What attracts men to women?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, there are many individual differences and there’s nothing wrong with seeking the dynamic that suits you. I meant the statement only as a matter of stats: educated high income women are more likely to be married, and have lower divorce rates, than poorly educated women do.

There’s one or two guys on the thread who want to insist that looks are the end of the story, but people are more complex in reality.

No. It's really not complicated in reality. A woman's looks are always necessary before a man will initiate a relationship with her. But a woman's looks are not always sufficient for a man to want to sustain a relationship with her..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Education levels - Not too important

Youth - Yes, I go for younger women

Wealth - I'd like her to be able to support herself. Actual wealth is a plus, but not what I look for

Social Status - Not all all. If that's important to her, it's a turn off to me.

Career - Not important but again, she should be able to support herself and if she's stuck in a job/career she hates, that could impact the relationship.

Fertility - nope. Not fertile myself and past the baby making days

Independence - This is important. She shouldn't need me or any man

Beauty - Beautiful in my eyes, doesn't have to be the popular version of female beauty.

Confidence - Yes, confidence is sexy. I'm turned off by women with low self-esteem

Athletic/Physically active - Yes. Doesn't have to be a gym rat, but should be able and willing to engage in activities like hiking in the mountains, etc.

Beyond that, her sexual libido should be on par with mine and I like women who can easily orgasm from sex. Sorry, but the ones I've been with who have a hard time getting off are a turn off for me. I know how it sounds, but I've paid my dues. She also has to be sexually adventurous with me and open to some kinky activities.

Sounds like you might need to tune up your technique there, sparky.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, there are many individual differences and there’s nothing wrong with seeking the dynamic that suits you. I meant the statement only as a matter of stats: educated high income women are more likely to be married, and have lower divorce rates, than poorly educated women do.

There’s one or two guys on the thread who want to insist that looks are the end of the story, but people are more complex in reality.

No. It's really not complicated in reality. A woman's looks are always necessary before a man will initiate a relationship with her. But a woman's looks are not always sufficient for a man to want to sustain a relationship with her..

Walking down any street in the world will quickly disabuse you of this notion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh whatever red pull/blue pull, I pull both colors off quite well in the right hue.

Men not interested in intellect are major losers. Sure, objective attraction matters but attraction is more than Barbie. Any man who states otherwise, is a fool not getting any female attention without the carrot of his wallet.

Like many women in this thread and on DCUM, you are missing the point.

Men are interested in intellect... and a lot of the other things like career and education... AFTER she meets the basic standard of attraction.

A woman who is a total beast can have a great intellect and it will not matter because he will not be attracted. He will look at her and there will be no lead in his pencil. Any man who states otherwise is lying. Any woman who thinks this is not true is deluded about men. A man who needs a woman to meet a certain level of "attractiveness" regardless of her other qualities is not a "loser".

Frankly you sound like a bitter female who has been rejected for being physically unattractive and now blames men for not being attracted to her supposed intellect.

So how do you account for all the plain women (“beasts” in your estimation, I guess) who are partnered?

Although anyone who calls women “females” is probably uninterested in discussion.

First, you have it wrong. Plain women are not beasts. Plain is the middle of the curve, beasts are on the left end.

Second, it should be very obvious that plain women are partnered because every man's minimum acceptable level of attractiveness is different. Not to put too fine a point on it, a plain looking guy will probably find a plain-looking girl acceptable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, there are many individual differences and there’s nothing wrong with seeking the dynamic that suits you. I meant the statement only as a matter of stats: educated high income women are more likely to be married, and have lower divorce rates, than poorly educated women do.

There’s one or two guys on the thread who want to insist that looks are the end of the story, but people are more complex in reality.

No. It's really not complicated in reality. A woman's looks are always necessary before a man will initiate a relationship with her. But a woman's looks are not always sufficient for a man to want to sustain a relationship with her..

Walking down any street in the world will quickly disabuse you of this notion.

