Thread: What causes physical attraction?

It has been said the inherent mission of life is to reproduce, securing the continued survival of our species.

As Dave Matthews puts it, "we climb on two by two, to make sure these days continue. Things we can not change." -Two Step

Can't be stated any better. Men and women are, by instincts, attracted to different things n the opposite sex. Men are very very visual.

Women on the other hand must be far more cautious when choosing a mate. They are attracted to a mans survival value. is this man going to be around and provide security to the family unit? They are attracted to the mans personality, more so than his looks, they want the alpha male. Social, intelligent, and adventureous.

Originally Posted by SusyS

Yeah and that desire to want another kid is ingrained in our make up, the desire to reproduce.

Originally Posted by theMagician

It has been said the inherent mission of life is to reproduce, securing the continued survival of our species.

As Dave Matthews puts it, "we climb on two by two, to make sure these days continue. Things we can not change." -Two Step

Can't be stated any better. Men and women are, by instincts, attracted to different things n the opposite sex. Men are very very visual.

Women on the other hand must be far more cautious when choosing a mate. They are attracted to a mans survival value. is this man going to be around and provide security to the family unit? They are attracted to the mans personality, more so than his looks, they want the alpha male. Social, intelligent, and adventureous.

A mistake I often see people make is to confuse the evolutionary reason for something and the psychological reason. The evolutionary reason we're attracted to certain qualities in the opposite sex is that our genes will more likely survive, but that doesn't necessarily mean the psychological reason is the same. I doubt that my reason for being attracted to intelligence, even subconsciously, is because I think an intelligent guy will be more likely to provide for and protect me and my future children. The allure of intelligence is just there in the brain. Same with attraction to body. You aren't attracted to breasts because you're thinking about the milking opportunities for your future offspring with her. There is just an ingrained attraction to breasts. Which got there by evolution, yes, but the attraction itself has nothing to do with some subconscious desire to pass on your genes. My (recent) attraction males with a bit of muscle has nothing to do with a subconscious desire to be protected (well not for me, anyway) - it just looks good.

Originally Posted by SusyS

What came first, the chicken or the egg?

In addition to what PhilosopherStoned said, assuming evolution is true, the egg would have to have come first. Even if the 'egg' in the question refers only to 'chicken egg', the first egg wolud have to have been the one that the first chicken came from, which was laid(layed?) by a non-chicken. This is assuming that we're forced to draw a line between 'chicken' and whatever species came before it. They would be able to mate with one another because they're so closely related, but if we could observe every step of evolution we'd end up forcing ourselves to choose where to draw the lines between species.
EDIT: I've suspected that this question is really a creation vs. evolution question in disguise. For the reason above, if evolution is true the answer is the egg. But if creation were true the answer would be the chicken.

Originally Posted by Dianeva

assuming evolution is true

Not assuming. It's a fact.

Originally Posted by Dianeva

A mistake I often see people make is to confuse the evolutionary reason for something and the psychological reason. The evolutionary reason we're attracted to certain qualities in the opposite sex is that our genes will more likely survive, but that doesn't necessarily mean the psychological reason is the same. I doubt that my reason for being attracted to intelligence, even subconsciously, is because I think an intelligent guy will be more likely to provide for and protect me and my future children. The allure of intelligence is just there in the brain. Same with attraction to body. You aren't attracted to breasts because you're thinking about the milking opportunities for your future offspring with her. There is just an ingrained attraction to breasts. Which got there by evolution, yes, but the attraction itself has nothing to do with some subconscious desire to pass on your genes. My (recent) attraction males with a bit of muscle has nothing to do with a subconscious desire to be protected (well not for me, anyway) - it just looks good.

I don't look at breasts and think that my offspring will be well fed...

I only brought up the desire to pass on ones genes as our inherent mission in life.

As a man, like any man, I am attracted to legs, soft skin, tight but, breast size, proportionate features such as face, hip to waist, ect. I see a girl, and it's automatic, attraction is not a choice.

