What do you find most attractive about the opposite (or the same) sex?

[MooseIBe]

What is the most attractive thing in a potential mate for you?

[MooseIBe]

I went for intelligence though nearly went for kindness and shared interests .. I suppose it's hard to choose just one. I like a guy who is either the same level of intelligence as me or slightly higher.. I don't wanna date someone I am brighter than.

[beyelzu]

I like intelligent girls, but typically intelligent women dont want to date me, I am too aggressive for them it seems, too much of a knuckledragger. Interestingly, I have several intelligent female friends, close friends.

[latinijral]

Another stupid poll for stupids like the author.

:wave:

[MooseIBe]

Maybe intelligent women find you intimidating ;).

Any of your intelligent female friends potential date material?

[latinijral]

Maybe intelligent women find you intimidating ;).

Any of your intelligent female friends potential date material?

Only the stupid women and faggots.
Insert those options on your stupid poll.

:wave:

[beyelzu]

shannon is getting married and sam is ill equipped to be in a sexual relationship with someone she cares about, it is one or the other for sam.

shannon doesnt dig aggressive males at all.

[Dragar]

I really can't narrow it down to one.

Looks are quite important. I'd be lying if I said they weren't. But a faily attractive girl with a witty sense of humour turns me on far more than a very attractive girl who doesn't know how to crack a joke.

Intelligence is also attractive to me at least as much as they above. And of course kindness and shared interests immediately make me more interested.

I honestly can't tell you just by introspection.

Okay, maybe if I thought about my behaviour...

In terms of first impressions: looks and intelligence. But after I've known them for a while, those probably give way to wittiness and shared interests, and kindness.

Sorry, that's the best I can do.

[Beth]

Well, I like genius types. That was one thing that drew me to my husband. That and his bad boy-ness. He is big and strong and exudes power and charm, but has that bad boy aire to him. I find that I often find that type very attractive, although intelligence and a graceful manner also charms me.

[Dragar]

He is big and strong and exudes power and charm, but has that bad boy aire to him.

You know, it's odd, but I never hear women going 'He's about five feet tall, nerdish, and in desperate need of a hair cut - those are what turned me on!' :kickscan:

[MooseIBe]

shannon is getting married and sam is ill equipped to be in a sexual relationship with someone she cares about, it is one or the other for sam.

shannon doesnt dig aggressive males at all.

you could always be LESS aggressive :D

[MooseIBe]

He is big and strong and exudes power and charm, but has that bad boy aire to him.

You know, it's odd, but I never hear women going 'He's about five feet tall, nerdish, and in desperate need of a hair cut - those are what turned me on!' :kickscan:


I dunno, nerdy can be really good you know? Like Louis Theroux .. he has that combination of geekiness and intelligence and a dry wit that I find very attractive..

[beyelzu]

shannon is getting married and sam is ill equipped to be in a sexual relationship with someone she cares about, it is one or the other for sam.

shannon doesnt dig aggressive males at all.

you could always be LESS aggressive :D
I suppose so, but it never seems to happen that way.

[Sweetie]

Integrity.

Wasn't on the list though.

Integrity to me means: honour, resposibility, strong work ethic, no fear of sacrifice, doing what needs to be done without complaint, respect, dignity, honesty.

Yeah, yeah I know it wasn't part of the question but I think it would be cool if we could put some of them in order of importance, maybe three:

1. Integrity
2. Sense of Humour
3. Intelligence

[MooseIBe]

Well, I like genius types. That was one thing that drew me to my husband. That and his bad boy-ness. He is big and strong and exudes power and charm, but has that bad boy aire to him. I find that I often find that type very attractive, although intelligence and a graceful manner also charms me.

I used to go for the bad boy thing but I've started finding it less attractive the older I get .. I suppose the 'find someone reliable who will be a good father to your kids' thing is kicking in ;). I still don't like 'saintly' types though.. it's good if there's a BIT of an edge there.

[MooseIBe]

Integrity.

Wasn't on the list though. Something like honour, resposibility, strong work ethic, no fear of sacrifice or doing what needs to be done without complaint.

Yeah, yeah I know it wasn't part of the question but I think it would be cool if we could put some of them in order of importance, maybe three:

1. Integrity
2. Sense of Humour
3. Intelligence


yeah integrity is good .. I forgot about that. Actually thinking about it it would be very important, in my top three, to me as well.

[Beth]

Well, I think I have a different definition for bad boy types than you do. I see a difference between a bad boy and a piece of shit-type.

I think someone can have a bad boy edge and still be a hard worker and faithful partner and provider. ;)

[Sweetie]

I still don't like 'saintly' types though.. it's good if there's a BIT of an edge there.

Edge is good. :yup: My man has integrity and an edge which I've always liked, keeps it interesting.

[seebs]

Close between sense of humor and intelligence. I went with sense of humor, but I may have guessed wrong.

[MooseIBe]

Close between sense of humor and intelligence. I went with sense of humor, but I may have guessed wrong.

Well it IS hard to pick just one .. I mean, intelligence, or sense of humour, or looks or whatever alone aren't really worth jack shit.

[JoeP]

All of those are good things ... but none of them are the most attractive. That would be: liking me. Seriously, all logic and thinking aside, I can be immediately attracted to many women with any combination of these characteristics. But the women I really go for are the ones who like me back over some time. Sure, I'm shallow and needy, but under my shallowness I'm really deep, and through my neediness I'll give you more than I need.

[latinijral]

Well, I like genius types. That was one thing that drew me to my husband. That and his bad boy-ness. He is big and strong and exudes power and charm, but has that bad boy aire to him. I find that I often find that type very attractive, although intelligence and a graceful manner also charms me.

I used to go for the bad boy thing but I've started finding it less attractive the older I get .. I suppose the 'find someone reliable who will be a good father to your kids' thing is kicking in ;). I still don't like 'saintly' types though.. it's good if there's a BIT of an edge there.

Try artificial insemination then. You will be on the edge and you will play yourself the role of the father.
Or stay away from your computer , get a real life and stop doing stupid nerd polls. . :wave:

[pescifish]

All of those are good things ... but none of them are the most attractive. That would be: liking me. Exactly.

If I don't get that sense, then chances are I won't even begin to think about whether I find him attractive for any other characteristic or feature. If a guy is attracted to me and I start looking at him in that light, then I'd say intelligence, sense of humor and some sort of ethics/morality thing (integrity, kindness, responsibility, etc.). Maybe wit.

I could use a consensus definition for the word "wit". Generally I think "smart sense of humor" for the word "wit". What does it connote to the rest of you?

I like this definition. I'd put it at the top of my list, if this is what it means:
Main Entry: wit
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German wizzi knowledge, Old English witan to know
1 a : MIND, MEMORY b : reasoning power : INTELLIGENCE
2 a : SENSE 2a -- usually used in plural <alone and warming his five wits, the white owl in the belfry sits -- Alfred Tennyson> b (1) : mental soundness : SANITY -- usually used in plural (2) : mental capability and resourcefulness : INGENUITY
3 a : astuteness of perception or judgment : ACUMEN b : the ability to relate seemingly disparate things so as to illuminate or amuse c (1) : a talent for banter or persiflage (2) : a witty utterance or exchange d : clever or apt humor
4 a : a person of superior intellect : THINKER b : an imaginatively perceptive and articulate individual especially skilled in banter or persiflage

[livius drusus]

Generally I think "smart sense of humor" for the word "wit". What does it connote to the rest of you?

To me it connotes verbal dexterity, the ability to flip a word or concept, coin the perfect bon mot on the spot. Sense of humor is definitely essential, of course, but ya gotta have that special Wildean touch.

[raspberrybullets]

I picked sense of humour out of that list. Though as everybody has said, sense of humour on it's own is not going to get you anywhere. But to me a sense of humour that I understand and get, is something that shows we share interests and think in the same way. And there is no way in hell I could ever be with somebody who couldn't make me laugh.

I'd also add compassion, I know you have kind, but I think compassion conveys more the sense of being kind to others and to animals and concerend about the world and the environment. Integrity is also important.

[justaman]

No one else was ballsy enough to book 'looks' so far hey? Well that's the most important thing for me in terms of 'attractiveness'. It's the difference between wanting them sexually and wanting them as friends.

[raspberrybullets]

I think looks depend on personality. I've met extremely good looking guys who I end up being completely unattracted to because of who they are. OTOH, I'll be attracted to someone who's not goodlooking because I love who they are. The more you lilke someone, the more attractive they appear to you.

[MooseIBe]

RB I agree with that entirely .. my perception of how attractive a person is really is entirely dependent on his or her personality. I've known some people who apparently others consider drop dead gorgeous who I thought were ugly simply because they were unpleasant people.

