In current political climate, this question feels like a trap. A man expressing his preference (other that something hypocritical like “all women are 100% perfect exactly the way they are”) risks being called sexist in turn. Maybe not by the person who asked the question, but someone else who overheard the conversation, or found a written record of it 20 years later.
Second, I do not have links to research on this topic, so I can only provide my opinions and best guesses, of dubious quality. Given that there are men whose preferences I do not understand at all, I certainly have many blind spots.
Enough excuses...
Age, I think the common sense says 17-25 is the most attractive. (Or course there are exceptions. There are exceptions everywhere.) Anecdotally, a friend described it like this: “When I was 20, when I entered a room, all men looked at me. When I was 30, when I was talking to a man, and a 20 years old girl entered the room, he looked at her and stopped paying attention to me.”
Then again, when men look at women, they do not perceive their age directly (like a number displayed above their heads). What do they see? Seems to me it is mostly the quality of skin, and behavior. I am not sure how reliable this information is, but it seems that UV light has a big impact on the “perceived age of skin”. Some women recommend wearing a sunscreen whenever you go outside, and during the summer even at home. (No idea whether science supports this.)
The behavior I associate with young women is wearing light colors, especially pink, and laughing a lot. The opposite of attractive behavior is bitterness, and crude materialism. If you try wearing pink (which I recommend trying), your behavior needs to match, otherwise it backfires. With regards to materialism, not sure if I can explain it shortly: women of all ages are impressed by men’s display of wealth, but the young ones express it with more plausible deniability (they are impressed by an awesome car or a fantastic vacation, rather than high salary per se).
Now something controversial. (Heh.) I believe that higher intelligence is always a plus, for both sexes. However, many women report that men feel threatened by smart women. How is that possible? I suspect that these women are not entirely correct. What I think I observe in such situation is women using their education as a symbol of higher status. Yes, telling your man every day that he is inferior to you and your university-educated friends (including male friends) is generally a bad idea for a happy relationship.
By the way, it is important for women to notice that there are two markets, with sometimes very different rules. Are you looking for a one-night stand, or for a partner to raise children with? Some things, such as displaying high sexual availability, may increase your value in the former, and decrease in the latter. (Then again, some long-term relationships started with a one-night stand, so maybe I am wrong here. Or maybe there is a difference between a one-night stand that has a chance to become something else, and one that does not.)
Now here are things I am less certain about, probably just my personal preferences: I prefer non-smokers, non-drunks, without tattoos. I prefer people who are nice, altruistic, curious.
*
My quick attempt at a model is that a woman’s value on the romantic market has two components: how “hot” she is, and whether she is a “good human” (whether she has good gender-neutral qualities). How do these two components interact?
I guess some guys only see the “hotness” part: if you are young, dressed in pink (with lots of skin exposed), laugh hysterically with a high-pitched voice, have long hair and big boobs… you can be a total bitch and a drug addict, they will still be hypnotized by you. But you better marry a rich guy soon, and then divorce him and keep his money, because a few years later your market value will plummet.
With other guys, it is more like multiplication: if you have zero hotness, too bad, same if you are a total bitch; but if you are reasonably attractive and a nice person (someone they would like to spend time with even if you were another guy), that is what they are looking for. The good news is that this kind of market value lasts longer.
(In relationships, there is also a “relationship capital”, like how much do people know and trust each other, the memories of their former positive interactions in the past, etc. This is different from a market value, because by definition it only matters for the people you have this relationship with. In very long term, you probably want to invest here, too.)
*
Now the most controversial part: Learn to cook! :)
I mean it. This seems like a hopelessly old-fashioned advice, but that’s exactly the point. In my experience, most women in my generation do not know how to cook. Learning this ancient art will make you unique.
In current political climate, this question feels like a trap. A man expressing his preference (other that something hypocritical like “all women are 100% perfect exactly the way they are”) risks being called sexist in turn.
