Women Are Superficial, Too. Mostly.

[rousseau]

Yea not knowing how effective the study was aside, it does seem to look at a very narrow window of human behavior: namely that of young people on the internet who want to get laid (who doesn't want to sleep with an attractive person?)

In the broader population the picture is more complex but not that complicated. One only has to think of what they themselves would want when picking a life-mate to raise children with. What makes a good life-partner?

- no serious disabilities or defects, physical or social
- acceptable socio-economic status
- producing as good looking kids as possible (which plays out in people matching attractiveness with their partner)
- in general, a person who will commit to you, and who isn't an asshole

Between men and women men weigh appearance a little more highly, and women socio-economic status a little more, averaged out.

This is one of those times when reality varies from the predictable, mostly because what we want and what we can get do not often coincide. Men may value appearance, but as I said above, availability has an attraction all it's own, and a woman who wants to get laid is going to put less weight on socio-economic status.

There is a great difference between choosing a partner for the night and a partner for life, which it may take longer to choose a life partner, the process starts out the same. If appearance and high socio-economic status were high criteria for a life partner, I would be married to Crazy Redheaded Julie, but that's another story.

Valuing appearance doesn't always mean looking for and pursuing the most attractive person you can find, it means pursuing the most attractive person within the pool of partners who will have you, or at the very least filtering out people who are below a threshold. This is why people will usually end up partnering with someone who is at about the same level of attractiveness as themselves. In other words it doesn't always mean a guy is going for the bombshell, it just means that it's usually a significant factor.

And you have to remember this is only an average and in reference to women. Many guys are going for the bombshell, while others go for the woman who's built like a rock.

 

[DBT]

The ''Bombshells'' may also be high maintenance people. Which can become demanding.

 

[Toni]

Tinder is for young people trying to get laid. So yea, I could see that. I expect the ratios would be a little better for a service where people were more serious about finding a relationship.

But yea, of course physical appearance is important to everyone, this is no surprise.

There is a critical flaw in studies(whatever you call them) of this type, because while we can espouse any ideal of beauty, we choose from the available. This goes for men and women, alike. What's more, experience(mine, of course, links provided on request) shows people are very likely to lie about this kind of thing. Sort of like the way people lie about books they have read, when all they did was watch a movie of the same title. We want to manipulate the way other people see us. This is natural behavior for any social animal.

This means in the real world is, a person's perceived attractiveness will immediately increase with their perceived availability. The woman who smiles and makes eye contact, always rises in attractiveness. The problem here, is that we can judge physical attractiveness at a distance, even the distance of computer monitor or phone screen. When that's all we have, it doesn't take long to make a decision based on limited information, but it's a decision of absolutely no consequence upon our life.

Experience(ibid) also shows that a woman's idea of what constitutes attractiveness in a man, is very fluid, and cologne and underwear ads not withstanding, is difficult to predict. I once had an employee who was by any standard, a beautiful young woman. She was 5'10" in height and always wore high heels with lace ankle socks. She would not consider a man taller than her. Her reasons were based on experience. She said tall guys were assholes, but a man shorter than her, who had the balls to approach her directly, won her admiration. Just her personal filter.

I'm always suspect of studies, articles, opinions, etc, of the sort cited in the OP. There is a sad legion of men, and probably women as well, who can't find the partner(long or short term), and must blame it on the shallowness of others, never looking at themselves. Citing experience again, based on the women who accompany my friends, movie star handsomeness and a high paying job don't count for much, if she likes you.

Yea not knowing how effective the study was aside, it does seem to look at a very narrow window of human behavior: namely that of young people on the internet who want to get laid (who doesn't want to sleep with an attractive person?)

In the broader population the picture is more complex but not that complicated. One only has to think of what they themselves would want when picking a life-mate to raise children with. What makes a good life-partner?

- no serious disabilities or defects, physical or social
- acceptable socio-economic status
- producing as good looking kids as possible (which plays out in people matching attractiveness with their partner)
- in general, a person who will commit to you, and who isn't an asshole

Between men and women men weigh appearance a little more highly, and women socio-economic status a little more, averaged out.

I can't say that I think much of your list of what makes a good life partner. Perhaps it is because I know a number of healthy, happy marriages where one or, in one case, both marriage partners had significant medical issues, including significant disability. Yes, dating while disabled or with a chronic condition is significantly more difficult than for those who don't face the same level of medical issues. But the issues are not insurmountable.

Acceptable socio-economic status???? Whaaaat???? A lot of that is opportunity. One tends to date and form relationships with those one associates with. My husband grew up in far more affluent circumstances than I did but we attended the same university. I don't think the fact that my family was much less well off than his gave him any pause at all. I was a little...bowled over at his family home (which was nice and in a very nice suburban area of a major city) because it was much larger than the home I grew up in, and much nicer. But that lasted about half a second because his parents didn't seem to mind or notice that I was obviously from a less affluent background, with grandparents who still farmed very small farms and parents who did not attend college.

Producing good looking kids??? Of course our children are beautiful. I'm not sure a model agency would agree about all of them, but about some of them, yes. One or two have gotten a lot of attention re: their looks. This is not necessarily a positive. Frankly, I certainly never gave a thought to how attractive our babies would be and I don't think he did either. I found him attractive; he found me attractive. This added a certain fuel to our developing friendship. I will say that one thing that I found extremely attractive was that he openly and clearly wanted children. And was clearly interested in spending time with children, not simply establishing that he could indeed impregnate someone.

He was willing and able to commit to me--which is not necessarily a given, as I had learned the hard way in previous relationships. He wasn't an asshole--that would have been a non-starter from before day one.

