Will there be a change in a woman's preference on how a man should be?

[Shaka_Khan]

Women have told me that they prefer a man who is intelligent. At the same time, they want a man who isn't arrogant. They want a guy to be humorous, which can get confusing for us guys when trying to balance out the three. A guy needs to be healthy too.

I was told that a woman prefers an intelligent man because she seeks a man who could take care of her and could pass on good genes to their children. This has been ingrained in a woman's mind from generation to generation. Is it just me or do you guys don't emphasize a woman's intellect as much as a woman does to a man? From what I've seen, I can't imagine a woman falling in love with the character whom Ashton Kutcher acted as in That '70s Show, but I certainly know a lot of men who'd date/marry a female equivalent.

What if that woman's need disappears? What if more and more women gain powerful positions? I think more and more women would no longer feel the need to marry a guy who is more intelligent, older and wealthier than herself. I know of one successful woman who said that she'd marry a younger guy whose style she could change if she wants to. Another woman somewhat like her is my older cousin who came from a wealthy family. She married a guy who wasn't wealthy. She was mainly attracted to her looks. I think she plays the dominant role because of the wealth that her parents give her. She controls the money management of the couple, tries to control what friends her man should hang around with, and even controls what hairstyle her husband should have. This guy isn't weak and submissive to the others.

I could see more and more women think less about a man's intellect and wealth in the future.

[Beskar]

I really like Intelligent women, I find it an attractive trait.

But I think some people try to seperate men and women as if they are a completely separate species. It really isn't the case. Men and women are identical yet there is some social stigma/norms which are placed upon them which bizarrely could make the same person as a male and as a female "completely different" in how they are viewed.

For example, think of the male/female dumbgoodlooking ones, and the male/female nerdyones. They are essentially the same, just viewed from different angles.

[Papewaio]

The hormones in our body bathe the brain and have an effect on how we feel and what we are attracted to.

Good looking is linked to disease resistance. Sexual appetite and energy is linked to health.

The ability of a guy to provide a nest is an important trait too.

So if a woman has her own nest she can select on the healthy traits over the nest.

Intelligence in a knowledge economy is linked to wealth.

Apparently women are attracted to different attributes based on cycle and if they are using the pill.

Guys are attracted on a more steady level... But change in testosterone levels does change a guys fixation levels.

Also apparently we are most attracted to people who smell differen to us... Increased disease resistance.

[Husar]

I wouldn't know, I'm apparently too poor to afford an intelligent woman. :shrug:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Women have told me that they prefer a man who is intelligent. At the same time, they want a man who isn't arrogant. They want a guy to be humorous, which can get confusing for us guys when trying to balance out the three. A guy needs to be healthy too.

I was told that a woman prefers an intelligent man because she seeks a man who could take care of her and could pass on good genes to their children. This has been ingrained in a woman's mind from generation to generation. Is it just me or do you guys don't emphasize a woman's intellect as much as a woman does to a man? From what I've seen, I can't imagine a woman falling in love with the character whom Ashton Kutcher acted as in That '70s Show, but I certainly know a lot of men who'd date/marry a female equivalent.

What if that woman's need disappears? What if more and more women gain powerful positions? I think more and more women would no longer feel the need to marry a guy who is more intelligent, older and wealthier than herself. I know of one successful woman who said that she'd marry a younger guy whose style she could change if she wants to. Another woman somewhat like her is my older cousin who came from a wealthy family. She married a guy who wasn't wealthy. She was mainly attracted to her looks. I think she plays the dominant role because of the wealth that her parents give her. She controls the money management of the couple, tries to control what friends her man should hang around with, and even controls what hairstyle her husband should have. This guy isn't weak and submissive to the others.

I could see more and more women think less about a man's intellect and wealth in the future.

There is some evidence that more successful women raise the bar, which makes sense because however much you make you will have to take some time off for having children and your partner needs to be able to take up the economic slack to maintain your lifestyle.

Your older cousin sounds not unusual, my mother has always controlled the money (my father has no bank card) but she does not earn the majority of it. On the other hand, if she's trying to control who he associates with, he is clearly under her thumb and somewhat weak willed if he puts up with that.


