Thread: Do girls tend to be attracted to guys who look "innocent"?

These type of men are comfortable with themselves and confident, so are naturally more receptive, open-minded, and "gentle". It basically shows that you've been around the block once or twice, you know yourself and you know other people. You take responsibility for your actions and are willing to shoulder the blame, the hurt, the pain, and to treat others with respect while still knowing how to have a good time and make people laugh. Girl's and men alike can't get enough of that shit because who doesn't like nice people who want to have a good time and take care of you?

Don't want to disappoint you or anything, but girls who finds guys innocent/cute/shy like them as friends. I can't speak for every girl, but most are attracted to confident and dominant males. It's merely an evolutionary/survival thing, confidence and dominance are traits of power. Power = he will be able to protect her and their children so their species will continue on.

Originally Posted by mimihigurashi

Don't want to disappoint you or anything, but girls who finds guys innocent/cute/shy like them as friends. I can't speak for every girl, but most are attracted to confident and dominant males. It's merely an evolutionary/survival thing, confidence and dominance are traits of power. Power = he will be able to protect her and their children so their species will continue on.

Yes, certainly, what I meant was the kind of innocence where the guy still appears as confident.
Think of as a modest kind of confidence, where the guy might appear shy but still seems to be comfortable with himself and the people around him.

Yes, what woman can't respect a man that aims to take care of her and her children? A man is willing to leave one's past behind in order to make a better future. That is sexy /and I would love a women who is very receptive and let's me do as I please in their name. I want to makethem comfortable and provide the best life possible to them, and anyone trying to stand in my way better run and hide. and do their own re-evaluation of life.

There's a big difference between being innocent and being experienced.

For the most part I don't know of any girls who really and truly like the shy deal. Oh, they're out there, and there are very many, but they're not everywhere you look. A lot of girls think that shy guys are cute, but the kind of cute we're talking about here is very different from the kind of "relationship" cute. It's . . . well, it's like an, "Awww! You're so sweet and innocent, just look at you!!! Let's be friends!"

On the other hand, a lot of girls like guys who are quiet. It's the bad boy thing. (Which, actually, I can't say I like very much . . . hmm.)

Yea I have to agree with the Mimihigurashi. Being innocent, WAY more often than not will get you a straight shot into the friendzone. Thats only for the majority of girls though, very few like guys that are shy and innocent and aren't well known. They like a guy who has something going for himself, stands out, has a great amount of confidence, and stuff along those lines.
Now with the charming thing, part of that is true. Girls like a dude that can show that he cares about her, but you have to find the right degree because if you don't, your asking to be friendzoned. Thats were seduction and all that jazz comes in. Off of experience, 95% of the girls at my school go for the confident outgoing guys, especially if they play sports. Almost all of the shy and quiet guys get friendzoned immediately. It happened to me alot freshman and part of sophomore year. I figured it out a while back and since then alot has changed for the good.
If I could sum it up:
Girls like dudes who GO for the girl and takes the initiative. Doing that takes confidence alone.

Girl's find shy guys like their children. They need to be protected. They can't stand up for themselves. So, why would a woman want to date a child? Well, quite, simply, they wouldn't. It's their turn to be protected, something worth the time and effort to keep safe.

It really depends on the girl. As far as I'm concerned, I like shy guys, they are the ones I build the strongest relationships with when I get to know them. My first relationship lasted over 3 years and I'm on my second, almost a year into it already. I've been with other less shy guys, but they haven't lasted long. I'm quite shy myself, and I think shy people take longer to get to know. Most won't take this time and that's why they quit, but those who do take their time are worthy.

^^ I agree with her ^^

However, I am in high school and it seems like a lot of girls are attracted to douche-ey guys (sorry for the language, it is the most accurate description I can think of) because at this age no one trusts each other. Everyone feels like they are being oppressed by everyone else and is scared to show their true selves, so they just act like really shallow people because that makes them less vulnerable. Because of this, I try to be very confident in myself, but at the same time be extremely inclusive and nice to everyone. When in doubt, laugh or smile and make an agreeable statement.

At the same time, I kind of feel like I am attracted to confident/strong girls (I am a guy). I don't mean like super macho and tough, just competent... or equal. The kind of person who could be my partner in a zombie apocalypse. It just seems like so many girls are purposefully incompetent because that is the cultural norm, and while I don't necessarily think that is bad, I find it un-attractive.
Do any other guys agree?

