# Female beauty...



## Therealbrighteyes

So there's alot of dialogue here about biology and such so I thought I would ask a few questions from the men here about female beauty. I am not sure how to word this, so bare with me.

Well, over say the last century and a half, the standards of what is beautiful for a woman has changed dramatically. I am not talking about clothing styles, I am talking physical size, hair length, waist size.

1920's flappers were the height of beauty. Flat chested, zero curves, cropped hair. The 1940's/50's it was large breasts, small waist and ample hips. Hair was shoulder length or shorter. By the 1960's the flapper look was back en vogue. Twiggy was the sex symbol. By the 70's, breasts were back in style and curves were in. Hair was most certainly long. 1980's didn't really have a body style, IMO but the 1990's sure did. The "waif" look was very popular. In the 2000's the look has been more of the hard body look. More muscle mass/toned. All of these traits at their time was what was deemed sexy.

Biologically speaking, wouldn't what is considered physically attractive remain the same if the goal is to find the healthiest female to have sex with? Larger breasts, smallish waist, larger hips and a higher body fat percentage but the last century doesn't support that. The changes in what was considered sexy are so vast that I am not sure biology plays in to any of it, physically attractive speaking. Why is this? Why the dramatic changes? :scratchhead:


----------



## that_girl

Money. Fashion dictates women and their bodies. The more the change in fashion, the more money women will spend to look a certain way.

Men buy into it as well because it's really all they have to look at.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

that_girl said:


> Money. Fashion dictates women and their bodies. The more the change in fashion, the more money women will spend to look a certain way.
> 
> Men buy into it as well because it's really all they have to look at.


Okay but if every woman decided to cut their hair pixie short and color it green because that is what fashion dictated, would men go along with it and still think it was attractive? I don't know but I sense there is more than just fashion at work here. Not sure but appreciate the input.
Have no idea why I thought of this post but the whole body size thing has always been a mystery to me.


----------



## unbelievable

Whether a woman wears designer clothes or WalMart doesn't matter to me in the slightest. Trashy isn't sexy (to me). Beautiful eyes, nice smile get my attention. As long as their body is reasonably proportional, I'm interested. I never cared for the waif look. I guess it did something for Popeye. Women with nice legs give me whiplash.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

unbelievable said:


> Whether a woman wears designer clothes or WalMart doesn't matter to me in the slightest. Trashy isn't sexy (to me). Beautiful eyes, nice smile get my attention. As long as their body is reasonably proportional, I'm interested. I never cared for the waif look. I guess it did something for Popeye. Women with nice legs give me whiplash.


I wasn't referring to fashion though, I was referring to body size/type and why what has been considered sexy has changed so much. Wouldn't breast to waist to hip ratio be the sexual standard due to high fertility? That hasn't been the case though and that was the crux of my question. :scratchhead:

With so many budding anthropologists here, anybody care to enlighten me?


----------



## Soccerfan73

I think it's media driven. 

I am more attracted to the big hair, curvy Playboy model look of the 1980's because that's when I became sexually aware and paid A LOT of attention. LOL

The Meme back in the 1950's was the curvier larger breasted woman. I suppose that would be "my thing" if I was of that age. 

I think what we absorb in the media is much of what we become, at least as males and what we want in our females. 

I'm being very general of course. I fully realize that we can be attracted and marry women of a variety of looks and shapes. But TV and ad media can certainly make a difference. It isn't as "biological" as just pure instinct.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Soccerfan73 said:


> I think it's media driven.
> 
> I am more attracted to the big hair, curvy Playboy model look of the 1980's because that's when I became sexually aware and paid A LOT of attention. LOL
> 
> The Meme back in the 1950's was the curvier larger breasted woman. I suppose that would be "my thing" if I was of that age.
> 
> I think what we absorb in the media is much of what we become, at least as males and what we want in our females.
> 
> I'm being very general of course. I fully realize that we can be attracted and marry women of a variety of looks and shapes. But TV and ad media can certainly make a difference. It isn't as "biological" as just pure instinct.


Interesting point of view, Soccer. So what's the deal then with seeking out the "healthiest" female if that perceived health could change with a commercial whether they are in fact best physically suited for procreation? Also how is biology and pure instinct different? I am honestly asking.


----------



## Halien

I don't really go for the biological argument in sentient beings above a level of some very subtle characteristics, although I'm sure others will disagree.

Many factors seem to shape our changing impression of feminine beauty. Over a century ago, a little body fat suggested affluence, sophistication, maybe because of scarceness of healthy food options among many people. Just an opinion.

But look how male bodybuilders changed, after first being popularized by the likes of Dave Draper, then it grew and evolved. Seems like some of this crossed over to women. Up to the 50's, I don't think the idea of women working hard physically to exercise was even considered acceptable. So, wouldn't the women of the time be held to results that came with that standard? Cultural changes seemed to drive more exotic representations of beauty.

Since I know you like turning it around to the guys, I'll add another historical tidbit. Notice how many guys are obsessed with penis size? You even see articles that suggest that this is a biological drive equated to virility. Ever noticed how the male nude statues of the Greeks were so insufficiently endowed? Its because that culture considered large male members to be comical, and disgusting. The greeks didn't just do this to make themselves feel better about their own size, and they certainly didn't seem to be affected by any biological drives.


----------



## Enchantment

Maybe we use 'biology' as too much of an excuse for the way we would like things to be sometimes and it's not really that applicable. After all, we don't have anywhere near the same circumstances that cave man did, and we are supposed to evolve, yes, so why use the same tired old arguments? I think we're way past biology. 

Oh, and the 80's were MY decade (seriously dating myself here) and it was all glitz and glam - big hair, big shoulders, slim hips, big lips, sparkle. It was a great decade.


----------



## that_girl

My husband likes curves. Especially my butt. lol. He said he never understood guys who date girls who are built like guys.


----------



## Deejo

Biological selection will always be affected or influenced by, the available population of females to whom I can gain breeding rights.

Morphological traits within that given population will 'influence' what a male finds attractive.

I just made all that up ...

Here is what I know ... I am, have, and always will be HIGHLY attracted to a woman that can; Kick. My. Ass.


----------



## Deejo

that_girl said:


> My husband likes curves. Especially my butt. lol. He said he never understood guys who date girls who are built like guys.


That is because he is weak and fearful ...


