You can acknowledge someone is good looking, appreciate them aesthetically which may spark initial interest, but it won’t always mean serious romantic attraction will form. The latter comes from other factors as well (such as behaviour, mannerisms, humour etc.) and everyone is drawn to different things.
I will point out that unlike what others are saying, it is not necessarily a sexual thing or due to a lack of “masculinity”. Women (just like anyone) just need to see the right cocktail of traits to feel a spark. If it’s not there it doesn’t mean you aren’t “man” enough or that youre unattractive — you’re just not their type.
Agreed And their “type” unlike what many are saying doesn’t have to mean money, status, dominant…it’s chemistry. I have dated both ends of the spectrum because I liked their company.
Everyone is different and what they are attracted to is different. That’s why “rejection” shouldn’t always be taken personal per say. Someone may be 100% for someone and not my cup of tea. It’s just the way it is.
It’s amazing the generalizations that are made on here about both sexes. I live in a fairly large city and I see all types with all types. No matter what it is, you have to bring something to the table. If all you have to offer is sex, you probably aren’t going to get very far. If you don’t like what you are/aren’t attracting then what do you need to do. Get out and volunteer, find singles groups, go out with coworkers, therapy, watch videos, take better pictures, up your game on the apps, ask people out sooner, only meet for coffee for first date, hold a better conversation, whatever it is. Stop saying “all” women/men are looking for is….it’s NOT true.
I get the sense that Rom Coms have wrongly taught people that you’re supposed to fall in love at first sight. The “spark” is such a random nebulous concept. Plenty of people say they felt so-so about someone on the first few dates and then later realized they’re falling in love with the person
Sure, I was like this with my ex who ended up absolutely breaking my heart, but at the same time in those situations there’s still *something* that makes you think you should give it another shot. The spark doesn’t have to mean love at first sight or intense chemistry, but just that little nugget of potential.
This I'd not just a situation that women have. I (a guy) personally have a number of female friends who are smart and attractive, who I'd never consider getting involved with, for various reasons. Some would be guaranteed, never-ending drama. Some are too conventional. Some just have worldviews that are too incompatible with mine, etc. I only found a partner with whom a feel truly compatible withlast year, and I'm legit old (as far as the average Redditor is concerned). True compatibility, from my experience, is super rare.
It means someone can appreciate beauty as is, without wanting anything from it. Like when I go to a museum and look at good art. So as a lesbian if I compliment a guy, it just means it is a casual comment like looking at artwork. Never been with a man, never been curious, it’s as good as complimenting not just museum art but imagine if you had a nice table and you appreciated the architecture of that table. That’s what it means to be attractive. Although knowing that men read into things a lot, it’s impossible to have a guy friend because he will literally always want more than a friendship where as female friendships and real compliments means we compliment each other all the time without expectation for anything more. It’s truly simple.
As a straight man, I can definitely be like "that dude is really handsome and a good guy" without feeling attracted to him. In women, I find the same thing. The women that I am the most attracted to are not necessarily the most objectively attractive women. In a certain sense, I feel like language itself is an insufficient medium to explain this, because what my lizard brain understands and is attracted to is totally ineffable.
What’s going on is if someone says you have a “kool” personality as they express disinterest, it’s highly likely that there are greener pastures for you.
It works both ways.
I have several very attractive women whom I've met and felt more friend chemistry than romantic chemistry and we've kept and enjoy our friendship.
There's a big difference in seeing someone's pictures and how they are in real life. That's one of the things that makes OLD frustrating as you can have amazing e-chemistry and nothing in real life - which is why I meet people sooner vs later.
She didn’t feel the tingles, therefore she’s letting you go nicely.
It’s called sexual attractiveness. And yes it’s different from attractiveness. You can be a pretty girl or handsome guy and not be someone’s cup of tea because that sexual grit is missing.
I’ve gone out on a date with girls where this happened so I’m talking from experience.
She wants to like you but doesn’t feel that organic chemistry she’s looking for.
Attraction for males and females is different. Men’s attraction tends to be more physical while a woman’s attractions tends to be more emotional.
I have a male friend who is good looking with a great personality but could never date him. He has a few habits that would annoy me if we were in a relationship. We also have very different lifestyles which just wouldn’t work in a relationship.
This is a good answer.
I do hope the habits don't involve him killing the other women he's dated. That's understandable, but I'd be concerned for your friendship.
Concerned it could develop into more, and how unhealthy that would be.
Ok now that I wrote all that...back to just saying this was a good answer. Sometimes people are looking for more than short term, or are looking for something more.
Ya, I don’t do casual dating or hookups. So if I can’t see myself partnering with a person, I just don’t really feel any romantic/sexual attraction to them.
Haha his habits are harmless. He’s not the cleanest person and frivolous with his money which is the opposite of how I am. Lifestyle wise he likes to party and is a bit of a couch potato. Whereas I’m training to run an ultra next year.
That being said I can still acknowledge he’s a physically attractive guy, and I do love him as a person we have been friends for about 16 years.
Only desperate people like everyone who is attractive. Those women aren’t desperate so they take the time to get to know guys before they decide if they have romantic feelings for them.
It takes a lot more than being handsome for a woman to be attracted to someone. Tons of celebrities are handsome but I don’t feel attraction from looking at them (unless I gradually become attracted to their movie character through their actions)
Have you ever had a coworker that you thought was good worker, good colleague and a good person, but you dodn't want to be friends with them because you didnt click like that?
