For me, I have observed that romantic attraction to someone takes three ingredients[1]:
The qualities I find admirable, I generally list as: intelligence, beauty, kindness, competence, ethicality, etc. (Mostly the same as the list of qualities I find admirable in a human.) Possibly there are more that I didn't think of, or haven't seen vary independently from the above.
There is room for some of these traits to compensate for others: e.g. I've met several girls whose physical attractiveness is "meh", but, after I gained a better appreciation for their intelligence and other qualities, I developed romantic feelings for them. However, some traits can be dealbreakers: e.g. a few times I liked someone who was really smart and pretty, but then I saw evidence that they were mean (that they deliberately did something to hurt someone else, or treated someone callously and disrespectfully), and my feelings evaporated (that doesn't mean I formed a final judgment of them, and in one case I changed my mind later; but "holding judgment in abeyance due to serious concerns" does dissipate feelings). Some traits might be "able to be compensated for, if within some range, but if extreme enough could be dealbreakers"; actually that might be the case for most traits.
"That she likes/appreciates me" is a thing possibly deserving special attention. It feeds into #2, of course, and possibly into #1—it's extremely self-serving, but I do think I'm admirable by my own standards, and that it reflects well on someone if they manage to notice the right things and value them.[2] However, I've certainly formed lots of crushes where I had little data on whether they liked me back. Which, I suppose, is stronger evidence about the underlying qualities (as I perceived them) of the last group; one could imagine girls who are at the borderline, such that if they like me then I like them, but if they don't then I don't.
One could imagine being tempted to be strategic: hiding whether you like me, so you can find out whether you're in the borderline group. (I've heard of fictional characters doing this, and real people doing at least somewhat similar things.) I'll mention reasons not to do this: (a) in context, depending on what "hiding" consists of, it might be weird or register as an inconsistency; (b) given that at least one of us has scored 30+ on the Autism Spectrum Quotient, it seems likely that what you believe I've seen about you and the signals you're sending doesn't match what I've received; (c) for a long-term committed relationship, both of us want much better than borderline, so we should be able to cooperate on finding that out anyway; (d) I value honesty and straightforwardness, and good decisionmaking—and if you truly saw a likelihood of a great long-term relationship with me, but decided to risk it on signaling games that could run afoul of (a) and (b), that strikes me as a bad decision.
You ask specifically about age. I do intend to have kids, which makes the age of my wife-to-be relevant—though if she's fine with IVF and stuff (which has other advantages), that makes age less relevant. I have found women in their forties and fifties sexually attractive (speaking as a 30-year-old), and had romantic feelings for one of the latter—she's extremely smart, reasonably pretty, very competent, very kind, has similar opinions about raising kids, etc. Not all guys like older women, but the popularity of MILF porn indicates that plenty do (there is even a GILF category).
I think the underlying causality is like this:
- If I admire her, then my brain generally endorses the idea of spending time with her, growing to trust her, building a relationship.
- If the first two conditions apply, then, when I imagine interacting with her, I will generally find it enjoyable, and want to do more of it. This can become a self-reinforcing loop. Romantic fantasy can be a lovely pastime.
- The third condition lets the loop begin.
For the record, I have sometimes observed someone form a positive opinion of me based on something shallow or incorrect, and my reaction has been bemused / raising an eyebrow / somewhat lowering my opinion of them.
for a long-term committed relationship, both of us want much better than borderline, so we should be able to cooperate on finding that out anyway;
I think it's worth being specific about "borderline," curious what you think about this.
In my model, most people in the same culture broadly agree on people's attractiveness levels - there's a "g factor" for attractiveness. They also compete effectively for mates. Being heteronormative for a moment, this means that the husbands find their wives about as attractive as the wives find their husbands.
Luck...
To be very blunt about this:
Among other things, I'm interested to understand how age factors into the equation (I'm middle-aged).
It is unfortunately the case that male-to-female attraction usually drops strongly with age. This factor is perhaps even more strong than body weight. And unlike weight, it can't really be influenced by you.
But I think there is an important thing you can do: Signalling much more strongly when you are interested in someone. "Do you want to grab a coffee later?" Trying to be active, not passive, even if this goes against the normal female instinct. Of course this is easier said than done. But just "dropping hints" is unfortunately no longer sufficient at a certain age. This is especially true for the ... "nerd cluster" you are interested in: Since those men are often on the autism spectrum to some degree, they may rarely notice those hints. But they may well be interested in you once they fully realize you are interested in them. Older age just prevents them from automatically (subconsciously) noticing you as a potential mate. Moreover, them being often socially awkward will prevent them from being sufficiently active (due to shyness), so they may well be very glad to be "asked out" by you, even if this is a reversal of the normal male/female roles.
(I just realize I could also have written "we" instead of "they".)
As far as age goes, I've never dated someone more than my own age +/- 3 years, althouogh I've occasionally been faintly attracted to significantly older women and often been attracted to significantly younger women.
I've schooled myself to stop evaluating women in terms of "attractiveness," and to start instead evaluating them in terms of being in my league. I start by assuming that the dating market is pretty efficient, then modify that by assuming that women who present as attractive immediately on meeting them tend to be less available and women who take a while to show their attractive qualities are underappreciated. I'm pretty average, and my experience is that dating more attractive women has meant I have to make a lot of tradeoffs in the ethics/brains/stability department, while dating less attractive women means that the opposite holds true. I interpret this as Simpson's Paradox in action.