[jade]

I went with sense of humor. You must be able to make me laugh. Isn't that what it is all about anyway?

[MooseIBe]

Sense of humour is good, as long as it's not too clownish and not at the expense of other people :).

[JoeP]

No one else was ballsy enough to book 'looks' so far hey? Well that's the most important thing for me in terms of 'attractiveness'. It's the difference between wanting them sexually and wanting them as friends.
Roo, your honesty is deep at least.

[LadyShea]

I picked sense of humor as well. Can't imagine living my life with someone who didn't laugh or make me laugh.

[Clutch Munny]

No one else was ballsy enough to book 'looks' so far hey? Well that's the most important thing for me in terms of 'attractiveness'. It's the difference between wanting them sexually and wanting them as friends.
Roo, your honesty is deep at least.

Well, half a sec -- the poll does say "What do you find most attractive?", not "What is most important to establishing a long-term bond?".

I don't think it's particularly shallow for looks to be the most important factor in sexual attraction, especially one-off sexual attraction, and especially if "most important" means that it's a lower bound sort of thing. I suspect that most people have a minimum threshold of preference for looks, below which almost no extent of humor, integrity, or intelligence will serve to make the relationship sexual. Above it, there may well be tradeoffs.

"Most important" isn't the same as "only important thing".

[raspberrybullets]

I agree with your statement, however to me, no amount of good looks is going to get me in bed with somebody who can't make me laugh.

[Dragar]

I agree with your statement, however to me, no amount of good looks is going to get me in bed with somebody who can't make me laugh.

You know, sometimes, what will make you laugh is only discovered once you get into bed with them!

:rimshot:


Oddly, that line doesn't work so great with girls.

[raspberrybullets]

Well that line made me laugh.

[Dragar]

Stage one complete.

:qex:
:burns:

[raspberrybullets]

Hehe made me laugh again. But I wonder whether you could get to stage two? :wink:

[Sweetie]

Hehe, that was pretty smooth and sweet Dragar. :yup: :P

[Clutch Munny]

I agree with your statement, however to me, no amount of good looks is going to get me in bed with somebody who can't make me laugh.

Yeah, same. I'm just saying, I expect for most people there is a physical preference level such that no amount of wit will get them into bed with someone who doesn't meet that preference.

'Course, neither the level nor even the concept of the scale has to be shared between any two people, though.

[Sweetie]

"Most important" isn't the same as "only important thing".

On my list four would be looks but at least all four of those would be necessary for a long term relationship but like other women here, no amount of good looks would get me into bed with someone I didn't like, with someone who had no integrity, with someone I didn't trust, didn't have a sense of comraderie with.

I can say no amount of good looks would trump a sense of humour for instance, but a question you raise is, would a sense of humour trump any amount of bad looks? No, it wouldn't which is why you mention that because we have a hiearchy of qualities which are important doesn't mean that all on that hierarchy aren't important.

[raspberrybullets]

I agree with your statement, however to me, no amount of good looks is going to get me in bed with somebody who can't make me laugh.

Yeah, same. I'm just saying, I expect for most people there is a physical preference level such that no amount of wit will get them into bed with someone who doesn't meet that preference.

'Course, neither the level nor even the concept of the scale has to be shared between any two people, though.
Quite so. Perhaps I should also have added: A certain amount of bad looks will never get me into bed with somebody, no matter how much they can make me laugh. ;)

[Clutch Munny]

So, here's one way of thinking of the question: Assuming that someone had a sort of average or baseline level of each these properties, which single property would, if possessed to an above-average degree, make the biggest increase in their attractiveness to you?


Oh, heck. Now I notice that neither "loves clarity" nor "is hopeless pedant" is on the list. :doh: :ugly:

[Sweetie]

So, here's one way of thinking of the question: Assuming that someone had a sort of average or baseline level of each these properties, which single property would, if possessed to an above-average degree, make the biggest increase in their attractiveness to you?

I'd have to say charisma but it's not on the list either. :dunno:

[raspberrybullets]

So, here's one way of thinking of the question: Assuming that someone had a sort of average or baseline level of each these properties, which single property would, if possessed to an above-average degree, make the biggest increase in their attractiveness to you?


Oh, heck. Now I notice that neither "loves clarity" nor "is hopeless pedant" is on the list. :doh: :ugly:
:giggle:

But to answer your question, it would be a sense of humour. That is the way I interpreted the question originally so my answer does not change. Should also add, that in my way of thinking, for a guy to have a sense of humour that I find funny he must also have a certain degree of intelligence and shared interests with me.

[livius drusus]

I'd have to vote for hopeless pedantry. It's dreaaaamy... :madlove:

[seebs]

In what way does it most reflect characteristics typically associated with dreams?

[livius drusus]

:howl:

[Dragar]

Hehe made me laugh again. But I wonder whether you could get to stage two? :wink:

Wow, I've never gotten this far before!

/me hunts for the 'save' button...


In answer to the question as phrased by Clutch, I think I can probably answer either sense of humour or intelligence.

[MooseIBe]

Oh yeah I forgot about charisma too .. not deliberately, sorry. I tend to be rather wary of very charismatic people though .. a lot of them of my acquaintance tend to be unpleasant people when you get beneath the charm.

[raspberrybullets]

Oh I agree with you totally on that one Moose! I'm always wary of charming guys cos I feel they use it as a veneer to hide the truth beneath. IMO if you're a nice sweet guy, you don't need charm. And I think British men are particularly good at being charming.

[Dragar]

Wait, I'm British!

/me hits 'load game' with a sigh.

[raspberrybullets]

Hehe, couldln't quite get to stage two hey?? :wink:

[Sweetie]

Charisma to me means charm but also vitality, I think. Vitality is important to me. My husband for instance, always, always attracted people to him and they stayed around him and there were always people who wanted to come see him. It's one thing I always enjoyed about being in his company, living at his house with his parents, etc. Guys who kinda stand out and step up to the plate, it's kindof confidence too.

Yeah, no, I don't trust charm necessarily but it's great if it's bona fide and I do like vitality.

[Clutch Munny]

Charisma.

I mean, Charisma Carpenter was hot... especially after she put on a few pounds. Yum -- curvy!

[JoeP]

Hehe, couldln't quite get to stage two hey?? :wink:
I think they call it "second base".

[raspberrybullets]

I was refering to Dragar's earlier comment where he said

Stage one complete.

[justaman]

You guys are SO cute together.

I stand by my "looks" call. Because that is the only thing listed on the poll that must be present in order to 'be attractive' for mine. The others are great, but not mandatory given the context of attractiveness.

[Crumb]

I understand justaman, but want to avoid the appearance of being shallow. :ironymeter:

[justaman]

Appearance is nothing. Thirst is everything. Obey your thirst.


Sprite.

[pescifish]

I stand by my "looks" call. Because that is the only thing listed on the poll that must be present in order to 'be attractive' for mine. The others are great, but not mandatory given the context of attractiveness.I agree with this, however, I think where we differ is that you are probably wired differently regarding how looks are judged.

For me, looks are important -- I want to look across a room and feel my heart beating and my breath catch just from the sight of my guy. But I don't actually see the person in a romantic light until several other factors of their personality and our interaction kick in.

I.e., my chemistry in terms of how appearance factors into attraction probably works in reverse of yours. Whereas you might not be able to see the wit or kindness in a woman until she gets past your "HAWT" meter, I don't even consider appearance until a guy gets past my "wow, I like him!" meter.

Sure, I recognize an aesthetic to appearance, but that won't cause me to be romantically and physically attracted to a "good looking" person. For me, it's when I've gotten to know someone and have become drawn to him that I start seeing how good looking he is. When that happens, the particular features and looks of that individual start to trigger my "wow, he's good looking!" response. In that case, what might be considered a flaw in appearance to the rest of the world becomes something I cherish in the object of my affection.

Looks are important to me, but when I fall in love/lust it usually is driven by other factors. A person I lust for looks sexy to me, every little bit of him.

I feel sorry for anyone who is so hardwired that a particular look could prevent him/her from being attracted to someone. It makes it easy to miss out on some very sexy folks. But it will make all the Viagra manufacturers very happy when men with this problem and have more and more difficulty as they age getting it up for the women they find around them.

[JoeP]

I understand justaman, but want to avoid the appearance of being shallow. :ironymeter:
Justy, otoh, is proud of being shallow!

[justaman]

Whereas you might not be able to see the wit or kindness in a woman until she gets past your "HAWT" meter, I don't even consider appearance until a guy gets past my "wow, I like him!" meter.
I getcha, but it's probably not exactly like this. I see wit and kindness immediately also, but in the context of a friend who I'm not attracted to. There's really nothing wrong with this, just makes me a bit picky is all.