----------



## alphaomega

I always found it a curiosity in the animal kingdom it's the males responsibility to preen, have the flashiest colors, and get all dolled up to lure in a female. Yet, the fashion industry caters intensively to women in that it's expected that the female human is supposed to be the expected one to preen.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## that_girl

Deejo said:


> That is because he is weak and fearful ...


lol Hardly.

He likes women who look like woman. Soft and curvy with hips and everything.


----------



## that_girl

Enchantment said:


> so why use the same tired old arguments? I think we're way past biology.


We're not that far past biology.


----------



## alphaomega

Deejo said:


> Biological selection will always be affected or influenced by, the available population of females to whom I can gain breeding rights.
> 
> Morphological traits within that given population will 'influence' what a male finds attractive.
> 
> I just made all that up ...
> 
> Here is what I know ... I am, have, and always will be HIGHLY attracted to a woman that can; Kick. My. Ass.


Deejo

For making all that up you pretty much have it spot on for evolutionary population statistics and breed pool selections

Evolutionary statistics and genetics were among my most interesting courses I took back in the day. You know, around the invention of the wheel.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Deejo

Enchantment said:


> After all, we don't have anywhere near the same circumstances that cave man did, and we are supposed to evolve, yes, so why use the same tired old arguments? I think we're way past biology.


Nope. We can pat ourselves on the back and get as cerebral as we want ...

They are old, but they will never, ever, get tired. Biology is the code written on our DNA. Grow up. Find a mate. Reproduce. 
That's how we roll.


----------



## alphaomega

Yup. And roll we will. Fight it all you want
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Deejo

alphaomega said:


> Deejo
> 
> For making all that up you pretty much have it spot on for evolutionary population statistics and breed pool selections
> 
> Evolutionary statistics and genetics were among my most interesting courses I took back in the day. You know, around the invention of the wheel.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Hey, I watched Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom.


----------



## Entropy3000

There is no one body type I find beautiful.

But here is a very healthy and attractive woman:


----------



## Trenton

Therealbrighteyes said:


> So there's alot of dialogue here about biology and such so I thought I would ask a few questions from the men here about female beauty. I am not sure how to word this, so bare with me.
> 
> Well, over say the last century and a half, the standards of what is beautiful for a woman has changed dramatically. I am not talking about clothing styles, I am talking physical size, hair length, waist size.
> 
> 1920's flappers were the height of beauty. Flat chested, zero curves, cropped hair. The 1940's/50's it was large breasts, small waist and ample hips. Hair was shoulder length or shorter. By the 1960's the flapper look was back en vogue. Twiggy was the sex symbol. By the 70's, breasts were back in style and curves were in. Hair was most certainly long. 1980's didn't really have a body style, IMO but the 1990's sure did. The "waif" look was very popular. In the 2000's the look has been more of the hard body look. More muscle mass/toned. All of these traits at their time was what was deemed sexy.
> 
> Biologically speaking, wouldn't what is considered physically attractive remain the same if the goal is to find the healthiest female to have sex with? Larger breasts, smallish waist, larger hips and a higher body fat percentage but the last century doesn't support that. The changes in what was considered sexy are so vast that I am not sure biology plays in to any of it, physically attractive speaking. Why is this? Why the dramatic changes? :scratchhead:


Ya that was my point to Entropy in the other thread. Advertising, media, fantasy, role models, experience, etc. etc. etc.

Biology plays a role but it's not as big as we think. Our brains and emotions are pretty darn powerful things.


----------



## Trenton

Entropy3000 said:


> There is no one body type I find beautiful.
> 
> But here is a very healthy and attractive woman:


She looks very manly to me.


----------



## Entropy3000

Now what I find exceedingly attractive with this woman is that she was co-founder of pownce. I am a sucker for good looking smart women. Just good looking women are not dangerous.


----------



## Trenton

That's a really big picture.

I like thoughtful, intelligent, challenging people. People who are not necessarily going to accept the same old belief simply because it's always been believed. Those are the people that find out the world isn't flat and eventually the world catches up.


----------



## Deejo

Trenton said:


> She looks very manly to me.


And she's friggin huge ... 6' 3"


----------



## Trenton

Deejo said:


> And she's friggin huge ... 6' 3"


Uh yeah, threatening and beautiful in a demi-Goddess kind of way.


----------



## Entropy3000

Ok, dating myself. Growing up I loved this woman:


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Deejo said:


> Biological selection will always be affected or influenced by, the available population of females to whom I can gain breeding rights.
> 
> Morphological traits within that given population will 'influence' what a male finds attractive.
> 
> I just made all that up ...
> 
> Here is what I know ... I am, have, and always will be HIGHLY attracted to a woman that can; Kick. My. Ass.


I know that this is the type you like. You have mentioned it before. Let me ask you though, if we ARE talking biology, that woman would not be properly suited to mate with. Little to none body fat and more than likely unable to have a period and therefore children. So on a bio level, she wouldn't be suited. So why the attraction? That's an honest question, not baiting.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Jesus people, I wasn't asking what YOU found attractive, I was asking why the body type of women have changed so drastically throughout history (or at least modern century) and WHY if mating is paramount would the body type of say a stickish woman be seen as sexy because biologically she would not be suitable.
I wasn't anticipating a litany of pictures. Jeez. 

Halien, interesting point.


----------



## pidge70

Deejo said:


> Hey, I watched Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom.


OMG! I feel old now!.....lol
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Whip Morgan

I find the images of skinny women, whether in print media or film, to be rather unattractive. I prefer women that have curves - there is nothing beautiful in seeing ribcages or collarbones jut out of the skin. However, there are some natural beauties that are thinner than others. Eye of the beholder and all that. 

Whip prefers his ladies to be slightly taller than average and to have curves - They accentuate femininity and beauty, to me. The imagery in media has not changed my mind to thinking skinnier=better.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Entropy3000

Trenton said:


> She looks very manly to me.


They used to call this type of woman handsome. But yeah some of the very athletic woman are a tad masculine. I thought of her because I do like many woman who have an athletic build more so than when I was growing up.

I actually work with a female athlete. She has held world records and she once was quite feminine looking but has pushed her look a bit too far for many folks.

But Gabrielle Reece is a beautiful woman, and represents a particular body type.


----------



## Entropy3000

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Jesus people, I wasn't asking what YOU found attractive, I was asking why the body type of women have changed so drastically throughout history (or at least modern century) and WHY if mating is paramount would the body type of say a stickish woman be seen as sexy because biologically she would not be suitable.
> I wasn't anticipating a litany of pictures. Jeez.
> 
> Halien, interesting point.