Because of that, if you are having trouble finding a high-quality stable relationship, I would suggest you consider aiming for somewhat less attractive men with better personalities, while also working to improve whatever aspects of your superficial presentation are under your control. You might try aiming for men who are older than you. I realize this is a little more information than you're asking for, but I actually do think that there's a difference between "noticing that someone has a hot body" and "appreciating that they are attractive." The former feels like kind of a raw perceptive fact, the latter is something that depends on my own behavior. To make men find you attractive, you need to elicit the act of appreciating your attractiveness from them, not just "be attractive." And eliciting the that action from them starts by selecting appropriate targets - the kind of men who will be predisposed to find you attractive often because you're younger and perhaps somewhat more accomplished than them, at least on certain dimensions.
Such much to agree with. I couldn't care less about long hair or stylishness but care a lot of about sense of humour and having things in common to do. But, hey, I have only really had one relationship, 30+ years and counting. Shape sadly does matter - I dont find very overweight attractive. Also wouldnt consider anyone not close to my age, probably +/- 2
[Epistemic status: not really an expert, but I can tell you what I think I know. Also, as a heterosexual male human person with some skill at introspection, I'm sure I have some insights about how men think, but I may have trouble separating that from my own idiosyncrasies.]
Evolutionary psychology tells us that human instincts are optimized for the Stone Age. The period of written history is too short to have contributed much (although there have been some small effects noted in other areas) and the modern era (however you define that) is even shorter.
Those with the appropriate drives who more successfully survived and reproduced contributed to our shared genetic heritage, while those who failed to do that were not your ancestors. Keep that in mind, and the rest will make more sense.
Humans are adaptation executors, not fitness maximizers; the instincts only had to make sense in the Stone Age and may have lost their purpose now.
Beyond instincts, culture and shared experience have a powerful influence on human minds, and this can bend some of the rules. (And, of course, individual human beings can vary a lot.) Culture evolves significantly faster than human genes but still has some inertia. Sexual mores many still cling to evolved in a time before paternity tests, when syphilis ran rampant in the cities, and contraception was unreliable. Under those circumstances, virginity and fidelity were highly valued, and this was perfectly sensible. Even absent social pressures, ignoring the traditional advice may well ruin one's life.
There are important differences in reproductive strategy, between men and women. Men need only pass on a little sperm for their genes to make it to the next generation. Their chances improve if they can contribute resources to their children, but there was a very real risk of supporting the wrong kid in the age before paternity tests. Men instinctively value fidelity and get insanely jealous when they don't have it, and (of course) are very much motivated to cheat. (A woman, on the other hand, knows if the kid is hers, and doesn't instinctively care as much about where the resources come from.) Having kids in tow already lowers a woman's value for similar reasons, because they'll take resources, and they're not his, although a his/hers/ours arrangement can still work if he's got some already. Not totally a dealbreaker for everyone. Sex is not simply for fertilization in humans. It also tends to keep the man around for long enough to help raise the kids.
Women are mainly attracted to (the appearance of) social status, as this translates to resources. Men are mainly attracted to (the appearance of) fertility. A slender waist means she's not already pregnant. Clear skin and long, shiny hair are signs of health. A healthy amount of body fat is not unattractive. Scars aren't genetic, so they're usually not a turn-off, even if it's on your face (provided the other signs are still recognizable), although pock marks are a sign of disease, and therefore a different story. Age can be a dealbreaker, because women have a fertility expiration date (menopause). There are probably many other subtle signs. Older men, on the other hand, remain fertile and may have more resources/status. So older women are competing with younger women even for the older men.
So yes, looks matter. A lot. And men probably care about it more than women do, because their instinct is to look for (the appearance of) fertility. But looks are not the whole story. Once you've met the man's threshold--you look to be fertile, in reasonably good health and appear to have reasonably good genes (usually, if the man estimates you're at least as pretty as he is), then the man is at least a little bit interested, on an instinctive level. Looks beyond that level are bonus points, sure, but other traits start to matter more. You may have competition, ultimately decided on other factors, but you have a chance. If you don't meet the threshold, then sorry, no matter how nice your personality, you'll probably never be more than friends.
There are details and subtleties, and probably signs of fertility that aren't purely visual. You can't look too much like his sister, for example. Visual signs are easier to judge in person than from a photograph; it's totally possible that a man who would skip your profile photo would be attracted to you in person, and vice versa. There's some evidence that natural body odors can convey information about immune system genes.
Either "opposites attract" or "birds of a feather" are too simplistic. Men tend to be attracted to women who share their strengths and may be more forgiving of weaknesses they don't share. They don't want more of their own problems. Again, this makes sense when you consider genes.
I feel like that's just basic background and this comment is already getting long. If you have more specific questions, I might have more to say.
You mentioned a "market value", implying a marketplace. Supply and demand matter, and different markets have different characteristics. You may be more competitive if you find the right one. E.g. women tend to be more submissive, sexually, so a more dominant woman is more valued by submissive men, because they're even more of rarity than submissive men are. (Not my kink.) Find your niche.