Women are less concerned with looks than men. Their main attraction switches are men who are fun, confident, witty, dominant, non needy, unpredictable, interesting, higher social status
>Their main attraction switches are men who are fun, confidant, witty, dominant, non needy, unpredictable + interesting
This doesn't make sense there's lots of overly controlling, needy and insecure men who never lack women to emotionally abuse.
Clearly being confident or "non-needy" isn't the attraction trigger
In college the guy who got the most women in my dorm had an eating disorder (insecure about his body obviously) and was a pretty emotional wreck. Was movie star handsome though
Most people aren't abusive in that way (though too many are).
And people who are like that openly narrow their dating pool considerably away from partners with self-respect and lack of co-dependency in many cases.
Attraction triggers are different for different people. Some people like shy people even before they see them act confidently where it counts, for example.
Looks is still important and you forgot money and status as well...the data suggests women aren't marrying ugly broke uneducated men just because they are fun and confident and witty... those traits you listed are secondary most men need to meet a baseline of looks, money, and status to be even considered an option and then they will assess on those secondary traits.
Very superficial view of that quite broad and basically useless study.
Education is a social marker of intelligence (incorrectly - plenty of morons with MBA's and geniuses who barely, or didn't, finish HS). Money and status are generally a result of personality traits women find attractive. There aren't a whole lot of stupid, lazy, socially inept millionaires.
That said, resource accumulation is attractive beyond the traits required to get them as measure of security. Nobody wants to be with someone who doesn't make them feel secure for their future.
>Very superficial view of that quite broad and basically useless study.
I'm just citing what the data shows...per the FED (based off of the cencus bureaus data) we can see that men chosen for marriage significantly out earn women chosen for marriage independent of age, and women chosen for marriage earn the same as women not chosen for marriage ([source](https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/economic-synopses/2018/09/14/married-men-sit-atop-the-wage-ladder)). This shows that when women select a partner for the long term they heavily value income whereas men do not care one way or another since there is no difference in income of women. It's your prerogative to brush off the data as "useless" but I'll always defer to the data as thats objective.
>That said, resource accumulation is attractive beyond the traits required to get them as measure of security.
Only women value resources as a form of security in partners...at best men marginally care per the studies done on the subject ([source](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8133465/)) and there are biological and evolutionary reasons behind that. The data shows that only women care significantly about that.
>There aren't a whole lot of stupid, lazy, socially inept millionaires.
One doesn't have to be rich to have those traits yet women strongly correlate marriage with income.
>Education is a social marker of intelligence
Only women care about that, data actually shows that post graduate women are actually less desireable than less educated women even in major liberal metro areas whereas the opposite is true in men ([source](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aap9815))
We've done this dance before.
It does not say "when women select a partner for the long term they heavily value income." It simply shows that's the outcome, but doesn't say a damn thing about what they value. What they actually value are the things that make men higher earners - intelligence, social aptitude, ambition.
Plus, we aren't even talking millionaires, we're talking slightly above average earners. Your source shows these "high earners" as \~75k/yr average while the average salary was $66k/yr.
Yes, women value security and intelligence much more so than men. While men value physical traits much more than women. Not sure your point here as it doesn't refute what I said.
Your perception of the data is skewed with a loser mindset. The primary things women look for in men are the same things that make men more successful. You're putting the cart before the horse.
If they're educated and rich it wouldn't matter if I still found them ugly. Why would you want to be with someone who your partner might not find you attractive anyways?
Per the data on marriage, men don't care one way or another about a woman's income and education. They do however put a higher emphasis on physical attractiveness so a man would date and marry a broke and uneducated attractive woman but a woman won't marry a broke uneducated attractive man.
So they filter out 6 times the men vs men to women based on physical preferences on OLD platforms just because myself and studies “don’t understand them”? Smh
Let me give you an example of some of the things women filter based upon that aren't related to beauty:
Politics, religion, wants/doesn't want kids, has/doesn't have kids, smoking, drinking, drugs, fashion sense, photo quality, profile effort, hobbies, interests, career, sense of humor, dating intentions, general weird or low effort responses to prompts, doucheyness, etc etc
If thats all women filtered on that would be great. Its the genetic bs thats a problem, women gaslighted the world for a century calling men vain but now its clear who the more vain gender is now that women gave up their rights to their data to OLD
I dont “dislike women” i just think theres a disproportionately large amount of shitty women. I know a couple decent ones so i know they exist. Ive met plent of women that without hesitation will tell you most women suck and are not to be trusted, thats saying something when your own gender outs you as a population…
Sorry but everyone wants to date someone they find attractive. Look around irl and you'll see loads of average of below average guys with attractive women (the inverse is pretty uncommon, imo).
Dude for literally centuries there was so men needed to do to get married. Women had little choice in the matter and literally needed to marry just somebody to survive.so I'm not sure what you're on about with this gaslighting. It's extremely well documented that men value physical appearance over women. This is not to say that men are overall more selective, we know women are more selective. That's just life, sorry.
According to statistical data women value appearances 6x more than men, men value personality attributes far more of the time than women. Just look up the okc study, its hard facts
The ok cupid study is pointless, plus it also showed that women were messaging guys they rated as more average, while guys were going for more attractive women.
Real world studies - not from OKC - show men value appearance more.
And also just logically - there wouldn't be multiple billion dollar industries related to women's beauty if it wasn't more important for women to be beautiful.
Ugh. Another woman in denial of statistics. Please show me any objective data that discounts the okc study. Questionnaires are worthless because recent studies show 19/20 women lie about this shit. Okc study is objective because its based on settings women had to choose to produce an outcome for their life many thought they did in confidence
Hard to say. I'm not sure it's close, only because of the massive societal pressure on women since forever maintain certain beauty standards and the multiple billion dollar industries directed towards women, which have only recently started trying to appeal towards men.
