Do you guys know what you are attracted to in a woman?

[joekerr31]

ah thought the bold was your writing and the normal text was the quote.

my bad, sorry about that.

to reply to the quotation. i think its utter bullsh*t. whoever wrote it is pretty much an idiot.

to say that women are complete in and of themselves is absurd. no one bases their sense of self value on the opinions of others more than women do.

the female world is one of constant concern and consideration for what OTHERS think. which is why they find it near impossible to ever live by any set rules or principles - because they are always in flux emotionally and intellectual depending on the circumstances surrounding them.

in terms of generalizations, it seems to be more the male gender that simple goes after what they want without consideration for what the world around him thinks (although many men are much like most women and care about what others think).

like i say, whoever wrote that is off their rocker and merely creating far flung theories which will excite the reader due to their controversial nature. but in terms of insight that holds true with the world we are able to observe, it's utter trite.

 

[LovelyLady]

LL,

Men are the creators and leaders, women are the glue and the support who help each other on their path to self realization.
Man finds his place through creation, and companionship with a woman, Woman finds herself through companionship with a Man, and creation of Man.

Interceptor, I followed everything you said except for the end of this - "creation of man" do you mean pro-creation - as in child bearing? In what a man (gender) creates? Or humankind /what the individual person regardless of gender creates in his/her lifetime?

Also, I would agree that Harmony/Serenity is key for a healthy person in a relationship regardless of gender.

 

[Last Man Standing]

I always thought this analysis of Browning's Aurora Leigh - the dynamic of want and need for partnership as experienced differently by the sexes to be fascinating...

"" . . The man's need of the woman, here,
Is greater than the woman's of the man,
And easier served; for where the man discerns
A sex, (ah, ah, the man can generalise,
Said he) we see but one, ideally
And really: where we <sic: WOMEN>yearn to lose ourselves
And melt like white pearls in another's wine,
He seeks to double himself by what he loves,
And make his drink more costly by our pearls.
At board, at bed, at work and holiday,
It is not good for man to be alone. [Browning, V.1073-1083]
Men need to be "doubled", they need to have another person to make their lives fuller. Women's lives appear to be plenty full, for they are figured as already existing as pearls. Women simply want to find the one person with whom they can enmesh their existence, but this need is far less dire than that of men. A man is not complete until he finds another, specifically, a woman, to add full meaning to his existence. ""

I am curious to hear what you men think of this analysis?

St_99 already said it!! This statement was made for the woman and not the man - it is a woman who needs a man moreso than the man needing her!! Hell, damn near every man wishes to be away from his wife to have solitude in many instances - and it is the woman who gets upset when he wishes to be alone or with other men!! In that statement the "word" female" was purposely interchanged with the word "male" by some feminist/Homo individual - to mislead, of course!!

It is a woman's greatest fear --- to be alone!!!!!!!!

 

[Latinoman]

Do I know what I am attracted to on a woman?

Well...let's say I know what I DON'T find attractive on a woman.

A lot of men miss or overlook the obvious red flags when they first meet a woman. The reason is because they are on a blitz due to some physical attractive quality. And by doing so lose a huge opportunity in gathering information based on her past, etc. Women tend to talk a lot when you first meet them. Once they gauge your "values"...they start adjusting accordingly by leaving stuff out. The older (and for that matter desperate the woman) the better they become with the skill. Especially if they are between the ages of 30 to 50. Now...if she is a single mother the age could be younger.

Attraction is NOT a rational thing. But looking for red flags and serious character flaws is a RATIONAL thing.

 

[Latinoman]

I always thought this analysis of Browning's Aurora Leigh - the dynamic of want and need for partnership as experienced differently by the sexes to be fascinating...

"" . . The man's need of the woman, here,
Is greater than the woman's of the man,
And easier served; for where the man discerns
A sex, (ah, ah, the man can generalise,
Said he) we see but one, ideally
And really: where we <sic: WOMEN>yearn to lose ourselves
And melt like white pearls in another's wine,
He seeks to double himself by what he loves,
And make his drink more costly by our pearls.
At board, at bed, at work and holiday,
It is not good for man to be alone. [Browning, V.1073-1083]


Men need to be "doubled", they need to have another person to make their lives fuller. Women's lives appear to be plenty full, for they are figured as already existing as pearls. Women simply want to find the one person with whom they can enmesh their existence, but this need is far less dire than that of men. A man is not complete until he finds another, specifically, a woman, to add full meaning to his existence. ""

I am curious to hear what you men think of this analysis?

