of their weaknesses and unattractive traits...

Whether some people give "way too much importance" to this theory is irrelevant, it's still a completely accurate reason/explanation why most women prefer dominant males over submissive ones. What people should be doing is to stop assuming that a dominant male immediately = a complete douchebag who treats all women like dirt. Yeah, there are some, but those aren't worth any woman with self respect's time.
It's not a good thing to stay in denial just to feel better.

Originally Posted by mimihigurashi

Whether some people give "way too much importance" to this theory is irrelevant, it's still a completely accurate reason/explanation why most women prefer dominant males over submissive ones.

It may be an accurate reason, but it's not biological...that was my point. It's cultural. Meaning, it's not something Nature bred into us that (therefore) we have little ability to change, but something our own, human-created society trained us in, and, therefore, we have total ability to change.

What people should be doing is to stop assuming that a dominant male immediately = a complete douchebag who treats all women like dirt.

To me, at least, "dominant" has that connotation...that of, well..."dominating." I don't think that "Domination = Douchebag" is an unreasonable connection to make. (For any gender, matter of fact.)

Now, call someone protective, far-sighted, and a natural leader, and I'd agree that is not equivalent to douchebaggery. A male like that is very attractive. But a male like that can also be somewhat shy or innocent, and does not have to be "dominant."

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.

Yeah, there are some, but those aren't worth any woman with self respect's time.
It's not a good thing to stay in denial just to feel better.

Now, that we can all agree on!

Originally Posted by ShinyAeon

It may be an accurate reason, but it's not biological...that was my point. It's cultural. Meaning, it's not something Nature bred into us that (therefore) we have little ability to change, but something our own, human-created society trained us in, and, therefore, we have total ability to change.

To me, at least, "dominant" has that connotation...that of, well..."dominating." I don't think that "Domination = Douchebag" is an unreasonable connection to make. (For any gender, matter of fact.)

Now, call someone protective, far-sighted, and a natural leader, and I'd agree that is not equivalent to douchebaggery. A male like that is very attractive. But a male like that can also be somewhat shy or innocent, and does not have to be "dominant."

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.



Now, that we can all agree on!

You cannot be serious now.. No, it's very biological. It happens all the time in nature. Males fight over females and the female mates with the victorious male, because he is the dominant, stronger male, more likely to breed strong offspring and protect them to continue the species. This is something I thought everyone knows and it's far from human-created cultural society, to say the least. Obviously, men shouldn't literally fight and hurt each other over women, you know what I mean. We're still part of the animal kingdom, and all I said applies to us as well, whether we like it or not, it's nature.

Well, to you, "dominant" has that connotation, it doesn't mean an alpha male is automatically a scumbag. Let's leave biases aside when speaking objectively. You have the right to be attracted to whoever you want, but please don't automatically say everyone that has a certain trait is bad just because you personally feel a certain way.