Importance of women's physical look to men

[WildRanger]

I suppose this would be an interesting discussion.

In general men care much more for women's physical look (beauty/attractiveness) than women for men's.
Why? What is a main reason?

[Adami]

Boobs is awesome.

[The Walrus]

oh dear

[MirrorMask]

In general men care much more for women's physical look (beauty/attractiveness) than women for men's.

Source?

[Lonk]

In general men care much more for women's physical look (beauty/attractiveness) than women for men's.

Source?

Beat me to it lol

 

[WildRanger]

In general men care much more for women's physical look (beauty/attractiveness) than women for men's.

Source?

No source.

[MirrorMask]

In general men care much more for women's physical look (beauty/attractiveness) than women for men's.

Source?

No source.

This is where I go

[lonestar]

 






















 

[Elite]

I suppose this would be an interesting discussion.

Sure.

[Chino]

I suppose this would be an interesting discussion.

In general men care much more for women's physical look (beauty/attractiveness) than women for men's.
Why? What is a main reason?

What are you basing this off of?

[El Barto]

Boobs is awesome.

While I certainly agree, isn't there an aspect of the psyche that differs between guys and gals where-by men tend to be more visually stimulated as opposed to women? I mean, I realize this is WildRanger so we have to start from a position of ridicule and all, but isn't there some scientific basis for this? You can find plenty of examples. Men don't generally read adult literature, though they do like the pictures. poRn for women is significantly different than the standard "I'm the plumber and I'm here to fix your pipes" porn for men. Just a matter of varying stimuli.

[Chino]

I mean, if we really want to get down to the nitty gritty - Throughout most of the animal kingdom and for a lot of early human history, females simply don't/didn't have a choice in their mate. I mean, let's be real, the bulk of the animal kingdom survives on what's basically rape. The male decides what female it wants, and with its extra mass gets the one it wants. The genes in males to be attracted to females that would bare good children get passed down. The females don't have the luxury of picking and choosing their mate, and therefore don't really have the instinctual drive to pick out certain features.  It's wiring.


And yes, I'm aware there are plenty of examples in nature where a female does have a say in the mate to an extent - Many bird species, a lot of primates, large cats, elephants, etc..

[Adami]

Boobs is awesome.

While I certainly agree, isn't there an aspect of the psyche that differs between guys and gals where-by men tend to be more visually stimulated as opposed to women? I mean, I realize this is WildRanger so we have to start from a position of ridicule and all, but isn't there some scientific basis for this? You can find plenty of examples. Men don't generally read adult literature, though they do like the pictures. poRn for women is significantly different than the standard "I'm the plumber and I'm here to fix your pipes" porn for men. Just a matter of varying stimuli.

With vague concepts such as beauty, then no. But what we find appealing can vary based mostly on evolutionary needs. Breasts and hips obviously have underlying messages about having children which appeal to men, while men can show features that signify protection, care giving, etc that might be more appealing to women from an evolutionary perspective. Society has rendered a lot of that so muddled that it's damn near impossible to create any kind of modern meaning from it anymore. Have men been socially conditioned to focus on certain things? Of course. But what qualitative discrepancy are we looking for as far as WR's original question goes? There's a reason Thor has to be topless in his movies, or that Chris Pratt had to do the Marvel diet, or at the Marvel diet even exists. There's a reason fat and bald are usually words spoken by women to signify complete disgust and low levels of attractiveness. Women are just as into attractiveness as men are. I see tons of guys who girls I think are super ugly but the guy doesn't care at all. I see tons of girls with guys I think are ugly as hell but the girl doesn't seem to care.

Plus dating app culture has definitely shifted SO much toward physical attractiveness that I don't see a meaningful qualitative difference as far as practical applications go. I've met some extremely moderate to meh looking girls who have hundreds of guys hitting on them, while an ugly guy like me is lucky to have 2-3 girls a year show any interest. That isn't based on my personality (which rules) but solely on my looks because...shocking...women care about looks.

Bart, if you want to shift the question to having different things we're attracted to, then that's a vastly different question or assumption that women don't care about physical looks as much as men do.

[pg1067]

In general men care much more for women's physical look (beauty/attractiveness) than women for men's.

Source?

No source.

So...you're making shit up and then asking us to explain why the shit you made up is true.  Got it.

[El Barto]

Boobs is awesome.

While I certainly agree, isn't there an aspect of the psyche that differs between guys and gals where-by men tend to be more visually stimulated as opposed to women? I mean, I realize this is WildRanger so we have to start from a position of ridicule and all, but isn't there some scientific basis for this? You can find plenty of examples. Men don't generally read adult literature, though they do like the pictures. poRn for women is significantly different than the standard "I'm the plumber and I'm here to fix your pipes" porn for men. Just a matter of varying stimuli.