My knuckles drag the ground. I am visual. 

I could not find a picture of Barbie Benton that I was comfortable posting.

I think in general for both sexes one area that has remained constant in attractiveness is symmetry.

I find my wife highly attractive. She is the voluptuous type. Not overweight but plenty of eye catching curves.


----------



## Whip Morgan

Okay, I just realized I missed the point of the original post. As to why skinny is new feminine beauty, I don't have a real answer. Going with the anthropology/biology theme, then thicker women indicate health (agricultural diet-open to debate on hunting/gathering) and fertility. Perhaps an increase over generations of focusing on sex for pleasure has replaced sex for reproduction? Thus he idea of fertility(curves) has been competing with sexual pleasure, that somehow led to belief that skinnier=sexual pleasure
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Deejo

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I know that this is the type you like. You have mentioned it before. Let me ask you though, if we ARE talking biology, that woman would not be properly suited to mate with. Little to none body fat and more than likely unable to have a period and therefore children. So on a bio level, she wouldn't be suited. So why the attraction? That's an honest question, not baiting.


Well, in keeping with my earlier brilliant analysis, as backed up by alphaomega , what Soccerfan said, dovetails into the equation.

We are no longer limited by the constraints of an 'immediate breeding population' to which we have access. We now have media, and the ability to freely travel. Thus ... a guy in Sheboygan Michigan can realize that he is attracted to Southeast Asian women, and at his discretion, can pursue such a woman.


I don't look at a woman like Samantha Stosur and think 'Butch'. I see active, healthy, less likely to have health issues, very likely to produce equally healthy, strong, athletic children. 

I am not AS attracted to soft, curvy, women. I have dated plenty, and I do find them beautiful. But if we are talking about that 'biological thing' called attraction that makes you sweat and your mind race, I'm a jock and waif guy. Audrey Hepburn would be my ideal for 'soft' feminine. Sam Stosur is my current 'jock' feminine crush. Turned on the U.S. Open by chance on Sunday, and my heart skipped a beat.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Whip Morgan said:


> Okay, I just realized I missed the point of the original post. As to why skinny is new feminine beauty, I don't have a real answer. Going with the anthropology/biology theme, then thicker women indicate health (agricultural diet-open to debate on hunting/gathering) and fertility. Perhaps an increase over generations of focusing on sex for pleasure has replaced sex for reproduction? Thus he idea of fertility(curves) has been competing with sexual pleasure, that somehow led to belief that skinnier=sexual pleasure
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


See now THAT is an interesting thought and thank you for reading the post again. I am not asking what a person finds attractive, that's like asking what auto company makes the best car....it's an opinion. I am asking why if biology drives us on everything would a thin woman be sexy, then a curvy woman, then a thin woman, then a more mannish woman? 
I appreciate your insight as always.


----------



## COGypsy

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I know that this is the type you like. You have mentioned it before. Let me ask you though, if we ARE talking biology, that woman would not be properly suited to mate with. Little to none body fat and more than likely unable to have a period and therefore children. So on a bio level, she wouldn't be suited. So why the attraction? That's an honest question, not baiting.


Actually Gabrielle Reece has two kids, I believe. So she's been more than capable of reproduction with her amazingly drool-worthy, super-hot extreme surfer guy husband. Talk about good genes...I'd also point out that she's rarely photographed with a full 6-pack, so she probably carries around 20% body fat most of the time, more than enough for normal body function.

Tingly feelings aside, I'll just throw out another a key element in attraction: symmetry. I've seen several articles that suggest that the underlying factor in people determining that someone is attractive has to do more with the symmetry of their features and physique than other individual characteristics.

If that's the case, then that would explain the rise of various 'icons' that, combined with morphing cultural values and circumstances, go on to define the look of an era. So for example while general size preferences might change from generation to generation relative to perceived social status,those shifts combined with the popularity of an uber-symmetrical "Marilyn" or a "Twiggy" or a "Gaby Reece" can shape the taste of an era.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Halien

What biology? Psychological evolution, that's what it is. They're thinner, more agile, athletic - better suited to avoid sex with their husbands. If the poor guy actually catches her, can you say myocardial infarction?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Entropy3000 said:


> I think in general for both sexes one area that has remained constant in attractiveness is symmetry.


This is a great point. Symmetry is actually broken down to a scientific formula. Of course I don't know the ratio off hand but I have read that Angelina Jolie has been repeatedly mentioned as being the most symmetrical and thus viewed as most attractive by men. 
I read somewhere that symmetry was so attractive because it pointed towards good genetics, or just a very talented surgeon. 
Kidding aside, her childhood photos suggest that she has had minimal work done so her symmetry must play in to her attraction.


----------



## Deejo

Therealbrighteyes said:


> See now THAT is an interesting thought and thank you for reading the post again. I am not asking what a person finds attractive, that's like asking what auto company makes the best car....it's an opinion. I am asking why if biology drives us on everything would a thin woman be sexy, then a curvy woman, then a thin woman, then a more mannish woman?
> I appreciate your insight as always.


I don't think you will get a more concise and right on the money analysis than Whip's, in terms of what is visually pleasurable versus what makes biological mating sense.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Deejo said:


> I don't think you will get a more concise and right on the money analysis than Whip's, in terms of what is visually pleasurable versus what makes biological mating sense.


Totally agree. So when do we rely on biology and when do we just chaulk it up to other things?


----------



## Halien

Therealbrighteyes said:


> This is a great point. Symmetry is actually broken down to a scientific formula. Of course I don't know the ratio off hand but I have read that Angelina Jolie has been repeatedly mentioned as being the most symmetrical and thus viewed as most attractive by men.
> I read somewhere that symmetry was so attractive because it pointed towards good genetics, or just a very talented surgeon.
> Kidding aside, her childhood photos suggest that she has had minimal work done so her symmetry must play in to her attraction.


Well, now you are finally getting into some science that takes advantage of modern improvements in 3-D modelling and even statistics. I'm a bit of a math geek since my first degree was applied mathematics and I am a certified 6 Sigma Black Belt. Consider this - body assymmetry can suggest DNA damage due to environmental factors, ancestral interbreeding, etc. Using statistical studies with 3D modelling, some scientis are beginning to show that we subconsciously rate attractiveness on body assymetry issues as at least one factor. Men, and I assume women, will be more attracted to a woman/man who shows hemispherical symmetry in the face and body. To simplify, we want the left side to be like the right side, and people hone in on this with a surprising degree of statistical confidence. It also seems to correspons to overall body symmetry. Bad symmetry suggests bad DNA


----------



## Deejo

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Totally agree. So when do we rely on biology and when do we just chaulk it up to other things?


