Thread: What causes physical attraction?

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

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

Long hair is yummy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by DuB

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

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

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

I'd do you.

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

Your awesomeness

Originally Posted by DuB

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Dianeva

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by changed

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

Ughh major buzzkill, haha.

Originally Posted by DuB

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Raphael

Originally Posted by changed

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

Ughh major buzzkill, haha.

Agreed.

Physical attractiveness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

tadaaaaa! ;p

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

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

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

One should have learned this in basic biology.

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

Lust

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

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

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

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

One should have learned this in basic biology.

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

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

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

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

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

Environmental acquisition systems.

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Dianeva

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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