He clearly liked his family--I didn't hear endless complaints about how his parents were this or that or the other thing. I knew they weren't perfect, but that he liked them, loved them, and respected them. This bode well for someone who would be able to be in a long term, stable relationship. I had frankly had enough of listening to boys (it is impossible to consider such persons as actual adults) complain about their families for trivial faults. I'm not talking about people who need to talk about abuse or neglect or alcoholism, etc. Actually, most of my friends and/or boyfriends who had such issues really didn't complain much about them. I knew their stuff/they knew mine. We didn't dwell or wrap ourselves up in how we couldn't do anything because our parents were so fucked up. We just lived our lives and tried to side step some obvious landmines.

And---he had a little money in the bank, despite rather obviously being in need of some decent clothes and shoes. In other words, he prioritized his financial stability over immediate but trivial needs. He was able and willing to save for the future, to look beyond the first bright shiny thing he saw. This was something that I surprised myself by even noticing, but I am glad that I did. We went through some very lean years together. I was used to lean; he made himself used to lean. Being able to defer gratification in favor of attaining long term goals is an admirable and useful trait.


On my very best day, at the peak of my physical looks, at best, I was average looking. I dated guys who were pretty attractive, enough that more than one other woman openly suggested I was dating out of my class, looks wise. I dated guys that were pretty....average looking. One guy was pretty heavy when we dated. Another one was maybe a little overweight. All were really smart, and all but one or two were pretty funny. Not being funny was a red flag, actually. I found I liked guys who didn't take themselves too seriously. I don't recall being handsome as much of a requirement.

 

[rousseau]

Yea not knowing how effective the study was aside, it does seem to look at a very narrow window of human behavior: namely that of young people on the internet who want to get laid (who doesn't want to sleep with an attractive person?)

In the broader population the picture is more complex but not that complicated. One only has to think of what they themselves would want when picking a life-mate to raise children with. What makes a good life-partner?

- no serious disabilities or defects, physical or social
- acceptable socio-economic status
- producing as good looking kids as possible (which plays out in people matching attractiveness with their partner)
- in general, a person who will commit to you, and who isn't an asshole

Between men and women men weigh appearance a little more highly, and women socio-economic status a little more, averaged out.

I can't say that I think much of your list of what makes a good life partner. Perhaps it is because I know a number of healthy, happy marriages where one or, in one case, both marriage partners had significant medical issues, including significant disability. Yes, dating while disabled or with a chronic condition is significantly more difficult than for those who don't face the same level of medical issues. But the issues are not insurmountable.

I don't disagree, I'm just talking about tendencies. There are limits to what people will accept in a partner, and this varies from person to person. I mention it as a factor, not a strict rule.

Acceptable socio-economic status???? Whaaaat???? A lot of that is opportunity. One tends to date and form relationships with those one associates with. My husband grew up in far more affluent circumstances than I did but we attended the same university. I don't think the fact that my family was much less well off than his gave him any pause at all. I was a little...bowled over at his family home (which was nice and in a very nice suburban area of a major city) because it was much larger than the home I grew up in, and much nicer. But that lasted about half a second because his parents didn't seem to mind or notice that I was obviously from a less affluent background, with grandparents who still farmed very small farms and parents who did not attend college.

This is a conversation that's been hashed out several times on this forum. Note the word 'acceptable', that also varies from person to person. It doesn't mean one has to be wealthy, but again, that it's a factor.

Producing good looking kids??? Of course our children are beautiful. I'm not sure a model agency would agree about all of them, but about some of them, yes. One or two have gotten a lot of attention re: their looks. This is not necessarily a positive. Frankly, I certainly never gave a thought to how attractive our babies would be and I don't think he did either. I found him attractive; he found me attractive. This added a certain fuel to our developing friendship. I will say that one thing that I found extremely attractive was that he openly and clearly wanted children. And was clearly interested in spending time with children, not simply establishing that he could indeed impregnate someone.

Again, focus on word choice. Producing 'as good looking kids as possible', not 'good looking kids'. This is basic to evolution and is heavily backed by data. There's nothing about superficiality in it, people will just tend to pair with those who are at least as good looking as themselves.

For some reason you're getting the sense that I'm setting some unrealistic standard that people should be meeting. I'm not. I'm listing the major factors people typically use to choose a partner. And a lot of this stuff isn't necessarily done with conscious intent, it's just people finding mates that are appropriate for them.

He was willing and able to commit to me--which is not necessarily a given, as I had learned the hard way in previous relationships. He wasn't an asshole--that would have been a non-starter from before day one.

He clearly liked his family--I didn't hear endless complaints about how his parents were this or that or the other thing. I knew they weren't perfect, but that he liked them, loved them, and respected them. This bode well for someone who would be able to be in a long term, stable relationship. I had frankly had enough of listening to boys (it is impossible to consider such persons as actual adults) complain about their families for trivial faults. I'm not talking about people who need to talk about abuse or neglect or alcoholism, etc. Actually, most of my friends and/or boyfriends who had such issues really didn't complain much about them. I knew their stuff/they knew mine. We didn't dwell or wrap ourselves up in how we couldn't do anything because our parents were so fucked up. We just lived our lives and tried to side step some obvious landmines.

And---he had a little money in the bank, despite rather obviously being in need of some decent clothes and shoes. In other words, he prioritized his financial stability over immediate but trivial needs. He was able and willing to save for the future, to look beyond the first bright shiny thing he saw. This was something that I surprised myself by even noticing, but I am glad that I did. We went through some very lean years together. I was used to lean; he made himself used to lean. Being able to defer gratification in favor of attaining long term goals is an admirable and useful trait.


On my very best day, at the peak of my physical looks, at best, I was average looking. I dated guys who were pretty attractive, enough that more than one other woman openly suggested I was dating out of my class, looks wise. I dated guys that were pretty....average looking. One guy was pretty heavy when we dated. Another one was maybe a little overweight. All were really smart, and all but one or two were pretty funny. Not being funny was a red flag, actually. I found I liked guys who didn't take themselves too seriously. I don't recall being handsome as much of a requirement.

People vary, combinations vary, values vary, but to say that appearance and finances are non-factors would be a bit strange, wouldn't it?