When it suits us?

May I be so bold as to ask where this is coming from? I sense a precursor or catalyst event prompting your question. Have you read Athol's book? Big chunk at the beginning deals with all of this messy biology.

I don't believe we are slaves to our biology, but undoubtedly we are guided by it.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Halien said:


> Well, now you are finally getting into some science that takes advantage of modern improvements in 3-D modelling and even statistics. I'm a bit of a math geek since my first degree was applied mathematics and I am a certified 6 Sigma Black Belt. Consider this - body assymmetry can suggest DNA damage due to environmental factors, ancestral interbreeding, etc. Using statistical studies with 3D modelling, some scientis are beginning to show that we subconsciously rate attractiveness on body assymetry issues as at least one factor. Men, and I assume women, will be more attracted to a woman/man who shows hemispherical symmetry in the face and body.


WOW does this make sense now. Oprah lightbulb moment. In the case of flappers/waifs, they still have symmetry. Waist and hips are the same so that would suggest no genetic defects. Same would go for curvy women as long as those curves are displaced evenly. As in not apple or pear shaped but evenly distributed. 
Very interesting stuff Halien. 
So is symmetry first noticed in the face or is it the body and then the face?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Deejo said:


> When it suits us?
> 
> May I be so bold as to ask where this is coming from? I sense a precursor or catalyst event prompting your question. Have you read Athol's book? Big chunk at the beginning deals with all of this messy biology.
> 
> I don't believe we are slaves to our biology, but undoubtedly we are guided by it.


Where did I say when it suits us? No, what I was asking (poorly apparently) was when are we biologically driven in this area and when are we not. It wasn't a precursor to anything Deejo. 
Athol has his own views and I was curious what others thought on this. 
I not only read his book, I wrote a review for it on Amazon. Got the highest rating and a warm thank you from Mitch (the Godfather) himself.


----------



## Deejo

Halien wins. I suck at math.

We previously discussed the 'Science of Attraction' show that was on Discovery Channel. They indeed discussed symmetry. And unless I am mistaken, I believe it is face first, between eyes, nose, and mouth forming an isosceles triangle?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Deejo said:


> Halien wins. I suck at math.
> 
> We previously discussed the 'Science of Attraction' show that was on Discovery Channel. They indeed discussed symmetry. And unless I am mistaken, I believe it is face first, between eyes, nose, and mouth forming an isosceles triangle?


Halien wins the internet.

Hmmm, what thread are you referring to? I never saw this. Interesting stuff for sure. I think you are right about the face though, as I have seen both women and men with amazing bodies but their faces are just so "off" that I cannot then find them attractive.


----------



## Whip Morgan

Halien wins?

I think half of the women on TAM swoon whenever Halien starts tappin away at the keyboard.

Teach me, Halien. Teach me.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Whip Morgan said:


> Halien wins?
> 
> I think half of the women on TAM swoon whenever Halien starts tappin away at the keyboard.
> 
> Teach me, Halien. Teach me.


Tsk, tsk young grasshopper. It comes from experience.
Oh, and let's stop this myth right now that he uses a keyboard. 
He uses his telepathic ability to will the keys to type themselves.

All joking aside, your post was really interesting and it made a ton of sense. Deejo pointed that out as well so yeah, you win as well.


----------



## Whip Morgan

I'm glad I paid attention in all those anthro classes.


----------



## alphaomega

The comment when it suits us is actually quite right.

There are many affectations happening in the brain when you see someone and think they are attractive. One of them is genetic compatability. Just by looking at someone, you subconsciously get a good representation of genetically viable offspring that have the best characteristics to improve thier own chances of mating. This is why one guy can say a girl is a ten, and another guy will think he's nuts. Then, when you actually meet the lady, other processes will take over, such as hormone compatibility, which is really a chemical way for you to tell if those protiens, genes, and other biologically important aspects in producing successfully mating offspring that have a high chance of survival until mating, and of course improve thier own chances at selecting a mate. And all this through the nose, which is a great way of determining successful kids before even trying. Because really, taking a chance without knowing beforehand what your kids are going to turn out like would suck, because then your stuck with some butt ugly kids for eighteen years or more. Better to know up front. I've seen some.god ugly parents produce some wonderfully beautiful kids, because thier genes just matched up right.

As per the comment about everyone having green hair. This is more cultural selection, along with Deejos comment on an available selection population. If all the women in the world dyed thier hair green, then of course all the men would think they were beautiful. Because that would be the only think available. And as per a guy, if he can only get his funk on full down monkey style with a girl with green hair....he just won't care. Hes gonna get freaky green and love it! This is where symmetry in the face would need to come into play. Finding the Perfection in a sea of green.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## RandomDude

Within different cultures and then within different subcultures and then within individuals themselves -> mens' preference differs. Personally just be happy with yourself. Note too that some men may also be culturally independent.

There are some compromises sure, but only if you agree to them. Like, the missus likes her long hair, but I like her to expose her neck, so she ties it up into a pony tail. There are some compromises that aren't necessary though and it's best if you stand up for yourself in this, like for example, I love dark hair, or even auburn, but the missus likes being a blonde bimbo (hehe I always tease her), so she doesn't dye it.

The missus is "bigger" then many other women with her height at 5'9 but she's not fat, more toned and strong. Still remember at the park we were taking a photo and she grabbed a pole with her legs and hanged herself upside down which was perfect for the photo (she does pole dancing as a hobby) -> but that requires a lot of strength. Also the reason why I find it very difficult to pull her legs off me from time to time. 

As much as I whine about her frequency, she's still stunning and hot in my eyes in every way. Also keep in mind, most men do not like tall women, at 5'9 it's not very tall but compared to most it is (with some heels she can end up my height or even taller then me!), long divine legs though I call em.

But personally the looks are one thing, yet the one main reason I was attracted to her was her personality, nothing else really mattered compared to that - we were best mates, then lovers, now husband and wife. To be honest I get really turned off with blondes, yet I married one. Just how it is.