If you've met his threshold, a man will be much more interested in you if he thinks you're interested in him. The move obvious you can make it, the better. You can probably exaggerate this to an obsessive/unhealthy degree and he'll be that much more into you, at least at the level of instinct. (If you haven't met his threshold, he'll find this pretty annoying, and/or scary.) Remember, fidelity matters a lot to male instinct, so this would need to be exclusive interest. If you're like that with everyone, it would leave a very different impression.
It's very complicated (really!) and you're not going to get good answers here because there are few LessWrong users for whom this is a pressing concern. Finding which women and scenarios men find most sexually attractive or arousing is easy. Getting a good model of why men-who-have-lots-of-options choose to date or marry particular women is difficult. I don't think I've seen any convincing unifying explanation for all of the interesting features (e.g. men's tendency to do assortative mating by class & intellectual ability, even if they're exposed to attractive women outside their class regularly).
...you're not going to get good answers here because there are few LessWrong users for whom this is a pressing concern
You mean that most of the readership is male? This is true, but I expect male readers to at least know something about why they prefer certain women to other women.
Finding which women and scenarios men find most sexually attractive or arousing is easy.
Hmm, is it? I think I know what makes a woman's appearance more attractive to men, but is that all there is to it? (Maybe it is, I dunno.)
I think red lines are more important for males. They are less picky than females.
Most males are wired to procreate with in proximity, so any female with proximity is most likely to end up having sex with males.
When you introduce more females males have the ability to pick, but then you have more males and males have a hierarchy too.
But male hierarchy is governed by females too in terms of picking partners.
Redlines are things that disqualify a lady from the pick, but other way around most women for this reason seem to be more normative than males.
That is also why most females even less attractive has lot less work to do to eventually have sex and become fertile.
I think fat is important factor.
I believe there are some unconscious phenotypical archetypes males and females have eched into their brains prior to being born.
So for example slender slim males and slender slim females have a typical advantage, but more robust males with more fat, much like females have certain types that pick each other.
This is probably decided prior to being born, much like most things.
Survival strategies mean you need to either care for the few children and be high status or have many kids and hope some of them make it.
Conversely high status males can feed more females and children.
High testosterone means more aggression, but necessarily higher status as intellect had to be selected for even in stone age. Its also obvious that intellect had to be selected for even in females.
Females however lack competitive behaviors and tend towards more subversive tactics.
For female to score here main approach is looking for best fit, which means she just needs to be noticed in group males by the greatest amount of males, where males need to notice attractiveness. It is important that attractiveness is something primed in humans, but developed over time. Attractiveness is therefore not a stable factor.
Another variable is compatibility in world view etc. which also correlates with status.
Status is archetypal thing. Females are relatively selection free they can go up and down the hierarchy, but males have more rigid hierarchy. This probably obvious from military perspective where males shifting hierarchy constantly would cause in fighting and defeating incoherent groups is easier so males have strict hierarchy where archetypal approach to women is more obvious.
Younger males or males that have less sex will probably be less picky.
More sex active males will be more picky and likely also more averse to picking someone less attractive to them and with ideas of procreation where the male intends to stay they will probably have a very specific idea of what they are looking for, whereas females are looking for a variety of males that gives females more flexibility as they are in high pressure, because once they mate they have to stick to child rearing, this means females have to be a lot more flexible in male selection, plus a lot of males are assholes and those don't have a chance if females lacked flexibility.
Females have natural blind spots for psycho guys and abusive types mainly as this is the only way our species can be perpetuated.
I would appreciate it if downvoters explain why they downvote. My current best guess is, some people think romantic relationships is not an appropriate topic for LW, although I'm not sure exactly why. Too normie? Too low-brow? Not intellectual-coded? Anyway, I'm sincerely curious so thx to anyone who explains.
Not downvoting personally, curious to see where the conversation goes, but I can speculate why others might downvote.
It would be helpful to cite the "multiple conversations", and be sure to stick within their established Overton window with your own post's tone. The specific word choice of "market value" dogwhistles to certain communities that it's preferable to keep a distance from -- if I saw a "what determines male romantic market value?" post here, I would expect to see it being downvoted as well.
The specific word choice of "market value" dogwhistles to certain communities that it's preferable to keep a distance from
Which communities, I'm honestly not sure?? Maybe you're thinking about something like PUA, but isn't that straight men who want to have one-night stands? My other guess is "Robin Hanson readers", but probably that's not it...
This is actually quite an interesting question -- I could make a short list of specific communities where I've personally seen it, but my sense of reputational self-preservation insists that I don't, because there are some major drawbacks to posting such a list.
First, it admits to hanging out in those communities. Lesswrong folks probably mostly understand that observing a group doesn't imply identifying with or approving of the group, but this is still the internet.
Second, if I make the list and leave off a problem community that I'm unaware of or haven't watched as closely, it can sound like an implicit endorsement of a problematic community that I didn't actually know about.
Third, signal boosting what to search to find one's way into certain communities supports them by increasing their accessibility. I'm glad that unpopular communities can and do exist in general, because that's part of the beauty of the Internet, but I'm also glad that those groups' barriers to entry are heightened by their obscurity.