For me, it's when I've gotten to know someone and have become drawn to him that I start seeing how good looking he is. When that happens, the particular features and looks of that individual start to trigger my "wow, he's good looking!" response. In that case, what might be considered a flaw in appearance to the rest of the world becomes something I cherish in the object of my affection.
I guess this takes all sorts. I have a couple of female friends who are like you, but then I've got others (in fact the majority, I'd say) who absolutely will not ever fall for a friend, or someone they've gotten to know. Just doesn't happen. Each to their own, I suppose :P

I feel sorry for anyone who is so hardwired that a particular look could prevent him/her from being attracted to someone. It makes it easy to miss out on some very sexy folks.
How is being friends with them missing out? ;)

[pescifish]

It makes it easy to miss out on some very sexy folks. How is being friends with them missing out?If you restrict such women in your life to "just friends", then wouldn't that mean missing out on sex with some very sexy folks?

[justaman]

Nah man.

[ApostateAbe]

The results of this poll are just like any other like it. In general, people select the characteristics that they wish they would be attracted to. I don't believe for a second that the intelligence of a woman gives any man a boner. What you are attracted to and what you wish you would be attracted to are two alien organisms from opposite sides of the galaxy. The evolutionary nature of human beings determines that men are attracted to shapely young women and that women are attracted to powerful men. Do you really think that evolution would shape your nature so that you are sexually attracted to a good sense of humor? Get real. The "shallow" people are really the ones most deeply acquainted with their own character.

[raspberrybullets]

You're assuming that because you think llike that, everybody else does. Not true. As I've already said here at least once, I simply cannot be attracted to someone, no matter how good looking they are, if they are jerks, if they don't make me laugh etc. And I know this because I have had good looking guys ask me out and I haven't felt the slightest bit of attraction, the very thought of getting into bed with them was a complete turn off, because they weren't the type of guy I want. I have also had good looking guys that were the type of guy I want, and then I was attracted to them. And the same goes for guys who would not be considered attractive by general standards.
I certainly don't need to hide behind a poll my real attitudes. And I find it extremely condescending and arrogant that you would presume on my behalf what I think and feel.

[Dingfod]

Attractiveness goes way beyond what gives me a boner. If giving me a boner were the standard, I would have married to Playboy magazine a long time ago. If this poll were only about what catches my eye, I might agree with you Abe, a shapely lass always catches my eye from a distance and I'm a total sucker for a pretty face as well. But, sometimes, that shapely lass with a pretty face is a total whacko bitch from hell.

[ApostateAbe]

You're assuming that because you think llike that, everybody else does. Not true. As I've already said here at least once, I simply cannot be attracted to someone, no matter how good looking they are, if they are jerks, if they don't make me laugh etc. And I know this because I have had good looking guys ask me out and I haven't felt the slightest bit of attraction, the very thought of getting into bed with them was a complete turn off, because they weren't the type of guy I want. I have also had good looking guys that were the type of guy I want, and then I was attracted to them. And the same goes for guys who would not be considered attractive by general standards.
I certainly don't need to hide behind a poll my real attitudes. And I find it extremely condescending and arrogant that you would presume on my behalf what I think and feel.raspberrybullets, you need someone tell you about your own attitudes. Women are typically out of touch with what they want in a man. Looks don't turn you on so much, and so you use that fact to fool yourself into thinking, "I am not one of those shallow women." But, in general, looks do little for most women. For you and other heterosexual females, it is really all about power (wealth). Do you think you can choose the kind of man you are attracted to? If not, then why is it that the kind of man you think you are attracted to matches the kind of man you want to be attracted to? If you think you can choose your attraction, how does that make any biological sense?

[ApostateAbe]

Attractiveness goes way beyond what gives me a boner. If giving me a boner were the standard, I would have married to Playboy magazine a long time ago. If this poll were only about what catches my eye, I might agree with you Abe, a shapely lass always catches my eye from a distance and I'm a total sucker for a pretty face as well. But, sometimes, that shapely lass with a pretty face is a total whacko bitch from hell.No doubt about it, Warrenly. I wasn't implying that attraction is all about what gives a man a boner. That is just my way of simplifying it.

[livius drusus]

raspberrybullets, you need someone tell you about your own attitudes. Women are typically out of touch with what they want in a man.

We've had similar discussions (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=45649#post45649) before, Abe, and if I recall correctly, you actually have virtually no personal experience of women and the studies you used to support your contentions (which weren't grounded in studies to begin with but purely on your own thought processes) were either not on point or problematic for other reasons.

I would think at this point you'd be reluctant to tell women what they as a gender do or do not feel/think/understand.

[ApostateAbe]

raspberrybullets, you need someone tell you about your own attitudes. Women are typically out of touch with what they want in a man.

We've had similar discussions (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=45649#post45649) before, Abe, and if I recall correctly, you actually have virtually no personal experience of women and the studies you used to support your contentions (which weren't grounded in studies to begin with but purely on your own thought processes) were either not on point or problematic for other reasons.

I would think at this point you'd be reluctant to tell women what they as a gender do or do not feel/think/understand.Hello again, livius. There is no need for a barrage of ad hominems. They aren't really relevant.

[Dingfod]

Women are typically out of touch with what they want in a man.I dare you to go to heartlessbitches.com (www.heartlessbitches.com) and say that.

[livius drusus]

Hello again, livius. There is no need for a barrage of ad hominems. They aren't really relevant.

Hello Abe. I'm sorry you feel assaulted by me. I don't think it's an hominem to point out that you are again speaking for a gender you know very little about either from personal experience or scientific research, but if it is, I don't see how it could possibly be seen as a "barrage" of ad hominem. I simply find the conclusions you draw entirely groundless.

When questioned on the sources of your conclusions in the past, you have indicated that they are "obvious" or common knowledge. I dispute that and ask you once more to prove your blanket generalizations about women or simply stop making them.

[Beth]

I dare you to go to heartlessbitches.com and say that.
I double dog dare ya. :)

[ApostateAbe]

Women are typically out of touch with what they want in a man.I dare you to go to heartlessbitches.com (http://www.heartlessbitches.com) and say that.Ironically, I think those broads are likely to agree with me on that point, even though they are also out of touch with their own nature. Have you read about what they think about "nice guys"? They do nothing but bitch, bitch, bitch about them being jerks underneath.

[Dingfod]

There isn't a laughing smiley that would possibly demonstrate how funny I found what you just wrote.

[JoeP]

Gotta agree with you there, W.

Liv, what were thinking of, suggesting Abe might be reluctant to speak his mind? You were just teasing him weren't you? You shallow broad.

[natasha]

Looks play a part of course, but I've always been very eclectic with my men. Short, tall, different races, ethnic types... I tend towards the tall ethnic big nose types though. Well, er, tended, since I'm an old married woman now.

But humor is an absolute must. Humor, intelligence, likes animals, compassionate but the courage of his convinctions. Stand up for what you think and believe! I can't stand passive aggressive "mellow" types. If he doesn't have a sense of humor, or doesn't like animals, then I don't care how good looking the guy is or intelligent, he's an ass. So big turn off. I've known a lot of sexy intelligent guys who were huge bores because they didn't have a sense of humor and took themselves way too seriously.

I've also been with a few guys shorter than me, that's a turn on. They were very sexy and, um, "adept." Maybe they felt they had to make up for something, lol. So height doesn't matter much either.

:hookup:

[raspberrybullets]

raspberrybullets, you need someone tell you about your own attitudes.
Maybe, but it certainly won't be you or any other male that has never had any experience of women.

Women are typically out of touch with what they want in a man.
And you would know this how? With the loads of experience you have had with women?

Looks don't turn you on so much, and so you use that fact to fool yourself into thinking, "I am not one of those shallow women."
Actually, looks do turn me on but what looks good to me is determined by the other things than simply physiological characteristics.

For you and other heterosexual females, it is really all about power (wealth).
Funny that I have never gone out with a guy because of his wealth. I have even gone out with guys who are poor.

Do you think you can choose the kind of man you are attracted to?
Yes absolutely.

If you think you can choose your attraction, how does that make any biological sense?
Because unlike you, I have a brain and am not just driven by biology.

[justaman]

Not that I really agree with the extent Abe has taken his argument, do you honestly think you can choose who you are attracted to?

Could you ever decide to be with a woman, for instance? I've always thought it's irrational of me to say that I want to experience as much as life has to offer and then not experiment with same-sex relationships. But no matter how much I rationalise I cannot stop a very primordial sensation of revulsion whenever I think of it.

[Dragar]

Do you really think that evolution would shape your nature so that you are sexually attracted to a good sense of humor? Get real.

Yeah, 'cos that'd be, like, as daft as evolution shaping a female peacock to be sexually attracted to (get this!) the male peacock with the biggest tail feathers!!