----------



## Halien

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Halien wins the internet.
> 
> Hmmm, what thread are you referring to? I never saw this. Interesting stuff for sure. I think you are right about the face though, as I have seen both women and men with amazing bodies but their faces are just so "off" that I cannot then find them attractive.


Aw, shucks! Thank you. Sadly, I work in a group where we have endless IM debates about the statistics behind a wide range of studies, so I was mostly focused on proving to my peers that an awesome caboose was a statistically quantifiable entity, and not just a personal obsession.

However, when we seem wired to look for symmetry, I can't help wondering about some other aspects of genetic selection. I recently saw a study where women were more likely to date a guy with a scar, such as a cut, but less likely to think of that guy as marrying material. I wondered of the scar wreaks havoc on the whole symmetry perception.


----------



## Enchantment

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I am asking why if biology drives us on everything would a thin woman be sexy, then a curvy woman, then a thin woman, then a more mannish woman?
> I appreciate your insight as always.


That was my point...about biology not being the end all and be all. Yes, no doubt, we humans have biological and instinctual responses...but most of what we deem to be sexy or attractive seems to be more sociological than biological. The URGE to want to mate is biological, the desire of what we want to mate WITH seems more sociological (and sometimes nonsensical  ).


----------



## morituri

Hey who cares if she has more hair on her armpits, hair on her legs and more facial hair than you, you'd still bump uglies with her if the media in general presented her to you as the latest paragon of female beauty, wouldn't you?


----------



## Whip Morgan

Not necessarily. I'm 27, so I feel confident saying I've grown up around girls who have seen imagery of women in print media and film to be skinny, and a goal to be worked toward. While I would t always turn down a skinny woman, there are times where I don't find one attractive at all, while friends do. I prefer curvier women, and similar to Halien, I love a beautiful rear end myself. To me, ideal feminine beauty embraces the natural curves of "child-bearin" hips, not a stick figure commonly seen in print. However , I can and do appreciate the beauty of naturally skinny women. And for those hairy girls that Mori discussed, if it's last call at the bar and Whip is feelin lonely...
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## LexusNexus

May be I am wrong, but every country has its own definition of "SEXY". I have being in Finland, Sweden, Warsaw, Helsinki, Germany, Vienna, Barcelona etc and women looked different in every country. So I think there is no Universal difinition of SEXY. Sexy is based on personal preference.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Whip Morgan said:


> And for those hairy girls that Mori discussed, if it's last call at the bar and Whip is feelin lonely...
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Beer goggling Chubacca might not be such a bad thing. Genetically speaking, hair indicates fertility. 
So have at Big Foot.


----------



## Whip Morgan

I am a pretty honest dude, so I have no problem admitting to my social circle of what girls I happen to see that I find attractive - at a basic level, its "yeah, I'd have sex with her".

Its like a switch is flipped in my head, from "off" to "on" when I notice a woman that captures my attention - I don't do this to every woman I see. They're not always the smoking hot babes that my less mature friends want to chase. Whatever I find attractive, I like. Certainly at college (alas, I am in Grad School), I have female friends that are not beauties - attractive, yes, but I've seen far more beautiful women. However, they are fun, kind, honest, enjoyable to be around, and have similar interests that I do. My attraction to them is off the charts. I've given off some reasons why I find them attractive, but there is that intangible (couldnt think of a better word) of that I just am attracted to them. Its just there. They have "it". One girl especially, I truly enjoy being around. Sadly, she is taken  

I understand the role that society plays in identifying what "should" be attractive. But its up to the individual to look in him/herself to find what THEY consider attractive, to find that special someone.

But if they are a Chargers fan, that could be a problem....Sunday Sunday Sunday Bright Eyes!


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Whip Morgan said:


> But if they are a Chargers fan, that could be a problem....Sunday Sunday Sunday Bright Eyes!


Biologically speaking, it makes more sense to fear a lightening bolt than it does guys in "three point" hats wearing blue ornate coats. Sunday indeed.


----------



## LexusNexus

I also notice that attractive women drives nice cars mostly Range Rovers


----------



## Conrad

For those of you that say it "isn't" biology?

That's not my experience.

My family vacationed at a lodge with my wife's family for roughly 20 years. I met my wife around 1990-1991 and - from the moment I met her - I thought she was "dead letter perfect" from an attractiveness perspective. I suppose she has about as perfect a "symmetry" as I've encountered in person.

Of course, I was married to someone else at that time, so nothing became of that observation. But, as the years went by, it became clear (to me) that this was not some passing fancy. I was totally "into" how she looked.

She and I have often referred to it as "proportional".

I even had a premonition - and this was not simply a passing thought - that she would be perfect with me in bed. I mean, this was serious stuff.

Here's the funny part. Before we started dating, she actually hated sex. And, many of the stories here "could have" been written by her ex boyfriends and husband.

We've often commented how each of us "awakened" the other sexually. During our separation, each of us realized - again - how many other people "aren't us".

Don't deny the biological aspect of this. I doubt a 49 year old guy could have it any better than I do.




alphaomega said:


> The comment when it suits us is actually quite right.
> 
> There are many affectations happening in the brain when you see someone and think they are attractive. One of them is genetic compatability. Just by looking at someone, you subconsciously get a good representation of genetically viable offspring that have the best characteristics to improve thier own chances of mating. This is why one guy can say a girl is a ten, and another guy will think he's nuts. Then, when you actually meet the lady, other processes will take over, such as hormone compatibility, which is really a chemical way for you to tell if those protiens, genes, and other biologically important aspects in producing successfully mating offspring that have a high chance of survival until mating, and of course improve thier own chances at selecting a mate. And all this through the nose, which is a great way of determining successful kids before even trying. Because really, taking a chance without knowing beforehand what your kids are going to turn out like would suck, because then your stuck with some butt ugly kids for eighteen years or more. Better to know up front. I've seen some.god ugly parents produce some wonderfully beautiful kids, because thier genes just matched up right.
> 
> As per the comment about everyone having green hair. This is more cultural selection, along with Deejos comment on an available selection population. If all the women in the world dyed thier hair green, then of course all the men would think they were beautiful. Because that would be the only think available. And as per a guy, if he can only get his funk on full down monkey style with a girl with green hair....he just won't care. Hes gonna get freaky green and love it! This is where symmetry in the face would need to come into play. Finding the Perfection in a sea of green.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Trenton

Denied.


