Here's How Attraction Works

It’s all about pheromones.

 

Men like what is new vs what is old, not necessarily looks.

Women like different things during different times of the month.

 

I see your perspective, and I tend to agree.

Subconsciously, we are seeking the continued survival of our species. (I say subconscious because most people are not aware of the things that make them be.)

Women want security. The security needed to raise and provide for their children. They also want masculinity, or size. This is viewed as a means of protection. A larger male can successfully defend and protect both mother and child as opposed to a smaller, more feeble suitor. The 4 inch rule is evident.

Men want child bearing hips. Voluptuous breasts (assuming the woman to be healthier and more suited to feed the child by comparison) and, of course, an attractive face.

One critical factor is dissimilar attraction. We are naturally inclined towards features dissimilar to our own. For example; women with brown eyes might have a knack for men with blue eyes, and vice versa.

This is very biological. Attraction is obviously so incredibly multifaceted in modern culture.

As an artist and idealist, I am personally extremely picky in the size, shape and face of the type of woman I am attracted to. And, in many cases, I am attracted to women similar in hair color, eye color and complexion to myself. I admire my own genetics, but I'm equally aware of dissimilar attraction and how it plays a role in my own preference.

 

That's right.

 

Attraction sure, but not for real relationships and I think this is where many people go wrong in this... It's a comforting theory to those who A: Feel self important in their supposed ability to attract a mate and often use it as an excuse to act without consideration of others (ie "It's my biology!" Come on haven't we evolved beyond that?). and B: Want an excuse for their inability to attract a mate or as a way to explain their failed relationships. But it does not take into account the countless variable factors of life, each person's individuality (like we must all share one brain... lawls), upbringing and personal tastes and values or the work that goes into romantic relations. While it is undoubtedly true that a better looking and accomplished person will have more success that does not mean everyone is driven purely by such basic factors. It also doesn't mean those factors will do anything other than get your foot in the door. If you don't know what to do beyond that point you will very likely fail. It should be said that while this may make sense from a purely primal standpoint it holds little bearings into real human relationships which are vastly more complex. What one person likes in a partner will vary from the next. And from what i've seen an 'unattractive' or insecure guy can be just as much of a jerk than any 'hot' or 'confident asshole' out there. Just in a different way. The thing is that he knows he can't get away with the same crap as the 'hot assholes' so he'll typically use the 'nice guy approach' meanwhile turning out to actually be internally arrogant, entitled, dismissive and unempathetic. These are often the types of guys that will insult the intelligence of others to raise their own self confidence. That believe everything that goes wrong is their lives is the fault of someone else or factors that are completely beyond their control. And the fact is if they had the looks or confidence of those 'hot confident assholes' they would be out there doing exactly what those guys do. Looks have very little to do with how suitable one is as a partner. They're just a nice add on, but nothing more.

 

There is not anything "wrong" with wanting to be with someone who brings "value" to your life. Assuming that "value" is determined by the individual, there is a wide range of "valuable" attributes.

Imagine that, people get to choose what they find attractive . Whatever will we do?

 

I think that is partially correct, because us humans are animals too, and the primal reproductive instinct still reigns, so yeah, in biological perspective, our basic attraction is like that for a reason.
But we are also more than that, we can choose to stick with the easier way (instinct) or look for something deeper, more profound. That's why there are exceptions to the rules in the dating world, too. But it's of course not easy to find someone who looks for a skin-deep kind of attraction, why? because doing so is acting against animal nature. I think this should be taught to all young idealists: having more awareness of your choice in life would make your life double-triple harder than those who don't think as much. It's inevitable, but it's a price to pay to be beyond your instinctual program. The thing is, the faster you know where you stand, and what is available to you between your expectation vs reality vs what you can do about it, the better. I myself learned this the hard way, too.

 

If our eyes aren't real, how can we tell what is attractive?

 

Umm... I suppose you expect us to notice the attractive car, but in this context there's no way to talk about it without sounding sexist... nice wheels, but I wouldn't want to take them out for a spin. I sold my car about two years ago and would be hesitant to get in the middle of busy traffic again because I'm out of practice. Maybe on some private road or on the beach where it's possible to drive slowly or speed a little in quick spurts without risking collisions and injuries. That particular vehicle looks like it's designed for circuit racing or autobahns. Wir fahr'n fahrn' fahr'n auf der Autobahn.

 

dis is weird. r u weird?

 

It makes perfect sense, although in the literal sense I suppose it is rather odd, inserted into the conversation less gently than is appropriate.

The point is that talking about that kind of picture anything can become a double entendre which objectifies the woman. What are the wheels that are taken out for a spin? The car?

(I blame Benny Hill)

 

What objectifies her? Is it her butt? Does her butt make her an object? I don't get it.

 

No, but writing about cars and driving in ways that can be interpreted to mean I'm actually writing about sex. So even if I do talk about a real situation (not having had a car for two years), when mentioned under the picture that also has a woman dressed like that, it will always seem like I'm comparing a real person to a car. And that comparison reduces her to an object.

 

Okay, so you're being facetious as you being the objectifier, and you're not actually implying that the image is objectifying.

 

Exactly. I didn't even talk about the image as such and what it represents, only about how I may respond to it.

 

objectivity is in the eye of the beholder

:threadinvader:

 

It's an interesting question, whether a certain kind of picture forces the viewer to objectify someone in it, because a picture is just a picture, and yet we're wired in such a way that we immediately start to make connections and even see stories between the elements. So is it the responsibility of the people in it, of the photographer, or the one who sees the picture? But this is a complicated topic that veers too far away from the subject at hand.

This makes my head spin. Objectivity is in subjectivity.:crazybounce: