I am sincerely curious about male preferences, whether the answer is something “politically correct” or that men literally only care about boob size.
Definitely not that simple. Boobs don’t do much for me either. I’ve heard men fall into three categories—boobs men, butt men, and legs men (and more vulgar synonyms)—depending on which feature they find most arousing. If he’s not a boobs man, then you don’t need big boobs to arouse him.
I think the current hypothesis for the evolutionary function of boobs is that most male mammals mount the female from behind to mate, and while humans have been known to do that too, they also like mating face-to-face, and the older butt-arousal machinery is turned on by the new front-facing proxy butt. (Bare shoulders can also do this to a lesser degree.) This at least suggests that the more butt-like the boobs appear, the better they can do that. This means it’s not about being big per se, but about being butt-like. Human female butts can be quite large, but having boobs even bigger than that is probably not helping much and may even be a turn off. They’d also need to be round rather than pointy, for example, because butts are not pointy. There has probably been some newer boob-arousal machinery layered on top, hence there can be a distinction between boobs-men and butt-men. They don’t quite register the same for me.
I’m primarily aroused by legs (legs-man), so it took me a while to realize that I can be aroused by boobs at all, but I do recall a case of that happening. In that case they were butt-like (yes, large) and jiggled a certain way. More relevant to non-boobs men is probably how boobs can be a turn off if they look unhealthy. I think average-sized boobs that are at least round and perky are perfectly attractive, just not especially arousing. And they don’t have to be.
“Arousing” and “attractive” are not the same thing, although being arousing helps with attractiveness. I don’t feel like I select on legs the way I select on faces (which are a much bigger deal), but I don’t find faces particularly arousing, most of the time. If I’m turned off by the face, the rest doesn’t even matter.
“Arousing” and “attractive” are not the same thing, although being arousing helps with attractiveness.
I’ve thought about some of the fine distinctions in this area, so I’ll say what I’ve come up with:
I have a sex drive and a romantic drive. The sex drive is about looking at and touching erogeneous zones on a woman’s body and on my body, and involves sexual arousal. The romantic drive is about admiring a girl—generally looking at her face and thinking “wow, she’s lovely”—wanting her to smile, wanting to smile at her, being hyper-aware of her physical presence, wanting to touch her with affection (especially her cheek, especially with my cheek; also wanting to hug her); and often involves blushing and sometimes nervousness, but usually does not involve sexual arousal.
The sex drive and romantic drive are separate. They’re certainly linked—e.g. situations that satisfy one desire will tend to inflame the other, and there are plenty of people for whom I feel both drives—but also plenty of cases where I feel one strongly but the other weakly or not at all.
In terms of physical attributes. Romantic drive is affected mostly by face and hair, and also by overall health (weight and athleticism factor into that). Sex drive is affected mostly by the boobs/butt/legs attributes you mention, and sometimes aspects of the face (e.g. heavy lipstick may appeal to the sex drive but probably not the romantic drive).
Terminology. I tend to use “pretty” to mean “having physical features I’d admire” (i.e. appealing to the romantic drive), “beautiful” to mean “very pretty”, “attractive” to mean “having physical features that appeal to the sex drive”, “sexy” to mean “having physical features that appeal to the sex drive and lead me to think about sex”, and “hot” as a synonym for “sexy”. (For example, a somewhat tight outfit that shows someone’s curves but no skin would look “attractive”, but if it showed lots of skin it would be “sexy”.)
I’m aware that most people don’t seem to make these fine distinctions in terminology (and some have their own, different version); I’m just saying that (a) it is worth having different words for these concepts, and (b) these are the meanings I came up with, most of which I think match common usage reasonably well.
I’ve conducted an informal poll over the years, and I think about half of my male friends report the same “sex drive and romantic drive can be separate” phenomenon, and the other half say they always coincide. I don’t know if the latter half make (or notice) any distinction between “pretty” and “sexy”.