Ugh, this is not something I seriously considered. Let me be clear that if there’s a sense in which it’s a “trap” then it’s definitely not intentional on my part. I am sincerely curious about male preferences, whether the answer is something “politically correct” or that men literally only care about boob size. Littany of Tarski and all that. Also, your preferences are what they are, there’s no room for ethical judgement here IMO[1].
The behavior I associate with young women is wearing light colors, especially pink, and laughing a lot. The opposite of attractive behavior is bitterness, and crude materialism. If you try wearing pink (which I recommend trying), your behavior needs to match, otherwise it backfires.
Hmm, that’s interesting. I happen to like pink, but what does it mean that my behavior should match? Do I need to be fun and easy-going? I don’t think I come across as bitter, and I’m certainly not a “materialist” in that sense (I am interested in intellectual men, but I hardly care how much money they have). But, I might come across as serious and reserved. And if my behavior doesn’t “match”, am I better off staying away from pink?
It is possible to have a preference for something inethical but (i) it is only inethical to act on the preference, not to have the preference and (ii) there is definitely no obligation on anyone to date someone they don’t want to date (and conversely, consenting adults can do whatever).
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.
Also, your preferences are what they are, there’s no room for ethical judgement here IMO.
Ah, the norm of high decoupling. OK, now I trust you to be one of us. :)
I am sincerely curious about male preferences, whether the answer is something “politically correct” or that men literally only care about boob size.
Uh, the topic of boob size is exactly one of those where I suspect that my preferences are not representative for men in general. I simply don’t care about this dimension too much. Like, I notice, of course, but it is not among the top 5 things, not even top 3 purely physical things (pretty face, long hair, no tattoos). However, stereotypes usually exist for a reason, so I suspect that many men see it differently.
(I can’t unpack what “pretty face” means for me. I know it when I see it. I couldn’t write the algorithm my brain uses, but it results in an impression that the person is smart and nice. Could be halo effect, though.)
I happen to like pink, but what does it mean that my behavior should match?
Actually, I don’t know. (Intuitively “don’t look like an old woman who desperately pretends to be young”, but that is a description of an outcome, not a recipe how to achieve it.) Maybe ignore this part. Sorry.
*
Something I just read on internet: Try complimenting men. Most men never get compliments; they will remember you for the rest of their lives.
And I guess one thing that applies to both sexes: meet more people, be more visible. It’s a numbers game. Whenever you meet someone, there is a certain probability it will be the right person; this probability is multiplied by the number of people you meet.
Now something controversial. (Heh.) I believe that higher intelligence is always a plus, for both sexes. However, many women report that men feel threatened by smart women. How is that possible? I suspect that these women are not entirely correct. What I think I observe in such situation is women using their education as a symbol of higher status. Yes, telling your man every day that he is inferior to you and your university-educated friends (including male friends) is generally a bad idea for a happy relationship.
Because you flagged it as controversial, I’d like to separately point out that I think this one is true and important.
High-status men instinctively do not like to give up that status. Putting a woman on a pedestal, for any reason, is not going to make her like you when it’s at the cost of your own status, because the woman’s stone-age instinct is attracted to men of high status, even if she liked you before, and allowing her to do the same (i.e., put herself on a pedestal at the cost of the man’s status) is going to have the same effect. Thus, the man is forced to either give up what makes him attractive in the first place, or fight to keep it. Of course that’s threatening. Most high-status behaviors one could name consist of opening oneself up to attack. That status is lost, very quickly, if someone else calls the bluff, unless, of course, once can win in the ensuing escalation.
Intelligence in women is not unattractive to men. It’s correlated with health, and therefore fertility, and also a sign of good genes.
Men are supposed to compete with other men. Women are supposed to compete with other women.
A woman trying to compete with a man she likes is playing a lose/lose game. If she loses, she will hate him for making her lose. If she wins, she will stop respecting him for being a loser.
I guess the confusion happens because women are encouraged to take traditional men’s roles, be competitive, make careers, etc. And, as long as it’s “just work”, why not? But do not bring that style into a relationship. Relations are not supposed to be competitions. Perhaps seeing the man of your dreams being competitive makes you horny, but it doesn’t work the other way round. Men often have enough competition at their work; they want to take a break at home.
