What do girls search in guys?

[Crescentinus]

Crescentinus, you sly dog.

Read my entire statement please.

 

[Debora123]

Problem is, it would still be offensive since I would be called a pervert and then people would say that I have a breast fetish, when I do not have any fetishes. In fact, I was partly attacking a type of fetish which is rather prevalent in my side of the world.
Hence, I should have said that I prefer women who have a well-proportioned figure. I was going to say that, but the thread was locked.
By well-proportioned, I mean that I prefer a woman who has the various measurements (face and body) proportionate to height. I am an artist and I love beauty.
I am unsure if it’s okay with the rules if I should elaborate on the proportions or not. Should I do it?
In any case, it’s in the realm of the physical and while it’s important attraction-wise, it’s not important compared to other traits such as personality and interpersonal relations.

No, it’s not offensive at all to have physical preferences. Though I guess Vim71 would disagree…

 

[Debora123]

Thinking in such methodical terms is not wise, as you are reducing beauty to some kind of biological function and its parts (genes etc.). Such a view would seem to show you are committed to a kind of Reductionism (which not only denies the existence of universals, but would also be considered heretical by the Church).

You completely misunderstood what I wrote. It’s instinctive and subconscious.

 

[Crescentinus]

No, it’s not offensive at all to have physical preferences. Though I guess Vim71 would disagree…

Actually, I empathize with Vim71, because Vim71 is probably sick and tired of the distortion of priorities regarding physical appearance in mainstream society these days.

So, shall I speak of the proportions?

 

[Crescentinus]

Man, no matter how you say what physical attraction is to you, I believe there are women who would unfortunately take offense at you.

points to real life
Indeed. I think that it’s a product of the Sexual Devolution.

 

[Crescentinus]

Thinking in such methodical terms is not wise, as you are reducing beauty to some kind of biological function and its parts (genes etc.). Such a view would seem to show you are committed to a kind of Reductionism (which not only denies the existence of universals, but would also be considered heretical by the Church).

You’re wrong about teeth.

Dude, she’s simply saying the things which are generally seen as attractive. Don’t worry, she did say that physical appearances are not enough to sustain a relationship.

 

[1AugustSon7]

Every woman is looking for the “Perfect” man… Problem is there is or was only “One Perfect” man and that is Jesus.

So, the more a man is like Jesus, the more perfect he will be… And what did Jesus do? The will of the Father…

When you put the will of the Father first, then good moral (actually all) women will be attached to you… The reason why the “Actually all” note is; even the loose, self centered woman is attracted to Jesus, just won’t admit it…

Think about it…

My God is a stud!

 

[Greg_N]

You completely misunderstood what I wrote. It’s instinctive and subconscious.

No, I didn’t. I was pointing out that it’s not wise to reduce the admiration of beauty to a subconscious biological function, which is what you just did.

If it were indeed the case (that it were ultimately “instinctive and subconscious”), beauty would merely be a means to a biological end.

 

[Debora123]

No, I didn’t. I was pointing out that it’s not wise to reduce the admiration of beauty to a subconscious biological function, which is what you just did.

If it were indeed the case (that it were ultimately “instinctive and subconscious”), beauty would merely be a means to a biological end.

No, that is not what I did.

Never mind. Some people just don’t get it.

 

[Kamaduck]

Actually, I empathize with Vim71, because Vim71 is probably sick and tired of the distortion of priorities regarding physical appearance in mainstream society these days.

So, shall I speak of the proportions?

I’m sick of people this “distortion of priorities”, too, but it’s silly to claim that beauty, health, and attraction have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. They are all fairly important when looking for someone to date and/or marry, but unimportant when dealing with people in other contexts, IMO. Except health, which is also important for a lot of other things. I’m confused as to why it seems to be appreciating health that bothers Vim71 the most.

As far as telling us about your personal tastes, Crescentius, you can, but I advise against it. Someone will be offended, you might end up getting flamed, and it will contribute little to the question of what girls search for in guys. Though, to be honest, we haven’t been discussing that for a while now.

 

[Greg_N]

No, that is not what I did.

Never mind. Some people just don’t get it.

No, I will mind.

You said, (and I quote); “when we think someone is physically attractive, what we’re really thinking is that this person has good genes and would provide us with good offspring.”

You just reduced conscious thought, to a biological mechanism of behavior.

Don’t tell me I “don’t get it”.

 

[Debora123]

No, I will mind.

