Laws of Attraction

Check out the hunk, woman!

Hello there! If you are new here, you might want to subscribe to the RSS feed for updates on this topic.

The other day I was having an interesting conversation with a friend about laws of attraction. The emotional and mental factors are discussed ad nauseam in any conversation but the physical aspects are always brushed aside. No matter how much anyone denies that looks do not matter, it certainly influences the opinions of the opposite sex somewhat.

Men have their preferences out in the open. There is a reason why Baywatch was so popular. The opinions might change later on but the physical aspects that catch a man’s attention are pretty well known and documented everywhere. Of course, “those” things aren’t that only ones that catch attention and may eventually seem less important but it is virtually useless trying to deny that men fail to observe the obvious.

But men have never understood what a woman seeks in a man i.e. in terms of physical attributes. The friend was honest to admit one of her preferences was height i.e. her guy has to be tall. But later she also admitted that she does check out a guy’s palms and fingers, although at a subconscious level. That was something new; I cannot think of any reason how that should be attractive, but I’ll give that to her. Moustaches were also mentioned as a factor but I guess it largely depends on which side of Vindhyas you come from. Further, the way a guy dresses and carries himself was also mentioned as important but I don’t think that is gender specific.

Another interesting aspect is influence of pheromones i.e. chemicals constituting the natural body odor that trigger a response in the opposite sex. Sounds gross although there have been attempts to show that it is scientifically proven to play an important role. Consider it the natural Axe effect. I remember reading an interesting fact in the lower links on the Times of India page that girls tend to be attracted to men who “smell like their dad” (I can’t seem to find the link now). This factor might be applicable to guys too although at a subconscious level, because no guy will confess that he likes a girl because she smells good :) But at least Ash is telling the truth, can the rest of you agree or have anything new to add?

But all said and done, women don’t seem to care about physical attributes as much as men do. Are men “shallow”, or is it just a closely-guarded secret among women?

“Check out the hunk, woman!” [Short URL: http://www.ipatrix.com/?p=339] was published Wednesday, October 13th, 2004 at 11:15 pm by Patrix, filed under Society Culture, and tagged as gender, love, relationship. Both comments and linkbacks are closed.

« Mela is Back

Linking Park »