Evolution is blind. It could well have resulted in us finding all sorts of odd things attractive that serve no survival advantage (even assuming a sense of humour is not indicative of other traits which result in successful propogation of the genes).

[Dragar]

I've always thought it's irrational of me to say that I want to experience as much as life has to offer and then not experiment with same-sex relationships.

Why is the latter part irrational, and yet your desire for heterosexual relationships not?

[justaman]

Why is the latter part irrational, and yet your desire for heterosexual relationships not?
Whether or not it's actually correct, Jman's useage of 'irrational' is best described as:

I consciously believe one thing, but I emotively feel the opposite, and I go with my feelings on this one.

[ApostateAbe]

Do you really think that evolution would shape your nature so that you are sexually attracted to a good sense of humor? Get real.

Yeah, 'cos that'd be, like, as daft as evolution shaping a female peacock to be sexually attracted to (get this!) the male peacock with the biggest tail feathers!!

Evolution is blind. It could well have resulted in us finding all sorts of odd things attractive that serve no survival advantage (even assuming a sense of humour is not indicative of other traits which result in successful propogation of the genes).Evolution is not blind, Dragar. The male peacock with the most impressive tail feathers is most likely to attract a female mate because the plumage wards away predators. The rules of attraction in human beings, likewise, are for evolutionary reasons. If those reasons are not obvious and direct, then you have to question the proposed rules.

[ApostateAbe]

Do you think you can choose the kind of man you are attracted to?
Yes absolutely.

If you think you can choose your attraction, how does that make any biological sense?
Because unlike you, I have a brain and am not just driven by biology.Let's focus on this point for now. You still have not made it clear how the idea that you can choose to whom you are attracted makes any biological sense. Can you consciously decide the type of man that will make your heart beat faster? Can you decide the sort of man who will give you a sexual orgasm? Do you think, maybe, that evolution caught up with the cultural ways of human beings so quickly that your nature has granted your intellectual will power over the sort of man who will make you fall in love and get you steaming hot in the bedroom?

[Gurdur]

....Let's focus on this point for now. You still have not made it clear how the idea that you can choose to whom you are attracted makes any biological sense.
ApostateAbe, you're getting yourself all confused.
1) For a start, let's acknowledge that there is an evolutionary selctive mechanism calleed sexual selection. It's rather famous, and been intensively researched. I suggest you read some of the literature on it.

2) Humans have evolved brain power (even in those who choose not to use it), limited free will, the ability to change one's own behaviour, and self-reflection.

3) You commit a further fallacy of thinking that biology must determine all, in which case you can now explain the natural selection advantage of the Mona Lisa, oh, and Gibson's Necromancer.
Have fun trying.

4) Being able to choose to whom you are atracted makes a great deal of sense
- evolutionarily
- practically (not being attracted to Hannibal Lector is a Good Thing)
- aesthetically (being attracted to Schwarzenegger is just so eeeewww, only Bush could be worse)
Can you consciously decide the type of man that will make your heart beat faster?
Actually, yes.
There are a great deal of ways in which one can influence and even radically change one's POV --- and values, taste etc. --- over time.
Can you decide the sort of man who will give you a sexual orgasm?
Again, the work in physiological psychology has shown us that one can change one's taste to a large degree.
Do you think, maybe, that evolution caught up with the cultural ways of human beings so quickly that your nature has granted your intellectual will power over the sort of man who will make you fall in love and get you steaming hot in the bedroom?
To the same extent that we live in houses and use modern plumbing and no longer live in trees.
Think about it.

[Gurdur]

...Evolution is not blind, Dragar. The male peacock with the most impressive tail feathers is most likely to attract a female mate because the plumage wards away predators.
Oh god.
ApostateAbe, let's take a really easy example.
Explain just how the two long tail-feathers of the whydah bird (a.k.a. the widow bird) which it develops in the mating season, and which severely handicap its ability to fly well, at all help it in any natural selective way.

You should read up on self-handicapping strategies in sexual selection; would you like a list of some literature on it ?
The rules of attraction in human beings, likewise, are for evolutionary reasons. If those reasons are not obvious and direct, then you have to question the proposed rules.
Brilliant, Apostate Abe. Now explain ---
- homosexuality in humans
- fetishism
- lingerie
- the Mona Lisa
- the Temple Of Aphrodite
- gumboots and sheep
- Madonna (who doesn't turn me on one bit)
- and Bach's fugues

Cheers, I really look forward to the explanations.

[JoeP]

Evolution is not blind, Dragar. The male peacock with the most impressive tail feathers is most likely to attract a female mate because the plumage wards away predators.
Even though Gurdur has contributed his astonishment already, let me add mine too. Abe, you're completely out of your tree here. You're fabricating reasons and getting it all wrong. Shame on you. And shame on you for bringing shame on this discussion.

[Beth]

I actually feel embarrassed for Abe for thinking like this. Maybe as he ages he will develop a better perception of women.

[justaman]

Shame on you. And shame on you for bringing shame on this discussion.
And shame on you for agreeing with me and making me look stupid by association. :spank:

[ApostateAbe]

....Let's focus on this point for now. You still have not made it clear how the idea that you can choose to whom you are attracted makes any biological sense.
ApostateAbe, you're getting yourself all confused.
1) For a start, let's acknowledge that there is an evolutionary selctive mechanism calleed sexual selection. It's rather famous, and been intensively researched. I suggest you read some of the literature on it.Gurdur, isn't that what I have been talking about already? There must be some serious miscommunication between the two of us.

2) Humans have evolved brain power (even in those who choose not to use it), limited free will, the ability to change one's own behaviour, and self-reflection.Yes.

3) You commit a further fallacy of thinking that biology must determine all, in which case you can now explain the natural selection advantage of the Mona Lisa, oh, and Gibson's Necromancer.
Have fun trying.Mona Lisa? Gurdur, in order for me to be required to explain away the Mona Lisa, you must first explain to me how it relates.

[ApostateAbe]

Evolution is not blind, Dragar. The male peacock with the most impressive tail feathers is most likely to attract a female mate because the plumage wards away predators.
Even though Gurdur has contributed his astonishment already, let me add mine too. Abe, you're completely out of your tree here. You're fabricating reasons and getting it all wrong. Shame on you. And shame on you for bringing shame on this discussion.JoeP, what do you want me to do? Leave? Change my mind? Can you help me out with the Mona Lisa thing?

[Beth]

Maybe you just should not try to make claims about women that are really unfounded and play to stereotypes. Especially when you admittedly have very limited experience with women.

Leave? No, you kind of grow on me in a strange sort of way. No, I don't think I mean like a rash. :P

[ApostateAbe]

Maybe you just should not try to make claims about women that are really unfounded and play to stereotypes. Especially when you admittedly have very limited experience with women.

Leave? No, you kind of grow on me in a strange sort of way. No, I don't think I mean like a rash. :PBeth, my claims about women are what I seriously believe. Do you want me to keep silent about it?

[Beth]

No, but they are not correct for all women. I think maybe you should open your mind a little. Learning and expanding one's mind is a good thing. Isn't that what personal growth is about?

I think it is good that you get your opinion out, but it is offensive for you to tell a woman that she needs someone like you to tell her what her opinions on men really are. It is arrogant and rude and ignorant and nervy. It also shows immaturity.

[Gurdur]

I actually feel embarrassed for Abe for thinking like this. Maybe as he ages he will develop a better perception of women.
What about the bloody PEACOCKS ???? :argh:

The women can look after themselves; what I want to know in ApostateAbe's misperception about peacocks is how he totally misses out on sexual dimorphism; he shrugs off a peacock's tail plumage as being there to "ward off predators", without bothering to explain just why don't peahens also have the same tail plumage then ?

Very logically, if ApostateAbe's theory was correct, there would be a huge advantage for peacocks versus peahen vis-á-vis predators, which would mean that you would end up with populations of many more peacocks than peahen, which just doesn't happen.

[ApostateAbe]

My life is a continuous process of a changing mind. If I ever become the same man I was a year earlier, then I am dead. Please excuse my arrogance, but it is how I learn, if you can believe it. By being completely upfront with what I believe, I expose it all to challenge and criticism.

[Gurdur]

Mona Lisa? Gurdur, in order for me to be required to explain away the Mona Lisa, you must first explain to me how it relates.
---> ApostateAbe:

Humans regularly spend huge amounts of money to house, guard, view, criticise, talk about, and view again that painting called the Mona Lisa.

Since no evolutionary mechanism at all can explain away this phenomenon as simple automatism born of natural selection, it follows that a better idea is that humans are exercisng choice out of limited free will and backing that choice up with tons of resources.