I really like Intelligent women, I find it an attractive trait.

So do I, especially ones who are gue with me, and are feminists.


But I think some people try to seperate men and women as if they are a completely separate species. It really isn't the case. Men and women are identical yet there is some social stigma/norms which are placed upon them which bizarrely could make the same person as a male and as a female "completely different" in how they are viewed.

My and women are not a seperate species, but they do have fundamentally different ways of viewing the world, and that is true accross cultures. Putting that down to "stigma" is unreasonable, because it assumes that the supposed sexism arose in a vacume, rather than as a reflection of our genuine sexual asymetry.


For example, think of the male/female dumbgoodlooking ones, and the male/female nerdyones. They are essentially the same, just viewed from different angles.

Not really, the female nerd is a different beast. Not only is she usually attractive, because the nerdy in a man is cute in a girl, but unlike the male nerd she doesn't consider "nerding it up" to be a good date.

The male "nerd" is just an intelligent man who isn't any good at being a "man", because as soon as you demonstrate "manliness" you cease to be a nerd, while the female nerd is perfectly feminine to begin with, she just pretends to be less nerdy for the sake of her boyfriend.

[Beskar]

My and women are not a seperate species, but they do have fundamentally different ways of viewing the world, and that is true accross cultures. Putting that down to "stigma" is unreasonable, because it assumes that the supposed sexism arose in a vacume, rather than as a reflection of our genuine sexual asymetry.

Reminds me of a study where there was a class full of children and they decided to split the class based on eye colour with blue eyes being better than brown eyes, then they observed the effects. Within the matter of hours, the divide between the pupils grew, with the blue eyed ones acting 'superior' over the brown eye ones. Differences in stereotypes began to form as well. So kids who had no idea of the differences suddenly became very aware and salient of them.

If you have a bunch of young children, males and females and have them together with no clear indication or differing treatment, they are virtually identical.

Yes, later on, hormones can play a big role in tempering with individuals emotions and feelings, so on the fundamental broad level, there is no clear dividing difference.

[Shaka_Khan]

Yes, later on, hormones can play a big role in tempering with individuals emotions and feelings, so on the fundamental broad level, there is no clear dividing difference.
We weren't talking as if a man and a woman were different species.

[CountArach]

Not really, the female nerd is a different beast. Not only is she usually attractive, because the nerdy in a man is cute in a girl, but unlike the male nerd she doesn't consider "nerding it up" to be a good date.

The male "nerd" is just an intelligent man who isn't any good at being a "man", because as soon as you demonstrate "manliness" you cease to be a nerd, while the female nerd is perfectly feminine to begin with, she just pretends to be less nerdy for the sake of her boyfriend.
Nothing at all like my life and several other people that I know. What are you basing that on?

[rvg]

Women want a man who is rich. Other stuff can be a plus but it's mostly just fluff overshadowed by money.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Reminds me of a study where there was a class full of children and they decided to split the class based on eye colour with blue eyes being better than brown eyes, then they observed the effects. Within the matter of hours, the divide between the pupils grew, with the blue eyed ones acting 'superior' over the brown eye ones. Differences in stereotypes began to form as well. So kids who had no idea of the differences suddenly became very aware and salient of them.

If you have a bunch of young children, males and females and have them together with no clear indication or differing treatment, they are virtually identical.

Yes, later on, hormones can play a big role in tempering with individuals emotions and feelings, so on the fundamental broad level, there is no clear dividing difference.

What about the study with the male and female chimpanzees, where the male children automatically played with the cars, and the females the dolls?

What about the case of the boy who had his penis burned off and was raised as a girl, which was a complete failure even prior to puberty, and he subsequently committed suicide?

Racism and sexism are not similar prejudices.

Gender is real.


Nothing at all like my life and several other people that I know. What are you basing that on?

Oh, you have girls who are outwardly "nerdy", certainly, and even ones who consider dungeon crawling in D&D Online a great date, but consider the example of "chick lit". How much of that stuff is fantasy with conplex underlying mythology, it's not just Twilight that's like that, there was True Blood too, any plenty of other examples. Look at the films targeted at teenagers and young women vs those targeted at young men.