With vague concepts such as beauty, then no. But what we find appealing can vary based mostly on evolutionary needs. Breasts and hips obviously have underlying messages about having children which appeal to men, while men can show features that signify protection, care giving, etc that might be more appealing to women from an evolutionary perspective. Society has rendered a lot of that so muddled that it's damn near impossible to create any kind of modern meaning from it anymore. Have men been socially conditioned to focus on certain things? Of course. But what qualitative discrepancy are we looking for as far as WR's original question goes? There's a reason Thor has to be topless in his movies, or that Chris Pratt had to do the Marvel diet, or at the Marvel diet even exists. There's a reason fat and bald are usually words spoken by women to signify complete disgust and low levels of attractiveness. Women are just as into attractiveness as men are. I see tons of guys who girls I think are super ugly but the guy doesn't care at all. I see tons of girls with guys I think are ugly as hell but the girl doesn't seem to care.

Plus dating app culture has definitely shifted SO much toward physical attractiveness that I don't see a meaningful qualitative difference as far as practical applications go. I've met some extremely moderate to meh looking girls who have hundreds of guys hitting on them, while an ugly guy like me is lucky to have 2-3 girls a year show any interest. That isn't based on my personality (which rules) but solely on my looks because...shocking...women care about looks.

Bart, if you want to shift the question to having different things we're attracted to, then that's a vastly different question or assumption that women don't care about physical looks as much as men do.

That wasn't me shifting the question as much as you addressing a different point than the one I made. I understand that looks are subjective. Lemmy got plenty of tale, after all. The point I was getting at was that, at least as I understand it, sexual stimulation, and presumably other sorts of stimulation, seems to be centered on the visual with men. That's not to say that men don't appreciate a winning personality, or that women don't care what a guy looks like. Simply that sexuality in men and women seem to originate in different parts of the brain.

[Adami]

I have no idea where in the brain it originates. That's not really my area of expertise or even a big concern (I'm just not a biological reductionist in that way). But much of it is social grooming. Men are groomed to be pleased, and women are groomed to please (this is SUPER vague and not accurate outside of the abstract) so we look for different things. This is also changing considerably. We're in a transition period right now, so it's even harder to answer.

[King Postwhore]

Physical features always it the first attraction.  What makes a relationship last is all the other great attributes that you find out dating and or living with each other.   

[The Walrus]

I mean, if we really want to get down to the nitty gritty - Throughout most of the animal kingdom and for a lot of early human history, females simply don't/didn't have a choice in their mate. I mean, let's be real, the bulk of the animal kingdom survives on what's basically rape. The male decides what female it wants, and with its extra mass gets the one it wants. The genes in males to be attracted to females that would bare good children get passed down. The females don't have the luxury of picking and choosing their mate, and therefore don't really have the instinctual drive to pick out certain features.  It's wiring.


And yes, I'm aware there are plenty of examples in nature where a female does have a say in the mate to an extent - Many bird species, a lot of primates, large cats, elephants, etc..

There are species of dragonfly where the female can remove the sperm of another male if they want to. Or maybe the new male can remove it as well. Nature is gnarly.

One that always makes me laugh is the stag beetle. The male climbs the tree all the way to the top parts where the females like to hide, then after they're done boinking, the male picks up the female and throws her out of the tree 

[El Barto]

I have no idea where in the brain it originates. That's not really my area of expertise or even a big concern (I'm just not a biological reductionist in that way). But much of it is social grooming. Men are groomed to be pleased, and women are groomed to please (this is SUPER vague and not accurate outside of the abstract) so we look for different things. This is also changing considerably. We're in a transition period right now, so it's even harder to answer.

A quick google-fu suggests that a whole lot has been written on exactly what I'm talking about. Men are aroused by imagery, and this occurs at a subconscious level. Women are aroused more by ideas than images. Of course there's a fair amount of overlap, but the triggers of arousal are definitely different for men and women.

This reads more like an article for People than a psychological journal, but here is one of many explanations.

Part 1: Are male brains hard-wired to see females as sex objects?
Pt 2: What turns men on won’t work for women.

To be honest, I thought this was all kind of common knowledge, and in any case, I think it provides an answer to the OP.

[Stadler]

My understanding is that El Barto is right on the mark, but I think there's still a subjectivity in there.  The physical still feeds the abstract.  It's not a mistake on any level that the GUY in "Fifty Shades" was a beast in the sack and out, and the female was... well, not Margot Robbie. 

I know for me, when I was in my divorced phase the SINGLE biggest roadblock to any success with the ladies that I had was height.   So while that's not necessarily what we think of when we say "good looks", it IS a "physical look" in the abstract sense. 