Now, if you choose to accept that, why can you accept that humans will give a large amount of their resources to just view the Mona Lisa, but you can't accept the role of free will choice in altering one's taste in sexual partners to a degree ?

After all, it is almost always far cheaper to get a fuck than to fly to Italy to view the Mona Lisa.

[MooseIBe]

I don't want to be another one piling on Abe cos I can barely see him under there :D but I have to say I totally disagree with him too (sorry Abe!). It is entirely possible to be attracted to a good sense of humour, or to intelligence, or whatever, irrespective of looks.

Lemme share a story with you (don't yawn at the back there!). I met my current boyfriend on an internet message board and we were friends for a long time before becoming more than friends. At the point at which we realised there was a strong attraction, neither of us had any real idea what the other looked like. He could have been 4'12, 300 lbs, pock marked and bald and I swear it would not have made the faintest bit of difference to me. The attraction was the personality.

I might be straying a bit from Abe's point with the above but oh well, it's relevant to the OP anyway.

[MooseIBe]

My life is a continuous process of a changing mind. If I ever become the same man I was a year earlier, then I am dead. Please excuse my arrogance, but it is how I learn, if you can believe it. By being completely upfront with what I believe, I expose it all to challenge and criticism.

Well, that's good :) as long as you're not afraid to say you were wrong IF it turns out that you were, then there's nothing wrong with speaking your mind :)

[JoeP]

JoeP, what do you want me to do? Leave? Change my mind? Can you help me out with the Mona Lisa thing?
Not sure about the Mona Lisa thing. No, wait, rereading G's post it's clear:
3) You commit a further fallacy of thinking that biology must determine all, in which case you can now explain the natural selection advantage of the Mona Lisa, oh, and Gibson's Necromancer.
You must either agree that biology (natural selection specifically, I think he means) does not determine all parts of human behaviour, or you must show the adaptive benefit of the Mona Lisa (more accurately, the human behaviour that produced {eta} and flies across the world to view the Mona Lisa). And ditto the writing of novels like Neuromancer.

What do I want you to do?
Get a girlfriend, get female friends, watch chick flicks, ...
Don't leave.
Don't change your opinions, as an act in itself, insted change whatever thought process allows you to assert that peacock's tail feathers are there for protection.
Read up on the self-handicapping strategies in sexual selection Gurdur mentioned.
Help me out here, everyone. What do you want ApostateAbe to do?

[livius drusus]

Support his assertions with evidence or shed them/modify when confronted with evidence that they are inaccurate.

[JoeP]

What about the bloody PEACOCKS ???? :argh:

The women can look after themselves; what I want to know in ApostateAbe's misperception about peacocks is how he totally misses out on sexual dimorphism; he shrugs off a peacock's tail plumage as being there to "ward off predators", without bothering to explain just why don't peahens also have the same tail plumage then ?

Very logically, if ApostateAbe's theory was correct, there would be a huge advantage for peacocks versus peahen vis-á-vis predators, which would mean that you would end up with populations of many more peacocks than peahen, which just doesn't happen.
Stop right there, G. Abe has a perfect defence for this: peahens are submissive and inferior and require the peacocks to defend them. It's their place in life. He buys into sexual dimorphism - God forbid anyone should claim he's just like a woman. Peahens don't need the extra burden of these fearsome defensive tail feathers because the peacock looks after them.

I'm sure he'll be able to explain the differential size and strength of male vs female humans the same way.

joe

[ApostateAbe]

The idea that one can choose the type of person one has a romantic/sexual attraction to is new to me. In my world, either a chick is hot or not, and if she is especially hot or especially not, there is no way to sway one's mind to the other side.

The easiest examples of nasty-looking broads are the fatties. There is a general concensus among men (or so it seems to me) that fat women are undesirable. There may be a few chubby-chasers or men who pretend to like their fatty wives because they are stuck with them, but the fact that men generally find fat women nasty seems like common sense to me. It seems to follow from evolutionary sexual selection. And I can't imagine any way I could make myself like porkers.

But I am a man, and I got to thinking that maybe women have more mental power over their feelings. I was taken aback when raspberrybullets told me with full confidence that she could choose the type of man she falls in love with. That is a real head-scratcher for me. It is true that we have some limited power over our own artistic tastes and whatnot, but sexuality, I believed, is just an unchangable thing inextricably ingrained into your brain and you are stuck with it.

The claim that the rest of you are making remains an extraordinary claim to me, and I still can't bring myself to believe that women can just use their intellect to choose the kind of men they can fall in love with. I get the suspicion that sexual/romantic attraction is mistaken for mere happiness association. If a woman is around a man with a great sense humor, then she will smile and be happy around that man and she will associate happiness with that man. But does it follow that a good sense of humor is a characteristic of sexual/romantic attractiveness?

[ApostateAbe]

The thing I said about peacocks, that the large plumage wards away predators, isn't something I made up. It was something I was told in elementary school. Maybe it was my dumbass Christian elementary school. But now I think it is a bit more likely that a large plumage once correlated roughly with the fitness of the peacock, and the peahens kept that mating behavior even after the plumage got impractically big.

[natasha]

The easiest examples of nasty-looking broads are the fatties. There is a general concensus among men (or so it seems to me) that fat women are undesirable. There may be a few chubby-chasers or men who pretend to like their fatty wives because they are stuck with them, but the fact that men generally find fat women nasty seems like common sense to me. It seems to follow from evolutionary sexual selection. And I can't imagine any way I could make myself like porkers.

Wow. To each their own of course. But what is "fat" in your mind? Truly obese, anyone over a size 2, or 6, or 9? Different cultures have different views too.

While you can speak for yourself of course I don't think anyone can speak for others. Not everyone feels that way. YOU may, doesn't mean all men do.

One of my BEST EVER lovers was a guy who was not only "fat" but bald on top too. He had no problem getting women, me included. He was a nice guy of course but he was no Hugh Jackman or Johnny Depp, that's for sure. But I tell you, he was GREAT in bed, and really neat to be with.

I've known a few really big women -- I mean BIG not just "plump" who had all kinds of lovers, including some well known or "famous" celeb types -- one woman I remember had no problems. I knew some men who insisted they didn't like big women yet ended up with her and they were very happy.


The claim that the rest of you are making remains an extraordinary claim to me, and I still can't bring myself to believe that women can just use their intellect to choose the kind of men they can fall in love with. I get the suspicion that sexual/romantic attraction is mistaken for mere happiness association. If a woman is around a man with a great sense humor, then she will smile and be happy around that man and she will associate happiness with that man. But does it follow that a good sense of humor is a characteristic of sexual/romantic attractiveness?

It's hard to separate these things. There's looks, and as I posted earlier, I like all kinds of looks.Then there's personality, or traits. It's a combination -- humans aren't seperated into little compartments. I mean, if I am attracted on a very sexual visceral level to someone, -- that feeling that goes "POW" -- that's one thing. And I've been able to tune out my feelings other than sexual for a bit to have a go in bed with Mr. Sexy Pants. But really, big whoop. If he's an ASS forget it. He can be a sexy ass, but still an ass. So the thrill is very quickly gone. If I don't LIKE the guy, it just isn't worth it. After all, there are many other fish in the sea, and toys in my toybox. :D

[JoeP]

Dawn French.

And on the peacocks, I think you're right that uneconomically large plumage correlates with fitness - "I'm so tough I can carry around all this useless stuff". Same with monster antlers, whydah tailfeathers and beyelzu's nads. Gurdur?

But it's more than just "peahens keeping that mating behaviour" - the selection pressure still exists and drives the evolution.

[Gurdur]

And on the peacocks, I think you're right that uneconomically large plumage correlates with fitness - "I'm so tough I can carry around all this useless stuff". Same with monster antlers, whydah tailfeathers and beyelzu's nads. Gurdur?
The correlation with fitness is suposed to exist (though not in the simplistic way suggested by AA's elementary school), and often does, but IMHO too little work has been done; for example, there's the whole problem of faking the "sexual selection handicap", and far too little research has been done so far into animals faking fitness through fake handicaps.

And humans fake it all the time; bodybuilders often have artificial calf implants to boost their calves, let alone talking about other better-known forms of plastic surgery, let alone cosmetics et al.

As for beyelzu's nads, I suggest more research from a suspected fake angle.

[ApostateAbe]

Wow. To each their own of course. But what is "fat" in your mind? Truly obese, anyone over a size 2, or 6, or 9? Different cultures have different views too. I don't know what those sizes are, but if I can reach down to the gut and grab a handful of fat, then that is too fat.

I was once told in my college sociology course that there is or was some other culture on some other continent that valued fatness in women--the fatter the better. If it exists, then it is a fluke of the general norm all around the world. Women look better to men when they are thin. I don't think it is possible for anyone to convince me that men can change their minds about fat women. If they are fat, then they are undesirable, and that's it.