 

[Toni]

I don't disagree, I'm just talking about tendencies. There are limits to what people will accept in a partner, and this varies from person to person. I mention it as a factor, not a strict rule.

Acceptable socio-economic status???? Whaaaat???? A lot of that is opportunity. One tends to date and form relationships with those one associates with. My husband grew up in far more affluent circumstances than I did but we attended the same university. I don't think the fact that my family was much less well off than his gave him any pause at all. I was a little...bowled over at his family home (which was nice and in a very nice suburban area of a major city) because it was much larger than the home I grew up in, and much nicer. But that lasted about half a second because his parents didn't seem to mind or notice that I was obviously from a less affluent background, with grandparents who still farmed very small farms and parents who did not attend college.

This is a conversation that's been hashed out several times on this forum. Note the word 'acceptable', that also varies from person to person. It doesn't mean one has to be wealthy, but again, that it's a factor.

Producing good looking kids??? Of course our children are beautiful. I'm not sure a model agency would agree about all of them, but about some of them, yes. One or two have gotten a lot of attention re: their looks. This is not necessarily a positive. Frankly, I certainly never gave a thought to how attractive our babies would be and I don't think he did either. I found him attractive; he found me attractive. This added a certain fuel to our developing friendship. I will say that one thing that I found extremely attractive was that he openly and clearly wanted children. And was clearly interested in spending time with children, not simply establishing that he could indeed impregnate someone.

Again, focus on word choice. Producing 'as good looking kids as possible', not 'good looking kids'. This is basic to evolution and is heavily backed by data. There's nothing about superficiality in it, people will just tend to pair with those who are at least as good looking as themselves.

For some reason you're getting the sense that I'm setting some unrealistic standard that people should be meeting. I'm not. I'm listing the major factors people typically use to choose a partner. And a lot of this stuff isn't necessarily done with conscious intent, it's just people finding mates that are appropriate for them.

He was willing and able to commit to me--which is not necessarily a given, as I had learned the hard way in previous relationships. He wasn't an asshole--that would have been a non-starter from before day one.

He clearly liked his family--I didn't hear endless complaints about how his parents were this or that or the other thing. I knew they weren't perfect, but that he liked them, loved them, and respected them. This bode well for someone who would be able to be in a long term, stable relationship. I had frankly had enough of listening to boys (it is impossible to consider such persons as actual adults) complain about their families for trivial faults. I'm not talking about people who need to talk about abuse or neglect or alcoholism, etc. Actually, most of my friends and/or boyfriends who had such issues really didn't complain much about them. I knew their stuff/they knew mine. We didn't dwell or wrap ourselves up in how we couldn't do anything because our parents were so fucked up. We just lived our lives and tried to side step some obvious landmines.

And---he had a little money in the bank, despite rather obviously being in need of some decent clothes and shoes. In other words, he prioritized his financial stability over immediate but trivial needs. He was able and willing to save for the future, to look beyond the first bright shiny thing he saw. This was something that I surprised myself by even noticing, but I am glad that I did. We went through some very lean years together. I was used to lean; he made himself used to lean. Being able to defer gratification in favor of attaining long term goals is an admirable and useful trait.


On my very best day, at the peak of my physical looks, at best, I was average looking. I dated guys who were pretty attractive, enough that more than one other woman openly suggested I was dating out of my class, looks wise. I dated guys that were pretty....average looking. One guy was pretty heavy when we dated. Another one was maybe a little overweight. All were really smart, and all but one or two were pretty funny. Not being funny was a red flag, actually. I found I liked guys who didn't take themselves too seriously. I don't recall being handsome as much of a requirement.

People vary, combinations vary, values vary, but to say that appearance and finances are non-factors would be a bit strange, wouldn't it?

I think that people are attracted to certain types on a certain level. Personally, in my younger days, I heavily went for dark hair/eyes. I actually married someone with light brown hair and blue eyes. He has a fairly medium, athletic build but honestly, that wasn't a factor. I dated guys with 'hotter' bodies and date guys who were...decidedly pudgy to significantly overweight. The success or failure of the relationship was not determined by weight or body build or anything other than how well we got along and to a certain extent, stage of life we were in.

I've said repeatedly that I have a few friends who were and remain what can only be termed: drop dead gorgeous. Only one actually married someone that most people would consider close to as attractive as she is, and frankly, in her early dating life, some of the guys she dated were not very attractive at all. The other two married guys who are smart, and warm, and funny---and at best, average looking. One married a guy a few inches shorter than she is. What all of these men have in common is that they are smart, warm, funny guys who married beautiful women who are also smart, warm, funny, interesting.

Financial stability is not a bad thing. When my husband and I met, we were both students. I had no money; he had some set aside but we both lived as poor students. Were married as poor students. What was important was that we both had similar and, imo, realistic views about finances and money. We both cold defer gratification. One of my friends married young and this quality was missing in both of them at the time of their marriage; she cites it still as the major reason their marriage failed. She's one of my beautiful friends who is now happily married to someone who is financially stable, as she is. That early lesson taught her a lot about how important it is to be financially responsible. For me, and for my friends (college educated/upper middle class now although we were not always upper), being financially responsible was simply another way of saying emotionally stable. Money isn't substituted for some other characteristic. No one is buying shit to make themselves or other people feel better about themselves. Having been poor and now being upper middle class, I will say frankly I am not happier with more money. More secure: yes. Happier? Not really. But then, we were pretty happy as poor student newlyweds.

I can honestly think of only one time when I turned down a date with someone because I found him physically unattractive--and that would have been over ruled if he had been smart, or nice or funny. He just...wasn't. On the other hand, I can think of a number of times I turned down dates with guys who were quite good looking...because I didn't think they were very smart. Which is shallow of me, admittedly. And at least one guy who was pretty well off because he...wasn't very nice.