Nope, it will confirm it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh whatever red pull/blue pull, I pull both colors off quite well in the right hue.

Men not interested in intellect are major losers. Sure, objective attraction matters but attraction is more than Barbie. Any man who states otherwise, is a fool not getting any female attention without the carrot of his wallet.

Like many women in this thread and on DCUM, you are missing the point.

Men are interested in intellect... and a lot of the other things like career and education... AFTER she meets the basic standard of attraction.

A woman who is a total beast can have a great intellect and it will not matter because he will not be attracted. He will look at her and there will be no lead in his pencil. Any man who states otherwise is lying. Any woman who thinks this is not true is deluded about men. A man who needs a woman to meet a certain level of "attractiveness" regardless of her other qualities is not a "loser".

Frankly you sound like a bitter female who has been rejected for being physically unattractive and now blames men for not being attracted to her supposed intellect.

So how do you account for all the plain women (“beasts” in your estimation, I guess) who are partnered?

Although anyone who calls women “females” is probably uninterested in discussion.

First, you have it wrong. Plain women are not beasts. Plain is the middle of the curve, beasts are on the left end.

Second, it should be very obvious that plain women are partnered because every man's minimum acceptable level of attractiveness is different. Not to put too fine a point on it, a plain looking guy will probably find a plain-looking girl acceptable.

So beasts match up with beasts. Well, at least that sounds a bit more equitable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

And there's another one that will enrage the DCUM women, but you asked for a male perspective so here it is:

Reasonably low number of previous sexual partners. Meaning, less than ten. No man wants to marry a woman who has been with dozens of other guys.

This is depressing to read, pp. We all get old and won't all be beautiful. So you are saying you want to go back to the days when all women are at home and take care of the children with no independence or career of their own? You don't even want a confident SAHM?

Women don't have to have dozens of sexual partners in order to have "independence and a career of their own" or to be a "confident SAHM" (whatever that is).

But as you would know if you've read this thread, men don't care about women's "independence", or their "career", and least of all about their "confidence". These are all things women find attractive in men, not things men find attractive in women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh whatever red pull/blue pull, I pull both colors off quite well in the right hue.

Men not interested in intellect are major losers. Sure, objective attraction matters but attraction is more than Barbie. Any man who states otherwise, is a fool not getting any female attention without the carrot of his wallet.

Like many women in this thread and on DCUM, you are missing the point.

Men are interested in intellect... and a lot of the other things like career and education... AFTER she meets the basic standard of attraction.

A woman who is a total beast can have a great intellect and it will not matter because he will not be attracted. He will look at her and there will be no lead in his pencil. Any man who states otherwise is lying. Any woman who thinks this is not true is deluded about men. A man who needs a woman to meet a certain level of "attractiveness" regardless of her other qualities is not a "loser".

Frankly you sound like a bitter female who has been rejected for being physically unattractive and now blames men for not being attracted to her supposed intellect.

So how do you account for all the plain women (“beasts” in your estimation, I guess) who are partnered?

Although anyone who calls women “females” is probably uninterested in discussion.

Not the PP but I will answer. Beauty is subjective, of course. One man's beast is another man's beauty. I have friends who are only attracted to the type of women I find unattractive and they don't like the type I go for. That's one explanation. Also, he could have married beauty, only to end up stuck with a beast in later life. To be fair, that works both ways and this forum is full of those threads.

Regardless, this thread is not about partnered couples, but what qualities are most attractive to men. I interpret that question to mean, if I was looking for a partner, what attracts me. Not, is it still possible to be attracted to someone who has let themselves go? But like most such threads, some women just can't resist trying to answer for the men and tell us what we should be thinking. Intellect, career, and education are all fine things in a woman, or any person. But they are not at the top of the list for attraction.