----------



## AFEH

I had that for a very long time, the perfect symmetry. It’s one of the reasons why I’ll never see her again, the visual aspect of our relationship was exceedingly magnetic, powerful. Butterflies in the stomach, weak in the knees, stupid smile. And I’m not strong enough to resist it so we’d get back together and that would be bad for me. It is biology and it kept us going for over 40 years.


----------



## Trenton

Today we were talking about attraction in my office as one woman who is in her late 40's in newly divorced. She said she is attracted to cops and firefighters. I was like...errrrr...don't you need to know a little more than that?!  The other woman in my office was always attracted to UPS workers...wth?!

Maybe women gauge attraction by what type of uniform they wear...


----------



## Conrad

Robert,

Your stories hit so close to home with me that it really hung in the balance for a long time. I really wasn't ready to believe she would do what was necessary for us to bloom.

Imagine my surprise when she started going off the other night and I dispassionately answered her with deadpan humor. She started cracking up... looked at me... drew a breath and said, "OMIGOD that was a fitness test!"

LOL



AFEH said:


> I had that for a very long time, the perfect symmetry. It’s one of the reasons why I’ll never see her again, the visual aspect of our relationship was exceedingly magnetic, powerful. Butterflies in the stomach, weak in the knees, stupid smile. And I’m not strong enough to resist it so we’d get back together and that would be bad for me. It is biology and it kept us going for over 40 years.


----------



## Trenton

AFEH said:


> I had that for a very long time, the perfect symmetry. It’s one of the reasons why I’ll never see her again, the visual aspect of our relationship was exceedingly magnetic, powerful. Butterflies in the stomach, weak in the knees, stupid smile. And I’m not strong enough to resist it so we’d get back together and that would be bad for me. It is biology and it kept us going for over 40 years.


Human offspring can be completely fubar'ed by their parents regardless of symmetry. If you are not counting mental and emotional attraction in the mixture then your kids survival is not as good as it could be. 

If we're talking survival of the fittest and all that then let's remind ourselves that it takes a human baby an entire year to walk, never mind the rest. You pick an evil bit of a woman to have your kids because she has symmetry and your kids are no better off than choosing the really nice woman with the lopsided arm.


----------



## Conrad

Trenton said:


> You pick an evil bit of a woman to have your kids because she has symmetry and your kids are no better off than choosing the really nice woman with the lopsided arm.


That's one reason I avoided PM'ing you during our separation.


----------



## Trenton

Conrad said:


> That's one reason I avoided PM'ing you during our separation.


Don't worry, I had my arm fixed. Modern medicine also screws with biology.


----------



## AFEH

Trenton said:


> Human offspring can be completely fubar'ed by their parents regardless of symmetry. If you are not counting mental and emotional attraction in the mixture then your kids survival is not as good as it could be.
> 
> If we're talking survival of the fittest and all that then let's remind ourselves that it takes a human baby an entire year to walk, never mind the rest. You pick an evil bit of a woman to have your kids because she has symmetry and your kids are no better off than choosing the really nice woman with the lopsided arm.


There’s no guarantees about anything in life with anybody, symmetrical or not. Everyone has their shadow.


----------



## AFEH

Conrad said:


> Robert,
> 
> Your stories hit so close to home with me that it really hung in the balance for a long time. I really wasn't ready to believe she would do what was necessary for us to bloom.
> 
> Imagine my surprise when she started going off the other night and I dispassionately answered her with deadpan humor. She started cracking up... looked at me... drew a breath and said, "OMIGOD that was a fitness test!"
> 
> LOL


So glad you’re blooming. I think when things are “right” a man’s woman makes “gifts” of her body and that’s to be really treasured as it is one of life’s true blessings.


----------



## ren

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I am asking why if biology drives us on everything would a thin woman be sexy, then a curvy woman, then a thin woman, then a more mannish woman?
> I appreciate your insight as always.


Because there are numerous signifier traits which demonstrate sex appeal and our desires are socially constructed around them.


----------



## Trenton

AFEH said:


> There’s no guarantees about anything in life with anybody, symmetrical or not. Everyone has their shadow.


Awwww come on now. We're talking about looking with our eyes to improve biological odds and this being the basis of our DNA. If it's about increasing the odds and providing for the best interests of your offspring (rather than selfish, aesthetic pleasure centers), it's in your best interest (and absolutely the best interest of your children) to get to know the person and be sure they're a qualified parent to the best of your ability. 

That would be human, modern reality, but let's face it...men just want to get laid by the hottest woman who will have them and biology and this thing about giving a poo about their offspring's outlook, is their lame excuse. 

On the other hand, stupid women don't know what the hell they want and so they look around at what other women want and think they must want it too.

:smthumbup:


----------



## alphaomega

Trenton said:


> Awwww come on now. We're talking about looking with our eyes to improve biological odds and this being the basis of our DNA. If it's about increasing the odds and providing for the best interests of your offspring (rather than selfish, aesthetic pleasure centers), it's in your best interest (and absolutely the best interest of your children) to get to know the person and be sure they're a qualified parent to the best of your ability.
> 
> That would be human, modern reality, but let's face it...men just want to get laid by the hottest woman who will have them and biology and this thing about giving a poo about their offspring's outlook, is their lame excuse.
> 
> On the other hand, stupid women don't know what the hell they want and so they look around at what other women want and think they must want it too.
> 
> :smthumbup:


Trenton,

The limbic part of your brain is doing a lot more to your subconscious thoughts then you care to know. When we meet someone, the very thing your brain is doing is calculating odds of successful breeding children. Because it's your limbic thoughts, they never ever reach the cognitive parts of your brain to analyze. Call it the fight or fight response of sex, if you will. No thinking or higher functions required. If attraction was all emotional and analytical, then this forum wouldn't need to exist. And husbands and wives wouldn't be telling us stories about how thier mate is such a jerk and I want to leave, but I'm soooooooo in love and just can't do it because we are perfect together. 

Every single thought you have gets filtered through that limbic inner gel of your brain.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Trenton

alphaomega said:


> Trenton,
> 
> The limbic part of your brain is doing a lot more to your subconscious thoughts then you care to know. When we meet someone, the very thing your brain is doing is calculating odds of successful breeding children. Because it's your limbic thoughts, they never ever reach the cognitive parts of your brain to analyze. Call it the fight or fight response of sex, if you will. No thinking or higher functions required. If attraction was all emotional and analytical, then this forum wouldn't need to exist. And husbands and wives wouldn't be telling us stories about how thier mate is such a jerk and I want to leave, but I'm soooooooo in love and just can't do it because we are perfect together.
> 
> Every single thought you have gets filtered through that limbic inner gel of your brain.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


You're equating love with the limbic part of our brain? Interesting.