You said, (and I quote); "when we think someone is physically attractive, what we’re really thinking is that this person has good genes and would provide us with good offspring."

You just reduced conscious thought, to a biological mechanism of behavior.

Don’t tell me I “don’t get it”.

But you didn’t get it, and that’s not at all what I did. Every post you make shows more and more how much you didn’t get it.

What you quoted above from me was one sentence from this whole post:

Yes.

It’s very interesting stuff, actually. Subconsciously and instinctively, when we think someone is physically attractive, what we’re really thinking is that this person has good genes and would provide us with good offspring. Therefore, certain criteria for beauty are more or less universal because they subconsciously symbolize fertility and heath. …Good genes for bringing in the strongest, and healthiest children.

For example:

We tend to like clear skin as opposed to acne. (health/cleanliness)
We tend to like a more fit figure as opposed to obese. (health)
In women, we see curvy hips as being attractive. (fertility)
In men, we see toned muscles as being attractive. (good provider)
We like white teeth. (health/cleanliness)
We like youth. (fertility)
We like symmetry in the face (health)

…Those are certain things we consider beautiful.

I’m not saying, for example, that not having crystal white teeth is unhealthy or dirty. A lot of people’s teeth are just naturally yellowed, and they are still perfectly healthy and clean. However, in our subconscious/instinctive minds, we do see certain things as a sign of health/fertility, even if it isn’t always so.

…And I’m sure someone is going to come back and say something like “well in such and such tribe out in the middle of such and such place, they used to consider acne/obesity/old age/etc etc attractive… so your theory is completely wrong!”

And ok, I’m sure it is possible that there could be some exceptions out there, but in the vast majority, this criteria is more or less timeless and universal.

So, for the sake of being on topic… here’s the moral of the story for the OP:

Take good care of yourself. Keep yourself well groomed. Smell nice. Take showers. Brush your teeth. Try to do some sort of physical activity throughout the week. Eat healthy.

Do those things, and at least physically, you’ll be setting yourself up for success. But don’t forget the other stuff too!

By taking just that one sentence, you’re taking it out of context and completely missing out on what I was actually saying. It wasn’t even the whole sentence… you edited it to not include the first part in which I said “Subconsciously and instinctively, when we think someone…” You took out the bolded part. How in the world do you expect to give an accurate representation of the message someone is trying to convey if all you do is quote one incomplete sentence… while editing out the most crucial part?

I could go on and try to explain it to you in more depth, and overlook the fact that you’re probably not even trying to understand anyway… but at this point I don’t think you’ll see it no matter how much I try to explain it to you, and will probably continue to disagree and argue regardless. So quite honestly I just don’t feel like wasting my time. Just know that you’re way off the mark.

 

[Greg_N]

By taking just that one sentence, you’re taking it out of context and completely missing out on what I was actually saying. It wasn’t even the whole sentence… you edited it to not include the first part in which I said “Subconsciously and instinctively, when we think someone…” You took out the bolded part. How in the world do you expect to give an accurate representation of the message someone is trying to convey if all you do is quote one incomplete sentence… while editing out the most crucial part?

Umm, no. I initially quoted the entire sentence, see below:

Debora123;10472149:

Subconsciously and instinctively, when we think someone is physically attractive, what we’re really thinking is that this person has good genes and would provide us with good offspring.

Thinking in such methodical terms is not wise, as you are reducing beauty to some kind of biological function and its parts (genes etc.). Such a view would seem to show you are committed to a kind of Reductionism (which not only denies the existence of universals, but would also be considered heretical by the Church).

I then (as seen above), simply point out that it is not wise to speak in methodical terms; I never claimed your point to be invalid.

Now Deb, correct me if I’m wrong, but you clearly said:

“when we think someone is physically attractive, what we’re really thinking is that this person has good genes and would provide us with good offspring”.

While your point (that attraction hinges on universal aesthetics) may be correct, your given explanation that “subconscious/instinctive thoughts” about “good genes” and "good offspring” being the ultimate underlying factor concerning beauty; is reductionism.

Therefore, certain criteria for beauty are more or less universal because they subconsciously symbolize fertility and heath. …Good genes for bringing in the strongest, and healthiest children.

Using terminology like “subconsciously symbolize” is ambiguous and unwise when referring to the concept of beauty. (And it obviously is not exclusively subconscious as you claim, as you [and many others] seem to be consciously aware of such “criteria” and its anticipative implications).

