Quote:
Originally Posted by The Nightfly
Don't flame me for it, but if you've ever looked into the whole PUA scene type thing, it proves that women find men who exhibit masculine/alpha characteristics attractive on a sub-concious level. I've seen it happen a thousand times. Think about it: Super models could have practically ANY man they choose. So why do they usually go out with drug addicted rock stars who beat them and treat them badly?
I know that whole PUA thing is a bit sad, but it's certainly a great insight into the mechanics of human interraction (plus it works). Humans are animals just like any other creatures on earth, so why should we be exempt from finding displays of high masculinity/femininity attractive?
|
This is oversimplifying. The fact that you felt the need to preface your post with "Don't flame me for it, but..." leads me to believe you know it, too.
The tricks used by 'pick-up artists' are employed by a specific subset of boys and are effective on a specific subset of girls. I believe it to be a fallacy to attempt to apply that specific circumstance to a broader population.
I get confused during discussions of masculinity. I am a blues musician and a gearhead, which are generally considered masculine traits. I am also well read and, modesty aside, quite intelligent, which are less so. I'm not afraid of my emotions, which is 'sissy,' but I don't feel the need to broadcast them, which is 'manly.'
Of course, I am somewhat masculine. I have male genitalia, after all. On the other hand, I don't fit the hypermasculine ideal that's seen on magazine covers and in countless action films; I would contend, in fact, that few if any real men do. I have no issue attracting women and in fact often run into trouble because I attract too many. I suspect that insofar as there is a 'normal' man, I run closer to that than anything else.
I don't really buy that gender roles are hard coded. On the one hand, physiology tells us that men are better suited for certain tasks than women and vice versa, but I don't consider the difference to be any more significant than those that make tall people better suited to specific tasks. I may never be in the NBA, but I can still play basketball, y'know?
So if we accept that gender roles are more sociological than physiological it would naturally follow that any sort of typified ideal is sociological as well. I think history actually supports this, since we can see that ideals change over time and through different cultures. In that situation, we can then further conclude that 'masculine' is a societal construct, and that the word doesn't really have any inherent value, as is true also for feminine. Consider that 70 years ago it would've been unladylike for a woman to study physics or play sports, but in today's world these things are broadly accepted.
Personally, if a woman prizes feminity over all else I'm not likely to be interested; I like a woman who isn't afraid to get dirty now and again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASU2003
And don't try claiming it's 'confidence' since they see lots of other guys that look and act like that have plenty of success, it makes them realize there is something about looking like that which makes girls respond positively.
|
I'm not sure why you're attempting to discount self-confidence as an aspect of attractiveness. It's not the whole thing, but it's certainly a piece of the puzzle. A confident inept slob may not have success with the ladies, or a successful but socially awkward man, but someone who can manage a reasonable approximation of various attraction factors stands a good chance of finding a mate. I think confidence is one of the more important ones, actually; why should a woman take an interest in you if you're not even interested in yourself?