[cramx3]

I think physical attractiveness is important to both sexes.  I also agree with EB that there is some science to explain the nuances and also what Adami has stated about society and how that has changed some of this.

[TheCountOfNYC]

Physical appearance plays a factor, but it’s their personality that really makes them beautiful. My girlfriend is a good looking girl, but she’s also funny, caring, fun to be around, and so many other things and that’s what makes her the most beautiful girl in the world to me. And I’m sure women feel the same way. Believe it or not, men and women are not that different from each other, and I think their inability to understand each other comes from closing their minds off to each other’s feelings due to society’s preconceived notions of their differences.

[The Walrus]

You come for the looks, stay for the personality, if you're not a d-bag

[El Barto]

You come for the looks, stay for the personality, if you're not a d-bag

Which would make appearance the most important thing.

[The Walrus]

You come for the looks, stay for the personality, if you're not a d-bag

Which would make appearance the most important thing.

I disagree. Important maybe for initial attraction, but it's not the most important thing in the long run.

The longest and best relationship I ever had, believe it or not, started off with an Internet conversation, and before I was even sure what she looked like, I found myself very attracted to her. I had caught a glimpse of her in person, but by the time we were talking, I really couldn't remember what she looked like other than her hair color. Now obviously if she was 300 pounds that would not have led anywhere, but still.

[El Barto]

Without the initial interaction there won't be latter ones. The coolest chick in the wold might be sitting at a bar, but if you won't speak to her because she looks like a bigfoot then her personality isn't doing anything for you.

[The Walrus]

Without the initial interaction there won't be latter ones. The coolest chick in the wold might be sitting at a bar, but if you won't speak to her because she looks like a bigfoot then her personality isn't doing anything for you.

That doesn't make it the most important factor to me. The most important factor is the personality because that is what keeps me in for the long haul. But I've dated girls I've been initially head over heels for because of their looks and it didn't last long because we didn't click or something else clashed with personalities. The personality is most important regardless of whether or not the looks set up the initial encounter because that is where you find the most meaningful connections between you and the other person. If you disagree, that's cool, but I don't find the looks to be the most important just because it sets up the encounter. There are massive gaps between 'bigfoot' and 'attractive' and 'supermodel'; I am quite happy being by myself, but I am also not holding out just for 9s and 10s, nor do I seriously judge women like that. As long as someone is reasonably attractive - looks like they take care of themselves, doesn't have anything that I would consider unattractive about them, then whatever. Don't be a douchebag, that is always the most important thing, and can even make someone who is not (in my opinion) "attractive" attractive. It's not like I won't talk to a woman just because she's unattractive. I would argue if you're sitting at the bar only trying to chase tail then sure, I guess looks are most important... but I don't play that game.

[Adami]

You come for the looks, stay for the personality, if you're not a d-bag

Which would make appearance the most important thing.

Important in that it's the necessary thing to set up everything else, but I wouldn't call it the most meaningful, which might be how Kat is meaning it.

[The Walrus]

Right.

[Adami]

I got you dawg.

[El Barto]

You come for the looks, stay for the personality, if you're not a d-bag

Which would make appearance the most important thing.

Important in that it's the necessary thing to set up everything else, but I wouldn't call it the most meaningful, which might be how Kat is meaning it.

Fair enough, but still true to my point.

[Elite]

Look at you now, Katt, engaging in meaningful conversation in a WildRanger thread. Hurray!

[King Postwhore]

Look at you now, Katt, engaging in meaningful conversation in a WildRanger thread. Hurray!

Well you've screwed us now Rich.

[The Walrus]

Look at you now, Katt, engaging in meaningful conversation in a WildRanger thread. Hurray!

Oh no. This is objectively bad for my health.

[TempusVox]

Physical attractiveness may serve as a gatekeeper directing us toward partners who are healthy, age appropriate, and able to reproduce, but research shows it's equally important to men and women; straight, or gay.

Attractiveness tends to be a more important factor in our dating decisions than traits like personality, education, and intelligence- initially. Physical attractiveness may be so important to us because we associate other positive qualities with a pleasing appearance. For example, attractive individuals are expected to be happier and to have more rewarding life experiences than unattractive individuals.

But there are also certain aspects of personality that also get blended into what people deem as attractive, For example, "Sense of Humor' is often important to women, and that can help them see physical traits as more enhanced.

But beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Different people are turned on by different things.

I don't want to call out WildRanger, but this thread reads like he may have been spurned by a woman who is with some dude that HE thinks that be may be less attractive than he is, and is projecting his displeasure of her not choosing him.   

Just a guess.