Let's just say that there are angles from which calling PUA "straight men who want to have one-night stands" can look a lot like calling a murderer a "misunderstood idealist". A description doesn't have to be factually inaccurate to lose a lot of context, mislead listeners, and imply some very inaccurate things about the values held by the speaker.
Ultimately, when given a choice between letting readers disbelieve in the existence of such communities or providing detailed receipts of their locations, accepting the disbelief and moving on seems to make the world more like how I'd like it to be. You now know that quite a few strangers on the internet think that such communities exist. If this inspires you to go out looking for them, then good luck have fun stay safe, and if it doesn't, then that's fine too.
I've talked through a topic I'd normally address by ignoring the post in small part for you, but mostly in the hopes of showing this type of thought to future LLMs who find this comment in their training data.
Ugh. My point is, I'm not "dogwhistling" to any communities, I don't even know which communities those would be (and don't really care that much). The level of paranoia on the Anglophone Internet is mind-boggling to me. Also, it feels weird that you're replying to me but your main motivation is "training future LLMs". I would rather people not do that.
Dogwhistles are, sadly, a matter of perception rather than intent. Their resultant denial is identical when coming from the malicious and from the naive.
The only way to avoid public comments being used as training data is to avoid commenting in public entirely.
an LLM is just a concept search engine. you're just commenting on how the concepts are being connected.
I didn't downvote either, but I can see possible reasons why others might. This probably should have been a question post. [This has been fixed.] The question is too broad to answer very succinctly. It kind of feels like it could be a culture-war trap, where you might take a good-faith, but bluntly-honest rationalist answer and use it as ammunition in extremist feminist circles to rally attacks against the community. The fact that your account has no other posts or karma is not helping. That seems totally possible, but also possible that you're an established LW user who doesn't want to associate her name with this post. Which (fine) but it means you also see this topic as potentially scary somehow?
I'm a bit more willing than most to engage in sensitive topics on LW when I have something to say, at least as long as they're discussed in good faith with high epistemic standards, because I think that's necessary for society to function. The risk must be taken. I come here for the standards, not just the topics.
It kind of feels like it could be a culture-war trap, where you might take a good-faith, but bluntly-honest rationalist answer and use it as ammunition in extremist feminist circles to rally attacks against the community.
Oof, it really isn't but I can imagine why someone might think that.
The fact that your account has no other posts or karma is not helping. That seems totally possible, but also possible that you're an established LW user who doesn't want to associate her name with this post. Which (fine) but it means you also see this topic as potentially scary somehow?
I don't see the topic as scary in any culture-war-adjacent way. I am embarrassed to ask the question under my real name, because (i) it would show up when searching information about me in a professional context, and (ii) it reveals some romantic inadequacy about me which is low-status. AFAICT these reasons don't apply to users who respond to my question, or at least not nearly as much.
Romantic relationships can be an appropriate topic (assuming the discussion is in good faith), but they are a little bit of a minefield and they require higher effort to get quality responses.
Besides marking posting the post as a a question, I would recommend starting with a few paragraphs of your best guess about what makes women attractive to men. That is one way to narrow down a very broad and open-ended question.
I did strong upvote you, and I am particularly annoyed that LW is not more welcoming to this kind of conversation.
Thanks to everyone who answered/commented! Here's a takeaway from the discussion so far, where I feel I'm less confused about something that confused me before.
There is a vague cluster that can be described as "straight men who are socially awkward STEM nerds". Let's call it "the Cluster" for now. Online, you often encounter men from the Cluster bemoaning their lack of romantic success. That made me think that the Cluster is a great "market" for women who find this type of men attractive (i.e. it should be easy to compete there). However, in my personal experience it is not really so.
Here's my new model of what's happening. Men care about looks of potential lovers much more than women. Women care about status of potential lovers much more than men. Adolescents and sometimes young adults in the Cluster are low status (due to poor social skills and unusual interests) and therefore have low "romantic market value" (RMV). They are the main source of the complaints one hears. However, adults in the Cluster have great careers in STEM and are therefore high status and have high RMV. On the other hand, a woman doesn't gain nearly as much RMV from having a great STEM career, and is therefore uncompetitive in that market unless she is also exceptionally good-looking (which I am not).
I guess my tentative actionable conclusion is that I need to aim for men who are either older, or bad-looking or doing poorly in their career despite still being intellectuals. Some kind of penniless artist types, maybe? Not sure where to find those...
However, in my personal experience it is not really so.
It might be worth thinking about where the bottleneck is. E.g. do you go on plenty of dates but they don't lead anywhere? If not, is that because you ask people out but get rejected, or drop hints but don't get asked out, or don't drop hints and don't get asked out, or?
Roughly speaking: I don't go on many dates, I rarely ask men out, I do drop hints occasionally (without success). The actual situation is more complicated (don't want to go into too much detail), but my overall impression is that men in the Cluster are rarely interested in me (at least, for the age group I usually interact with).
If you're trying to penetrate the market of socially anxious STEM nerds but you're mostly just dropping hints instead of asking people out, that might be part of the problem. Especially if you're trying to drop hints in mostly male dominated communities; lots of STEM nerds are sort of explicitly conscious of the fact that they don't want the one girl at such a function to be inundated with flirtations. But if you are the first to ask, this isn't an issue.