(Also, male hierarchies have different traditional rules of fighting than female hierarchies. Men fight hard; then they shake hands and have a beer together. Women smile at each other, and wait for the right moment to stab in the back; they never forgive. So, a man and a woman fighting will perceive each other as someone who breaks the rules. “Why does he always have to win?” “Why can’t she ever leave the subject?”)
I can only provide my opinions and best guesses, of dubious quality. Given that there are men whose preferences I do not understand at all, I certainly have many blind spots.
I expressed similar thoughts in my answer. The more men who compare notes, I think the better we can discern which preferences are idiosyncratic and which are universal, so I’ll try to point out where we differ. That won’t, by itself, tell us which of us is weird.
The behavior I associate with young women is wearing light colors, especially pink, and laughing a lot. The opposite of attractive behavior is bitterness, and crude materialism. If you try wearing pink (which I recommend trying), your behavior needs to match, otherwise it backfires. With regards to materialism, not sure if I can explain it shortly: women of all ages are impressed by men’s display of wealth, but the young ones express it with more plausible deniability (they are impressed by an awesome car or a fantastic vacation, rather than high salary per se).
Not sure if I agree with this one. I do think clothing can be associated with older or younger people (varies with culture), and it can backfire if your behavior doesn’t match, but I think just the color is oversimplifying it. I also think behaviors/attitudes can be associated with age (innocence?), but I’m not sure that I’d pick those as the most salient. Even young-seeming women can have very different personalities.
Now here are things I am less certain about, probably just my personal preferences: I prefer non-smokers, non-drunks, without tattoos. I prefer people who are nice, altruistic, curious.
I share those preferences but might not have picked that set as the most salient. I especially admire drive and honesty. Smoking is low status now; a vice of the lower class. Drunkenness depends very much on personality while drunk but seems unhealthy regardless. Large tattoos are a turn off, but very small ones (while not ideal) are not a dealbreaker.
laugh hysterically with a high-pitched voice
I find this obnoxious.
Now the most controversial part: Learn to cook! :)
Agree this is a plus. Doesn’t seem controversial to me though.
Haha, same here. But it is a behavior that exists for a reason. (It is obnoxious when it is done too much or too crudely.) It sends the signal “pay attention: young woman here” across the whole room immediately. All heterosexual men notice. What is the point of being attractive, if potential mates happen to be looking in a different direction?
I guess the trick is to find the nearest things that is not obnoxious. (That is, use this description as a pointer in the approximate direction, not literally.) It is not an art that I practice, so I cannot provide exact instructions.
However:
high pitch is a signal of feminity (but maybe avoid too high, unless you are an opera singer)
laughing signals status (you feel safe to laugh audibly, don’t expect to be bullied by other girls)
In current political climate, this question feels like a trap. A man expressing his preference (other that something hypocritical like “all women are 100% perfect exactly the way they are”) risks being called sexist in turn. Maybe not by the person who asked the question, but someone else who overheard the conversation, or found a written record of it 20 years later.
Second, I do not have links to research on this topic, so I can only provide my opinions and best guesses, of dubious quality. Given that there are men whose preferences I do not understand at all, I certainly have many blind spots.
Enough excuses...
Age, I think the common sense says 17-25 is the most attractive. (Or course there are exceptions. There are exceptions everywhere.) Anecdotally, a friend described it like this: “When I was 20, when I entered a room, all men looked at me. When I was 30, when I was talking to a man, and a 20 years old girl entered the room, he looked at her and stopped paying attention to me.”
Then again, when men look at women, they do not perceive their age directly (like a number displayed above their heads). What do they see? Seems to me it is mostly the quality of skin, and behavior. I am not sure how reliable this information is, but it seems that UV light has a big impact on the “perceived age of skin”. Some women recommend wearing a sunscreen whenever you go outside, and during the summer even at home. (No idea whether science supports this.)