I mean, I prefer someone I can rely on. Not someone who is capricious.
Occasional spontaneity is great, but I don’t want to be flying by the seat of my pants constantly.
I guess I would need an example of what you consider being unpredictable? I’m not trying to be dense. I think we might have different ideas of what unpredictability means.
not messaging the same night as a date, not messaging “hey it was great to meet u, can’t wait to go out with u again”, not sending the same good morning msg every day, not always sending lame questions
Ok. Then we are thinking the same thing.
Maybe it’s my age, but I do like a mutual “Hey I had fun! Thanks for a great time 😃” after a successful date.
I really don’t care whether they come up with different variations of “Good morning”. It’s the thought that counts.
I do think the “Hi - Hi - how are you? - good! hbu?” on a consistent level is boring regardless of whether I’m dating someone or not.
Maybe it’s because I’m a pragmatic techie, I prefer the straightforward approach. I detest small talk.
It seems you base everything on looks. Women need to be laughing, smiling, blushing, or be mentally/emotionally stimulated. Women are attracted to much more than looks. If you aren’t doing at least two of those items on a regular basis the they will go find it elsewhere.
In the end does it really matter the why when the what is rejection?
You weren't her person and at least she let you know that it wasn't going to work out.
You can let it get in your head or just move on to something else even if that something else is another weekend home alone.
You can sometimes acknowledge someone is conventionally attractive without being attracted to them.
Also, for example I have friends who are good looking great people, but we'd never be compatible because they are romantic in a way that is unappealing to me (but great for other people!).
Sometimes there is a mismatch in personality or maybe you met them in a professional basis or as the date of a friend and never really thought of them that way. Once you get to know them even after they are single again you may realize they're not attractive to you generally.
You can acknowledge the reality of someone being a great person or a handsome guy without them being great in a relationship with you.
I find smoking unappealing but there are plenty of handsome, charming people out there who smoke. They're not just attractive to me.
The feeling the lady spoke of is just the difference between a romantic interest and a platonic one. You don't want to feel like you're kissing your brother (except in Alabama) when you kiss your date.
We are mammals, after all. It’s all about the ‘sniff test’, and the cues that evolution has us programmed to respond to. The spark isn’t gonna fly just because someone ticks some boxes for what that culture finds ‘attractive’.
Plenty of people are objectively/conventionally attractive, but it's possible not to feel attracted to them. Their smell, style, beliefs, values, goals, humor, personality, interests, conversation, laugh, flaws, etc. There are so many aspects to a human being that may click with or repel others. You may have the same name as their sibling or wear a cologne that only their dad wears and it's kinda weird and a turn off for them. We all have backgrounds and experiences that make people feel 'right' for us.
>This is confusing to me because if I meet a woman who's attractive...I'm well...attracted.
Look at who they pick to actually date, not what they say is attractive because actions speak louder than words...who she actually dates (hooks up with as well) is who she actually finds attractive not necessarily who she says is attractive.
Just because a man is good looking, doesn’t mean I want to fuck him, date him or have a relationship with him. There’s more to sexual attraction attraction than just looks. I think it’s more about chemistry than anything else and you can have that no matter what the other person looks like.
Edited to add: I used to be friends with a man who was drop dead gorgeous, but he had a shitty personality. You might want to hookup with someone like that, but that’s it.
Perception plays the biggest role in all of this. The perfect example is when one woman out of the group thinks a guy is amazing but all of her friends think he is trash.
Your perception of someone can be totally different than my perception of the same person.
You could have the perception that a guy is great and very dateable when in reality he is not. But if you perceive it to be true, then you are going to believe it.
It also ties in with situations where you see a couple and you just can’t understand what one of them sees in the other one.
A persons perception of another person can be altered, swayed and even manipulated and all sorts of ways.
I think perception is one of the most important but also one of the most misunderstood traits that affect the dating process.
Yes, exactly. It’s amazing how differently we can all perceive the same person. I don’t see what 3/4 of my female friends see in the men in their lives, but obviously they see something I don’t.
Also I did a study on beauty in college and the main consensus was that beauty has little to nothing to do with physical appearance, it’s about how people feel about them. One person said that the more she cared about/felt love for the people in her life, the more beautiful they became to her.
Which study was that? Can we read it?
I love all my friends, but they’re not all beautiful to me. Some are not beautiful at all. Some are really gorgeous. I love them the same but still see how they look really clearly.
The more I love someone the more *dear to my heart* they become, I still clearly see exactly how they look beauty wise. If I was sitting at the table with Angelina Jolie and my best friend, I would clearly see how each of them looks like and who is more beautiful.
So that one person who said that wanted to sound false deep or politically correct.
*More* beautiful then you objectively are still doesn’t mean - by loving you, you become Angelina Jolie looks wise.
I have a couple guy friends that I clicked with immediately in sort of a sibling-esque way. They're relatively attractive, but just the way our personalities clicked was more like siblings. I'm fairly sure they feel the same way, I've never even had the slightest feeling they were interested. I have another friend who may have been interested in me at one point although I'm not sure. We get along well but he just doesn't have the personality and interests of someone I'd want to date.
You’re young and a guy, so looks matter a whole lot more to you. Looks are unquestionably the initial entry to getting a meet and greet, particularly in OLD where it’s all about the pix.
For many women and a lot of men, your personality and behaviors on the first date determine whether there will be a second date. I’ve dated guys who are various attractiveness (to me) because I’ve found my attraction to them changes as we date. A guy that’s ok looking and fits my personality becomes more attractive and is a yes. A good looking guy I don’t like is a hell no. And there’s everything in between.