:-)
Mama mia now you got me into the commenting mood.
To be brief, ‘A man’s need is instinctual and woman’s need is emotional’. Thats my theory though.
To understand the needs we need to trace back into the ‘why’ part of the need. Any living organism in order to survive needs two qualities. To survive and to multiply. Which ever mutation fails to transfer its characteristics to the next generation will perish.
Its just not multiplication that you need you need to protect your off springs too in order to make sure the survivability of the next generation.
Unfortunately for women the economic and emotional costs involved are just way too high. For men they are close to zero.
Male species tend to plant their semen in as many carriers (females) as possible..so the attributes they look for are boobs (ensures feeding to the off spring) wider hips (ensures delivery)..and since the economic cost involved are less they tend to make a decision very quickly.
:-)
On the other hand, females tend to be defensive simply because of the cost involved. (Pregnancy is extermely expensive in evolutionary terms). So the attributes she looks for are totally different.
The first attribute a female looks for is ‘protection’. (In Mammals). Females cant figure it out just by looks. They need to ‘understand’ a male before they commit.
So their needs are emotional first, physical next.
So they tend to be picky. But obviously, when all males are competing to pair with as many females as possible every male needs a unique or extra charecteristic that makes him stand out the crowd.
Females tend to pick the one with ones with the required characteristics (strength, balance and other features). But thats just an entry ticket. Then the needs are totally emotional. Unless a female gets convinced about the protection she would get from her male counterpart during her pregnancy, for her offsprings, she wouldnt commit.
That should also explain why lot of girls look for someone like her brother or dad. Because the first need protection.
I cant generalize the above explaination to all the living species. There are different needs and different attributes for each and every situations.
Also modern miracles like condoms and pills blow a hole into the theory. Another hole is homo sapiens ability to mate through all the seasons and for non prodcutive activities like pleasure. (In evolutionary terms again).
But the basic (fundamental) approach still remains the same.
http://patrix.typepad.com Patrix
Smiley – Why am I not surprised that it is you and not some girl who is commenting first? :) and then you go on and make perfect sense citing biological and psychological facts, killing all the fun…damn! no wonder you are single, you are doing the thinking for your women too. Alpha is gonna read much more into this comment though…best of luck trying to defend that.
:-)
Gee..was that saying..get out of my blog? You can always delete my comments dude. :-)
http://patrix.typepad.com Patrix
Smiley – No re, that was just a quick response, trying to put the spice back in the factually-correct science lesson :) Always a pleasure having you around.
http://www.20six.co.uk/PluggedIn Venusian
The evolutionary and biological theories don’t really carry much weight anymore. A lot of women do not seek a mate for protection anymore…nor for procreation. Any more than men do. Thoughts of protection and procreation…in a man or woman….do not influence mating patterns as much as they do commitment patterns.
I don’t think that comment your friend made is all that wierd. I always notice a guy’s hands !!! Among other things :)
It is also perhaps unfair to assume that men do not have emotional needs that would influence their ‘mating’ patterns.They also need a lot more than physical attributes to sustain attraction.
Physical attributes are about as important to a woman as a man..women perhaps are less open about it. But regardless of gender, the physical attributes are never the sole factor. At least for most people.
http://avlokana.blogspot.com Vin
I tend to go with Smiley’s comments. Might be there are exceptions. But facts are facts. And it goes with the theory of ‘purpose’.
Pleasure is of a personal taste.
Jahnvi
I tend to agree with Venusian. Women drool over good looks all the time (George Clooney anyone?), but there are other attributes which matter much more. Could be brains, the way he carries himself, attitude, habits etc etc. If a guy has all the above and looks good, it would be godsend. On the other hand, if he is an average looker plus the above, that is okay too! Its all about perspective and what drives u.
http://www.livejournal.com/~ajju Ajju
Uhh smiley the theory you cite is a well used but really flawed in this day and age. Like you say, contraception practically kills the theory. Not to mention, both men and women have mostly have equal emotional (think marriage) and almost always a financial investment in babies (think child support law).
Also every man I know who is interested in a relationship is not just looking for a hot bod but someone who is emotionally capable of being a partner/supporting them. And seriously, not a single one of them wants to ‘spread his seeds’.
Yes men tend to process the physical characteristics of women first (and thus are at first more instinctual – like you say), but ultimately they look for emotional support too from their partners.
And if the intention is just to have a fling, women have both the drive and the means (contraception) to do it without paying any more costs than men do.
http://www.livejournal.com/users/ashweeta Ash
Heyy, interesting post.