Hell, look at the TV being produced these days, how much of the Sci-Fi/Fantasy strand is targeted at young women specifically?

[rory_20_uk]

Women want two things:

They want a man with low testosterone who won't stray, with a good job and who is good with children. A provider and a nurcherer.
They want a man with a high testosterone to screw their brains out and get them their children.

So, ideally they want the former to look after the children of the latter.

Women aren't shallow, oh no. They just like men who buy them things. Shiny things. Expensive things. It's not that they want these things per se, it's just that it is a fantastic surrogate marker to assess how much the man cares.
They are not obsessed by money. Of course not. They just don't like men without drive or ambition or intelligence. Things that just happen to lead to, erm, material possessions.

Apparently women over time to have different preferences in men, which helps ensure genetic drift in the species which keeps it heathy. Unlike the social system which encourages reverse darwinism.

~:smoking:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Women want two things:

They want a man with low testosterone who won't stray, with a good job and who is good with children. A provider and a nurcherer.
They want a man with a high testosterone to screw their brains out and get them their children.

Did you read that recent study that showed that your testosterone takes a nose dive once your first child is born?

So, really, women just want men with high testosterone and decent intelligence and the ability to provide. Once they have kids, nature will turn Tarzan into Romeo anyway. Actually, that helps to explains why childless relationships break down/the man appears more likely to cheat.

[Syl]

I think generally everyone wants to find a compatible person who shares their same passions, who loves them, are attractive and attracted to them, and will be a partner with them through life. There is no great difference or mystery between men and women in that, unlike the impression a lot of people seem to have. Marriage and relationships in history though have meant in many cases something very different than being happy or even desiring your mate mutually. This largely stems from the difference in status and treatment of women over the majority of our history.

Most societies in history have restricted the freedom of women to support themselves by denying them certain levels of education and the ability to employ themselves in different roles (both career wise and politically), largely from the basis of religion and traditions of different cultures. When your ability to provide for yourself is limited, you're dependent largely on someone else.

The result was that your choice in a spouse as a woman was in large part based on how they would be able to provide for you and your family. The impact of your choice, especially when divorce is forbidden by your society, would define much of the quality of rest of your life. Likewise, for men, this creates a system where the value of a man is seen as his ability to provide and his status, which comes at the result of competition and conflict between him and other men for these things. I think even if it is more subtle today, much of its traces remains in our expectations. Like how so much emphasis is placed on the success of a man, and how society seems so obsessed about a woman's appearance.

However, we're finally reaching a point in society where men and women are reaching equality, and it is changing the dynamics of relationships. That's not to say there still isn't a long way to go on that front though. In some places things have changed very little. When women and men are both able to provide for their basic needs on their own independently and represent themselves equally in society, they no longer need to find that characteristic to be a defining aspect of their relationship. Instead, people are more free to make those choices based on the personality and compatibility.

As for how that shift will change what women are looking for, that all comes down to an individual level. We are all so different as individuals in what interests us and what we believe is important in the world. That will be the defining point of relationships outside of outright attraction. You're not going to find a clean cut difference between men and women in this, you're going to find that difference between person and person. There's also a whole other aspect I want to get into about the difference between sex and gender, and how the construct of gender has also contributed to the differences in the roles of men and women in society artificially, which has impacted relationships as well, but that is a whole other topic so I'll try and restrain myself :p.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The three main things that attract women are looks (eg facial symetry, a sign of health), size (ability to protect and also health), and power (either status or material wealth). Because that gives women the three things they need - good genes to pass on, physical protection, and a provider.

But then I would say that I'm not sure that, as men, we are the best at judging what women are attracted to. It's a bit empty me talking on such a matter given that women remain like a separate species to me, but I'm allowed to speculate, so deal with it.

This thread reminded me of the bodybuilding.com relationship forum, which is like the Frontroom girl threads x1000. Over there apparently all that matters is whether you are alpha or beta, that is all that women notice.

[Syl]

The three main things that attract women are looks (eg facial symetry, a sign of health), size (ability to protect and also health), and power (either status or material wealth). Because that gives women the three things they need - good genes to pass on, physical protection, and a provider.