That isn't to say that women find fat men unattractive all the time. On the contrary, looks seem to have little to do with the sexual attractiveness of men.

While you can speak for yourself of course I don't think anyone can speak for others. Not everyone feels that way. YOU may, doesn't mean all men do.I am only speaking for most men.

I've known a few really big women -- I mean BIG not just "plump" who had all kinds of lovers, including some well known or "famous" celeb types -- one woman I remember had no problems. I knew some men who insisted they didn't like big women yet ended up with her and they were very happy.Any fat women who have had desirable men were thin at one time in their lives. The reason they don't have those desirable men anymore is probably because they ballooned like a blimp. Fat women are left with the muck at the bottom of the male-barrel. The poor deadbeats, I presume.

It's hard to separate these things. There's looks, and as I posted earlier, I like all kinds of looks.Then there's personality, or traits. It's a combination -- humans aren't seperated into little compartments. I mean, if I am attracted on a very sexual visceral level to someone, -- that feeling that goes "POW" -- that's one thing. And I've been able to tune out my feelings other than sexual for a bit to have a go in bed with Mr. Sexy Pants. But really, big whoop. If he's an ASS forget it. He can be a sexy ass, but still an ass. So the thrill is very quickly gone. If I don't LIKE the guy, it just isn't worth it. After all, there are many other fish in the sea, and toys in my toybox. :DOK, so that seems to acknowledge that sexual attractiveness is at least somewhat distinct from happiness association. What about falling in love? Is it possible to fall in love with a man whom you know is an "ass" as you put it? I seem to hear of women falling in love with assholes frequently.

[natasha]

[QUOTE=natasha]
I am only speaking for most men..

No, you are not. That's impossible. Are you inside the head of "most men?" Of course not.

[natasha]

[QUOTE=ApostateAbe.Any fat women who have had desirable men were thin at one time in their lives. The reason they don't have those desirable men anymore is probably because they ballooned like a blimp. Fat women are left with the muck at the bottom of the male-barrel. The poor deadbeats, I presume.[/QUOTE]

You didn't seem to understand what I wrote.

I said, that I've known a few "blimps" to use your term, that had no trouble getting men, while they were "blimps" and good looking, sexy men, some of them well known. Hardly the "muck" of any "barrel," lol.

[natasha]

OK, so that seems to acknowledge that sexual attractiveness is at least somewhat distinct from happiness association. What about falling in love? Is it possible to fall in love with a man whom you know is an "ass" as you put it? I seem to hear of women falling in love with assholes frequently.
__

Whatever. If I'm sexually attracted, I"m usually happy, rof.

If the guy's an ass, then pretty quick the sexuall thing wears off, so that's that.

FAlling in love with an ass is a whole other issue which involves psychology, among other things. It isn't really "love" now is it? Sickness, depravity, screwed up emotional state, etc. But "love?" Nah.

[ApostateAbe]

[QUOTE=natasha]
I am only speaking for most men..

No, you are not. That's impossible. Are you inside the head of "most men?" Of course not.Most men like food and can't help but like food. Do I need to be inside their heads to figure that out?

[ApostateAbe]

You didn't seem to understand what I wrote.

I said, that I've known a few "blimps" to use your term, that had no trouble getting men, while they were "blimps" and good looking, sexy men, some of them well known. Hardly the "muck" of any "barrel," lol.I'll believe you when I see for myself, natasha. For example, when a millionaire male marries a 200 lb beastie, it will be all over the front pages of the tabloids.

[ApostateAbe]

Whatever. If I'm sexually attracted, I"m usually happy, rof.

If the guy's an ass, then pretty quick the sexuall thing wears off, so that's that.

FAlling in love with an ass is a whole other issue which involves psychology, among other things. It isn't really "love" now is it? Sickness, depravity, screwed up emotional state, etc. But "love?" Nah.Lets stick to a consistent definition of "love." Falling in love involves constant occupation of object of love on the mind, fluttering heart, desire for touch and close contact, jealousy, and all of that good stuff. When those things are there in a girl, you can't easily brush it off as something other than love, even if the object of her love abuses her or whatever.

[Gurdur]

I was once told in my college sociology course that there is or was some other culture on some other continent that valued fatness in women--the fatter the better. If it exists, then it is a fluke of the general norm all around the world.
You are dead wrong again about it being a fluke.
Fatness as a sign of power and wealth, and/or desirability, is common throughout Africa, India and Polynesia just for a start.
I am only speaking for most men.
Given the problems, more, much more, caution would be advisable for you.

[Dragar]

Evolution is not blind, Dragar. The male peacock with the most impressive tail feathers is most likely to attract a female mate because the plumage wards away predators. The rules of attraction in human beings, likewise, are for evolutionary reasons. If those reasons are not obvious and direct, then you have to question the proposed rules.

Wow!

Okay, evolution is blind. It selects for what works now, and the key is that 'works' is what passes on the genes. Survival can come a long way back, because it's the genes that are the key.

The attraction in humans is certainly for evolutionary reasons, but not for survival reasons. Your claim the plumage wards away predators is not entirely false - it may have begun like that - but the reason the tail feathers are so ridiculously oversized (a hinderance, now, to their survival, rather than a help) is because somewhere along the line, peahens began selecting their mates based on the ones with biggest tail feathers.

Is this a survival advantage when the tail feathers have become stupidly overszied? Heck no! This run away process may one day wipe out peacocks, because evolution is blind - it doesn't plan ahead.

In a similar way, there may well be sexual selection amongst humans (and it may be as much a memetic evolution as a biological one). What once was initially a survival advantage has run away with itself due to that trait being sexually selected.

And we may well be as much at the whims of such sexual selection as peahens.

[MooseIBe]

<edited cos that was slightly over the top>

[MooseIBe]

Abe, you know I don't know whether to be amused or offended at your attitude so I will settle for a little of both. i presume you're pretty young and you'll learn better as you age but let me tell you right now, if THIS is your general attitude towards women, I wonder if you will ever manage to keep one.

[Beth]

<edited cos that was slightly over the top>Aw, dern. I agreed with a lot of it, too.

I have a feeling that Abe wants grown women to have the bodies of pubescent girls, and otherwise they don't meet his standard of beauty. Thing is, a lot of guys do want to be able to have some meat to hold onto. One really cute and neat phrase I hear from some of the Latinos around me quite frequently is, "The bone is for the dog, the meat is for the man." I have found this attitude is common in many men around me.

But Abe has every right not to be attracted to robust women, but he should not try to speak for all men.

[Sweetie]

But I am a man, and I got to thinking that maybe women have more mental power over their feelings.

You must understand that women are less visual than men, right? Women also can remain detached from their sexuality to a point. I however, cannot remain consistently detached from myself mentally or emotionally therefore if you reach me on an intellectual or emotional level it is way more important than anything physical. If you just reach me on a physical level, it's just a pastime and oftentimes a waste of time as far as I'm concerned.

If you reach me on an emotional, mental and physical level however. :eek:

IMHO.

[MooseIBe]

<edited cos that was slightly over the top>Aw, dern. I agreed with a lot of it, too.

I have a feeling that Abe wants grown women to have the bodies of pubescent girls, and otherwise they don't meet his standard of beauty. Thing is, a lot of guys do want to be able to have some meat to hold onto. One really cute and neat phrase I hear from some of the Latinos around me quite frequently is, "The bone is for the dog, the meat is for the man." I have found this attitude is common in many men around me.

But Abe has every right not to be attracted to robust women, but he should not try to speak for all men.

Well yes that was what was bothering me .. this 'I think this so it must be so' attitude :). It also bothers me though that Abe - and he can correct me if I am wrong here - doesn't seem to set much store by what a woman might actually BE, only what she looks like.

I mean personally, i am not physically attracted to overweight guys at first glance either, but I would never discount an overweight guy as a potential partner simply because of his weight! I just wouldn't let something like that put me off getting to know a person.

[Sweetie]

So, on my list it works like this. First and foremost integrity because then I feel secure with one, second a sense of humour, because then there's a connection, oftentimes an emotional one like empathy because of a sense of good shared experience, comraderie, then intelligence, reach me on an intellectual level, stimulate that upper sensory thing in my mind that I've mentioned before, then looks, when I open my eyes I see something I like.

Now, sometimes what's inside makes what is outside more beautiful.

Now, there are always exceptions. When the emotional and intellectual level of a relationship is low, then looks becomes more important for me, just not as much as they are to men I don't think.

Another exception is if you rock my socks off in bed suprisingly, very often the experience of ecstasy can simulate feeling like one is in love however, there's a catch, you can't lead me to ecstasy unless even if it's low, you've already reached me on an emotional and mental level.