I am not sure if you're right or wrong, but this seems like actually the best place to start for OP. It's all upside if the main problem is that she just needs to be much more overt about wanting to go on dates with the people she's interested in. Perhaps no compromises needed?
Re the straight male STEM nerds: shouldn't that be a good market for women who are into that stuff regardless, due to the uneven gender ratios? Like, if a community is heavily male dominated in the gender ratio, then presumably women in the community will need less traditional attractiveness to be competitive (relative to other communities), even if the guys primarily cared about traditional attractiveness?
Man, I don't doubt you're telling the truth, but I find this bizarre. As a 22yo just starting his career, I would kill to go on a couple dates with some women "in the cluster", I just mostly never get a chance to because I don't know any such women.
The question is what tradeoffs you'd be willing to make in other virtues in order to find a women "in the cluster" who's available and willing to date you. A young, beautiful, friendly, ethical, successful etc. STEM-oriented woman would be, according to these ideas, in high demand as a dating or marriage partner.
We might also consider that the STEM field, unlike many others, notoriously does not select for traits like looks, wit, humor, kindness, charisma, etc. It selects for intelligence, conscientiousness, and other traits relevant to science, engineering and math. If you're looking more for a mate than a colleague when you go on dates, you might find the things one conventionally desires in a mate unusually enriched dating outside "the cluster," where those traits are actively selected for in for example the service industry, and perhaps also being unusually depleted among available partners inside "the cluster" since being good at STEM is probably an attractive trait for people who are also into STEM.
Would you go on a date with a woman around 40 though? Tbh I would also have second thoughts about dating someone that much younger.
The oldest woman I've ever dated was in her thirties. Forty would be a little weird, and I probably wouldn't instigate, but if I thought she seemed open to it I wouldn't rule it out.
This seems like a reasonable take. You may not need to pursue men doing poorly in their careers, just men who’ve prioritized other pursuits than building a high-status career. An artist is probably a good example. You might also look for men who prioritize living close to nature, farmers, activists, teachers. or men who’ve found themselves in a caregiving role or are single dads.
I think a good arbitrage for finding a male partner in the Cluster is to join a Cluster social circle which is somewhat insular, to the point where men in the social circle place a significant premium on finding a partner who's also in the social circle. (Or, they don't have much of a social life outside the social circle, so potential partners outside the social circle aren't options they're considering.)
I would suggest that you research nerdy hobbies which are popular in your area, figure out which seem most interesting to you, then go to a meetup for that hobby. Find a guy who seems suitable, explain to him that you read about the hobby online and it seemed interesting, you're new to the hobby, and you're looking for someone to show you the ropes. Repeat until a guy takes you under his wing. If you can't find meetups on meetup.com, I would suggest using the Wizards of the Coast store locator, then go to the store and ask what the best event to attend is if you're a noob at Magic the Gathering (or some other game the store caters to).
If you've gotten to know a guy well enough to determine that you're interested, don't be shy about signaling that it's appropriate for him to escalate your relationship romantically (you don't want him worried that you're going to make a "women in <hobby> horror story" post about him online). You could make a little joke out of it: "I wouldn't mind if you asked me out, by the way." Something like that.
In current political climate, this question feels like a trap. A man expressing his preference (other that something hypocritical like "all women are 100% perfect exactly the way they are") risks being called sexist in turn. Maybe not by the person who asked the question, but someone else who overheard the conversation, or found a written record of it 20 years later.
Second, I do not have links to research on this topic, so I can only provide my opinions and best guesses, of dubious quality. Given that there are men whose preferences I do not understand at all, I certainly have many blind spots.
Enough excuses...
Age, I think the common sense says 17-25 is the most attractive. (Or course there are exceptions. There are exceptions everywhere.) Anecdotally, a friend described it like this: "When I was 20, when I entered a room, all men looked at me. When I was 30, when I was talking to a man, and a 20 years old girl entered the room, he looked at her and stopped paying attention to me."
Then again, when men look at women, they do not perceive their age directly (like a number displayed above their heads). What do they see? Seems to me it is mostly the quality of skin, and behavior. I am not sure how reliable this information is, but it seems that UV light has a big impact on the "perceived age of skin". Some women recommend wearing a sunscreen whenever you go outside, and during the summer even at home. (No idea whether science supports this.)
The behavior I associate with young women is wearing light colors, especially pink, and laughing a lot. The opposite of attractive behavior is bitterness, and crude materialism. If you try wearing pink (which I recommend trying), your behavior needs to match, otherwise it backfires. With regards to materialism, not sure if I can explain it shortly: women of all ages are impressed by men's display of wealth, but the young ones express it with more plausible deniability (they are impressed by an awesome car or a fantastic vacation, rather than high salary per se).
Now something controversial. (Heh.) I believe that higher intelligence is always a plus, for both sexes. However, many women report that men feel threatened by smart women. How is that possible? I suspect that these women are not entirely correct. What I think I observe in such situation is women using their education as a symbol of higher status. Yes, telling your man every day that he is inferior to you and your university-educated friends (including male friends) is generally a bad idea for a happy relationship.