This is what I KNOW:

Moments of war or rape or crimes...who needs who? Who needs who for protection?

Look at the different World cultures...men truly don't need women. Many view them as sex objects, etc. Look at the extreme Muslim World to..even the bigamous world. The writer is only thinking about the typical "mama's boy"...those type need a woman. But implying that man's true nature need women more so than women needed them (and remember we are not the only men in the world) is ridiculous. Just remember who is the majority in power and who is the majority writing the laws. Remember the opressed women in the middle east and Asia.

Man have been viewed as the provider and protector. And as long as there wars, rapes, etc. Women will need man more.

Now...in a society that is very complicated...it is nice to have a partner. Furthermore...men desire to lay the seed plays a factor.

My point is simple...don't kid yourself: women need men more.

Unless we are talking about the wimpy men out there...which obviously need women more as women rarely find those men as desireable.


In conclusion: women's biggest weapon is her SEXUALITY. Which by definition means that men need the puzzy more so than the actual woman (in her essence).

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

A perfect ass, medium breasts, a flat stomach, long legs (a perfect kranston), subtle make-up, long hair, a symetrical face, perfect waist to hips ratio, smal but full lips; that's what makes a woman attractive and makes me want to get to know them. Anything beyond that becomes rapport, not attraction, so stop convincing yourself that you need to prove to others you're not "shallow" by adding all this "deep" esoteric meaning to what attraction is for you. It's OK to want to bang a woman based on their physical appeal, that's how it works. In fact the best compliment you can give a woman is to be sexually attracted to her in light of all the constant effort she puts into being attractive. God forbid a woman actually think you might want to fukk her based on her physical appeal!

That said, I do happen to agree with the gambling analogy posted earler. Not based on some spiritual quest, but rather a behavioral dynamic. I used to be the art director for several large casinos in both Lake Tahoe and Reno, Nevada for over 10 years and I can tell you now that habitual gamblers aren't looking for God in their gambling; they're looking for the feeling they associate with reward and casinos as a business know this all too well and base all their marketing on it. The fundamental principle that makes a casino successful is the concept of intermittent schedules of reinforcement. Just like rats taught to tap levers for a food pellet reward, gamblers are taught to repeat their behavior in order to get to the intermittent reward. If the slot machine didn't occasionally pay out, the behavior would cease and when this reinforcement is seemingly random (as opposed to being on a set schedule) it solidifies the behavior even stronger.

Now take this principle into the realm of intersexual relationships. You wouldn't play the game if you weren't occasionally rewarded just enough to keep you playing it. You see other people winning the occasional payout around you and even that association is a reinforcement to continue the behavior. In fact, ironically, we call it "getting lucky", when in reality it's really very calculated and controlled. No one's searching for God in the casino, they're just tapping on that lever again and again and occasionally a food pellet pops out often enough to keep them doing so.

 

[Bonhomme]

I know what I want, but don't know what it is.

 

[Mr.Positive]

I know what I want, but don't know what it is.

This is exactly how I feel actually...and it's ironic because I just met a woman last night that I found I had a huge deep attraction for. It worked both ways too, she couldn't keep her hands off of me the whole night, with the fireworks and all..

The thing that gets me, is that I would not have cold approached this women based on looks alone. She was I'd say a HB7 or so, definitely cute, but not a head turner so to speak. We sort of "bumped" into each other, but the attraction level was through the roof once we did.

Furthermore, looking back on the other women where I had this undescribable deep attraction for, I would not have cold approached them either....and the women I seem to try to "DJ", I have been attracted to, but not at that level. It was more of a false attraction, it fizzled away.

You all really have me thinking on this one. Thanks for all the responses.

We know how to generate attraction in women, and attraction isn't a choice for them. I'm leaning towards the thought that OUR attraction isn't something we can control in ourselves either, just like women.