I know that people have different criteria for who they date and with whom they mate. I think most research shows that people are generally attracted to those who are of similar levels of attractiveness and also, in general, people of similar economic and/or educational backgrounds. I think people are generally in more stable relationships with those with whom they share similar interests and goals. The rest is much more fluid.

Attractiveness in kids? I dunno. It never occurred to me. I am sure I might have thought twice about marrying someone from whom children might inherit a serious medical condition. It never occurred to me that I wanted my kids to be attractive or talented in music or art or athletic or...whatever besides healthy and intelligent. Because I was young and dumb, I made the assumption that healthy and intelligent were givens.

Outside of movies and television shows, I've never heard anyone suggest that they wanted babies with someone because their babies would be smart or beautiful or good athletes. IRL, I do know people who have had genetic testing due to family history of serious medical conditions and who make reproductive choices based on the results of those tests. But not choices about marital partners.

 

[rousseau]

I don't disagree, I'm just talking about tendencies. There are limits to what people will accept in a partner, and this varies from person to person. I mention it as a factor, not a strict rule.



This is a conversation that's been hashed out several times on this forum. Note the word 'acceptable', that also varies from person to person. It doesn't mean one has to be wealthy, but again, that it's a factor.



Again, focus on word choice. Producing 'as good looking kids as possible', not 'good looking kids'. This is basic to evolution and is heavily backed by data. There's nothing about superficiality in it, people will just tend to pair with those who are at least as good looking as themselves.

For some reason you're getting the sense that I'm setting some unrealistic standard that people should be meeting. I'm not. I'm listing the major factors people typically use to choose a partner. And a lot of this stuff isn't necessarily done with conscious intent, it's just people finding mates that are appropriate for them.

He was willing and able to commit to me--which is not necessarily a given, as I had learned the hard way in previous relationships. He wasn't an asshole--that would have been a non-starter from before day one.

He clearly liked his family--I didn't hear endless complaints about how his parents were this or that or the other thing. I knew they weren't perfect, but that he liked them, loved them, and respected them. This bode well for someone who would be able to be in a long term, stable relationship. I had frankly had enough of listening to boys (it is impossible to consider such persons as actual adults) complain about their families for trivial faults. I'm not talking about people who need to talk about abuse or neglect or alcoholism, etc. Actually, most of my friends and/or boyfriends who had such issues really didn't complain much about them. I knew their stuff/they knew mine. We didn't dwell or wrap ourselves up in how we couldn't do anything because our parents were so fucked up. We just lived our lives and tried to side step some obvious landmines.

And---he had a little money in the bank, despite rather obviously being in need of some decent clothes and shoes. In other words, he prioritized his financial stability over immediate but trivial needs. He was able and willing to save for the future, to look beyond the first bright shiny thing he saw. This was something that I surprised myself by even noticing, but I am glad that I did. We went through some very lean years together. I was used to lean; he made himself used to lean. Being able to defer gratification in favor of attaining long term goals is an admirable and useful trait.


On my very best day, at the peak of my physical looks, at best, I was average looking. I dated guys who were pretty attractive, enough that more than one other woman openly suggested I was dating out of my class, looks wise. I dated guys that were pretty....average looking. One guy was pretty heavy when we dated. Another one was maybe a little overweight. All were really smart, and all but one or two were pretty funny. Not being funny was a red flag, actually. I found I liked guys who didn't take themselves too seriously. I don't recall being handsome as much of a requirement.

People vary, combinations vary, values vary, but to say that appearance and finances are non-factors would be a bit strange, wouldn't it?

I think that people are attracted to certain types on a certain level. Personally, in my younger days, I heavily went for dark hair/eyes. I actually married someone with light brown hair and blue eyes. He has a fairly medium, athletic build but honestly, that wasn't a factor. I dated guys with 'hotter' bodies and date guys who were...decidedly pudgy to significantly overweight. The success or failure of the relationship was not determined by weight or body build or anything other than how well we got along and to a certain extent, stage of life we were in.

I've said repeatedly that I have a few friends who were and remain what can only be termed: drop dead gorgeous. Only one actually married someone that most people would consider close to as attractive as she is, and frankly, in her early dating life, some of the guys she dated were not very attractive at all. The other two married guys who are smart, and warm, and funny---and at best, average looking. One married a guy a few inches shorter than she is. What all of these men have in common is that they are smart, warm, funny guys who married beautiful women who are also smart, warm, funny, interesting.

Financial stability is not a bad thing. When my husband and I met, we were both students. I had no money; he had some set aside but we both lived as poor students. Were married as poor students. What was important was that we both had similar and, imo, realistic views about finances and money. We both cold defer gratification. One of my friends married young and this quality was missing in both of them at the time of their marriage; she cites it still as the major reason their marriage failed. She's one of my beautiful friends who is now happily married to someone who is financially stable, as she is. That early lesson taught her a lot about how important it is to be financially responsible. For me, and for my friends (college educated/upper middle class now although we were not always upper), being financially responsible was simply another way of saying emotionally stable. Money isn't substituted for some other characteristic. No one is buying shit to make themselves or other people feel better about themselves. Having been poor and now being upper middle class, I will say frankly I am not happier with more money. More secure: yes. Happier? Not really. But then, we were pretty happy as poor student newlyweds.

I can honestly think of only one time when I turned down a date with someone because I found him physically unattractive--and that would have been over ruled if he had been smart, or nice or funny. He just...wasn't. On the other hand, I can think of a number of times I turned down dates with guys who were quite good looking...because I didn't think they were very smart. Which is shallow of me, admittedly. And at least one guy who was pretty well off because he...wasn't very nice.

I know that people have different criteria for who they date and with whom they mate. I think most research shows that people are generally attracted to those who are of similar levels of attractiveness and also, in general, people of similar economic and/or educational backgrounds. I think people are generally in more stable relationships with those with whom they share similar interests and goals. The rest is much more fluid.