I guess that's part of what I disagree with ^^. What attracts someone physically is one thing in itself. Most men seem convinced that women want some juggernaut with a chisseled face and bulging muscles. Some do. Many don't. While a strong jaw line is indicative of high testosterone, and considered an attractive trait, there's also studies of women preferring more feminine faces in males. There is a lot of variation in what people find attractive. Things like facial symmetry have been shown in studies, but that's universal between men and women.

But physical attraction alone a relationship (at least a healthy one) does not make. When it comes to traits I really believe there's no great mystery there. People are people and they want someone who cares about them, shares their passions in life, and will stand by them. Strive to be the person you want to be and find someone who you not only appreciate but appreciates what makes you you as well.

I disagree with status and wealth being much of a factor these days for what I wrote above. Now that women can be independent in a way they could not even a century before, they can find a partner on the qualities they want. The wealth of their partner no longer means the quality of life they will live. They have their own careers and can provide for themselves. Many people desire power and wealth, and may desire that in someone, but that desire alone is different then the situation where you are made dependent on your husband by society.

As an extension of that, not everything is about being an aggressive alpha or beta either (though I know you're not saying that yourself). A lot of men seem to think life is exclusively a competition to prove you're better and stronger then someone else. And I think it contributes to a lot of what makes this world so horrible.

Edit in regards to Gelly's post, I hadn't seen that when I wrote my response ^^:

I define the alpha/beta thing as the attitude that you're either the alpha and in charge, or you're nothing. Being comfortable and confident is something different.

[Syl]

Since when is life not a competition?

The world is a place of limited resources with a population dependent on them. We all need access to those resources, so it's impossible to say there is no competition in life. But the extent that our life life becomes one has to do a lot with when your view on life is to pull resources away from others to yourself, instead of your focus being on cooperating together to try and manage those resources the best you can together as a community.

I know that's a bit idealistic and naive, and not a reflection that matches what humans are, but it's at least something I believe in.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Since when is life not a competition?

The moment you stop treating it like one.

[Papewaio]

We weren't talking as if a man and a woman were different species.

I wouldn't be surprised that there is a greater differentiation between X & Y chromosomes then any other pair ie there is a bigger step difference between man and woman then Chinese and European.

After all sexes predates ethnic groups.

[Andres]

I wouldn't know, I'm apparently too poor to afford an intelligent woman. :shrug:

They sometimes sell high quality products at cheap prices in the local Aldi.

[Ironside]

What about the study with the male and female chimpanzees, where the male children automatically played with the cars, and the females the dolls?

What about the case of the boy who had his penis burned off and was raised as a girl, which was a complete failure even prior to puberty, and he subsequently committed suicide?

Racism and sexism are not similar prejudices.

Gender is real.


So is subpopulations (aka race). The thing is how close they are on the scale, how they overlap and how to deal with it. Pretty much every list with girls do that and boys do that will both have significant exceptions and may very well be a pure cultural construction (boys don't cry is one example of that).

So sure gender does exist, but it's worth remembering that what girls wants doesn't say much on what girl A wants.

[Husar]

They sometimes sell high quality products at cheap prices in the local Aldi.

I'm more concerned about the running costs.
People keep telling me I have to invest continuously in a girlfriend, if I want to keep it. :shrug:

[Subotan]

Hm, there's quite a bit of pseudo-scientific evolutionary psychology in this this thread.

Syl's posts are the best and pretty much cover everything I have to say on the matter.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I guess that's part of what I disagree with ^^. What attracts someone physically is one thing in itself. Most men seem convinced that women want some juggernaut with a chisseled face and bulging muscles. Some do. Many don't. While a strong jaw line is indicative of high testosterone, and considered an attractive trait, there's also studies of women preferring more feminine faces in males. There is a lot of variation in what people find attractive. Things like facial symmetry have been shown in studies, but that's universal between men and women.

But physical attraction alone a relationship (at least a healthy one) does not make. When it comes to traits I really believe there's no great mystery there. People are people and they want someone who cares about them, shares their passions in life, and will stand by them. Strive to be the person you want to be and find someone who you not only appreciate but appreciates what makes you you as well.