 

[Interceptor]

Interceptor, I followed everything you said except for the end of this - "creation of man" do you mean pro-creation - as in child bearing? In what a man (gender) creates? Or humankind /what the individual person regardless of gender creates in his/her lifetime?

Also, I would agree that Harmony/Serenity is key for a healthy person in a relationship regardless of gender.

I was talking about child bearing.
But this does not mean that Women cannot Create as well.
She can also grow within what a Man creates.
Creation is part of Self Realization.
I just believe the genders have different viewpoints and priorities in how they go about it.

 

[Mr.Positive]

Insightful post Czar, thanks. That really hit home to me. It's the #2's that remain the mystery to me as well. They have been rare in my life, but I wouln't have traded those experiences (good and bad) for anything..

It would be nice to know where that attraction comes from though...

 

[Bonhomme]

Yes, very well put, TheCzar. That's what I was talking about. That sort of "super vibe" that defies all logic .. and sometimes can steamroll all logic into the ground.

 

[Horse Whisperer]

For me, I find femininity attractive. Trouble is, it is such a broad term, that women themselves don't know what it is. To one woman, wearing a dress and heels might be a sign of femininity, to another, wearing a floral pair of dungarees and some pretty flip flops is.
Women often misinterpret me on this, as despite loving the heels, dress wearing thing, I wouldn't want to be with a girly girl who wants to be spoilt rotten, but neither would I want to be with a tom boy either.
Trying as you say, to be more 'selective' is going to limit your choices. Trust me, I know this!
Primevaly, my selectivity is currently set at this:
Comfortable with their own femininity and sexuality (i.e. not afraid to dress up!)
Healthy
Happy
Intelligent
Practical
Caring

Ultimately though, we all need a woman who floats our boat don't we?:yes:

 

[Bonhomme]

Yeah, I also find it a turn-on when a gal dresses up. Not necessarily provocatively, but mod chicks definitely do something for me, in general.

 

[MR_PERFECT]

Czar, the women that you put into the #2 catagory, were any of them not physically attractive?

 

[joekerr31]

i think most guys have a threshold when it comes to looks.

as long as she breaks the threshold it doesnt matter if society deems her a 6 or a 10.

like ive seen some women that guys consider a 10 that i honestly would not get that aroused by.

and ive seen some women that guys would consider a 6 or 7 but who just did it for me.

as long as a woman passes whatever that threshold is, whether she then becomes 'a catch' is based on her personality and behavior.

you see this principle in action when it comes to MILFs. objectively a milf is not as beautiful as she was when she was 20 BUT a lot of guys would rather bang a hot milf at 35 than that same milf were she 20.

looks are definitely not the end all and be all of attraction, although they are always a factor.

 

[speakeasy]

joekerr, that original long post you made, that was incredible, just needed to give you kudos.

Just wanted to say though that we need to put this all in a generational context. If you'd asked the same question a generation ago, or two generations ago, or 4 for that matter, you'd have gotten entirely different answers. If you'd asked our great grandfathers what they were attracted to in a woman, they would never say anything like "to feel fulfilled and complete, to be self-actualized, to be understood" or anything like that. Basically, all those men needed was someone was able to have children and who took care of the house and didn't give them a hard time. That was pretty much it. And things were just as simple the other way around. Our great grandmoters weren't worrying about whether a guy was "rough, but sensitive, ****y yet gentle, had rock hard abs, knows how to be spontaneous and never boring, blah blah". If the guy was a hard worker that could provide a stable home and had some morals, that was pretty much it back then. I'm not saying that the more simplistic requirements of older generations are necessarily better than ours or vice versa, but the sheer complexity of the things men and women demand of each other these days makes it #1, harder to find a person that satisfies that laundry list, and 2# harder to keep that special person if you do find them.

 

[A-Unit]

Re:

I'll concur with joek, and add some...

I don't think women are the only place men seek god, but since it dominates our time, we want the BEST we can while ENHANCING our lives.