[Sweetie]

ApostateAbe,

Without prejudice honestly I must say, it sounds like real women are somewhat threatening to you. If I never met you before, if I never knew anything you've ever said before, that's what I would say.

Not that you care, but there it is.

[Sweetie]

Soo, ack, didn't mean to start a new post but, so I would say that what phyiscal attraction is to a man, emotional attraction is to a women.

Seriously, I'm bisexual, I am physically and sexually attracted to women but it's almost essentially meaningless to me because I rarely ever like women and I am not nor have I ever been emotionally attracted to a woman in a romantic way. Men are my weakness and it is not necessarily their bodies which are my problem. While I find many men physically beautifully, they do not arouse me with their bodies alone. Male strippers and Playgirls I have no use for and yet it's men I want and it's men I chase after and it's men that are my weakness.

FYI.

[ApostateAbe]

I was once told in my college sociology course that there is or was some other culture on some other continent that valued fatness in women--the fatter the better. If it exists, then it is a fluke of the general norm all around the world.
You are dead wrong again about it being a fluke.
Fatness as a sign of power and wealth, and/or desirability, is common throughout Africa, India and Polynesia just for a start.I think you are right. I am wrong. A little research seems to show that in cultures where famine is imminent, fatness in women is valued. That makes sense, I suppose. The role of body weight, waist-to-hip ratio, and breast size in judgments of female attractiveness (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2294/is_n3-4_v39/ai_21227871) Brown & Konner (1987) suggested that when humans were subject to varying periods of famine and plenty, the most reproductively successful females were the ones who were able to store surplus energy as fat. The extra fat, stored on the body, breasts, and buttocks, is said therefore to be attractive to males (Anderson, Crawford, Nadeau & Lindberg, 1992; Cant, 1981; Low, 1979). Frisch and others (Frisch, 1990; Frisch & McArthur, 1974) have shown that this is a plausible theory because they demonstrated that it is necessary for women to have a critical amount of body fat in order to initiate and maintain the menstrual cycle.Perhaps I find fat women nasty only because I am living in a society of plenty, eh? In societies of plenty, a fat woman is more likely to be unhealthy.The WHR is calculated by computing a ratio of the circumference of the waist to the circumference of the hips. The WHR for healthy, pre-menopausal women is generally between 0.67 and 0.80, but for men it is usually between 0.85 and 0.95 (National Academy of Sciences, 1991). WHR has been shown to be a reliable morphological indicator of the levels of sex hormones, and also the risk of major diseases, reproductive potential, and premature mortality. For example, a high WHR resulting from a bloated abdomen can be a sign of parasite infection. Singh (1993a, 1993b) has reviewed several studies which have demonstrated that a high WHR in a female can predict menstrual irregularity, hirsutism, elevated plasma triglycerides, diabetes, hypertension, heart attack, stroke, gallbladder disease, and cancer of the endometrium, ovaries and breast. Many studies have found that the risk of some of the aforementioned obesity-related diseases varies with the distribution of body fat as opposed to its total quantity (Bjorntorp, 1987; Seidell, 1992). It was reported by Folsom, Kaye, Sellers, Hong, Carhan, Potter & Prineas (1993), that a high WHR raised the morality rates of both very lean and obese older women.

There is evidence for a relationship between WHR and a woman's reproductive potential. This has been deduced from findings which demonstrated that amongst girls who are similar in weight, the ones who had lower WHRs showed early pubertal endocrinological activity (DeRidder, Bruning, Zonderland, Thijssen, Bonfrer, Blankenstein, Huisveld & Erich, 1990). In a Dutch study looking at women attending a clinic for artificial insemination, Zaastra, Seidell, Van Noord, te Velde, Habbten, Vrieswijk & Karbaat (1993), found evidence suggesting a relationship between WHR and the likelihood of conception. It was suggested that the higher the WHR, then the less likely it was that the women would conceive.

Singh (1993a, 1993b) has argued that WHR, independent of overall body fat and weight, is a powerful predictor of endocrinological aberration. On the basis of this prediction, it can be suggested that males and females may have developed innate mechanisms which detect and make use of the WHR to assess how healthy an individual is and (particularly for men), infer possible mate value. Having a healthy mate improves the chances of producing offspring with inherited genetic protection from various diseases and a healthy mate is more likely to be a good parent (Hamilton & Zuk, 1982; Thornhill, 1993).

Studies by Singh (1993a, 1993b, 1994) found that men and women in the age range of 18-85 years regard normal weight female figures with low WHR (0.7) as more attractive and healthy than those illustrating figures with a higher WHR who had the same or lower body weight. As women also seem to judge the attractiveness of other females on the basis of WHR, then their trying to lose weight may be in an effort to achieve a more attractive gynoid shape. In his experiments, Singh used twelve line drawings of female figures whose WHR ranged from 0.7 to 1.0, and three weight categories: `underweight', `normal', and `overweight' (Singh, 1993a, 1993b). It was found that women with a WHR of 0.7 are perceived as more attractive than those with one of 0.8; in turn they are seen as more attractive than a women with a WHR of 0.9; and least attractive is a ratio of 1.0. Singh found that the normal weight figures were judged more attractive than the underweights, who were more attractive than the overweights. Additionally, an overweight woman with a low WHR was judged to be more attractive than a slim woman with a high WHR, which provides more support for the notion that attractiveness is primarily correlated to the distribution of body fat. However these findings were not confirmed by Henss (1995), who found that the underweight figures were more attractive than the normal weights, and a WHR of 0.8 was the most pleasing. Yet, Furnham, Tan & McManus (1997) found support for Singh's fundamental hypothesis, namely that the WHR is the most parsimonious measures of body physical attractiveness.The evidence indicates that the only way I could make myself be attracted to fatties is to move to Uganda and sustain myself from the weekly handouts of the Red Cross.

[Gurdur]

Personally, I have never found it necessary to run around loudly announcing the bodytypes of people I don't like.
Plus, I am aware that I can change my preferences to a large degree, should I wish to.

[MooseIBe]

I tell you what, AA, why DON'T you move to Uganda and sustain yourself on the handouts of the Red Cross? *smiles sweetly*

[natasha]

You didn't seem to understand what I wrote.

I said, that I've known a few "blimps" to use your term, that had no trouble getting men, while they were "blimps" and good looking, sexy men, some of them well known. Hardly the "muck" of any "barrel," lol.I'll believe you when I see for myself, natasha. For example, when a millionaire male marries a 200 lb beastie, it will be all over the front pages of the tabloids.

Ah, you're calling me a liar then. Got it.

[MooseIBe]

BTW Apostate Abe, Dawn French, who must weight a good 300lbs (and is still an extremely beautiful woman) is married to Lenny Henry, a millionaire comedian. Perhaps you'd like to write to him and tell him where he's going wrong?

[natasha]

[QUOTE=natasha]
I am only speaking for most men..

No, you are not. That's impossible. Are you inside the head of "most men?" Of course not.Most men like food and can't help but like food. Do I need to be inside their heads to figure that out?

rof, equating women with food, hmmm...

You have an opinion on what men like/dislike about women, which is, as you well know, is a very different thing than "men like food." Grunt.

[natasha]

By the way, does "apostate abe" have anything to do with your ethnic/cultural/religious rejection/treason/confusion?

[ApostateAbe]

BTW Apostate Abe, Dawn French, who must weight a good 300lbs (and is still an extremely beautiful woman) is married to Lenny Henry, a millionaire comedian. Perhaps you'd like to write to him and tell him where he's going wrong?I'd love to know what was going through his head at the time. But Dawn French and Lenny Henry are probably not the best example, because this is what Dawn French looked like in the eighties at the time they met (on the right):

Exhibit #1
http://www.clubic.com/photo/00067815.jpg

This is what she looks like today:

Exhibit #2
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39074000/jpg/_39074853_french150.jpg

In Exhibit #1, we have someone who is chubby. For a minority of men out there who care a little less about the waistline than the average man, and care more for talent, personality and facial features or what have you, she is a good catch.

In Exhibit #2, we have something comparable to:

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/twentieth_century_fox/return_of_the_jedi/_group_photos/anthony_daniels8.jpg

Where Dawn French is shown sitting in the back.

[ApostateAbe]

By the way, does "apostate abe" have anything to do with your ethnic/cultural/religious rejection/treason/confusion?I am an apostate from protestant Christian fundamentalism, and I use this handle in most forums. I rail against religion most of the time.

[Beth]

You dissed French, Abe. Not cool.

[ApostateAbe]

Personally, I have never found it necessary to run around loudly announcing the bodytypes of people I don't like.
Plus, I am aware that I can change my preferences to a large degree, should I wish to.Yeah, by spending a few years in a rural village in Bangladesh.