The behavior I associate with young women is wearing light colors, especially pink, and laughing a lot. The opposite of attractive behavior is bitterness, and crude materialism. If you try wearing pink (which I recommend trying), your behavior needs to match, otherwise it backfires. With regards to materialism, not sure if I can explain it shortly: women of all ages are impressed by men’s display of wealth, but the young ones express it with more plausible deniability (they are impressed by an awesome car or a fantastic vacation, rather than high salary per se).
Now something controversial. (Heh.) I believe that higher intelligence is always a plus, for both sexes. However, many women report that men feel threatened by smart women. How is that possible? I suspect that these women are not entirely correct. What I think I observe in such situation is women using their education as a symbol of higher status. Yes, telling your man every day that he is inferior to you and your university-educated friends (including male friends) is generally a bad idea for a happy relationship.
By the way, it is important for women to notice that there are two markets, with sometimes very different rules. Are you looking for a one-night stand, or for a partner to raise children with? Some things, such as displaying high sexual availability, may increase your value in the former, and decrease in the latter. (Then again, some long-term relationships started with a one-night stand, so maybe I am wrong here. Or maybe there is a difference between a one-night stand that has a chance to become something else, and one that does not.)
Now here are things I am less certain about, probably just my personal preferences: I prefer non-smokers, non-drunks, without tattoos. I prefer people who are nice, altruistic, curious.
*
My quick attempt at a model is that a woman’s value on the romantic market has two components: how “hot” she is, and whether she is a “good human” (whether she has good gender-neutral qualities). How do these two components interact?
I guess some guys only see the “hotness” part: if you are young, dressed in pink (with lots of skin exposed), laugh hysterically with a high-pitched voice, have long hair and big boobs… you can be a total bitch and a drug addict, they will still be hypnotized by you. But you better marry a rich guy soon, and then divorce him and keep his money, because a few years later your market value will plummet.
With other guys, it is more like multiplication: if you have zero hotness, too bad, same if you are a total bitch; but if you are reasonably attractive and a nice person (someone they would like to spend time with even if you were another guy), that is what they are looking for. The good news is that this kind of market value lasts longer.
(In relationships, there is also a “relationship capital”, like how much do people know and trust each other, the memories of their former positive interactions in the past, etc. This is different from a market value, because by definition it only matters for the people you have this relationship with. In very long term, you probably want to invest here, too.)
*
Now the most controversial part: Learn to cook! :)
I mean it. This seems like a hopelessly old-fashioned advice, but that’s exactly the point. In my experience, most women in my generation do not know how to cook. Learning this ancient art will make you unique.
Learning how to cook is great advice, for both sexes
Ugh, this is not something I seriously considered. Let me be clear that if there’s a sense in which it’s a “trap” then it’s definitely not intentional on my part. I am sincerely curious about male preferences, whether the answer is something “politically correct” or that men literally only care about boob size. Littany of Tarski and all that. Also, your preferences are what they are, there’s no room for ethical judgement here IMO[1].
Hmm, that’s interesting. I happen to like pink, but what does it mean that my behavior should match? Do I need to be fun and easy-going? I don’t think I come across as bitter, and I’m certainly not a “materialist” in that sense (I am interested in intellectual men, but I hardly care how much money they have). But, I might come across as serious and reserved. And if my behavior doesn’t “match”, am I better off staying away from pink?
It is possible to have a preference for something inethical but (i) it is only inethical to act on the preference, not to have the preference and (ii) there is definitely no obligation on anyone to date someone they don’t want to date (and conversely, consenting adults can do whatever).
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.
Ah, the norm of high decoupling. OK, now I trust you to be one of us. :)
Uh, the topic of boob size is exactly one of those where I suspect that my preferences are not representative for men in general. I simply don’t care about this dimension too much. Like, I notice, of course, but it is not among the top 5 things, not even top 3 purely physical things (pretty face, long hair, no tattoos). However, stereotypes usually exist for a reason, so I suspect that many men see it differently.