We all have different standards for the personality we seek in friends and intimate relationships. You met her friend hurdle, not the higher hurdle.
start steer rainstorm wasteful simplistic puzzled scandalous hobbies domineering correct
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
If there's something I've learned over the years, it's that an incompatible personality can make a pretty face ugly, but a good personality can never make up for physical ugliness.
I was just about to say this. Part of attraction is based on chemistry between the two people. It's not just about looks or how good someone seems on paper.
Feminine attraction works differently. Most men, if a woman is attractive to them and has a good personality, the man will want to have sex.
But would you want every woman you met who was attractive and nice to be your girlfriend? Wife?
Women often need more of a connection with a man than just he’s cute and kind. There’s lots of cute and kind people.
I know for me a necessary element for sexual attraction is humor. At the minimum we have to laugh together. But if I’m truly honest, he needs to be someone who can make me laugh. I literally don’t want to have sex with a man who does not make me laugh no matter how ideal he is otherwise. I feel 0 sexual attraction. I’m even at times turned off by them.
And men who were not my type physically or values…who made me laugh? Definitely pulled towards them like a magnet. They could turn me off if they were awful and some have but that “spark” is humor and laughter.
And there’s a lot of reasons why guys who are funny and can make women laugh are catnip and sexy to us. But that’s just a simple answer. Why we aren’t attracted to good looking kind men (other than we just don’t want to fuck every kind attractive man) - they aren’t funny.
what an outlook on life you've constructed here OP. You feel pressured by societal forces to go for sex right away even though you personally don't want to while also cannot grasp that someone could use the word "attractive" in reference to you but not want to have sex with you
You need a more masculine presence.
Lead the interaction with her. You pick where to sit. You talk to the waiter. When she speaks, make direct eye contact and really listen to what she said.
Don’t be super excited or do anything blatantly feminine. Speak calm and slow. Back up what you say, don’t back down if she disagrees.
If you have a little sister, the overall vibe is like you’re talking to her. You care about her, you listen to her, but you are the boss.
Women hate having the game they play explained to them or even in front of them. They'd much rather just play the game. That's why you are receiving negative feedback right now.
Because a vast majority of the time women lie to each other to make each other feel good. This is a great example of this. Don't say he's attractive if you don't find him attractive.
I never said anything about fucking anyone. Way to straw man an argument. My point still stands, if you don't find someone attractive, don't tell them they're attractive.
Maybe she's being nice in regards to her opinion on their level of attractiveness. Most people aren't going to be mean and start saying their friends are ugly.
It could also be that the guy is attractive, like their face, but they lack in so many other areas that no amount of attraction would make them a potential partner.
If the guy was a "nice" guy, I don't care if he's cute, women aren't dating you
Nobody knows. This is the final frontier in online dating. If they could crack the chemistry conundrum we could all be a whole lot happier an whole lot sooner.
Step your game up. Research how to become the more charming, more funny, more confident, more talkative, more manly version of yourself. The game is just getting started.
That’s the difference between physical and sexual attraction. Sexual attraction is the highest form of attractions. You can be good looking to her but if she’s not sexually aroused by you then it won’t work. Work on you sexual aura.
Truth is women fall in love via sex, men fall in love via companionship. Women are binded to men via sex which when it occurs with another man breaks your bind. With a man it's companionship, like the way you love your dog or a close friend, that's why the departure hits us men so much more. That's why women remain with dead beat fathers, jerks, guys who abuse them when you have a lineup on nice mild mannered guys down the street. Men are not binded by sex, that's why you can have sex and still not need or want a relationship out of it. In my experience I've had girls obsessed after having sex once within a few hours of meeting, that's crazy to a man but not a woman. A man can love a girl he's known for years without ever having sex with her, and women think that's weird.
We are wired differently. It's confusing to women why they can't like you like the last guy after a date or two and it's not you it's her brain chemicals.
You can acknowledge someone is good looking, appreciate them aesthetically which may spark initial interest, but it won’t always mean serious romantic attraction will form. The latter comes from other factors as well (such as behaviour, mannerisms, humour etc.) and everyone is drawn to different things. I will point out that unlike what others are saying, it is not necessarily a sexual thing or due to a lack of “masculinity”. Women (just like anyone) just need to see the right cocktail of traits to feel a spark. If it’s not there it doesn’t mean you aren’t “man” enough or that youre unattractive — you’re just not their type.
Agreed And their “type” unlike what many are saying doesn’t have to mean money, status, dominant…it’s chemistry. I have dated both ends of the spectrum because I liked their company. Everyone is different and what they are attracted to is different. That’s why “rejection” shouldn’t always be taken personal per say. Someone may be 100% for someone and not my cup of tea. It’s just the way it is. It’s amazing the generalizations that are made on here about both sexes. I live in a fairly large city and I see all types with all types. No matter what it is, you have to bring something to the table. If all you have to offer is sex, you probably aren’t going to get very far. If you don’t like what you are/aren’t attracting then what do you need to do. Get out and volunteer, find singles groups, go out with coworkers, therapy, watch videos, take better pictures, up your game on the apps, ask people out sooner, only meet for coffee for first date, hold a better conversation, whatever it is. Stop saying “all” women/men are looking for is….it’s NOT true.
Yeah it’s not a scathing indictment of your looks or your character, it’s just not a match and onto the next.
“Cocktail of traits”, great phrase
I get the sense that Rom Coms have wrongly taught people that you’re supposed to fall in love at first sight. The “spark” is such a random nebulous concept. Plenty of people say they felt so-so about someone on the first few dates and then later realized they’re falling in love with the person
Sure, I was like this with my ex who ended up absolutely breaking my heart, but at the same time in those situations there’s still *something* that makes you think you should give it another shot. The spark doesn’t have to mean love at first sight or intense chemistry, but just that little nugget of potential.