In terms of advice to OP. Someone who appeals to my sex drive but not my romantic drive is someone I’d be tempted to have sex with but not want a long-term serious relationship with. (I think this is the case for men in general.) So if that’s what you want, then maxing out “sexy” is a good idea. But if you’re looking for a long-term serious relationship, then you’d want to prioritize dressing “pretty”, and, if you’re attracting too many men who only want short-term sex, you may want to tone down “sexy”. Being “attractive” is probably still valuable to signal, up to a point: certainly if the intended relationship is monogamous, then it’s important that I’ll enjoy sex with her, so being too unattractive is a problem; but if she’s attractive enough to satisfy that, then there are diminishing returns to increased attractiveness.
“attractive” to mean “having physical features that appeal to the sex drive”
Was with you up to here. I might call that “alluring”, rather than “attractive”, which I use to mean “appealing to my romantic drive” (as you put it), and not just from physical features, which seems like nearly the opposite meaning, and I used it in that sense in the part you just quoted (contrasting it with “arousing”, which I meant as a purely sexual turn-on). Was that your mistake or am I using a different terminology version?
the other half say they always coincide. I don’t know if the latter half make (or notice) any distinction between “pretty” and “sexy”.
Interesting. I’m surprised, but you seem to have better data that I do here. It had not occurred to me that these could be indistinguishable for some men. I wonder if that’s typical mind fallacy on my part, or if they just lack some awareness when trying to introspect and articulate their instincts.
Was that your mistake or am I using a different terminology version?
Yeah, this is a difference in terminology. To describe “having physical features that appeal to the sex drive”… “Alluring” is decent, although it might carry a connotation of “deliberately setting a lure”, of intentionality, and I want a word that covers the non-intentional. (Perhaps even primarily the non-intentional, because if I can tell that someone is deliberately making herself sexually appealing, that probably makes it “sexy”.) “Sexually appealing” might be slightly better—though, again, “appeal” can be a verb. I don’t have a name for it that I’m unambiguously pleased with.… I guess “sexually attractive” is probably best.
Bonus terminology item: People seem to often use “cute” to mean “pretty”, and possibly even to mean some aspects of “sexually appealing”. (Good lord, Google confirms that “informal North American” usage means “sexually attractive”.) I use “cute” to mean “having features reminiscent of a child or baby, which makes me want to watch over them, hug them, and take care of them”; and I think it’s probably best not to use the same word to mean what attracts people to adults. Now, it is possible for adults to be cute in the above sense, and for that to increase their overall appeal (because it’s an extra reason to look at them, so if their looks are appealing, it magnifies the effect of their looks), and some adults do deliberately try to be cuter to attract attention. I have misgivings about what might happen if this goes too far.
Another bonus item (not serious). “Toothsome” means tasty; one could say it means you’d like to get your teeth into it. By analogy, “handsome” therefore means… Ahem. Anyway.
It had not occurred to be that [“pretty” and “sexy”] could be indistinguishable for some men. I wonder if that’s typical mind fallacy on my part, or if they just lack some awareness when trying to introspect and articulate their instincts.
I haven’t tried to research it. I do have the impression that men are commonly aware of a distinction between “someone who would be a good wife” and “someone you’d just want short-term sex with”, but the former could refer to character, mind, etc.; I don’t have evidence specifically about whether they distinguish between physical characteristics that have “sexual appeal” vs “romantic appeal”.
I think a good analogy to long term relationship and short term hookup is that you are basically interviewing for different job positions with different responsibilities and skill sets. For some people, they don’t have any requirements or have very little requirements while others have more. How much each position overlaps depends on the individual and probably upbringing based on their own parents’ lifestyle. If they like their parents’ dynamics, then they know exactly what they want for long term. If they don’t, then they don’t really know and have to basically sort of “find themselves” first. If you reject your upbringing, then you have to go on a personal journey at some point because once you reject everything that you have, you have nothing. This usually happens early in life as the rebellious phase of the teenage years is when a child starts to question everything they’ve come to take for granted up until now. The thing with long term relationship is that people don’t really explore who they are in terms of this until much later in life when they have to settle down. The problem is that they can’t afford to explore at that point in life. If you don’t like something it’s not something that you can just easily throw away like some short term fling.