It depends on all sorts of things, mainly on how attractive the guy is, and if it's about girls, or grown women.
I did find it attractive as a girl, but less so with rising age on both sides of the affair.
Like with max. beginning of the twenties it was sort of cute, and not only for friend-zoning, but then that changed, it's not very convincing if a 30 year old looks as if life hasn't yet properly reached him.
Go on smiling sweetly, if you're pretty, and have something to say, upon maybe even being approached - it's going to work.
I had to approach my second ever, shy and cute boyfriend, never regretted that.

My best advice for anyone who wants anyone. Is to be yourself no matter what lable you get out from that. Shy/confident/quiet/social etc etc.. And by being yourself, then you get direct response. About if the person you show interest for, are truly suitable for you or not. Or you for them.

When I was alot younger and scared of men, I went for the shy, innocent, sweet boyish, sometimes even androgynous guy. Probably because he seemed less threatening and easier to control. Now that I'm an adult, I like muscles and gruff and all that manly stuff. Along with a balance of power.

This kind of topic is really hard to generalize though. I can only speak from personal experience.

most women my age seem to be attracted to the strong, confident man, that makes a pretty good income. tall, dark, and handsome type.

unfortunately, most women my age don't believe i'm their age.

lol

omg no fucking WAY

I love Dawn Upshaw, met her at the MET (lol pun). Also, last time I ever heard anyone mention Knoxville: Summer of 1915 was 18 years ago at SMU <3

Originally Posted by mimihigurashi

Don't want to disappoint you or anything, but girls who finds guys innocent/cute/shy like them as friends. I can't speak for every girl, but most are attracted to confident and dominant males. It's merely an evolutionary/survival thing, confidence and dominance are traits of power. Power = he will be able to protect her and their children so their species will continue on.

People give WAY too much importance to the "evolutionary/survival" theory of attraction. Isn't it just a little coincidental that the kind of "confident, dominant" male that we women are supposed to desire for "biological" reasons just happens to be identical with the "macho warrior" male role-model that our war-oriented culture has been portraying as the ultimate male "ideal" for centuries?

Biology is behind our desire to breed. Biological psychology/instinct (for tribe-oriented primates) means we desire mates with high status. But once we crossed the self-consciousness threshold, what determined "high status" in our tribes became more a social/cultural issue. Sure, in cultures where women don't have much power, it's natural for women to desire "powerful" men for protection...but that's not biological.

And, for the record, I like shy guys, because I find nerdboys (that is, members of my social tribe, if not my biological one ) sexy. But then, I was a weird kid. I've always found "bad boys" to be overrated...maybe because that describes a lot of the males in my family, so I grew up with a real clear view of their weaknesses and unattractive traits...

so I grew up with a real clear view of their weaknesses and unattractive traits...

Me too! ..Except that I was the one I saw this weakness in, from this kinda "macho behaviour". But that is a lesson I dont regret. I know now that most of what people see as "Alpha male" is really masked psychological fears. That takes the expression of false self-confidence. I see this "macho behaviour" daily at my work since I work at different construction sites, where this behaviour is flourishing.

Originally Posted by DreamyBear

Me too! ..Except that I was the one I saw this weakness in, from this kinda "macho behaviour". But that is a lesson I dont regret. I know now that most of what people see as "Alpha male" is really masked psychological fears. That takes the expression of false self-confidence. I see this "macho behaviour" daily at my work since I work at different construction sites, where this behaviour is flourishing.

I wouldn't classify "macho behaviour" as being an alpha male, that just sounds like an attempt to appear strong and get attention.
A true alpha male, in my opinion, is a guy who has a natural ability to get noticed and appreciated by other people, and who expresses true confidence and is comfortable with himself, and takes charge and is not afraid to flirt with the girls he is interested in.
And I can definitely see that a lot of women would probably find that very sexy.

But of course you can express self-esteem in different ways.
A guy who may be a bit timid and shy can still have a lot of sex appeal if he looks kind and has a charming personality.
Personally I tend to look both happy and shy at the same time when I feel good, and that does seem to make a lot of girls respond very well.
But maybe that's a Swedish thing or something.