 

[Debora123]

Umm, no. I initially quoted the entire sentence, see below:

I then (as seen above), simply point out that it is not wise to speak in methodical terms; I never claimed your point to be invalid.

Now Deb, correct me if I’m wrong, but you clearly said:

“when we think someone is physically attractive, what we’re really thinking is that this person has good genes and would provide us with good offspring”.

While your point (that attraction hinges on universal aesthetics) may be correct, your given explanation that “subconscious/instinctive thoughts” about “good genes” and "good offspring” being the ultimate underlying factor concerning beauty; is reductionism.

Using terminology like “subconsciously symbolize” is ambiguous and unwise when referring to the concept of beauty. (And it obviously is not exclusively subconscious as you claim, as you [and many others] seem to be consciously aware of such “criteria” and its anticipative implications).

It has nothing to do with reductionism buddy, and if that’s what you keep thinking, you clearly have no idea what I actually mean.

The only reason I am “consciously” aware of this is because I learned about it in an anthropology class in college. Otherwise I would have no idea why we consider attractive the things we consider attractive. Now I know it’s because those things symbolize fertility, health, and good genes to us, and we are subconsciously drawn to those things for procreative purposes that we’re not even aware of.

 

[Debora123]

Let’s look, for exmple, at the 2 pictures below:

img.spokeo.com/public/900-600/chace_crawford_2008_07_28.jpg

us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/fotosmurf/fotosmurf0710/fotosmurf071000191/1848965-overweight-mature-man-looking-totally-shocked-when-measuring-his-waistline.jpg

Now, if we had to determine which one of these 2 men is more physically attractive, I guarantee the vast majority of the population would pic guy #1. Now, why is that? If physical beauty is completely and totally subjective, and is 100% always and exclusively in the eye of the beholder, then why wouldn’t the numbers be more 50/50ish? Obviously, because physical beauty isn’t 100% always and exclusively in the eye of the beholder . It can be to a certain extent, of course… but not 100%. There are factors that we humans are naturally more drawn to on a physical level. Youth, clear skin, white teeth, a proportionately smaller waistline… toned muscles in men, curvy hips in women, etc etc.

Now, the question is WHY. Why are we drawn to these factors? Why would the vast majority of us pic guy #1 as the more physically attractive?

I have given the theory I was taught in school - It all goes back to reproduction, survival of the fittest, being attracted to health and fertility so that we can successfully do our most basic human thing… reproduce offspring that will survive, so that our species can survive. It’s a very primitive, instinctive thing that we don’t even realize we have. We don’t consciously think “hmmm, I’m going to date this person because she/he will give me the best babies.” You’re right, that would be reductionism. Because we would purposely be objectifying people, and that would be wrong. But that is why I’ve used words like “subconsciously” “instinctively” and “primitive”.

I’m not talking about objectifying anyone. I’m simply providing my theory of WHY we think certain physical traits are more desirable over other physical traits. And those reasons are not consciously thought out.

For example… curvy hips on women are considered attractive. Why? Because our most primitive, subconscious instincts are associating curvy hips to fertility.

Another example… toned muscles on men are considered attractive. Why? Because our most primitive, subconscious instincts are associating toned muscles with strength and an ability to protect and provide for the family. (think caveman days)

One last example… proportionately smaller waistline on both gender is considered attractive. Why? Because our most primitive, subconscious instincts are associating a proportionately smaller waistline to good health.

So you see, all I’m providing here is a theory of WHY we find attractive what we find attractive. Regardless, it isn’t something we do on purpose.

And now that I’m sure I have completely wasted my time, yet again, I will leave on one final note. Something I’ve already said a dozen times here, but need to say it again because I’m sure someone will attack me and accuse me of being superficial:

LOOKS ARE NOT EVERYTHING. I’m not trying to claim they are. I would give a LOT of advice for someone who is trying to find a date. And the most important advice would probably include having a good heart, a good head on your shoulders, and good direction in life. But I would also include that it wouldn’t hurt to take care of your body too.

 

[Acadia]

Hello,
Thank you so mush for your interested post.I think that Women usually refer to themselves as girls when they want to be viewed less seriously. Girl carries greater sex appeal than the word woman. It presents less of a threat to men. A girl is someone who laughs at your jokes, looks pretty, parties with you and your friends and gives you a big, wet kiss good night.A woman is someone who takes all of your favorite fashion fau pax’s out of your dresser and secretly burns them while you’re at a pool tournament because she’s tired of you embarassing her in public.