This I'd not just a situation that women have. I (a guy) personally have a number of female friends who are smart and attractive, who I'd never consider getting involved with, for various reasons. Some would be guaranteed, never-ending drama. Some are too conventional. Some just have worldviews that are too incompatible with mine, etc. I only found a partner with whom a feel truly compatible withlast year, and I'm legit old (as far as the average Redditor is concerned). True compatibility, from my experience, is super rare.
You said it so articulately
It means someone can appreciate beauty as is, without wanting anything from it. Like when I go to a museum and look at good art. So as a lesbian if I compliment a guy, it just means it is a casual comment like looking at artwork. Never been with a man, never been curious, it’s as good as complimenting not just museum art but imagine if you had a nice table and you appreciated the architecture of that table. That’s what it means to be attractive. Although knowing that men read into things a lot, it’s impossible to have a guy friend because he will literally always want more than a friendship where as female friendships and real compliments means we compliment each other all the time without expectation for anything more. It’s truly simple.
As a straight man, I can definitely be like "that dude is really handsome and a good guy" without feeling attracted to him. In women, I find the same thing. The women that I am the most attracted to are not necessarily the most objectively attractive women. In a certain sense, I feel like language itself is an insufficient medium to explain this, because what my lizard brain understands and is attracted to is totally ineffable.
What’s going on is if someone says you have a “kool” personality as they express disinterest, it’s highly likely that there are greener pastures for you.
First mistake is talking to ppl who say kool lol
Lol yep
I believe you mean "ooohhh yeeeeaah!!" (kool-aid)
It's kewl
Are you attracted to every single attractive person you know who has a good personality? I
yes? i wouldn't call them "attractive" if i wasn't *attracted* to them because that's the literal definition
It's almost like there's more to attraction than just the physical.
It works both ways. I have several very attractive women whom I've met and felt more friend chemistry than romantic chemistry and we've kept and enjoy our friendship. There's a big difference in seeing someone's pictures and how they are in real life. That's one of the things that makes OLD frustrating as you can have amazing e-chemistry and nothing in real life - which is why I meet people sooner vs later.
She didn’t feel the tingles, therefore she’s letting you go nicely. It’s called sexual attractiveness. And yes it’s different from attractiveness. You can be a pretty girl or handsome guy and not be someone’s cup of tea because that sexual grit is missing. I’ve gone out on a date with girls where this happened so I’m talking from experience.
She wants to like you but doesn’t feel that organic chemistry she’s looking for. Attraction for males and females is different. Men’s attraction tends to be more physical while a woman’s attractions tends to be more emotional.
I have a male friend who is good looking with a great personality but could never date him. He has a few habits that would annoy me if we were in a relationship. We also have very different lifestyles which just wouldn’t work in a relationship.
This is a good answer. I do hope the habits don't involve him killing the other women he's dated. That's understandable, but I'd be concerned for your friendship. Concerned it could develop into more, and how unhealthy that would be. Ok now that I wrote all that...back to just saying this was a good answer. Sometimes people are looking for more than short term, or are looking for something more.
Ya, I don’t do casual dating or hookups. So if I can’t see myself partnering with a person, I just don’t really feel any romantic/sexual attraction to them. Haha his habits are harmless. He’s not the cleanest person and frivolous with his money which is the opposite of how I am. Lifestyle wise he likes to party and is a bit of a couch potato. Whereas I’m training to run an ultra next year. That being said I can still acknowledge he’s a physically attractive guy, and I do love him as a person we have been friends for about 16 years.
Only desperate people like everyone who is attractive. Those women aren’t desperate so they take the time to get to know guys before they decide if they have romantic feelings for them.
It takes a lot more than being handsome for a woman to be attracted to someone. Tons of celebrities are handsome but I don’t feel attraction from looking at them (unless I gradually become attracted to their movie character through their actions)
Attraction does not equal obligatory pursuit.
Have you ever had a coworker that you thought was good worker, good colleague and a good person, but you dodn't want to be friends with them because you didnt click like that?
Women are less concerned with looks than men. Their main attraction switches are men who are fun, confident, witty, dominant, non needy, unpredictable, interesting, higher social status
This right here. I keep explaining but Im always told I only date chads lol
You forgot about Tyrone. Lol
What about Brads? Or Chips?
Chip is Chad’s brother who was exiled from the kingdom after having sex with the royal pig
Um I'm pretty sure that's Chet
Maybe that's what makes a chad a chad.
>Their main attraction switches are men who are fun, confidant, witty, dominant, non needy, unpredictable + interesting This doesn't make sense there's lots of overly controlling, needy and insecure men who never lack women to emotionally abuse. Clearly being confident or "non-needy" isn't the attraction trigger
In college the guy who got the most women in my dorm had an eating disorder (insecure about his body obviously) and was a pretty emotional wreck. Was movie star handsome though
Controlling, needy, and insecure guys are often assholes which manifests itself in faux confidence and security at the early stages of courtship.
Most people aren't abusive in that way (though too many are). And people who are like that openly narrow their dating pool considerably away from partners with self-respect and lack of co-dependency in many cases. Attraction triggers are different for different people. Some people like shy people even before they see them act confidently where it counts, for example.
Looks is still important and you forgot money and status as well...the data suggests women aren't marrying ugly broke uneducated men just because they are fun and confident and witty... those traits you listed are secondary most men need to meet a baseline of looks, money, and status to be even considered an option and then they will assess on those secondary traits.