I feel where men get into trouble is where they put the CART before the horse: 1) looks and 2) sex. Both things that change. They go for a hot chick, who may or may not keep it. There's disease, death, pregnancy, accidents, sickness, genetics and time working against physical appearance. And with sex, that can change too. What if she's paralyzed? What if her hormones get f-ed up? Or what if there's a traumatic accident? Like life...men INVEST in the wrong aspects of women often times when it comes to LONG-term relationships. That, and they jump too soon. Even if you're HEAD over HEELS, 3 year isn't really long when you're 30, and that's 10% of your life. You're investing nearly 100% of your life based on having only 10% of the possible information. Moreover, you can only judge a women over time, through her changes and actions. Anything less is speculation.

With that said...I think men want a 'god' or a themselves in a woman's body. If we're working, dropping our seed into her womb, foregoing other women, foregoing some hobbies and friend time, then we need to know that the time we give to her won't be abused, painful, or meaningless.

I've often mentally viewed people as being on 1 train track while single, and then hopping onto another when they get a girl or eventually married. That, perhaps, scares me. I'd rather see it, and see people, as being the locomotive, and adding cars to the tracks (call her the caboose!) Some women don't want that. They want you to join her life, or to create a totally separate life. And yet, there's this strong desire and confusion in me to follow all of my inner feelings to see where it takes me and this obvious conflict that when you have "somebody" you can't 100% of the time do that, unless you're VERY VERY LUCKY.

I've long lashed out against control, manipulation, and emotional swindling. I can see it, like Neo saw the code of matrix. Because I don't make people I'm with feel bad about what they choose, nor do I sway them to act how I want, the minute I "feel" it, an alarm goes off. Women, IMO, try to justify it. "For the relationship, for growing up, for your family." Whatever. As I explain, being selfish means...SHE is 1 of my wants. And if I, a guy, is allowed to embrace his wants, then I can WANT her very deeply. However, if I'm OBLIGATED to do so, I'm only going to work to my level of obligation, just like Peter said in Office Space. Negative reinforcement only gets you to the level that will prevent further negative reinforcement, AND Not to the level that will vault you personally and spiritually up levels.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For me, seeking a woman has always been about enhancing my life here and now. I think we alway have a mental image of a perfect girl, otherwise how would we know when we like someone? They'd have to align. I've always been into dark haired women. Maybe that's b/c most of the ladies in my family have been? I've never been into superhot models, that's either b/c my family isn't made up of super hotties, where I live, OR, b/c all the super hotties I dated or met were too uptight. The ones who bowl me over are cuties (7-8's), brunette or black hair, beautiful eyes, who are girly and not stuck to 1 style, who are comfortable in their skin. They'll accompany a friend to a party, not know anyone and be friend and down to earth with everyone. They like to spend a good amount of time with a bf, but if he wants to do his thing, she'll do her thing and enjoy it. I've always liked a girl with a slightly exaggerated physique, big butt, big tits, big waist, flat tummy, but doesn't have to be ripped. I hate skinny girls; seems like it'd be like fawking a skinny 14 yo boy. Arse, tits, and hips for me.

And I believe love, or the objects of our love are in a way, PHYSICAL manifestations of our INTERNAL beliefs and values. Rand said it that way. Her characters had no problem submitting themselves to someone else like a ***** IF they represented their values and beliefs, and to her, that's what love is. That's why Reardon could easily let Dagney be with Galt, b/c he too loved them both, in some weird utopian way. But I feel that way also. We have that LOVE definition, and we have one that is spiritual, in which we are ALL love and should love equally. That doesn't mean we should just take anyone out there, and the 2 are different, from relationship to spiritual love. I believe the person you love with your heart has to be the physical presence of everything you believe. Otherwise, why marry? Religious ceremonies in a way push this same concept, and women want to believe that about themselves, too. So why not?

I've felt alot of different things with different women who have had different strengths and weakness, but never zeroed in on having what I believe CAN exist if we are willing to work for it.


A-Unit

 

[GtarPlayr73]

the female world is one of constant concern and consideration for what OTHERS think. which is why they find it near impossible to ever live by any set rules or principles - because they are always in flux emotionally and intellectual depending on the circumstances surrounding them.