 

[Crescentinus]

I’m sick of people this “distortion of priorities”, too, but it’s silly to claim that beauty, health, and attraction have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. They are all fairly important when looking for someone to date and/or marry, but unimportant when dealing with people in other contexts, IMO. Except health, which is also important for a lot of other things. I’m confused as to why it seems to be appreciating health that bothers Vim71 the most.

As far as telling us about your personal tastes, Crescentius, you can, but I advise against it. Someone will be offended, you might end up getting flamed, and it will contribute little to the question of what girls search for in guys. Though, to be honest, we haven’t been discussing that for a while now.

When it comes to appearances, I am talking about it in the context of dating.

I do have a love of beauty based on proportions, because said proportions are quite harmonious aesthetically speaking.

 

[kelvinf]

Hello,
Thank you so mush for your interested post.I think that Women usually refer to themselves as girls when they want to be viewed less seriously. Girl carries greater sex appeal than the word woman. It presents less of a threat to men. A girl is someone who laughs at your jokes, looks pretty, parties with you and your friends and gives you a big, wet kiss good night.A woman is someone who takes all of your favorite fashion fau pax’s out of your dresser and secretly burns them while you’re at a pool tournament because she’s tired of you embarassing her in public.

Methinks a girl is a female usually younger than 30 and a woman is a female usually older than 30. There are some exceptions though.

Age and behaviour go together. So what I am saying fits somewhat to what you said above but not exactly. There are pretty women for instance…

 

[Kamaduck]

Methinks a girl is a female usually younger than 30 and a woman is a female usually older than 30. There are some exceptions though.

Age and behaviour go together. So what I am saying fits somewhat to what you said above but not exactly. There are pretty women for instance…

I usually refer to my peers as “young men and women” when around them, and refer to them as “the other kids” when around adults. It’s relative to who I’m talking to.

Crescentius- I acknowledge that appearances are a valid consideration when dating.

 

[Greg_N]

You’re right, that would be reductionism. Because we would purposely be objectifying people, and that would be wrong. But that is why I’ve used words like “subconsciously” “instinctively” and “primitive”.
I’m not talking about objectifying anyone. I’m simply providing my theory of WHY we think certain physical traits are more desirable over other physical traits. And those reasons are not consciously thought out.

For example… curvy hips on women are considered attractive. Why? Because our most primitive, subconscious instincts are associating curvy hips to fertility.

Another example… toned muscles on men are considered attractive. Why? Because our most primitive, subconscious instincts are associating toned muscles with strength and an ability to protect and provide for the family. (think caveman days)

One last example… proportionately smaller waistline on both gender is considered attractive. Why? Because our most primitive, subconscious instincts are associating a proportionately smaller waistline to good health.

Deb, I don’t intend to embarrass you, but objectifying has nothing to do with reductionism.

My point is that there is more to beauty than the innate biological preferences you keep reducing them to (yes, I said it again). To say that something is beautiful because its linked to “health” and “fertility” is not the whole picture.

For example, what if the roles were reversed? What if it meant; that to be “overweight and weak”, were beneficial to “health and fertility”, while “toned and strong” were indeed detrimental to it?
Could you then say that being overweight and weak was objectively beautiful? If what you claim is true (that beauty is inexplicably linked to “health and fertility”), then the answer would be yes… but such a solution seems utterly implausible! Why? Because beauty itself is something apart from both “health” and “fertility” (even if they are intertwined); it exists as a universal in its own right. There is more to beauty than our “primitive” partialities after all.

So you see, all I’m providing here is a theory of WHY we find attractive what we find attractive. Regardless, it isn’t something we do on purpose.

As I’ve just demonstrated, how can you explain “why” by appealing to something objectively unique in its own right?
How is it that we see beauty in “health and fertility” in the first place? How do you explain the beauty in a sunset or the northern lights?

To say that it’s a “subconscious” “instinctive” or “primitive” inclination (to me) sounds like some evolutionary babble about “survival of the fittest” or some such; when beauty is not about that at all. You cannot reduce beauty to such a banal concept.

And now that I’m sure I have completely wasted my time, yet again

No you haven’t! I’m thankful for your explanation, and I tend to agree with much of what you say, such as; that there is an innate appreciation to beauty (in our human nature) which lends itself to what is inherently good (i.e. the flourishing of humanity through fertility and health); I’m just pointing out that there is a certain uniqueness (however ambiguous) between both beauty and our “primitive” biological preferences of what we find attractive.