I have recently read all about the limbic brain and about a hundred other articles on the brain because after a recent fall I was quite shook up that my brain was acting like it was messed up. If anything, I was struck with this sad realization that we are the sum of our brains and what is going on within them. Yes, that's what I thought.

Then I read a book about how our conscious brain can will our subconscious brain into behaving a certain way.

So take flight or fight in the limbic system...anxiety disorder is an example of this part of the brain sending out signals it shouldn't be. Panic disorder, agoraphobia and OCD are all symptoms of a limbic brain malfunction.

The interesting thing is that the easiest way to fight it is by refusing to listen to it. Your body tells you that you're dying and you tell it...shut up, I am going to do this anyway. Your body tells you that you're dizzy, you can't possibly walk up the stairs and you walk anyway.

This is your conscious will. It is more powerful than your limbic system and absolutely can override it. Eventually your limbic system settles.

So, anyway, the reason why they have 8 billion different psych therapies for each difficulty and psych meds that they aren't exactly sure what they're doing...is because we don't really understand ourselves as well as we'd like but we really like to think we do.


----------



## Enchantment

Trenton said:


> You're equating love with the limbic part of our brain? Interesting.
> 
> I have recently read all about the limbic brain and about a hundred other articles on the brain because after a recent fall I was quite shook up that my brain was acting like it was messed up. If anything, I was struck with this sad realization that we are the sum of our brains and what is going on within them. Yes, that's what I thought.
> 
> Then I read a book about how our conscious brain can will our subconscious brain into behaving a certain way.
> 
> So take flight or fight in the limbic system...anxiety disorder is an example of this part of the brain sending out signals it shouldn't be. Panic disorder, agoraphobia and OCD are all symptoms of a limbic brain malfunction.
> 
> The interesting thing is that the easiest way to fight it is by refusing to listen to it. Your body tells you that you're dying and you tell it...shut up, I am going to do this anyway. Your body tells you that you're dizzy, you can't possibly walk up the stairs and you walk anyway.
> 
> *This is your conscious will. It is more powerful than your limbic system and absolutely can override it.* Eventually your limbic system settles.
> 
> So, anyway, the reason why they have 8 billion different psych therapies for each difficulty and psych meds that they aren't exactly sure what they're doing...is because we don't really understand ourselves as well as we'd like but we really like to think we do.


Thank-you, Trenton.

The thing that sets mankind, men and women, apart from everything else is the fact that we have free will.

You can CHOOSE how you act or re-act to a situation or a person - you CAN override what would be your default biological or instinctual urge.

And I don't know... but as far as male beauty... to me the most beautiful and attractive male would not necessarily be one whose outward appearance was the most pleasing, but the one whose INWARD beauty was the most pleasing - the one with the strongest character, the one who may go against the mundane biological and have self-discipline and that strength of character.


----------



## ren

Enchantment said:


> Thank-you, Trenton.
> 
> The thing that sets mankind, men and women, apart from everything else is the fact that we have free will.
> 
> You can CHOOSE how you act or re-act to a situation or a person - you CAN override what would be your default biological or instinctual urge.


Free will isn't free. If it even exists at all (an entirely debatable question; our subjective experiences of consciousness are not at all trustworthy). Assuming it does exist, it is shackled to our biology and caged by our culture. To illustrate with an on-topic rhetorical question: 
Can you choose to find an ugly woman beautiful? 
Or to put it another way, can you choose to see female beauty as ugliness?

The answer is you can't. You can deceive yourself to believe it but if we strapped a sensor to your **** that measured erections and showed you beautiful women having hot sex your biology would betray you.


----------



## alphaomega

Ahhh. There's nothing biologically mundane about great sex.

Well, any sex.


Well.....a stiff wind....
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Enchantment

ren said:


> Free will isn't free. If it even exists at all (an entirely debatable question; our subjective experiences of consciousness are not at all trustworthy). Assuming it does exist, it is shackled to our biology and caged by our culture. To illustrate with an on-topic rhetorical question:
> Can you choose to find an ugly woman beautiful?
> Or to put it another way, can you choose to see female beauty as ugliness?
> 
> The answer is you can't. You can deceive yourself to believe it but if we strapped a sensor to your **** that measured erections and showed you beautiful women having hot sex your biology would betray you.


'Tis free indeed. You hold it within you all the time - whether you choose to exercise it or not. Yes, an ugly person can really be a beautiful person and a beautiful person can really be ugly. There's more than outer beauty to a person. "Beauty is as beauty does."

I'm not denying that there's biology. But just because you have an erection because you found something/someone desirable (biological) does not mean you have to act on it (free will).

That's all.


----------



## Trenton

Yes, Ren, it is your free will to not believe you have free will.


----------



## Trenton

Enchantment said:


> 'Tis free indeed. You hold it within you all the time - whether you choose to exercise it or not. Yes, an ugly person can really be a beautiful person and a beautiful person can really be ugly. There's more than outer beauty to a person. "Beauty is as beauty does."
> 
> I'm not denying that there's biology. But just because you have an erection because you found something/someone desirable (biological) does not mean you have to act on it (free will).
> 
> That's all.


And it also does not mean that by acting on it your are biologically ensuring the betterment of any offspring. In our world that no longer qualifies but, yes, it still qualifies as an excuse.


----------



## Deejo

Trenton said:


> The interesting thing is that the easiest way to fight it is by refusing to listen to it. Your body tells you that you're dying and you tell it...shut up, I am going to do this anyway. Your body tells you that you're dizzy, you can't possibly walk up the stairs and you walk anyway.
> 
> This is your conscious will. It is more powerful than your limbic system and absolutely can override it. Eventually your limbic system settles.


Thank you for the bio-chemical based explanation for why we stay in bad marriages.

Sometimes free will or conscious will isn't so free ... if it is used as a pair of shackles rather than a set of wings.

I admire the aspirational position you and Enchantment take, I truly do. And no doubt if more people shared and expressed it, we'd likely all be better served. 


In terms of attraction, as it pertains to beauty, I don't believe we have a choice. The things that make the blood rush and heart palpitate are not optional, regardless of how they are expressed, whether it be physical characteristics, behavior, scent, attitude, etc.