Smiley, you took me right back to my evolutionary bio classes! But you do have several excellent points regarding the scientific basis of mating behaviour. The difference beween male and female sexual behaviour is deeply linked to their ability to procreate. Males can spread their seed far and wide, while women have limited chances and so have vested interests in ensuring that the few offspring that they produce are protected and cared for.
But frankly in todays world, contraception and changes in male-female equations have certainly changed all that. The girls may drool over brad Pitt and George Clooney, and the guys can lust after Sharon Stone or Sonali Bendre or whoever, but I think when it comes down to having meaningful relationships, both guys and girls look beyond the physical. Honestly, looks matter only on first impression. There are so many guys I know, who I didn’t think were good-looking when we first met, but after becoming friends and seeing what they were really like, I found them to be attractive people.
And hey, about the pheromones issue, like I said, scientists can try and figure it out all they like, but nobody can deny that our sense of smell is entwined with the charm of attraction. I also remember reading a Scientific American article about how women like guys who smell like their dads. Putting Freudian perversities aside, the biological theory is that basically females want a good mix of genes to mate with – the genetic make-up shouldn’t be too close to her own because that cause problems ( in-breeding ), at the same time, a high variation would decrease the offspring’s chances of survival.
Okay, genetics lesson over. Wake up people !
Someone
well..the process of elimination has worked better than process of selection for me..(i hated biology..so took up engg..hated electronics so took up comps..etc etc..) I know what i dont want in a person .. so as long as those qualities dont exist i m ok..but the bottom line for me is i need to click with the person..the physical issue comes later .. its like if i can be good friends with u i can fall in love with u…
http://patrix.typepad.com Patrix
I was knocked off the Net for the whole day but glad to see so many insightful comments but noone really answered the Q.
Venusian – I too think that Smiley’s comments regarding the protector role doesn’t hold ground at least in urban environments. Of course, physical factors never are the sole reasons…the relationship is doomed if they are…but what do I hear about these “other things”? tell me more :)
Vin – It may be personal in nature but I am sure we can generalize something.
Jahnvi – Let us be clear, god is not sending anything and you gotta suffice with whats down here :) average looker, eh? but whats average for you?
Ajju – Guess women have it going for them more than men do. But intrinsically men do have wandering tendencies, mostly based on looks but their committement issues help them keep the eye on the ball, pun unintended.
Ash – That was quite a genetics lesson after Smiley’s looong speech :) I am glad I wasn’t too far off from that father-smell tendencies. Looks are fleeting inducements for attracting, it definitely take more than looks to keep both a man or a woman interested. I just hope that we don’t miss out on being with some wonderful people just because the first impression wasn’t so good.
Someone – guess the process of elimination works better coz we might have less number of qualities we don’t wish to see than what we want..compromise then becomes an ugly word…but whats with “its like if i can be good friends with u i can fall in love with u…“..Whoa! not so fast :) *just kidding*
alpha
Women have nothing, I mean nothing, to go by..so we try to satisfy ourselves with palms and fingers. Life is unfair, but we adapt.
alpha
Did someone say Grorge Clooney???!!! *droooool* But I gotto to see his fingers first.
Smiley,I’ll hold you for this at a later time. That dialogue was just to please Patrix.
http://patrix.typepad.com Patrix
Alpha – adapt to what? I hope you go beyond palms and fingers at some stage.
http://whirlwings.blogspot.com Whirlwings
I love looking at good looking men, especally the TDH kinds, preferably below 25, no moustache, jeans, attitude.
Eye candy aside, as far as attraction is concerned, vibes vibes vibes is the way it goes. I have been equally attracted to short-with-a-slight-paunch egocentric opinionated chauvinists as I have to tall-dark-handsome-professional-yet-caring hunks. It is just vibes.
http://patrix.typepad.com Patrix
Wings – Vibes can be a definite attraction. I understand when you can’t really describe why we are attracted to someone when everyone around us wonders what the heck did we see in that person.
http://twilightfairy.rediffblogs.com Twilight Fairy
welcome to the jungle :-).. it’s not a well guarded secret Patrix.. you said it.. men *are* shallow :).. n women dont really care abt looks.. err.. as long as you have 2 eyes, 2 ears etc etc.. I dont know a single guy who would actually go by the norm that “looks don’t matter”
http://patrix.typepad.com Patrix
Twilight Fairy – You forgot the nose :) but men *are* shallow is a bit harsh. Maybe thatz true in Delhi, not elsewhere *ouch* :)
Soleil
darn! there goes my chance to spout evolutionary theories!
i wonder though why some of us check out palms/ hands…
and I know some of us who go for the ‘specs’ and lost-in-the-world geek look…
prolly the ‘neat’ and ‘good responsible’ boy will earn enough to feed the baby clues in modern society..
http://patrix.typepad.com Patrix
Soleil – specs and geek, eh? so some of our creed does have a chance after all..and the neat and responsible kinds seems more like a mom-in-law’s choice for a guy.

Nerve Endings Firing Away

Check out the hunk, woman!

Related Posts

Subscribe