Attractiveness in kids? I dunno. It never occurred to me. I am sure I might have thought twice about marrying someone from whom children might inherit a serious medical condition. It never occurred to me that I wanted my kids to be attractive or talented in music or art or athletic or...whatever besides healthy and intelligent. Because I was young and dumb, I made the assumption that healthy and intelligent were givens.

Outside of movies and television shows, I've never heard anyone suggest that they wanted babies with someone because their babies would be smart or beautiful or good athletes. IRL, I do know people who have had genetic testing due to family history of serious medical conditions and who make reproductive choices based on the results of those tests. But not choices about marital partners.

I mentioned above it's not usually a conscious thing. People's instincts will usually have a way of maximizing the fecundity of their children, even if they don't realize they're doing it. This usually manifests itself in a situation where in practice people are just looking for a good partner. Someone with intelligence, sometimes good looks, emotional stability, things that you would consider necessary for raising your own children, which in turn would improve the outcomes for your children themselves via both genetics and parental investment.

This is something like an evolutionary law. We gravitate to people we are sexually attracted to, and we are (usually) attracted to the best people we can find who will help us raise kids. If we choose someone who's not good at raising kids or who won't commit to us or who isn't very competent, our genes may fall out of the gene pool. This would mean that over time on average most people are capable of raising fecund kids, and also that people will tend to be attracted to good, committed partners.

Really all this comes from a deep understanding of evolution, and a lot of background reading, the above is just a small, superficial look at how it works. But in a nutshell the mind creates behaviors (sexual desire for people who would be a good partner) which results in people maximizing the abilities of their kids, even if they never make the connection that this is what's happening. To the person in a relationship all they know is they like being around their partner, like being intimate.. etc.

 

[Toni]

I think that people are attracted to certain types on a certain level. Personally, in my younger days, I heavily went for dark hair/eyes. I actually married someone with light brown hair and blue eyes. He has a fairly medium, athletic build but honestly, that wasn't a factor. I dated guys with 'hotter' bodies and date guys who were...decidedly pudgy to significantly overweight. The success or failure of the relationship was not determined by weight or body build or anything other than how well we got along and to a certain extent, stage of life we were in.

I've said repeatedly that I have a few friends who were and remain what can only be termed: drop dead gorgeous. Only one actually married someone that most people would consider close to as attractive as she is, and frankly, in her early dating life, some of the guys she dated were not very attractive at all. The other two married guys who are smart, and warm, and funny---and at best, average looking. One married a guy a few inches shorter than she is. What all of these men have in common is that they are smart, warm, funny guys who married beautiful women who are also smart, warm, funny, interesting.

Financial stability is not a bad thing. When my husband and I met, we were both students. I had no money; he had some set aside but we both lived as poor students. Were married as poor students. What was important was that we both had similar and, imo, realistic views about finances and money. We both cold defer gratification. One of my friends married young and this quality was missing in both of them at the time of their marriage; she cites it still as the major reason their marriage failed. She's one of my beautiful friends who is now happily married to someone who is financially stable, as she is. That early lesson taught her a lot about how important it is to be financially responsible. For me, and for my friends (college educated/upper middle class now although we were not always upper), being financially responsible was simply another way of saying emotionally stable. Money isn't substituted for some other characteristic. No one is buying shit to make themselves or other people feel better about themselves. Having been poor and now being upper middle class, I will say frankly I am not happier with more money. More secure: yes. Happier? Not really. But then, we were pretty happy as poor student newlyweds.

I can honestly think of only one time when I turned down a date with someone because I found him physically unattractive--and that would have been over ruled if he had been smart, or nice or funny. He just...wasn't. On the other hand, I can think of a number of times I turned down dates with guys who were quite good looking...because I didn't think they were very smart. Which is shallow of me, admittedly. And at least one guy who was pretty well off because he...wasn't very nice.

I know that people have different criteria for who they date and with whom they mate. I think most research shows that people are generally attracted to those who are of similar levels of attractiveness and also, in general, people of similar economic and/or educational backgrounds. I think people are generally in more stable relationships with those with whom they share similar interests and goals. The rest is much more fluid.

Attractiveness in kids? I dunno. It never occurred to me. I am sure I might have thought twice about marrying someone from whom children might inherit a serious medical condition. It never occurred to me that I wanted my kids to be attractive or talented in music or art or athletic or...whatever besides healthy and intelligent. Because I was young and dumb, I made the assumption that healthy and intelligent were givens.

Outside of movies and television shows, I've never heard anyone suggest that they wanted babies with someone because their babies would be smart or beautiful or good athletes. IRL, I do know people who have had genetic testing due to family history of serious medical conditions and who make reproductive choices based on the results of those tests. But not choices about marital partners.

I mentioned above it's not usually a conscious thing. People's instincts will usually have a way of maximizing the fecundity of their children, even if they don't realize they're doing it. This usually manifests itself in a situation where in practice people are just looking for a good partner. Someone with intelligence, sometimes good looks, emotional stability, things that you would consider necessary for raising your own children, which in turn would improve the outcomes for your children themselves via both genetics and parental investment.

This is something like an evolutionary law. We gravitate to people we are sexually attracted to, and we are (usually) attracted to the best people we can find who will help us raise kids. If we choose someone who's not good at raising kids or who won't commit to us or who isn't very competent, our genes may fall out of the gene pool. This would mean that over time on average most people are capable of raising fecund kids, and also that people will tend to be attracted to good, committed partners.

Really all this comes from a deep understanding of evolution, and a lot of background reading, the above is just a small, superficial look at how it works. But in a nutshell the mind creates behaviors (sexual desire for people who would be a good partner) which results in people maximizing the abilities of their kids, even if they never make the connection that this is what's happening. To the person in a relationship all they know is they like being around their partner, like being intimate.. etc.

fe·cun·di·ty
feˈkəndədē,fiˈkəndədē/Submit
noun
the ability to produce an abundance of offspring or new growth; fertility.
"multiply mated females show increased fecundity"
the ability to produce many new ideas.
"the immense fecundity of his imagination made a profound impact on European literature"

Not sure if that is the word you meant.