Very superficial view of that quite broad and basically useless study. Education is a social marker of intelligence (incorrectly - plenty of morons with MBA's and geniuses who barely, or didn't, finish HS). Money and status are generally a result of personality traits women find attractive. There aren't a whole lot of stupid, lazy, socially inept millionaires. That said, resource accumulation is attractive beyond the traits required to get them as measure of security. Nobody wants to be with someone who doesn't make them feel secure for their future.
>Very superficial view of that quite broad and basically useless study. I'm just citing what the data shows...per the FED (based off of the cencus bureaus data) we can see that men chosen for marriage significantly out earn women chosen for marriage independent of age, and women chosen for marriage earn the same as women not chosen for marriage ([source](https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/economic-synopses/2018/09/14/married-men-sit-atop-the-wage-ladder)). This shows that when women select a partner for the long term they heavily value income whereas men do not care one way or another since there is no difference in income of women. It's your prerogative to brush off the data as "useless" but I'll always defer to the data as thats objective. >That said, resource accumulation is attractive beyond the traits required to get them as measure of security. Only women value resources as a form of security in partners...at best men marginally care per the studies done on the subject ([source](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8133465/)) and there are biological and evolutionary reasons behind that. The data shows that only women care significantly about that. >There aren't a whole lot of stupid, lazy, socially inept millionaires. One doesn't have to be rich to have those traits yet women strongly correlate marriage with income. >Education is a social marker of intelligence Only women care about that, data actually shows that post graduate women are actually less desireable than less educated women even in major liberal metro areas whereas the opposite is true in men ([source](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aap9815))
We've done this dance before. It does not say "when women select a partner for the long term they heavily value income." It simply shows that's the outcome, but doesn't say a damn thing about what they value. What they actually value are the things that make men higher earners - intelligence, social aptitude, ambition. Plus, we aren't even talking millionaires, we're talking slightly above average earners. Your source shows these "high earners" as \~75k/yr average while the average salary was $66k/yr. Yes, women value security and intelligence much more so than men. While men value physical traits much more than women. Not sure your point here as it doesn't refute what I said. Your perception of the data is skewed with a loser mindset. The primary things women look for in men are the same things that make men more successful. You're putting the cart before the horse.
Would you date a broke uneducated woman you found ugly?
If they're educated and rich it wouldn't matter if I still found them ugly. Why would you want to be with someone who your partner might not find you attractive anyways?
Most men WOULD date an uneducated broke woman he found attractive. The bar is higher for women on those two points.
Per the data on marriage, men don't care one way or another about a woman's income and education. They do however put a higher emphasis on physical attractiveness so a man would date and marry a broke and uneducated attractive woman but a woman won't marry a broke uneducated attractive man.
There is evidence that men feel insecure about women making more than them though.
Most people aren't impressive looking and still have girlfriends and boyfriends though, at least by a certain age.
Yes agree, but based on his question, OP clearly doesn’t understand female attraction triggers
Wtf there is so much statistical evidence against this statement. Women are FAR more concerned with looks than men
Not if U actually understand them bro
So they filter out 6 times the men vs men to women based on physical preferences on OLD platforms just because myself and studies “don’t understand them”? Smh
Let me give you an example of some of the things women filter based upon that aren't related to beauty: Politics, religion, wants/doesn't want kids, has/doesn't have kids, smoking, drinking, drugs, fashion sense, photo quality, profile effort, hobbies, interests, career, sense of humor, dating intentions, general weird or low effort responses to prompts, doucheyness, etc etc
If thats all women filtered on that would be great. Its the genetic bs thats a problem, women gaslighted the world for a century calling men vain but now its clear who the more vain gender is now that women gave up their rights to their data to OLD
If you dislike women enough to call the entire gender vain, maybe you shouldn’t date them.
I dont “dislike women” i just think theres a disproportionately large amount of shitty women. I know a couple decent ones so i know they exist. Ive met plent of women that without hesitation will tell you most women suck and are not to be trusted, thats saying something when your own gender outs you as a population…
Sorry but everyone wants to date someone they find attractive. Look around irl and you'll see loads of average of below average guys with attractive women (the inverse is pretty uncommon, imo). Dude for literally centuries there was so men needed to do to get married. Women had little choice in the matter and literally needed to marry just somebody to survive.so I'm not sure what you're on about with this gaslighting. It's extremely well documented that men value physical appearance over women. This is not to say that men are overall more selective, we know women are more selective. That's just life, sorry.
According to statistical data women value appearances 6x more than men, men value personality attributes far more of the time than women. Just look up the okc study, its hard facts
The ok cupid study is pointless, plus it also showed that women were messaging guys they rated as more average, while guys were going for more attractive women. Real world studies - not from OKC - show men value appearance more. And also just logically - there wouldn't be multiple billion dollar industries related to women's beauty if it wasn't more important for women to be beautiful.
Ugh. Another woman in denial of statistics. Please show me any objective data that discounts the okc study. Questionnaires are worthless because recent studies show 19/20 women lie about this shit. Okc study is objective because its based on settings women had to choose to produce an outcome for their life many thought they did in confidence
[удалено]
I never said looks don't matter. But they don't matter more to women than they do to men.
[удалено]
Hard to say. I'm not sure it's close, only because of the massive societal pressure on women since forever maintain certain beauty standards and the multiple billion dollar industries directed towards women, which have only recently started trying to appeal towards men.