I think people should be taught life long responsibilities early so they know what to look out for at each step in life. It’s hard to gauge how much you should focus on for the small picture if you don’t have a big picture of the whole thing. I wonder if most parents teach their kids this stuff or maybe they don’t even know about this themselves.
Definitely not that simple. Boobs don’t do much for me either. I’ve heard men fall into three categories—boobs men, butt men, and legs men (and more vulgar synonyms)—depending on which feature they find most arousing. If he’s not a boobs man, then you don’t need big boobs to arouse him.
I think the current hypothesis for the evolutionary function of boobs is that most male mammals mount the female from behind to mate, and while humans have been known to do that too, they also like mating face-to-face, and the older butt-arousal machinery is turned on by the new front-facing proxy butt. (Bare shoulders can also do this to a lesser degree.) This at least suggests that the more butt-like the boobs appear, the better they can do that. This means it’s not about being big per se, but about being butt-like. Human female butts can be quite large, but having boobs even bigger than that is probably not helping much and may even be a turn off. They’d also need to be round rather than pointy, for example, because butts are not pointy. There has probably been some newer boob-arousal machinery layered on top, hence there can be a distinction between boobs-men and butt-men. They don’t quite register the same for me.
I’m primarily aroused by legs (legs-man), so it took me a while to realize that I can be aroused by boobs at all, but I do recall a case of that happening. In that case they were butt-like (yes, large) and jiggled a certain way. More relevant to non-boobs men is probably how boobs can be a turn off if they look unhealthy. I think average-sized boobs that are at least round and perky are perfectly attractive, just not especially arousing. And they don’t have to be.
“Arousing” and “attractive” are not the same thing, although being arousing helps with attractiveness. I don’t feel like I select on legs the way I select on faces (which are a much bigger deal), but I don’t find faces particularly arousing, most of the time. If I’m turned off by the face, the rest doesn’t even matter.
I’ve thought about some of the fine distinctions in this area, so I’ll say what I’ve come up with:
I have a sex drive and a romantic drive. The sex drive is about looking at and touching erogeneous zones on a woman’s body and on my body, and involves sexual arousal. The romantic drive is about admiring a girl—generally looking at her face and thinking “wow, she’s lovely”—wanting her to smile, wanting to smile at her, being hyper-aware of her physical presence, wanting to touch her with affection (especially her cheek, especially with my cheek; also wanting to hug her); and often involves blushing and sometimes nervousness, but usually does not involve sexual arousal.
The sex drive and romantic drive are separate. They’re certainly linked—e.g. situations that satisfy one desire will tend to inflame the other, and there are plenty of people for whom I feel both drives—but also plenty of cases where I feel one strongly but the other weakly or not at all.
In terms of physical attributes. Romantic drive is affected mostly by face and hair, and also by overall health (weight and athleticism factor into that). Sex drive is affected mostly by the boobs/butt/legs attributes you mention, and sometimes aspects of the face (e.g. heavy lipstick may appeal to the sex drive but probably not the romantic drive).
Terminology. I tend to use “pretty” to mean “having physical features I’d admire” (i.e. appealing to the romantic drive), “beautiful” to mean “very pretty”, “attractive” to mean “having physical features that appeal to the sex drive”, “sexy” to mean “having physical features that appeal to the sex drive and lead me to think about sex”, and “hot” as a synonym for “sexy”. (For example, a somewhat tight outfit that shows someone’s curves but no skin would look “attractive”, but if it showed lots of skin it would be “sexy”.)
I’m aware that most people don’t seem to make these fine distinctions in terminology (and some have their own, different version); I’m just saying that (a) it is worth having different words for these concepts, and (b) these are the meanings I came up with, most of which I think match common usage reasonably well.
I’ve conducted an informal poll over the years, and I think about half of my male friends report the same “sex drive and romantic drive can be separate” phenomenon, and the other half say they always coincide. I don’t know if the latter half make (or notice) any distinction between “pretty” and “sexy”.