Do I think that evolutionary instincts drive part of what humans consider to be attractive? Of course. Do I think that evolutionary instincts drive (some) men to prefer blonde women with large breasts, small waits and long legs? Not really. I'm sure Freudians would weigh in here but I'm going with advertising.

If you don't believe me, think about how people's notions of what is attractive varies from era to era and from geographical location to geographical location.

In general, there is a drive to be more drawn to those who appear to be physically healthy, which makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint, as might a preference for well developed musculature --or a well developed brain--or a well developed creative talent (especially performance), and so on. I mean, Bob Dylan ain't pretty but he's sure drawn a lot of pretty women to him, starting long before he became rich and famous. Also, it seems he's more than a bit of a dick towards other people, especially women--but still drew plenty of beautiful partners. Feel free to fill in whoever you admire. I'm actually picking on Dylan because I'm a fan--but I'd never date him, even if I could bend the time/space continuum and otherwise alter reality to make that possible. I like his music but he really seems like a dick. Brad Pitt is pretty attractive but he's totally not my type and given infinite powers over the space/time continuum and the ability to alter reality to meet up/get him to fall in love or just bed with me, at any point in my life? Hard pass. I mean, maybe either of these gentlemen are really much more attractive (in my POV) in reality than I imagine either of them to be---but neither floats my boat, so to speak. I would have much preferred Robin Williams, although I gather he was more than a little bit of a dick as well. But he was funny and I thought he seemed like an old soul.

 

[rousseau]

fe·cun·di·ty
feˈkəndədē,fiˈkəndədē/Submit
noun
the ability to produce an abundance of offspring or new growth; fertility.
"multiply mated females show increased fecundity"
the ability to produce many new ideas.
"the immense fecundity of his imagination made a profound impact on European literature"

Not sure if that is the word you meant.

Do I think that evolutionary instincts drive part of what humans consider to be attractive? Of course. Do I think that evolutionary instincts drive (some) men to prefer blonde women with large breasts, small waits and long legs? Not really. I'm sure Freudians would weigh in here but I'm going with advertising.

If you don't believe me, think about how people's notions of what is attractive varies from era to era and from geographical location to geographical location.

In general, there is a drive to be more drawn to those who appear to be physically healthy, which makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint, as might a preference for well developed musculature --or a well developed brain--or a well developed creative talent (especially performance), and so on. I mean, Bob Dylan ain't pretty but he's sure drawn a lot of pretty women to him, starting long before he became rich and famous. Also, it seems he's more than a bit of a dick towards other people, especially women--but still drew plenty of beautiful partners. Feel free to fill in whoever you admire. I'm actually picking on Dylan because I'm a fan--but I'd never date him, even if I could bend the time/space continuum and otherwise alter reality to make that possible. I like his music but he really seems like a dick. Brad Pitt is pretty attractive but he's totally not my type and given infinite powers over the space/time continuum and the ability to alter reality to meet up/get him to fall in love or just bed with me, at any point in my life? Hard pass. I mean, maybe either of these gentlemen are really much more attractive (in my POV) in reality than I imagine either of them to be---but neither floats my boat, so to speak. I would have much preferred Robin Williams, although I gather he was more than a little bit of a dick as well. But he was funny and I thought he seemed like an old soul.

No, I believe you. Appearance being a factor is much more complicated than guys always going after the 10s.

More generally what matters is am I sexually attracted to this person. Does a combination of factors, including appearance, make me want to sleep and partner with this person. Appearance being a factor doesn't have to mean the person is incredibly good looking, it can also mean that the person isn't incredibly bad looking. I know my wording made it sound like I meant otherwise, but I don't mean to imply that pair-bonding is as simple as 'go after the bombshell'.

What I would say about appearance though, is that studies will show that, averaged out, men will rate appearance more highly than women. Whereas women will rate social status more highly than men. So across the broad spectrum of variable people men will tend to pursue good looking women, and women will tend to pursue financially secure and socially competent men.

 

[rousseau]

fe·cun·di·ty
feˈkəndədē,fiˈkəndədē/Submit
noun
the ability to produce an abundance of offspring or new growth; fertility.
"multiply mated females show increased fecundity"
the ability to produce many new ideas.
"the immense fecundity of his imagination made a profound impact on European literature"

Not sure if that is the word you meant.

Do I think that evolutionary instincts drive part of what humans consider to be attractive? Of course. Do I think that evolutionary instincts drive (some) men to prefer blonde women with large breasts, small waits and long legs? Not really. I'm sure Freudians would weigh in here but I'm going with advertising.

If you don't believe me, think about how people's notions of what is attractive varies from era to era and from geographical location to geographical location.

In general, there is a drive to be more drawn to those who appear to be physically healthy, which makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint, as might a preference for well developed musculature --or a well developed brain--or a well developed creative talent (especially performance), and so on. I mean, Bob Dylan ain't pretty but he's sure drawn a lot of pretty women to him, starting long before he became rich and famous. Also, it seems he's more than a bit of a dick towards other people, especially women--but still drew plenty of beautiful partners. Feel free to fill in whoever you admire. I'm actually picking on Dylan because I'm a fan--but I'd never date him, even if I could bend the time/space continuum and otherwise alter reality to make that possible. I like his music but he really seems like a dick. Brad Pitt is pretty attractive but he's totally not my type and given infinite powers over the space/time continuum and the ability to alter reality to meet up/get him to fall in love or just bed with me, at any point in my life? Hard pass. I mean, maybe either of these gentlemen are really much more attractive (in my POV) in reality than I imagine either of them to be---but neither floats my boat, so to speak. I would have much preferred Robin Williams, although I gather he was more than a little bit of a dick as well. But he was funny and I thought he seemed like an old soul.

No, I believe you. Appearance being a factor is much more complicated than guys always going after the 10s.