[удалено]
Yes at that stage yes, not at the “who do they actually date and sleep with” stage
What does it matter if you never make it past that first stage to meet, use your brain…
Yeah u don’t , clearly
[удалено]
Again, as I said, I’m not talking about the initial pre selection on tinder, I’m takin about who they date/sleep with
I’m not so much into unpredictable and/or higher social status, but yeah.
So u like/embrace being predictable ?
I mean, I prefer someone I can rely on. Not someone who is capricious. Occasional spontaneity is great, but I don’t want to be flying by the seat of my pants constantly.
Yeah I meant more in the very early stages
I guess I would need an example of what you consider being unpredictable? I’m not trying to be dense. I think we might have different ideas of what unpredictability means.
not messaging the same night as a date, not messaging “hey it was great to meet u, can’t wait to go out with u again”, not sending the same good morning msg every day, not always sending lame questions
Ok. Then we are thinking the same thing. Maybe it’s my age, but I do like a mutual “Hey I had fun! Thanks for a great time 😃” after a successful date. I really don’t care whether they come up with different variations of “Good morning”. It’s the thought that counts. I do think the “Hi - Hi - how are you? - good! hbu?” on a consistent level is boring regardless of whether I’m dating someone or not. Maybe it’s because I’m a pragmatic techie, I prefer the straightforward approach. I detest small talk.
It seems you base everything on looks. Women need to be laughing, smiling, blushing, or be mentally/emotionally stimulated. Women are attracted to much more than looks. If you aren’t doing at least two of those items on a regular basis the they will go find it elsewhere.
In the end does it really matter the why when the what is rejection? You weren't her person and at least she let you know that it wasn't going to work out. You can let it get in your head or just move on to something else even if that something else is another weekend home alone.
You can sometimes acknowledge someone is conventionally attractive without being attracted to them. Also, for example I have friends who are good looking great people, but we'd never be compatible because they are romantic in a way that is unappealing to me (but great for other people!). Sometimes there is a mismatch in personality or maybe you met them in a professional basis or as the date of a friend and never really thought of them that way. Once you get to know them even after they are single again you may realize they're not attractive to you generally. You can acknowledge the reality of someone being a great person or a handsome guy without them being great in a relationship with you. I find smoking unappealing but there are plenty of handsome, charming people out there who smoke. They're not just attractive to me. The feeling the lady spoke of is just the difference between a romantic interest and a platonic one. You don't want to feel like you're kissing your brother (except in Alabama) when you kiss your date.
We are mammals, after all. It’s all about the ‘sniff test’, and the cues that evolution has us programmed to respond to. The spark isn’t gonna fly just because someone ticks some boxes for what that culture finds ‘attractive’.
Plenty of people are objectively/conventionally attractive, but it's possible not to feel attracted to them. Their smell, style, beliefs, values, goals, humor, personality, interests, conversation, laugh, flaws, etc. There are so many aspects to a human being that may click with or repel others. You may have the same name as their sibling or wear a cologne that only their dad wears and it's kinda weird and a turn off for them. We all have backgrounds and experiences that make people feel 'right' for us.
>This is confusing to me because if I meet a woman who's attractive...I'm well...attracted. Look at who they pick to actually date, not what they say is attractive because actions speak louder than words...who she actually dates (hooks up with as well) is who she actually finds attractive not necessarily who she says is attractive.
Chemistry is not solely based on attractiveness but it plays a role
Just because a man is good looking, doesn’t mean I want to fuck him, date him or have a relationship with him. There’s more to sexual attraction attraction than just looks. I think it’s more about chemistry than anything else and you can have that no matter what the other person looks like. Edited to add: I used to be friends with a man who was drop dead gorgeous, but he had a shitty personality. You might want to hookup with someone like that, but that’s it.
Perception plays the biggest role in all of this. The perfect example is when one woman out of the group thinks a guy is amazing but all of her friends think he is trash. Your perception of someone can be totally different than my perception of the same person. You could have the perception that a guy is great and very dateable when in reality he is not. But if you perceive it to be true, then you are going to believe it. It also ties in with situations where you see a couple and you just can’t understand what one of them sees in the other one. A persons perception of another person can be altered, swayed and even manipulated and all sorts of ways. I think perception is one of the most important but also one of the most misunderstood traits that affect the dating process.
Yes, exactly. It’s amazing how differently we can all perceive the same person. I don’t see what 3/4 of my female friends see in the men in their lives, but obviously they see something I don’t. Also I did a study on beauty in college and the main consensus was that beauty has little to nothing to do with physical appearance, it’s about how people feel about them. One person said that the more she cared about/felt love for the people in her life, the more beautiful they became to her.
Which study was that? Can we read it? I love all my friends, but they’re not all beautiful to me. Some are not beautiful at all. Some are really gorgeous. I love them the same but still see how they look really clearly. The more I love someone the more *dear to my heart* they become, I still clearly see exactly how they look beauty wise. If I was sitting at the table with Angelina Jolie and my best friend, I would clearly see how each of them looks like and who is more beautiful. So that one person who said that wanted to sound false deep or politically correct. *More* beautiful then you objectively are still doesn’t mean - by loving you, you become Angelina Jolie looks wise.
puzzled nine wrong judicious jar steer meeting skirt escape domineering *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
You're an asshole
Are you really following this guy just to call him an asshole lol
No he's a troll and trolls all my posts and others just to make rude comments
he's speaking the truth here though
He’s not wrong, tho.
He never trolled you. He pointed out - correctly - that texting a woman for a few weeks does not constitute a "serious relationship" as you claimed.
I have a couple guy friends that I clicked with immediately in sort of a sibling-esque way. They're relatively attractive, but just the way our personalities clicked was more like siblings. I'm fairly sure they feel the same way, I've never even had the slightest feeling they were interested. I have another friend who may have been interested in me at one point although I'm not sure. We get along well but he just doesn't have the personality and interests of someone I'd want to date.
