Thread: What causes physical attraction?

I think lust is the selfish desire

where as love is a gift to another person in which they give something back to you

Originally Posted by GavinGill

That's what I meant, North American females in general. While we're at it though, I know it isn't as common as it is here but I've always wondered, is being hairless from the neck down seen as unattractive in Europe or does the majority of the populace not seem to care about it as much as NA folk do?

I'm not a fan of hairy chests. I'm from Britain...

I pretty much agree with everything Dianeva said, and there's six years between our ages. I don't really care about muscle mass, but I prefer the skinny-toned kind of guy over the huge, bodybuilder type. Not a fan of facial hair, chest hair, any kind of hair really. Except on the head, I LOVE a guy with longer, shaggy/messy kind of hair

Eye colour, skin colour, hair colour, doesn't matter. But I don't get in a relationship because of looks. It gets me interested yes, but in the end it comes down to personality. I would much, much rather go for a person with mediocre looks and a great personality over an amazingly hot guy with a shit personality.

I think girls tend to notice all the tiny flaws about themselves that no one else notices/cares about. For example, my stomach, back and arms are ever so slightly more tanned than my face and legs. It's not a big difference, but in the summer when I'm wearing a bikini I go crazy wondering if anyone's noticed. And I don't like fake tan so I don't use it. All my friends just look at me like I'm crazy. It only really changes if I get a tan from the sun, but I prefer being pale.

Everyone sees you differently to how you see yourself. My friends tell me my "waist is tiny" when to me it's average.

I also have really jagged canine teeth. Drives me insane but no one notices or cares.

omg we're all brainwashed into whats attractive... I personally don't care that much. I know most girls are super self conscious about how they look and the ones that think they're ugly are super depressed so because of that I try not to judge. I mean you only can do so much with the physical body your given, and I think its whats on the inside that counts.

I read a study a while ago which confirmed the symmetrical face thing. It's because some people who are more likely to get, or have herpes generally have asymmetrical faces.
And yes, you can tell, even if you don't know it. The human brain is wired to distinguish between human faces, the slightest differences even. So of course it can tell if a face is symmetrical.

Also Freud's theory about being attracted to someone who looks similar to your opposite-sex parent is true.
There was this study with photos of couples and their parents. And people had to choose who the females mother's were and the males fathers. It was a very high percentage (can't remember exactly) who chose the males' partners as the partners' mothers. The same for the reverse.

That's a bit complicated but basically....

Male - Mother
Fucking
Female

People thought the Mother was the females mother because they looked similar.

Of course this is on average and it didn't work out all the time. Same for the symmetry thing.

But it makes sense because if we share half our genes with each of our parents, we will be attracted to similar things as them. Most of the time.

Even better, what causes deviant attractions

Like me, I'm so far out. Big breasts, holy shit no. Butts? No go away!
Those two pictures on the first page, I honestly can not see what is so "hot" or even pretty about either of them. I think there's even something very masculine about them, somehow...

As everyone already knows, I'm a pedophile, so I like small, rounded faces, completely flat chests and just, well, small bodies. There is absolutely no way to explain that, as there is to normal heterosexuality (The thing that big breasts and butts are a sign that the woman will be good at producing children, which makes sense evolution-wise.)

It's a question I've often wondered, too. Hell, I've kinda been forced to think about it when people ask "How can you be attracted to little girls?!", because truthfully I haven't got a clue, it's just the way they look ...
A lot of pedophiles say it's the "innocence", and I kinda get what they mean. But mostly to me, it's just a thing of the visual. And I really have no idea why or what causes it. Usually I find myself attracted to the face, and the chest, even though there's nothing there. Probably a combination, because I don't find little boys' chests attractive, only girls.

My answer is this: The brain is wired to like different things. Heterosexuality is kind of the default, optimal, the one that gives the results that have made humanity survive. Every once in a while, whatever controls this in the brain fucks up and does something else for some reason, which results in deviant sexualities.

I guess we're programmed to release some weird chemicals when we see specific things, like butts and breasts. And for some reason some of us have had that programming fucked up so we release the chemicals when we see different things...

My guess is that it hasn't developed past a certain stage. Whatever "it" is that tells you who is a prime sexual candidate.

@tommo
I think it's more likely that people tend to be attracted to people who look like themselves, and their parents only by extension of that. The Freud thing doesn't seem to apply to me. I think of my boyfriend and my dad and I just don't see a similarity (or any more similarity that I'd find between any two randomly selected people). and I'm glad because if it was true it would be pretty disturbing. The Freud thing probably seems to make sense because people tend to be attracted to people like themselves, and people's parents are also like themselves. This is all speculation, what it seems to me, I haven't looked into it at all.

It seems almost all girls are attracted to men who are self-confident and a bit cocky or are rich, but I'm very repelled by those qualities. I often get the sense around guys like that that they're trying to manipulate people. I'm more attracted to shy quiet thoughtful guys, but again I think that's because they're qualities I have, that I can relate to. I was once incredibly attracted to a guy who I didn't find physically attractive, a customer while I was working (Tim Hortons), just because he was carrying a fantasy book I'd read and after asking him about it realized we both read fantasy and had read a lot of the same books. Sometimes I'll be a bit attracted to someone simply because he's being nice to me. And still other times I've been attracted to a guy based purely on his appearance. I guess there are many different ways to be attracted.

Yes that is a possibility too. Actually now that I think about it, I've thought that before as well, and it's probably more likely, based on my experience anyway. Hmmmm.... Still you are probably right, there are most likely many reasons, not a single one. As usual.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Your awesomeness

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.