Since I have opened my mind and discovered that men really can be sexually attracted to hogs when they live in a starving society, it has left me wondering if it is nature or nurture. If it is nature, then it would have to be an impressive feat of evolution--flexible sexual tendencies that suit the survival need. If it is nurture, then that leaves me wondering how it can be done. The survival line of thought probably doesn't run through a Ugandan man's head when he sees a portly Ugandan girl. It would have to be the whole society that is telling the Ugandan men, "bigger women are better." And that would be an impressive feat of the culture--to shape norms of attractiveness to fit collective survival need. And it would contradict what seems obvious to me about human sexuality--that standards of beauty are natural.

I also wonder if it is too late for me to change my sexual tendency toward fat women since I have already spent so much of my life and upbrining in a well-to-do society. If I moved to Uganda and starved for twenty years, I suspect that my sexual tendency with respect to porkers would stay the same.

[Gurdur]

Personally, I have never found it necessary to run around loudly announcing the bodytypes of people I don't like.
Plus, I am aware that I can change my preferences to a large degree, should I wish to.Yeah, by spending a few years in a rural village in Bangladesh.
Wrong again. I guess I just have more control over myself than you do over yourself ?
You may wish to claim you are a robot, I am not a robot myself.
I also wonder if it is too late for me to change my sexual tendency toward fat women since I have already spent so much of my life and upbrining in a well-to-do society.
How about just simply overcoming your obvious need to put others down unnecessarily ?
All you accomplish is to make yourself look very insecure indeed.

[ApostateAbe]

Personally, I have never found it necessary to run around loudly announcing the bodytypes of people I don't like.
Plus, I am aware that I can change my preferences to a large degree, should I wish to.Yeah, by spending a few years in a rural village in Bangladesh.
Wrong again. I guess I just have more control over myself than you do over yourself ?
You may wish to claim you are a robot, I am not a robot myself.You are not a robot? I believe that all human beings are essentially robots who are programmed by our nature and our environment. In general, it is a belief that is common among scientifically-minded naturalistic people but not among spiritual people. Are you a spiritual person?

[Gurdur]

You are not a robot? I believe that all human beings are essentially robots who are programmed by our nature and our environment.
*shrug*
But then you, ApostateAbe, seem to believe a lot of weird things.
In general, it is a belief that is common among scientifically-minded naturalistic people
Wrong again.
Unfortunately for you, I had rather advanced training in science of mind -- neurophysiopsychology and psych.
And I can happily inform you most scientists I have ever known believed in some kind of free will.
Not only the ones I've known, either; in fact, by all polls, most. Full stop.
Guess why the scientific field of forensic psychology makes a distinction of mental competence in legal affairs ?
Are you a spiritual person?
No.

[ApostateAbe]

That is a surprise to me, Gurdur. Are you aware that, by "naturalistic," I mean believing that the universe contains nothing supernatural?

[raspberrybullets]

Has it ever occured to you that not everybody agrees with you ApostateAbe? That in fact, the majority of people do not agree with you?

When I was a child, I assumed that the majority of people were like me and didn't beleive in God. Then I grew up. I realised what I thought was not what everyone else thought. I think it's high time you did the same.

[ApostateAbe]

Has it ever occured to you that not everybody agrees with you ApostateAbe? That in fact, the majority of people do not agree with you?

When I was a child, I assumed that the majority of people were like me and didn't beleive in God. Then I grew up. I realised what I thought was not what everyone else thought. I think it's high time you did the same.Occured to me? Please understand that I am no longer a child, and I have had many such conversations. I am very much accustomed to the reality that my opinions are largely in the minority, and I find that I often welcome it as a boost to my ego. I don't side with the minority on everything. I simply seek out what seems most reasonable. I still get shocked when I discover that someone believes something other than what I expected, but I think that is normal.

[raspberrybullets]

Ok then, so why are you trying to impose your opinions as those of the majority of people if you know you are in the minority?

[MooseIBe]

Quite frankly, Abe, Dawn French is so far out of your league that you can't even see a vapour trail. I don't suppose it's ever occured to you that many of these women that you so cheerfully dismiss as 'beasts' wouldn't look twice at you if it was a choice between you and the Yorkshire Ripper.

[raspberrybullets]

deleted cos it wasn't helpful

[Gurdur]

That is a surprise to me, Gurdur. Are you aware that, by "naturalistic," I mean believing that the universe contains nothing supernatural?
ApostateAbe, you are not listening.
1) I am a trained scientist, and that in sciences of mind
2) I have 5 years and over 13, 000 posts on SecWeb
3) I have forgotten more than you will ever know about all the various philosophical and polemical aspects of naturalism in all its many forms.

So maybe you would like to try again keeping all that in mind ?

[ApostateAbe]

That is a surprise to me, Gurdur. Are you aware that, by "naturalistic," I mean believing that the universe contains nothing supernatural?
ApostateAbe, you are not listening.
1) I am a trained scientist, and that in sciences of mind
2) I have 5 years and over 13, 000 posts on SecWeb
3) I have forgotten more than you will ever know about all the various philosophical and polemical aspects of naturalism in all its many forms.

So maybe you would like to try again keeping all that in mind ?Sure, Gurdur, I was just trying to clear up potential misunderstandings between us. "Naturalistic" can mean a couple different things. I am dying to know how naturalists can believe in "free will." Do you happen to know an article on the web that will satiate my curiosity?

[ApostateAbe]

Quite frankly, Abe, Dawn French is so far out of your league that you can't even see a vapour trail. I don't suppose it's ever occured to you that many of these women that you so cheerfully dismiss as 'beasts' wouldn't look twice at you if it was a choice between you and the Yorkshire Ripper.I am glad that I have that assurance, Moose.

[Dragar]

Since we're wandering all over the place, I thought I might mention one of the few girls I've ever really hit it off with.

She was blonde, and blue eyed. From here, on, though Abe's 'babe' criteria is not met.

She was short - shorter than me - which I considered a 'good' thing. She also by no means had the body of a model. She wasn't overweight, but she certainly wasn't someone I'd call thin. She did, however, have a very pretty face and an extremely nice smile.

On looks alone, she was strictly average, if a little below.

So, what did I find so attractive about her?

First of all, her sense of humour was awesome. I rarely find people who make me laugh so much, who get my jokes and who makes jokes I really appreciate. We could talk for ages about so much stuff, and really enjoy it.

She played piano to a very, very high standard, and by ear. She also had a pleasant singing voice (again, not to a very high standard, but pleasing to listen to).

She was also very smart (she's studying engineering at Cambridge, here in England, I believe).

We'd read similar books. We had a lot in common. It was just really nice being around her.

I still think of that girl. I'd have loved to have become more than friends, but my attempts were shot down when she explained I wasn't Christian enough for her.

Anyway, what was the point? Oh, yes. The point was that I was more attracted to her than any number of much more physically attractive girls I've known. There are loads of times when I've met a really good looking girl, only to have her speak and remove any and all attraction I had for her.

[MooseIBe]

Hey my sister's at Cambridge.. did you say this girl is still there Dragar? Which college? :)

[Dragar]

Er.

I don't know which college.

Tell me you don't have a cute, blonde, Christian engineering student for a sister studying at Cambridge? Otherwise, I'd feel rather embarrassed right now.

She'd be just finishing up her second year there (about to start on her third in September).

[MooseIBe]

she's cute and blonde and she's just finished her second year, but fortunately for you she's not a Christian and she's doing a languages degree ;).

[Dragar]

Phew.

I sometimes worry one day that someone who vaguely knows me is going to end up finding this board and reading all these things I've written. I'm far more open here than I am in the 'real' world.

Still...she's cute and blonde, you say?

;)

[MooseIBe]

cute, blonde and attached ;).

I always worry about real life people stumbling on me on one of these boards too .. think of all those sex polls I've started and participated in!

[natasha]

Since we're wandering all over the place, I thought I might mention one of the few girls I've ever really hit it off with.
<snip>

On looks alone, she was strictly average, if a little below.

So, what did I find so attractive about her?

Anyway, what was the point? Oh, yes. The point was that I was more attracted to her than any number of much more physically attractive girls I've known. There are loads of times when I've met a really good looking girl, only to have her speak and remove any and all attraction I had for her.

Dragar, I know what you mean. Like my experience with the "fat" balding on top guy -- super neat guy! Great lover, and he had lots of women! The reverse of this: I was involved with someone who was a real "pretty boy" lol. Buff, tan, you name it. He spent a whole lot of time at the gym, on his hair, etc. But god, he was a supreme ass! What a jerk! Just a friggin' creep. So big deal, he was right out of a magazine ad. His brain and soul were in the toliet.