So please, stop your womansplaining.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Education levels - Not too important

Youth - Yes, I go for younger women

Wealth - I'd like her to be able to support herself. Actual wealth is a plus, but not what I look for

Social Status - Not all all. If that's important to her, it's a turn off to me.

Career - Not important but again, she should be able to support herself and if she's stuck in a job/career she hates, that could impact the relationship.

Fertility - nope. Not fertile myself and past the baby making days

Independence - This is important. She shouldn't need me or any man

Beauty - Beautiful in my eyes, doesn't have to be the popular version of female beauty.

Confidence - Yes, confidence is sexy. I'm turned off by women with low self-esteem

Athletic/Physically active - Yes. Doesn't have to be a gym rat, but should be able and willing to engage in activities like hiking in the mountains, etc.

Beyond that, her sexual libido should be on par with mine and I like women who can easily orgasm from sex. Sorry, but the ones I've been with who have a hard time getting off are a turn off for me. I know how it sounds, but I've paid my dues. She also has to be sexually adventurous with me and open to some kinky activities.

Sounds like you might need to tune up your technique there, sparky.

Nope, some women just can't, or rarely orgasm from sex. Nothing wrong with my technique and I'll go all out to make it happen, whatever she needs to make that happen. But I much prefer a woman who orgasms easily (or at least without too much difficulty) from sex.

[Anonymous]

Hilarious! What a charmer. Falls for the fake every time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Education levels - Not too important

Youth - Yes, I go for younger women

Wealth - I'd like her to be able to support herself. Actual wealth is a plus, but not what I look for

Social Status - Not all all. If that's important to her, it's a turn off to me.

Career - Not important but again, she should be able to support herself and if she's stuck in a job/career she hates, that could impact the relationship.

Fertility - nope. Not fertile myself and past the baby making days

Independence - This is important. She shouldn't need me or any man

Beauty - Beautiful in my eyes, doesn't have to be the popular version of female beauty.

Confidence - Yes, confidence is sexy. I'm turned off by women with low self-esteem

Athletic/Physically active - Yes. Doesn't have to be a gym rat, but should be able and willing to engage in activities like hiking in the mountains, etc.

Beyond that, her sexual libido should be on par with mine and I like women who can easily orgasm from sex. Sorry, but the ones I've been with who have a hard time getting off are a turn off for me. I know how it sounds, but I've paid my dues. She also has to be sexually adventurous with me and open to some kinky activities.

Sounds like you might need to tune up your technique there, sparky.

Nope, some women just can't, or rarely orgasm from sex. Nothing wrong with my technique and I'll go all out to make it happen, whatever she needs to make that happen. But I much prefer a woman who orgasms easily (or at least without too much difficulty) from sex.

Define “sex.” Relatively few women - 25%ish - orgasm from just PIV.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And there's another one that will enrage the DCUM women, but you asked for a male perspective so here it is:

Reasonably low number of previous sexual partners. Meaning, less than ten. No man wants to marry a woman who has been with dozens of other guys.

This is depressing to read, pp. We all get old and won't all be beautiful. So you are saying you want to go back to the days when all women are at home and take care of the children with no independence or career of their own? You don't even want a confident SAHM?

Women don't have to have dozens of sexual partners in order to have "independence and a career of their own" or to be a "confident SAHM" (whatever that is).

But as you would know if you've read this thread, men don't care about women's "independence", or their "career", and least of all about their "confidence". These are all things women find attractive in men, not things men find attractive in women.

Tell me where I said that I want women to have dozens of sexual partners and that makes them Independence and a career of their own? That doesn't even make sense. Women go to college to earn degrees so they can have careers that they like. If women stay home that should be respected too.

To me a definition of a confident SAHM is someone who chooses to stay home with the kids and when someone asks what they do they confidently say SAHM. The men I know are not afraid of women having careers/jobs that are important to them. Not only for the money it brings to the family but, the contributions they make to society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Education levels - Not too important

Youth - Yes, I go for younger women

Wealth - I'd like her to be able to support herself. Actual wealth is a plus, but not what I look for

Social Status - Not all all. If that's important to her, it's a turn off to me.