Originally Posted by theMagician

I only brought up the desire to pass on ones genes as our inherent mission in life.

Passing on our genes is not our inherent mission in life. This is a gross misreading of the facts. We do not exist too make copies of our genes. We exist because our ancestors made copies of their genes. Therefore, we can expect that the genes that we have are good at getting copies of themselves made.

That's all you can say.

You can not extrapolate from that to any of this nonsense about "inherent missions" or anything like that.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Passing on our genes is not our inherent mission in life. This is a gross misreading of the facts. We do not exist too make copies of our genes. We exist because our ancestors made copies of their genes. Therefore, we can expect that the genes that we have are good at getting copies of themselves made.

That's all you can say.

You can not extrapolate from that to any of this nonsense about "inherent missions" or anything like that.

Whatever, you are missing my point. Survival and replication, all the way back to the caveman days. If it wasn't, you or I would most likely not be here.

I'm not talking about cloning and making an exact copy of my genes, I'm talking about our control over the continued survival of our species.passing on my bloodline to the next generation and so on and so on.

If it wasn't inherent instinct to find, meet, attract and reproduce, we may have become extinct already. You know, human nature... So where does human nature come from... Oh yeah, our instincts.

Think of pandas who won't fvck to save their species

Originally Posted by theMagician

Whatever, you are missing my point. Survival and replication, all the way back to the caveman days. If it wasn't, you or I would most likely not be here.

No, you're missing my point. None of that makes it our "inherent mission" or any such similar bullshit. We are free agents that can exercise our will in anyway we want.

I don't know if you know this or no,but when you mate and reproduce, both partners genes get passed, not an exact copy, duh. I'm not talking about cloning and making an exact copy of my genes, I'm talking about our control over the continued survival of our species.passing on my bloodline to the next generation and so on and so on.

Most genes that do get transmitted will have an exact replica of them made. Each gene (and we're really using the term loosely here, we should be saying allele) has a 50% chance barring meiotic drive. What's your point? "Survival of the species" has nothing to do with evolution.

If it wasn't inherent instinct to find, meet, attract and reproduce, we may have become extinct already.

That's what I said. Again, this does not mean that it's our "inherent mission" to reproduce. It just means that the genes that build us are good at getting copies of themselves made. The equip us with an inherent instinct to "meet, attract and reproduce." None of this makes it our "inherent mission".

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

No, you're missing my point. None of that makes it our "inherent mission" or any such similar bullshit. We are free agents that can exercise our will in anyway we want.



Most genes that do get transmitted will have an exact replica of them made. Each gene (and we're really using the term loosely here, we should be saying allele) has a 50% chance barring meiotic drive. What's your point? "Survival of the species" has nothing to do with evolution.



That's what I said. Again, this does not mean that it's our "inherent mission" to reproduce. It just means that the genes that build us are good at getting copies of themselves made. The equip us with an inherent instinct to "meet, attract and reproduce." None of this makes it our "inherent mission".

BTw, this all theory, but it makes the most since. Survival and replication value is really about primal instincts; we don't go off survival and replication value in a realistic environment anymore (because modern life is more than just about surviving and having sex--see Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs), but they are the foundation of the attraction switches, as in, triggering an attraction switch inherently indicates that you do have higher survival and replication value. Together, survival and replication value make up your "value", or how attractive you are as a possible mate. When women judge men, they look for the highest value mate because he is most likely to increase her chance of survival (and again, it happens subliminally). Similarly, when men judge women, they look for wide hips and large breasts because those indicate high replication value (even though, naturally, we don't know why we like it, we just do). This thread is about what causes attraction, therefor you must know where it comes from.
Modernism surfaced around the end of the Middle Ages, it's a relatively a new concept.

Forgot, you also mentioned that survival of a species has nothing to do with evolution.... Survival of the fittest ring a bell?