Originally Posted by ShinyAeon

People give WAY too much importance to the "evolutionary/survival" theory of attraction. Isn't it just a little coincidental that the kind of "confident, dominant" male that we women are supposed to desire for "biological" reasons just happens to be identical with the "macho warrior" male role-model that our war-oriented culture has been portraying as the ultimate male "ideal" for centuries?

Biology is behind our desire to breed. Biological psychology/instinct (for tribe-oriented primates) means we desire mates with high status. But once we crossed the self-consciousness threshold, what determined "high status" in our tribes became more a social/cultural issue. Sure, in cultures where women don't have much power, it's natural for women to desire "powerful" men for protection...but that's not biological.

And, for the record, I like shy guys, because I find nerdboys (that is, members of my social tribe, if not my biological one ) sexy. But then, I was a weird kid. I've always found "bad boys" to be overrated...maybe because that describes a lot of the males in my family, so I grew up with a real clear view of their weaknesses and unattractive traits...

Whether some people give "way too much importance" to this theory is irrelevant, it's still a completely accurate reason/explanation why most women prefer dominant males over submissive ones. What people should be doing is to stop assuming that a dominant male immediately = a complete douchebag who treats all women like dirt. Yeah, there are some, but those aren't worth any woman with self respect's time.
It's not a good thing to stay in denial just to feel better.

I wouldn't classify "macho behaviour" as being an alpha male, that just sounds like an attempt to appear strong and get attention.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by mimihigurashi

Whether some people give "way too much importance" to this theory is irrelevant, it's still a completely accurate reason/explanation why most women prefer dominant males over submissive ones.

It may be an accurate reason, but it's not biological...that was my point. It's cultural. Meaning, it's not something Nature bred into us that (therefore) we have little ability to change, but something our own, human-created society trained us in, and, therefore, we have total ability to change.

What people should be doing is to stop assuming that a dominant male immediately = a complete douchebag who treats all women like dirt.

To me, at least, "dominant" has that connotation...that of, well..."dominating." I don't think that "Domination = Douchebag" is an unreasonable connection to make. (For any gender, matter of fact.)

Now, call someone protective, far-sighted, and a natural leader, and I'd agree that is not equivalent to douchebaggery. A male like that is very attractive. But a male like that can also be somewhat shy or innocent, and does not have to be "dominant."

There's also no reason a woman can't be a protective, far-sighted, natural leader, of course...but when you refer to that type of person an "alpha male," you automatically (albeit unconsciously) exclude women from qualifying. Hence, my dislike for that term.

Yeah, there are some, but those aren't worth any woman with self respect's time.
It's not a good thing to stay in denial just to feel better.

Now, that we can all agree on!

Originally Posted by ShinyAeon

It may be an accurate reason, but it's not biological...that was my point. It's cultural. Meaning, it's not something Nature bred into us that (therefore) we have little ability to change, but something our own, human-created society trained us in, and, therefore, we have total ability to change.

To me, at least, "dominant" has that connotation...that of, well..."dominating." I don't think that "Domination = Douchebag" is an unreasonable connection to make. (For any gender, matter of fact.)

Now, call someone protective, far-sighted, and a natural leader, and I'd agree that is not equivalent to douchebaggery. A male like that is very attractive. But a male like that can also be somewhat shy or innocent, and does not have to be "dominant."

There's also no reason a woman can't be a protective, far-sighted, natural leader, of course...but when you refer to that type of person an "alpha male," you automatically (albeit unconsciously) exclude women from qualifying. Hence, my dislike for that term.



Now, that we can all agree on!

You cannot be serious now.. No, it's very biological. It happens all the time in nature. Males fight over females and the female mates with the victorious male, because he is the dominant, stronger male, more likely to breed strong offspring and protect them to continue the species. This is something I thought everyone knows and it's far from human-created cultural society, to say the least. Obviously, men shouldn't literally fight and hurt each other over women, you know what I mean. We're still part of the animal kingdom, and all I said applies to us as well, whether we like it or not, it's nature.

Well, to you, "dominant" has that connotation, it doesn't mean an alpha male is automatically a scumbag. Let's leave biases aside when speaking objectively. You have the right to be attracted to whoever you want, but please don't automatically say everyone that has a certain trait is bad just because you personally feel a certain way.

There's also no reason a woman can't be a protective, far-sighted, natural leader, of course...but when you refer to that type of person an "alpha male," you automatically (albeit unconsciously) exclude women from qualifying. Hence, my dislike for that term.

Good point! I like your dislike for that term.