Career - Not important but again, she should be able to support herself and if she's stuck in a job/career she hates, that could impact the relationship.

Fertility - nope. Not fertile myself and past the baby making days

Independence - This is important. She shouldn't need me or any man

Beauty - Beautiful in my eyes, doesn't have to be the popular version of female beauty.

Confidence - Yes, confidence is sexy. I'm turned off by women with low self-esteem

Athletic/Physically active - Yes. Doesn't have to be a gym rat, but should be able and willing to engage in activities like hiking in the mountains, etc.

Beyond that, her sexual libido should be on par with mine and I like women who can easily orgasm from sex. Sorry, but the ones I've been with who have a hard time getting off are a turn off for me. I know how it sounds, but I've paid my dues. She also has to be sexually adventurous with me and open to some kinky activities.

Sounds like you might need to tune up your technique there, sparky.

Nope, some women just can't, or rarely orgasm from sex. Nothing wrong with my technique and I'll go all out to make it happen, whatever she needs to make that happen. But I much prefer a woman who orgasms easily (or at least without too much difficulty) from sex.

Wow, your moronic opinions really blow my mind. Here's a clue: if your women can't or rarely orgasms from sex you are either doing it wrong or she just isn't that into you.

Also, you confirm my opinion that any survey of the "men of DCUM" is laughable because they don't represent anything, certainly not the average guy.

[Anonymous]

This thread is depressing. I don't think that for men it is just about attraction to beauty, I think there's more at play. I think it's about status, and for men to have a beautiful girlfriend is a measure of status. In other words, I don't think it's biological, I think this is mostly societal.

When I was a kid in middle school and high school, the girls were absolutely as obsessed with boys' looks as the boys were about girls - if not more so! All girls talked about was who was hot and why. The most popular boys were HOT and had good bodies.

So what changed? Did biology take over when you graduated and got a bit older? No. Society kicks in, and by the time you're 18, the message has been stuffed down your throat that male status comes from money/power and women's status is from beauty and youth. This is mostly societally driven, and most evolutionary biology theories are discredited and have little weight. So men when you say "it's just the way I feel," try to use your brain a little and realize that it goes deeper than that.

Sadly, a lot of you are fathers and seem to think there's nothing wrong with your daughters having no other value than their beauty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Education levels - Not too important

Youth - Yes, I go for younger women

Wealth - I'd like her to be able to support herself. Actual wealth is a plus, but not what I look for

Social Status - Not all all. If that's important to her, it's a turn off to me.

Career - Not important but again, she should be able to support herself and if she's stuck in a job/career she hates, that could impact the relationship.

Fertility - nope. Not fertile myself and past the baby making days

Independence - This is important. She shouldn't need me or any man

Beauty - Beautiful in my eyes, doesn't have to be the popular version of female beauty.

Confidence - Yes, confidence is sexy. I'm turned off by women with low self-esteem

Athletic/Physically active - Yes. Doesn't have to be a gym rat, but should be able and willing to engage in activities like hiking in the mountains, etc.

Beyond that, her sexual libido should be on par with mine and I like women who can easily orgasm from sex. Sorry, but the ones I've been with who have a hard time getting off are a turn off for me. I know how it sounds, but I've paid my dues. She also has to be sexually adventurous with me and open to some kinky activities.

Sounds like you might need to tune up your technique there, sparky.

Nope, some women just can't, or rarely orgasm from sex. Nothing wrong with my technique and I'll go all out to make it happen, whatever she needs to make that happen. But I much prefer a woman who orgasms easily (or at least without too much difficulty) from sex.

Define “sex.” Relatively few women - 25%ish - orgasm from just PIV.

I define sex as PIV and I've been with enough of the 75% (which I believe is highly exaggerated) to know I prefer the 25%.