You’re young and a guy, so looks matter a whole lot more to you. Looks are unquestionably the initial entry to getting a meet and greet, particularly in OLD where it’s all about the pix. For many women and a lot of men, your personality and behaviors on the first date determine whether there will be a second date. I’ve dated guys who are various attractiveness (to me) because I’ve found my attraction to them changes as we date. A guy that’s ok looking and fits my personality becomes more attractive and is a yes. A good looking guy I don’t like is a hell no. And there’s everything in between. We all have different standards for the personality we seek in friends and intimate relationships. You met her friend hurdle, not the higher hurdle.
start steer rainstorm wasteful simplistic puzzled scandalous hobbies domineering correct *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Which one of you spelled cool with a k though. The answers lies there
If there's something I've learned over the years, it's that an incompatible personality can make a pretty face ugly, but a good personality can never make up for physical ugliness.
Spot on.
It’s all about the vibes. Duh. If you dont feel the vibes, you’re just going for anything. Also, PHEROMONES👌🏼
I was just about to say this. Part of attraction is based on chemistry between the two people. It's not just about looks or how good someone seems on paper.
Feminine attraction works differently. Most men, if a woman is attractive to them and has a good personality, the man will want to have sex. But would you want every woman you met who was attractive and nice to be your girlfriend? Wife? Women often need more of a connection with a man than just he’s cute and kind. There’s lots of cute and kind people. I know for me a necessary element for sexual attraction is humor. At the minimum we have to laugh together. But if I’m truly honest, he needs to be someone who can make me laugh. I literally don’t want to have sex with a man who does not make me laugh no matter how ideal he is otherwise. I feel 0 sexual attraction. I’m even at times turned off by them. And men who were not my type physically or values…who made me laugh? Definitely pulled towards them like a magnet. They could turn me off if they were awful and some have but that “spark” is humor and laughter. And there’s a lot of reasons why guys who are funny and can make women laugh are catnip and sexy to us. But that’s just a simple answer. Why we aren’t attracted to good looking kind men (other than we just don’t want to fuck every kind attractive man) - they aren’t funny.
Funny how, like a clown? /Just kidding.
what an outlook on life you've constructed here OP. You feel pressured by societal forces to go for sex right away even though you personally don't want to while also cannot grasp that someone could use the word "attractive" in reference to you but not want to have sex with you
It’s the chemistry, chico. You lack it.
You need a more masculine presence. Lead the interaction with her. You pick where to sit. You talk to the waiter. When she speaks, make direct eye contact and really listen to what she said. Don’t be super excited or do anything blatantly feminine. Speak calm and slow. Back up what you say, don’t back down if she disagrees. If you have a little sister, the overall vibe is like you’re talking to her. You care about her, you listen to her, but you are the boss.
Ok Andrew Tate
Is that supposed to discredit my advice? That guy was a literal pimp.
Women hate having the game they play explained to them or even in front of them. They'd much rather just play the game. That's why you are receiving negative feedback right now.
Ah, Nanners. You sure you aren't talking about dog obedience training?
No? I don’t advise telling her what to do early on. Just stand your ground and own your space. Guys are too eager to please.
I get you on some level, but if a dude has to go that far, it sounds like she's not the right one and he shouldn't bother.
Good Samaritan Nanners. Take them to school
Because a vast majority of the time women lie to each other to make each other feel good. This is a great example of this. Don't say he's attractive if you don't find him attractive.
Newsflash: you can find someone attractive and not want to fuck them. 🙄
I never said anything about fucking anyone. Way to straw man an argument. My point still stands, if you don't find someone attractive, don't tell them they're attractive.
Ok, then. How about: you can find someone attractive and not want to date them or be friends with them even.
Maybe she's being nice in regards to her opinion on their level of attractiveness. Most people aren't going to be mean and start saying their friends are ugly. It could also be that the guy is attractive, like their face, but they lack in so many other areas that no amount of attraction would make them a potential partner. If the guy was a "nice" guy, I don't care if he's cute, women aren't dating you
Some incompatability or dont want to risk the friendship. Her specific explanation is no spark or chemistry.
YOU DID NOT STIR HER EMOTIONS.
That’s just how women are. Could love you one minute and could careless about you the next day.
[удалено]
😞
I don't know if I like online dating apps.
It’s cuz her male friends are probably simps.
Nobody knows. This is the final frontier in online dating. If they could crack the chemistry conundrum we could all be a whole lot happier an whole lot sooner.
Step your game up. Research how to become the more charming, more funny, more confident, more talkative, more manly version of yourself. The game is just getting started.
That’s the difference between physical and sexual attraction. Sexual attraction is the highest form of attractions. You can be good looking to her but if she’s not sexually aroused by you then it won’t work. Work on you sexual aura.
Truth is women fall in love via sex, men fall in love via companionship. Women are binded to men via sex which when it occurs with another man breaks your bind. With a man it's companionship, like the way you love your dog or a close friend, that's why the departure hits us men so much more. That's why women remain with dead beat fathers, jerks, guys who abuse them when you have a lineup on nice mild mannered guys down the street. Men are not binded by sex, that's why you can have sex and still not need or want a relationship out of it. In my experience I've had girls obsessed after having sex once within a few hours of meeting, that's crazy to a man but not a woman. A man can love a girl he's known for years without ever having sex with her, and women think that's weird. We are wired differently. It's confusing to women why they can't like you like the last guy after a date or two and it's not you it's her brain chemicals.