More generally what matters is am I sexually attracted to this person. Does a combination of factors, including appearance, make me want to sleep and partner with this person. Appearance being a factor doesn't have to mean the person is incredibly good looking, it can also mean that the person isn't incredibly bad looking. I know my wording made it sound like I meant otherwise, but I don't mean to imply that pair-bonding is as simple as 'go after the bombshell'.

What I would say about appearance though, is that studies will show that, averaged out, men will rate appearance more highly than women. Whereas women will rate social status more highly than men. So across the broad spectrum of variable people men will tend to pursue good looking women, and women will tend to pursue financially secure and socially competent men.

That is, in reference to each other. Men value appearance more highly than women and vice versa with social skills.

 

[Toni]

No, I believe you. Appearance being a factor is much more complicated than guys always going after the 10s.

More generally what matters is am I sexually attracted to this person. Does a combination of factors, including appearance, make me want to sleep and partner with this person. Appearance being a factor doesn't have to mean the person is incredibly good looking, it can also mean that the person isn't incredibly bad looking. I know my wording made it sound like I meant otherwise, but I don't mean to imply that pair-bonding is as simple as 'go after the bombshell'.

What I would say about appearance though, is that studies will show that, averaged out, men will rate appearance more highly than women. Whereas women will rate social status more highly than men. So across the broad spectrum of variable people men will tend to pursue good looking women, and women will tend to pursue financially secure and socially competent men.

That is, in reference to each other. Men value appearance more highly than women and vice versa with social skills.

Not sure how your arguments here match up with 'it's all an evolutionary strategy.'

 

[ruby sparks]

No, I believe you. Appearance being a factor is much more complicated than guys always going after the 10s.

More generally what matters is am I sexually attracted to this person. Does a combination of factors, including appearance, make me want to sleep and partner with this person. Appearance being a factor doesn't have to mean the person is incredibly good looking, it can also mean that the person isn't incredibly bad looking. I know my wording made it sound like I meant otherwise, but I don't mean to imply that pair-bonding is as simple as 'go after the bombshell'.

What I would say about appearance though, is that studies will show that, averaged out, men will rate appearance more highly than women. Whereas women will rate social status more highly than men. So across the broad spectrum of variable people men will tend to pursue good looking women, and women will tend to pursue financially secure and socially competent men.

That is, in reference to each other. Men value appearance more highly than women and vice versa with social skills.

Not sure how your arguments here match up with 'it's all an evolutionary strategy.'

Imo, citing evolution is a powerful way to explain......almost everything about living things.

The only caveat is that it's a 'just so' story. While we can say that this or that has evolved, it's harder to justify the relative weights of the interacting whys in particular scenarios, given that the evaluations are after the fact.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

What is attractriveness in evolutionary terms? Looking expert at mating and very healthy? Some combination of sex traits but also youthfulness and healthy body and face?

In terms of non-physical, a woman who is nurturing and a man who has security?

 

[rousseau]

No, I believe you. Appearance being a factor is much more complicated than guys always going after the 10s.

More generally what matters is am I sexually attracted to this person. Does a combination of factors, including appearance, make me want to sleep and partner with this person. Appearance being a factor doesn't have to mean the person is incredibly good looking, it can also mean that the person isn't incredibly bad looking. I know my wording made it sound like I meant otherwise, but I don't mean to imply that pair-bonding is as simple as 'go after the bombshell'.

What I would say about appearance though, is that studies will show that, averaged out, men will rate appearance more highly than women. Whereas women will rate social status more highly than men. So across the broad spectrum of variable people men will tend to pursue good looking women, and women will tend to pursue financially secure and socially competent men.

That is, in reference to each other. Men value appearance more highly than women and vice versa with social skills.

Not sure how your arguments here match up with 'it's all an evolutionary strategy.'

I've never heard anyone address this directly, but the main difference between men and women is that women always bear a heavy investment when they produce a child. They carry the child, and in the long-run they're the ones who can't abandon it. Men, on the other hand, can have sex and run.

So with a little deduction there, men who have sex and run will more likely pass on their genes if they sleep with a healthy woman, whereas a woman will more likely pass on their genes if they sleep with a socially competent, committed man. That'd be my guess, anyway. Or it could just be as simple as women bearing the brunt of child-rearing, and so a healthy partner is critical for a man.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So the OP should be titled "Guy on blog has opinion"?

 

[J842P]

Not sure how your arguments here match up with 'it's all an evolutionary strategy.'

I've never heard anyone address this directly, but the main difference between men and women is that women always bear a heavy investment when they produce a child. They carry the child, and in the long-run they're the ones who can't abandon it. Men, on the other hand, can have sex and run.

So with a little deduction there, men who have sex and run will more likely pass on their genes if they sleep with a healthy woman, whereas a woman will more likely pass on their genes if they sleep with a socially competent, committed man. That'd be my guess, anyway. Or it could just be as simple as women bearing the brunt of child-rearing, and so a healthy partner is critical for a man.

Well, the ideal position from a fitness perspective is to sleep with a promiscuous man but pair-bond with a committed, providing man. Of course, this creates an arms-race situation.

In truth, alot of this stuff amounts to little more than just-so stories. Show me models and data, and then I might be more inclined to believe one of these stories over the other.

 

[ruby sparks]

Well, the ideal position from a fitness perspective is to sleep with a promiscuous man but pair-bond with a committed, providing man.

How so? I am just interested. These are as you say 'just so' stories to an extent (perhaps ultimately) and I am not claiming to be an expert, so not looking to win an argument.

Of course, this creates an arms-race situation.

Doesn't it, or should I say wouldn't it just?

Have you heard about the theory that men's penises have been getting longer and women's vaginas deeper for just such a suggested reason? The former gives a male an advantage and the latter a female (more room and time to manoevure, given what goes on in there).

Show me models and data, and then I might be more inclined to believe one of these stories over the other.