(I can’t unpack what “pretty face” means for me. I know it when I see it. I couldn’t write the algorithm my brain uses, but it results in an impression that the person is smart and nice. Could be halo effect, though.)
Actually, I don’t know. (Intuitively “don’t look like an old woman who desperately pretends to be young”, but that is a description of an outcome, not a recipe how to achieve it.) Maybe ignore this part. Sorry.
*
Something I just read on internet: Try complimenting men. Most men never get compliments; they will remember you for the rest of their lives.
And I guess one thing that applies to both sexes: meet more people, be more visible. It’s a numbers game. Whenever you meet someone, there is a certain probability it will be the right person; this probability is multiplied by the number of people you meet.
Because you flagged it as controversial, I’d like to separately point out that I think this one is true and important.
High-status men instinctively do not like to give up that status. Putting a woman on a pedestal, for any reason, is not going to make her like you when it’s at the cost of your own status, because the woman’s stone-age instinct is attracted to men of high status, even if she liked you before, and allowing her to do the same (i.e., put herself on a pedestal at the cost of the man’s status) is going to have the same effect. Thus, the man is forced to either give up what makes him attractive in the first place, or fight to keep it. Of course that’s threatening. Most high-status behaviors one could name consist of opening oneself up to attack. That status is lost, very quickly, if someone else calls the bluff, unless, of course, once can win in the ensuing escalation.
Intelligence in women is not unattractive to men. It’s correlated with health, and therefore fertility, and also a sign of good genes.
Men are supposed to compete with other men. Women are supposed to compete with other women.
A woman trying to compete with a man she likes is playing a lose/lose game. If she loses, she will hate him for making her lose. If she wins, she will stop respecting him for being a loser.
I guess the confusion happens because women are encouraged to take traditional men’s roles, be competitive, make careers, etc. And, as long as it’s “just work”, why not? But do not bring that style into a relationship. Relations are not supposed to be competitions. Perhaps seeing the man of your dreams being competitive makes you horny, but it doesn’t work the other way round. Men often have enough competition at their work; they want to take a break at home.
(Also, male hierarchies have different traditional rules of fighting than female hierarchies. Men fight hard; then they shake hands and have a beer together. Women smile at each other, and wait for the right moment to stab in the back; they never forgive. So, a man and a woman fighting will perceive each other as someone who breaks the rules. “Why does he always have to win?” “Why can’t she ever leave the subject?”)
jfc
I mostly agree with this.
I expressed similar thoughts in my answer. The more men who compare notes, I think the better we can discern which preferences are idiosyncratic and which are universal, so I’ll try to point out where we differ. That won’t, by itself, tell us which of us is weird.
Not sure if I agree with this one. I do think clothing can be associated with older or younger people (varies with culture), and it can backfire if your behavior doesn’t match, but I think just the color is oversimplifying it. I also think behaviors/attitudes can be associated with age (innocence?), but I’m not sure that I’d pick those as the most salient. Even young-seeming women can have very different personalities.
I share those preferences but might not have picked that set as the most salient. I especially admire drive and honesty. Smoking is low status now; a vice of the lower class. Drunkenness depends very much on personality while drunk but seems unhealthy regardless. Large tattoos are a turn off, but very small ones (while not ideal) are not a dealbreaker.
I find this obnoxious.
Agree this is a plus. Doesn’t seem controversial to me though.
Haha, same here. But it is a behavior that exists for a reason. (It is obnoxious when it is done too much or too crudely.) It sends the signal “pay attention: young woman here” across the whole room immediately. All heterosexual men notice. What is the point of being attractive, if potential mates happen to be looking in a different direction?
I guess the trick is to find the nearest things that is not obnoxious. (That is, use this description as a pointer in the approximate direction, not literally.) It is not an art that I practice, so I cannot provide exact instructions.
However:
high pitch is a signal of feminity (but maybe avoid too high, unless you are an opera singer)
laughing signals status (you feel safe to laugh audibly, don’t expect to be bullied by other girls)