...and this is why women find masculinity so damned attractive WHEN they encounter it because masculinity is all about being firm, steadfast, and decisive. This is why women actually need and therefore DEMAND that we men be confident because internal confidence and steadfastness are what they lack when it comes to belief systems. Just show a woman that you are sticking to something and not changing your mind - where your own tastes and passions are concerned - and she'll find that attractive. Hell, you could even wear a dress and tell her "fuck you, i'm wearing a dress, deal with it" and she'd be more inclined to sleep with you than if you were to apologize for it and put on some trowsers. (The Scots got away with it, so...)

 

[Vulpine]

I know what I'm attracted to:

Pheremones.

Take a step back, and I'd say chemistry.

But my definition of chemistry isn't the sappy, E-Harmony romanticized popular chick-speak: "We have good chemistry, we get along well together".

No, I mean actual blood-type, pheremone, body odor, acidic/basic to the touch skin on skin, breath smell/taste, fart smell... human chemistry. I'd even add tone of voice to my definition, although it really isn't a chemical thing.

Over the years, I've been with women that, although I got along with the smashingly, I couldn't stand to touch them - I'd get a "sting" or "burn" feeling on my skin. And, although I had many common interests, couldn't stand how their breath smelled. After crazy, rabid hyena sex, although the feeling was mind-blowing while it lasted, there was a putrid stench left in the room that left me essentially regretful of prompting and promoting such a vile stink. And when they spoke, it was like nails on a chalkboard.

On the other hand, I've been with women that I couldn't "jive with" at all, and yet had amazing relationships with. Their voices were like angels singing to me, even though the words were pure evil. Nothing in common, no matching goals, friends didn't get along, and I would climb a mountain to feel their skin against mine or smell their hair...

Funny, now that I type out "I would climb a mountain"... because one of my biggest mistakes in the past would be to tell a woman that I would. And wouldn't you know it... I'd virtually have to afterwards.

But anyway, chemistry.

Beauty? Beauty is but one optical stimulus, and there is beauty to be seen in even the most hideous of creatures. But "chemisty" incorporates touch, smell, and taste.

I guess you could say I'm attracted to things like a blind man would be. And, yes, it's a learned behavior.

•••••••••••••••

I wanted to touch on the "white pearls" thing quick. Booze, raw off the still pure booze, before it is cut/blended is clear and refered to as "white pearls" because it beads above the surface in the collection jar before breaking the miniscus. As the stream of alchohol, or "worm", trickles out, it often makes a line of what looks like a string of white pearls.

Moonshiners commonly used code, and mountain folk speak with colorful expressions. "White pearls" was code for their "good stuff". Lesser quality, fourth and fifth run moonshine didn't "hold a bead" as well as the "good" batches did.

Now, with that being said I must also explain that "doubling" is mixing half/half with water to make the pure alcohol easier to drink; less harsh.

In the passage, the wine is being fortified. However, the value of the wine isn't exactly increased as much as the straight booze's value is increased. Wine is wine, but pure booze is much to harsh to consume, or at least not nearly as pleasant.

The "pure booze", or "white pearls", that represents the woman is much to harsh by herself, and needs to be dissolved in a man in order to be tollerable.

Nice try, but that analogy by the author sucked, and pretty much backfires upon delivery.

And, for those not up on the lingo, a reader would just imagine a pearl necklace being dropped in a glass of wine. Uh... that would just stain the pearls and the wine would be tougher to drink. Increased value? Nay. Man needs a woman? Like I said, wine is wine: very enjoyable alone.

 

[cmos]

I geniuinely believe some of the analysis in here should be in the tips section. Particulary that of joekerr and A-uint. Except I still do not get the part about Rand's perception of love. Perhaps its just too idealistic for me. Realistically speaking, I could never imagine someone of Rearden's (or Fransisco's for that matter) character so easily give up the love of his life just because he met the ideal version of man. Even in the Fountainhead, I just don't see how Roark can let Dominque live with Gail. It just seemed very twisted to me.
Oh and as an alcohol enthusiast, thanks vulpine for that lesson in moonshine. Perhaps one day, just for the heck of it, I will be able to make quality moonshine for myself.