I disagree with status and wealth being much of a factor these days for what I wrote above. Now that women can be independent in a way they could not even a century before, they can find a partner on the qualities they want. The wealth of their partner no longer means the quality of life they will live. They have their own careers and can provide for themselves. Many people desire power and wealth, and may desire that in someone, but that desire alone is different then the situation where you are made dependent on your husband by society.

As an extension of that, not everything is about being an aggressive alpha or beta either (though I know you're not saying that yourself). A lot of men seem to think life is exclusively a competition to prove you're better and stronger then someone else. And I think it contributes to a lot of what makes this world so horrible.

Edit in regards to Gelly's post, I hadn't seen that when I wrote my response ^^:

I define the alpha/beta thing as the attitude that you're either the alpha and in charge, or you're nothing. Being comfortable and confident is something different.

The thing is, if you're Brad Pitt it's much easier to attract the woman to begin with, and then forge a relationship. The first sense you engage a woman with, assuming good hygine, is sight So he who was born lucky in that department was off to a head start.


So is subpopulations (aka race). The thing is how close they are on the scale, how they overlap and how to deal with it. Pretty much every list with girls do that and boys do that will both have significant exceptions and may very well be a pure cultural construction (boys don't cry is one example of that).

So sure gender does exist, but it's worth remembering that what girls wants doesn't say much on what girl A wants.

All true, but I was really respoding to Beskar's narrow example. If race weren't real we wouldn't selectively breed dogs.

Now, to all those banging on about how a woman wants a poweful and wealthy man, try thinking about what women bring to a relationship that men don't. You'll soon see why she's judging you by your wallet.

[Tuuvi]

I just hope that one day women will find my beer gut attractive. :clown:


Yeah, anyone who thinks good looks aren't a key ingredient to happiness is living in denial. It's not a necesarry component, but you will attract women much easier if they are (duh) attracted to you.

You don't have to look like Brad Pitt. Just work out, eat/drink healthy, ect. Health is a sign of hapiness, confidence, and success. It sends all the right signals.

So! Not considering any of the psycho-babble going on here (of which there is quite a lot of GOOD psycho-babble, and some bad) I'm surprised how little we've touched on looks. Would anyone here argue that women have it harder than men? Much easier for a rough-looking guy to get in shape and attract a good looking woman than it is for a rough-looking woman to get into shape and attract a good looking guy.

Considering that everyone has different "tastes" in what they find attractive, I don't think women have it any harder than men. I can't tell you how many times one of my friends in high school or middle school would see a girl and be like "dude she's so hot" and then I looked at her and thought she was ugly because she had a big nose or something.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yeah, anyone who thinks good looks aren't a key ingredient to happiness is living in denial. It's not a necesarry component, but you will attract women much easier if they are (duh) attracted to you.

You don't have to look like Brad Pitt. Just work out, eat/drink healthy, ect. Health is a sign of hapiness, confidence, and success. It sends all the right signals.

So! Not considering any of the psycho-babble going on here (of which there is quite a lot of GOOD psycho-babble, and some bad) I'm surprised how little we've touched on looks. Would anyone here argue that women have it harder than men? Much easier for a rough-looking guy to get in shape and attract a good looking woman than it is for a rough-looking woman to get into shape and attract a good looking guy.

Well, I am quite good looking/attractive (we'll get to how I know this in a sec) but I have zero luck with women. More acurately, I am an arch self sabatarger, I deliberately and universally shoot myself in the foot. This meakes me a sort of reverse Cassanova, I can turn any sexual attraction into a platonic relationship.

Paradoxically, I'm pretty sure I can do the opposite, I just... don't.

That's why I fail.

How do I know I'm attractive, well a certain amount of objectivity tells me I'm at least average, average height, average weight (which is actually better than the average man my age), decently even features and reasonably clear complexion. The reason I know I'm quite attractive is that very attractive women are quite happy to be see in my company, happy to spend an evening with me, etc... In other words, while they don't consider me boyfriend material they seem quite happy for other people to assume we are involved (I have even been abused in this vein).