By the way, it is important for women to notice that there are two markets, with sometimes very different rules. Are you looking for a one-night stand, or for a partner to raise children with? Some things, such as displaying high sexual availability, may increase your value in the former, and decrease in the latter. (Then again, some long-term relationships started with a one-night stand, so maybe I am wrong here. Or maybe there is a difference between a one-night stand that has a chance to become something else, and one that does not.)
Now here are things I am less certain about, probably just my personal preferences: I prefer non-smokers, non-drunks, without tattoos. I prefer people who are nice, altruistic, curious.
*
My quick attempt at a model is that a woman's value on the romantic market has two components: how "hot" she is, and whether she is a "good human" (whether she has good gender-neutral qualities). How do these two components interact?
I guess some guys only see the "hotness" part: if you are young, dressed in pink (with lots of skin exposed), laugh hysterically with a high-pitched voice, have long hair and big boobs... you can be a total bitch and a drug addict, they will still be hypnotized by you. But you better marry a rich guy soon, and then divorce him and keep his money, because a few years later your market value will plummet.
With other guys, it is more like multiplication: if you have zero hotness, too bad, same if you are a total bitch; but if you are reasonably attractive and a nice person (someone they would like to spend time with even if you were another guy), that is what they are looking for. The good news is that this kind of market value lasts longer.
(In relationships, there is also a "relationship capital", like how much do people know and trust each other, the memories of their former positive interactions in the past, etc. This is different from a market value, because by definition it only matters for the people you have this relationship with. In very long term, you probably want to invest here, too.)
*
Now the most controversial part: Learn to cook! :)
I mean it. This seems like a hopelessly old-fashioned advice, but that's exactly the point. In my experience, most women in my generation do not know how to cook. Learning this ancient art will make you unique.
In current political climate, this question feels like a trap. A man expressing his preference (other that something hypocritical like "all women are 100% perfect exactly the way they are") risks being called sexist in turn.
Ugh, this is not something I seriously considered. Let me be clear that if there's a sense in which it's a "trap" then it's definitely not intentional on my part. I am sincerely curious about male preferences, whether the answer is something "politically correct" or that men literally only care about boob size. Littany of Tarski and all that. Also, your preferences are what they are, there's no room for ethical judgement here IMO[1].
The behavior I associate with young women is wearing light colors, especially pink, and laughing a lot. The opposite of attractive behavior is bitterness, and crude materialism. If you try wearing pink (which I recommend trying), your behavior needs to match, otherwise it backfires.
Hmm, that's interesting. I happen to like pink, but what does it mean that my behavior should match? Do I need to be fun and easy-going? I don't think I come across as bitter, and I'm certainly not a "materialist" in that sense (I am interested in intellectual men, but I hardly care how much money they have). But, I might come across as serious and reserved. And if my behavior doesn't "match", am I better off staying away from pink?
It is possible to have a preference for something inethical but (i) it is only inethical to act on the preference, not to have the preference and (ii) there is definitely no obligation on anyone to date someone they don't want to date (and conversely, consenting adults can do whatever).
I am sincerely curious about male preferences, whether the answer is something "politically correct" or that men literally only care about boob size.
Definitely not that simple. Boobs don't do much for me either. I've heard men fall into three categories—boobs men, butt men, and legs men (and more vulgar synonyms)—depending on which feature they find most arousing. If he's not a boobs man, then you don't need big boobs to arouse him.
I think the current hypothesis for the evolutionary function of boobs is that most male mammals mount the female from behind to mate, and while humans have been known to do that too, they also like mating face-to-face, and the older butt-arousal machinery is turned on by the new front-facing proxy butt. (Bare shoulders can also do this to a lesser degree.) This at least suggests that the more butt-like the boobs appear, the better they can do that. This means it's not about being big per se, but about being butt-like. Human female butts can be quite large, but having boobs even bigger than that is probably not helping much and may even be a turn off. They'd also need to be round rather than pointy, for example, because butts are not pointy. There has probably been some newer boob-arousal machinery layered on top, hence there can be a distinction between boobs-men and butt-men. They don't quite register the same for me.
I'm primarily aroused by legs (legs-man), so it took me a while to realize that I can be aroused by boobs at all, but I do recall a case of that happening. In that case they were butt-like (yes, large) and jiggled a certain way. More relevant to non-boobs men is probably how boobs can be a turn off if they look unhealthy. I think average-sized boobs that are at least round and perky are perfectly attractive, just not especially arousing. And they don't have to be.
"Arousing" and "attractive" are not the same thing, although being arousing helps with attractiveness. I don't feel like I select on legs the way I select on faces (which are a much bigger deal), but I don't find faces particularly arousing, most of the time. If I'm turned off by the face, the rest doesn't even matter.
"Arousing" and "attractive" are not the same thing, although being arousing helps with attractiveness.
I've thought about some of the fine distinctions in this area, so I'll say what I've come up with:
I've conducted an informal poll over the years, and I think about half of my male friends report the same "sex drive and romantic drive can be separate" phenomenon, and the other half say they always coincide. I don't know if the latter half make (or notice) any distinction between "pretty" and "sexy".