In terms of advice to OP. Someone who appeals to my sex drive but not my romantic drive is someone I’d be tempted to have sex with but not want a long-term serious relationship with. (I think this is the case for men in general.) So if that’s what you want, then maxing out “sexy” is a good idea. But if you’re looking for a long-term serious relationship, then you’d want to prioritize dressing “pretty”, and, if you’re attracting too many men who only want short-term sex, you may want to tone down “sexy”. Being “attractive” is probably still valuable to signal, up to a point: certainly if the intended relationship is monogamous, then it’s important that I’ll enjoy sex with her, so being too unattractive is a problem; but if she’s attractive enough to satisfy that, then there are diminishing returns to increased attractiveness.
Was with you up to here. I might call that “alluring”, rather than “attractive”, which I use to mean “appealing to my romantic drive” (as you put it), and not just from physical features, which seems like nearly the opposite meaning, and I used it in that sense in the part you just quoted (contrasting it with “arousing”, which I meant as a purely sexual turn-on). Was that your mistake or am I using a different terminology version?
Interesting. I’m surprised, but you seem to have better data that I do here. It had not occurred to me that these could be indistinguishable for some men. I wonder if that’s typical mind fallacy on my part, or if they just lack some awareness when trying to introspect and articulate their instincts.
Yeah, this is a difference in terminology. To describe “having physical features that appeal to the sex drive”… “Alluring” is decent, although it might carry a connotation of “deliberately setting a lure”, of intentionality, and I want a word that covers the non-intentional. (Perhaps even primarily the non-intentional, because if I can tell that someone is deliberately making herself sexually appealing, that probably makes it “sexy”.) “Sexually appealing” might be slightly better—though, again, “appeal” can be a verb. I don’t have a name for it that I’m unambiguously pleased with.… I guess “sexually attractive” is probably best.
Bonus terminology item: People seem to often use “cute” to mean “pretty”, and possibly even to mean some aspects of “sexually appealing”. (Good lord, Google confirms that “informal North American” usage means “sexually attractive”.) I use “cute” to mean “having features reminiscent of a child or baby, which makes me want to watch over them, hug them, and take care of them”; and I think it’s probably best not to use the same word to mean what attracts people to adults. Now, it is possible for adults to be cute in the above sense, and for that to increase their overall appeal (because it’s an extra reason to look at them, so if their looks are appealing, it magnifies the effect of their looks), and some adults do deliberately try to be cuter to attract attention. I have misgivings about what might happen if this goes too far.
Another bonus item (not serious). “Toothsome” means tasty; one could say it means you’d like to get your teeth into it. By analogy, “handsome” therefore means… Ahem. Anyway.
I haven’t tried to research it. I do have the impression that men are commonly aware of a distinction between “someone who would be a good wife” and “someone you’d just want short-term sex with”, but the former could refer to character, mind, etc.; I don’t have evidence specifically about whether they distinguish between physical characteristics that have “sexual appeal” vs “romantic appeal”.
I think a good analogy to long term relationship and short term hookup is that you are basically interviewing for different job positions with different responsibilities and skill sets. For some people, they don’t have any requirements or have very little requirements while others have more. How much each position overlaps depends on the individual and probably upbringing based on their own parents’ lifestyle. If they like their parents’ dynamics, then they know exactly what they want for long term. If they don’t, then they don’t really know and have to basically sort of “find themselves” first. If you reject your upbringing, then you have to go on a personal journey at some point because once you reject everything that you have, you have nothing. This usually happens early in life as the rebellious phase of the teenage years is when a child starts to question everything they’ve come to take for granted up until now. The thing with long term relationship is that people don’t really explore who they are in terms of this until much later in life when they have to settle down. The problem is that they can’t afford to explore at that point in life. If you don’t like something it’s not something that you can just easily throw away like some short term fling.
I think people should be taught life long responsibilities early so they know what to look out for at each step in life. It’s hard to gauge how much you should focus on for the small picture if you don’t have a big picture of the whole thing. I wonder if most parents teach their kids this stuff or maybe they don’t even know about this themselves.