My point? Being attractive is no good if you can't turn it to your avantage, you also need to be funny (I have been told I am) and most importantly you actually need to be brave enough to risk getting rejected (I'm not).

as to female attractiveness, I think unattractive women are victims of the women's fashion machine. Thin girls trying to be fatter (getting boob jobs) plump girls trying to be rakes, fair skinned girls with rosy cheeks wanting to be tanned...

I actually think it's easier to be attractive as a woman, in most cases, if you can get to your natural weight, look after your skin and shape your eyebrows, along with a flattering wardrobe, you'll find plenty of men who will be interested. There are lots of ideal of female beauty, from the slender blonde waif to the dark Celtic beauty (at least three varients there)... I could go on, but as my preferences don't go darker than the French I'd just be riffing on a theme.

Compare to being a man, there's pretty much only one ideal of male beauty, even if some cultures value overweight men for being wealthy that's not actually the same thing.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You are correct. Looks get your foot in the door, but confidence seals the deal. Indeed, enough confidence can overcome any deficiency. I've known some butt-ugly men that could talk any woman into taking her clothes off.

All I was trying to say is that looks play a factor, and even the least shallow women have physical standards. What those standards are, of course, varies as much as it does with men. If not more.

Oh, no argument here.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I wouldn't say women or men have it easier as such, but I reckon that for women, their attractiveness hinges a lot more on their looks. It's more a make or break factor for them.

An ugly guy can always get into good shape and make money and get women that way, but for ugly women there's not much hope. On the other hand guys will flock to an attractive woman, but even attractive guys have to put some work in and have some confidence and life success/status.

I've heard people say all women need to do it put on make up but really that only works if they already have good facial proportions/shape etc.

[Tuuvi]

What I always find interesting is how women view other women. I've always felt that I tend to date attractive women, but all the women in my family think they had "ugly faces" or some other wierd fault.

It works the other way too sometimes one of my female friends will try to hook me up with someone and when I tell them I'm not interested in that person they act surprised that I don't think she's cute.

[Centurion1]

I wouldn't say women or men have it easier as such, but I reckon that for women, their attractiveness hinges a lot more on their looks. It's more a make or break factor for them.

An ugly guy can always get into good shape and make money and get women that way, but for ugly women there's not much hope. On the other hand guys will flock to an attractive woman, but even attractive guys have to put some work in and have some confidence and life success/status.

I've heard people say all women need to do it put on make up but really that only works if they already have good facial proportions/shape etc.

all men need is confidence and no glaring physical deformities.

[Hax]

The sexism in this thread is astounding.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The sexism in this thread is astounding.

Well, we are all men.

It's not like any of us actually understand women, and I'm pretty sure all the female mods and admins are quietly reading this and giggling to each other - probably over a bottl of Rose.

[Ronin]

The sexism in this thread is astounding.

I notice you don´t point out to it being incorrect :P

[Whacker]

The sexism in this thread is astounding.

I've been looking for the past 10 minutes and struggling to find this article I read some time ago. Maybe someone will read my comments and know what I'm talking about and can link/find it.

A study done on one of the largest, most popular web dating sites found that the biggest thing women look for in men is ...



Money.





Surprised?

The study found that of all men's qualities, their income was the biggest deciding factor by far that women used as a criteria on whom they contacted, with intelligence, attractiveness, and all other factors being negligible at best. Really, really wish I could find that article.

Likewise, it's not hard to guess what the single biggest deciding factor was for men selecting women they contacted on the site, with all other traits and characteristics almost ignored completely.



Attractiveness. :kiss2:

[Rhyfelwyr]

all men need is confidence and no glaring physical deformities.

Pretty much, although if they were ugly they might need money to compensate.

Well actually we are both forgetting the most important thing... being in an environment where you can actually meet people. My downfall...

[Husar]

I don't know if I buy that. Its a dating website, so if it displays how much money you make what do you think is going to happen?

I'm sure some women look for money. Just like some guys only look for boobs.

The reality for the majority of men and women is much more complicated, I assure you.

No, all women look for money and I'm really miserable about it being a poor man who desperately needs some big boobs.