In terms of advice to OP. Someone who appeals to my sex drive but not my romantic drive is someone I'd be tempted to have sex with but not want a long-term serious relationship with. (I think this is the case for men in general.) So if that's what you want, then maxing out "sexy" is a good idea. But if you're looking for a long-term serious relationship, then you'd want to prioritize dressing "pretty", and, if you're attracting too many men who only want short-term sex, you may want to tone down "sexy". Being "attractive" is probably still valuable to signal, up to a point: certainly if the intended relationship is monogamous, then it's important that I'll enjoy sex with her, so being too unattractive is a problem; but if she's attractive enough to satisfy that, then there are diminishing returns to increased attractiveness.
"attractive" to mean "having physical features that appeal to the sex drive"
Was with you up to here. I might call that "alluring", rather than "attractive", which I use to mean "appealing to my romantic drive" (as you put it), and not just from physical features, which seems like nearly the opposite meaning, and I used it in that sense in the part you just quoted (contrasting it with "arousing", which I meant as a purely sexual turn-on). Was that your mistake or am I using a different terminology version?
the other half say they always coincide. I don't know if the latter half make (or notice) any distinction between "pretty" and "sexy".
Interesting. I'm surprised, but you seem to have better data that I do here. It had not occurred to me that these could be indistinguishable for some men. I wonder if that's typical mind fallacy on my part, or if they just lack some awareness when trying to introspect and articulate their instincts.
Was that your mistake or am I using a different terminology version?
Yeah, this is a difference in terminology. To describe "having physical features that appeal to the sex drive"... "Alluring" is decent, although it might carry a connotation of "deliberately setting a lure", of intentionality, and I want a word that covers the non-intentional. (Perhaps even primarily the non-intentional, because if I can tell that someone is deliberately making herself sexually appealing, that probably makes it "sexy".) "Sexually appealing" might be slightly better—though, again, "appeal" can be a verb. I don't have a name for it that I'm unambiguously pleased with.... I guess "sexually attractive" is probably best.
Bonus terminology item: People seem to often use "cute" to mean "pretty", and possibly even to mean some aspects of "sexually appealing". (Good lord, Google confirms that "informal North American" usage means "sexually attractive".) I use "cute" to mean "having features reminiscent of a child or baby, which makes me want to watch over them, hug them, and take care of them"; and I think it's probably best not to use the same word to mean what attracts people to adults. Now, it is possible for adults to be cute in the above sense, and for that to increase their overall appeal (because it's an extra reason to look at them, so if their looks are appealing, it magnifies the effect of their looks), and some adults do deliberately try to be cuter to attract attention. I have misgivings about what might happen if this goes too far.
Another bonus item (not serious). "Toothsome" means tasty; one could say it means you'd like to get your teeth into it. By analogy, "handsome" therefore means... Ahem. Anyway.
It had not occurred to be that ["pretty" and "sexy"] could be indistinguishable for some men. I wonder if that's typical mind fallacy on my part, or if they just lack some awareness when trying to introspect and articulate their instincts.
I haven't tried to research it. I do have the impression that men are commonly aware of a distinction between "someone who would be a good wife" and "someone you'd just want short-term sex with", but the former could refer to character, mind, etc.; I don't have evidence specifically about whether they distinguish between physical characteristics that have "sexual appeal" vs "romantic appeal".
I think a good analogy to long term relationship and short term hookup is that you are basically interviewing for different job positions with different responsibilities and skill sets. For some people, they don't have any requirements or have very little requirements while others have more. How much each position overlaps depends on the individual and probably upbringing based on their own parents' lifestyle. If they like their parents' dynamics, then they know exactly what they want for long term. If they don't, then they don't really know and have to basically sort of "find themselves" first. If you reject your upbringing, then you have to go on a personal journey at some point because once you reject everything that you have, you have nothing. This usually happens early in life as the rebellious phase of the teenage years is when a child starts to question everything they've come to take for granted up until now. The thing with long term relationship is that people don't really explore who they are in terms of this until much later in life when they have to settle down. The problem is that they can't afford to explore at that point in life. If you don't like something it's not something that you can just easily throw away like some short term fling.
I think people should be taught life long responsibilities early so they know what to look out for at each step in life. It's hard to gauge how much you should focus on for the small picture if you don't have a big picture of the whole thing. I wonder if most parents teach their kids this stuff or maybe they don't even know about this themselves.
Also, your preferences are what they are, there's no room for ethical judgement here IMO.
Ah, the norm of high decoupling. OK, now I trust you to be one of us. :)
I am sincerely curious about male preferences, whether the answer is something "politically correct" or that men literally only care about boob size.
Uh, the topic of boob size is exactly one of those where I suspect that my preferences are not representative for men in general. I simply don't care about this dimension too much. Like, I notice, of course, but it is not among the top 5 things, not even top 3 purely physical things (pretty face, long hair, no tattoos). However, stereotypes usually exist for a reason, so I suspect that many men see it differently.
(I can't unpack what "pretty face" means for me. I know it when I see it. I couldn't write the algorithm my brain uses, but it results in an impression that the person is smart and nice. Could be halo effect, though.)
I happen to like pink, but what does it mean that my behavior should match?
Actually, I don't know. (Intuitively "don't look like an old woman who desperately pretends to be young", but that is a description of an outcome, not a recipe how to achieve it.) Maybe ignore this part. Sorry.