Try Googling 'sperm competition'. Fascinating. This book in particular:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Promiscuity-Evolutionary-History-Sperm-Competition/dp/0674006666

 

[rousseau]

Not sure how your arguments here match up with 'it's all an evolutionary strategy.'

I've never heard anyone address this directly, but the main difference between men and women is that women always bear a heavy investment when they produce a child. They carry the child, and in the long-run they're the ones who can't abandon it. Men, on the other hand, can have sex and run.

So with a little deduction there, men who have sex and run will more likely pass on their genes if they sleep with a healthy woman, whereas a woman will more likely pass on their genes if they sleep with a socially competent, committed man. That'd be my guess, anyway. Or it could just be as simple as women bearing the brunt of child-rearing, and so a healthy partner is critical for a man.

Well, the ideal position from a fitness perspective is to sleep with a promiscuous man but pair-bond with a committed, providing man. Of course, this creates an arms-race situation.

In truth, alot of this stuff amounts to little more than just-so stories. Show me models and data, and then I might be more inclined to believe one of these stories over the other.

I'm not here to convince anyone, I just dropped into this thread to pass a few minutes while taking a break from work, and now I'm talking about evolution. If you want a definite answer you'll have to look for it yourself.

But as to the above, a few things are clear:

1) The ability to survive and reproduce passes on a specific set of genes
2) The ability to survive and reproduce, averaged out, will produce a specific kind of man, and a specific kind of woman, who pursues a specific type of partner
3) Therefore, there is an explanation, I've just not seen the model you're looking for.

I do have a biology degree, and have read many books on evolution, so the explanation provided above is probably somewhat close to the truth.

 

[ruby sparks]

In broad terms, gender roles are, I think, commonly exhibited in the rest of the animal kingdom, in many varieties. I can't think of a reason we would be an exception, except perhaps that we can think about them more and perhaps modify our behaviour accordingly. For clues and comparisons, we might best look at other apes, especially perhaps those genetically/evolutionarily closest to us.

 

[Hermit]

So the OP should be titled "Guy on blog has opinion"?

Yes. It's a blog rather than a serious study. The author's alias - Worst-Online-Dater - is a fairly broad hint that the article was written with tongue firmly in cheek. Also, I am pretty sure the author is well aware that you cannot base a serious study on a survey with a sample size of 27.

...as to the above, a few things are clear:

1) The ability to survive and reproduce passes on a specific set of genes
2) The ability to survive and reproduce, averaged out, will produce a specific kind of man, and a specific kind of woman, who pursues a specific type of partner
3) Therefore, there is an explanation, I've just not seen the model you're looking for.

I do have a biology degree, and have read many books on evolution, so the explanation provided above is probably somewhat close to the truth.

Ah. Evolutionary psychology. What is clear to me is that some human behaviour is contingent on genes and some on society. What is not clear to me is which bits of behaviour or how much behaviour, if you like, is contingent on one or the other, and I dare say it is impossible or at least extremely difficult to test which is which. In my view, though I cannot support it with actual evidence, social contingencies are for practical purposes more significant than underlying, genetically based predispositions.

 

[ronburgundy]

Evolutionary "attractiveness".

Evolutionary physical attractiveness for both sexes would include things that signal health, but also anything that signals willingness to mate, and ability to procreate.
This means very different things for males and females though. For hetero males, attractiveness of females would be tied to the effects of female hormones like oestrogen which plays a major role in female puberty. Among adult women, higher levels of oestrogen is tied to a smaller overall face/body ratio (due to less facial bone growth in puberty), and in relative terms, smaller nose and chin, larger eyes, fuller lips, higher cheeks, and fat deposits in hips and butt. These same features in women highly predictive of perceived "attractiveness", "health", and "femininity", plus objective levels of oestrogen statistically mediates those relationships.

In contrast, testosterone in males causes very different facial features including a more pronounced chin and eyebrow ridge and facial hair. IOW, puberty causes divergence in males and females faces, which means the women who look most different from the typical male (e.g., the most "feminine") will be viewed as the most attractive because their features clearly signal a post-pubescent fertile female.

Also, since female fertility ends sooner than male's, and the age of females more directly impacts health of the fetus and successful childbirth, that makes it much more relevant for males to select younger mates so long as they are post-pubescent.

Then there are things not really related to personal health but would impact attractiveness for both sexes. Facial symmetry appears to be such a factor, as does having features of a "mixed-race" person. Genetic mixing is good for evolutionary health and not passing on harmful recessive genes. Also, since some skin blemishes are a signal of poor health and disease, most skin blemishes in general would likely trigger a reduction in perceived attractiveness, even acne or scars not themselves indicative of overall health.

Some evolutionary psychology (such as job preferences, differences in spatial ability, etc.) consists of rather tenuous assumptions that only indirectly relate to reproductive success. However, the behavior of mate selection so directly determines reproductive success that it would be a downright miracle if such behaviors and the prime motivators behind them (sexual arousal) were not highly determined by evolutionary pressures. If your not having sex with a fertile member of the opposite sex, you aren't having kids. So being most attracted to those with features directly caused by the hormones that determine sexual fertility is a surefire way to optimize productive sexual activity. Perceived attractiveness of females is predicted by objective levels of such hormones and those hormones have biological effects on physical features that most differentiate fertile females from both unfertile females and fertile males. That's decent evidence attractiveness has major evolutionary influences.

That said, socialization factors would likely serve to reinforce these same proclivities. For example, social pressure to demonstrate one's "manliness" and thus heterosexuality would pressure males to show attraction to people with features that most differentiate fertile females from fertile males. And the inverse for pressure on females to prefer males with features that most differentiate fertile males from females.

Ironically, this socialization influence is itself likely a partial by-product of evolutionary pressures at the group level. Those societies that flourished were those those created cultures that reinforced the same attractiveness preferences that emphasize the same optimally fertile other sex mates that individual-level evolutionary pressures would create to begin with.