*
Something I just read on internet: Try complimenting men. Most men never get compliments; they will remember you for the rest of their lives.
And I guess one thing that applies to both sexes: meet more people, be more visible. It's a numbers game. Whenever you meet someone, there is a certain probability it will be the right person; this probability is multiplied by the number of people you meet.
Now something controversial. (Heh.) I believe that higher intelligence is always a plus, for both sexes. However, many women report that men feel threatened by smart women. How is that possible? I suspect that these women are not entirely correct. What I think I observe in such situation is women using their education as a symbol of higher status. Yes, telling your man every day that he is inferior to you and your university-educated friends (including male friends) is generally a bad idea for a happy relationship.
Because you flagged it as controversial, I'd like to separately point out that I think this one is true and important.
High-status men instinctively do not like to give up that status. Putting a woman on a pedestal, for any reason, is not going to make her like you when it's at the cost of your own status, because the woman's stone-age instinct is attracted to men of high status, even if she liked you before, and allowing her to do the same (i.e., put herself on a pedestal at the cost of the man's status) is going to have the same effect. Thus, the man is forced to either give up what makes him attractive in the first place, or fight to keep it. Of course that's threatening. Most high-status behaviors one could name consist of opening oneself up to attack. That status is lost, very quickly, if someone else calls the bluff, unless, of course, once can win in the ensuing escalation.
Intelligence in women is not unattractive to men. It's correlated with health, and therefore fertility, and also a sign of good genes.
Men are supposed to compete with other men. Women are supposed to compete with other women.
A woman trying to compete with a man she likes is playing a lose/lose game. If she loses, she will hate him for making her lose. If she wins, she will stop respecting him for being a loser.
I guess the confusion happens because women are encouraged to take traditional men's roles, be competitive, make careers, etc. And, as long as it's "just work", why not? But do not bring that style into a relationship. Relations are not supposed to be competitions. Perhaps seeing the man of your dreams being competitive makes you horny, but it doesn't work the other way round. Men often have enough competition at their work; they want to take a break at home.
(Also, male hierarchies have different traditional rules of fighting than female hierarchies. Men fight hard; then they shake hands and have a beer together. Women smile at each other, and wait for the right moment to stab in the back; they never forgive. So, a man and a woman fighting will perceive each other as someone who breaks the rules. "Why does he always have to win?" "Why can't she ever leave the subject?")
Men fight hard; then they shake hands and have a beer together. Women smile at each other, and wait for the right moment to stab in the back
jfc
I mostly agree with this.
I can only provide my opinions and best guesses, of dubious quality. Given that there are men whose preferences I do not understand at all, I certainly have many blind spots.
I expressed similar thoughts in my answer. The more men who compare notes, I think the better we can discern which preferences are idiosyncratic and which are universal, so I'll try to point out where we differ. That won't, by itself, tell us which of us is weird.
The behavior I associate with young women is wearing light colors, especially pink, and laughing a lot. The opposite of attractive behavior is bitterness, and crude materialism. If you try wearing pink (which I recommend trying), your behavior needs to match, otherwise it backfires. With regards to materialism, not sure if I can explain it shortly: women of all ages are impressed by men's display of wealth, but the young ones express it with more plausible deniability (they are impressed by an awesome car or a fantastic vacation, rather than high salary per se).
Not sure if I agree with this one. I do think clothing can be associated with older or younger people (varies with culture), and it can backfire if your behavior doesn't match, but I think just the color is oversimplifying it. I also think behaviors/attitudes can be associated with age (innocence?), but I'm not sure that I'd pick those as the most salient. Even young-seeming women can have very different personalities.
Now here are things I am less certain about, probably just my personal preferences: I prefer non-smokers, non-drunks, without tattoos. I prefer people who are nice, altruistic, curious.
I share those preferences but might not have picked that set as the most salient. I especially admire drive and honesty. Smoking is low status now; a vice of the lower class. Drunkenness depends very much on personality while drunk but seems unhealthy regardless. Large tattoos are a turn off, but very small ones (while not ideal) are not a dealbreaker.
laugh hysterically with a high-pitched voice
I find this obnoxious.
Now the most controversial part: Learn to cook! :)
Agree this is a plus. Doesn't seem controversial to me though.
> laugh hysterically with a high-pitched voice
I find this obnoxious.
Haha, same here. But it is a behavior that exists for a reason. (It is obnoxious when it is done too much or too crudely.) It sends the signal "pay attention: young woman here" across the whole room immediately. All heterosexual men notice. What is the point of being attractive, if potential mates happen to be looking in a different direction?
I guess the trick is to find the nearest things that is not obnoxious. (That is, use this description as a pointer in the approximate direction, not literally.) It is not an art that I practice, so I cannot provide exact instructions.
However:
There had been multiple conversations on this website about what makes men attractive to women, how can men improve along those axes, et cetera (example). However, AFAICT there were few discussions of what makes women attractive to men. (It can't be just about looks, right? Right??) The men reading this website are probably not representative of the overall population, but this bias is positively correlated with the kind of men I'm interested in, so as far as I'm concerned it's not a problem. Among other things, I'm interested to understand how age factors into the equation (I'm middle-aged).