----------



## AFEH

Be a person heterosexual, gay, lesbian, butch, male, female, feminine, masculine, coward, hero I can only think that they are very conflicted and “sad souls” if they are not in touch with and able to live by their expression of their most basic biological instincts. To live any other way must surely be unnatural. A bit like the Chinese women’s feet whose growth was held back in tiny growth restricting shoes.


----------



## atwitzend

I don't care what a women's body looks like, I am attracted to her personality, wit, humor and not gonna lie, looks. When I have found myself with said women before I was married I lavished her body.
To me the female body any size, shape, color is the most perfect creation on the face of the planet. The smoothness, softness,smell,feel is all wonderful. women are meant to be appreciated, fantasized about and when it comes to sex, worshiped. There is nothing like the feel of a women cupped in my hands. I need to stop, ha.

@Deejo-YOU HAVE SAID IT BEST "In terms of attraction, as it pertains to beauty, I don't believe we have a choice. The things that make the blood rush and heart palpitate are not optional, regardless of how they are expressed, whether it be physical characteristics, behavior, scent, attitude, etc."


----------



## Enchantment

Deejo said:


> In terms of attraction, as it pertains to beauty, I don't believe we have a choice. The things that make the blood rush and heart palpitate are not optional, regardless of how they are expressed, whether it be physical characteristics, behavior, scent, attitude, etc.


You most certainly do have a choice, Deejo. Past the first blush of lust and attraction you always have a choice (and even in the beginning you have a choice as to whether to pursue it).

I am not denying biology and a primal response or a primal attraction that you feel toward someone when you first see them. I AGREE with that. But, I am talking BEYOND that. [And also talking about how people sometimes find they develop deeper feelings toward someone after getting to know them better and their blood will rush and their heart will palpitate then when it didn't in the beginning.]

What do you think happens after decades of marriage when neither of you are no longer married to the beauty that made your blood rush and heart palpitate? How do couples maintain that connection once the first blush of lust and attraction is over?

It is because you are committed to each other. And what is a commitment? It is a choice.


----------



## Conrad

Enchantment,

My wife asks me about that concept all the time.

We've known each other for over 20 years. Yes, I remember when she was a 20's athletic build and a few things (actually very few) have changed significantly since then.

I have a good memory.

She just does it for me.

Maybe this is a male/female difference, but I'm totally with Deej and AlphaOmega on this one.


----------



## Enchantment

Conrad said:


> Enchantment,
> 
> My wife asks me about that concept all the time.
> 
> We've known each other for over 20 years. Yes, I remember when she was a 20's athletic build and a few things (actually very few) have changed significantly since then.
> 
> I have a good memory.
> 
> She just does it for me.
> 
> Maybe this is a male/female difference, but I'm totally with Deej and AlphaOmega on this one.


I don't know what it feels like to be a man. Only know what it feels like to be me. 

I am curious. Do you look at your wife and see her as she is now, or do you look at her and remember what she was then?

And what do you think would happen if some of those things started to change? What if aging is unkind to her - you would still love her for what she is?


----------



## alphaomega

On the beginning, biology takes a more prominent role

Enchantment, what you are talking about is that cognitive choice ( free will, if you will) of a long lasting love. Of course that is more cognitive. 

But in the beginning, if it wasn't for that heart pounding short of breath biological attraction that you had little control over at the beginning, then there is a very high likelihood you never would have hooked up with your mate. He would have just been another random face in the bar, street, store, office...etc
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## alphaomega

And I just realized you already said this.....
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Enchantment said:


> What do you think happens after decades of marriage when neither of you are no longer married to the beauty that made your blood rush and heart palpitate? How do couples maintain that connection once the first blush of lust and attraction is over?


My answer to this : I do a nice share of fantasizing about when we were younger. To be able to grow old together , with the added lines & wrinkles, the gray hairs sprouting up, our bodies slowly falling apart, but still be able to see that young vibrant young man or woman when we look into each others eyes - what a gift it is.... it's an ability that love gives us.


----------



## Conrad

Enchantment said:


> I don't know what it feels like to be a man. Only know what it feels like to be me.
> 
> I am curious. Do you look at your wife and see her as she is now, or do you look at her and remember what she was then?
> 
> And what do you think would happen if some of those things started to change? What if aging is unkind to her - you would still love her for what she is?


I'll be real honest.

I see her as she is now and am turned on.

Yet, I also have a tremendous "video tape reel" in my head. When we are physically engaged, I take the current view and it's very very awesome. I have been known to close my eyes and look back over that tape reel in my head when I need a gentle shove to "get there".

I don't imagine that tape reel will ever be edited.

It's still her. It was her. It is her.

As you likely expect, what we possess between us is the physical equivalent of TNT.


----------



## Deejo

Enchantment said:


> You most certainly do have a choice, Deejo. Past the first blush of lust and attraction you always have a choice (and even in the beginning you have a choice as to whether to pursue it).
> 
> I am not denying biology and a primal response or a primal attraction that you feel toward someone when you first see them. I AGREE with that. But, I am talking BEYOND that. [And also talking about how people sometimes find they develop deeper feelings toward someone after getting to know them better and their blood will rush and their heart will palpitate then when it didn't in the beginning.]


Then we are indeed talking about different things.

You are injecting choice into the attractiveness equation AFTER your body has already thrown up the attraction flag.

You are admiring the beautiful vista from the clouds.
I'm having a blast rolling around in the mud.

They are both nice places to be.



> What do you think happens after decades of marriage when neither of you are no longer married to the beauty that made your blood rush and heart palpitate? How do couples maintain that connection once the first blush of lust and attraction is over?
> 
> It is because you are committed to each other. And what is a commitment? It is a choice.


Can't answer this one really. Because in my case, as I have openly expressed a number of times ... the commitment between my ex-wife and I imploded. Both parties made a series of poor choices. But ... I still find her extraordinarily attractive, and beautiful.


----------



## FirstYearDown

that_girl said:


> lol Hardly.
> 
> He likes women who look like woman. Soft and curvy with hips and everything.



I agree with you, thatgirl.

My husband loves the curves too. My butt gets slapped and squeezed by him a lot. :smthumbup:


----------



## Trenton

Deejo said:


> Thank you for the bio-chemical based explanation for why we stay in bad marriages.
> 
> Sometimes free will or conscious will isn't so free ... if it is used as a pair of shackles rather than a set of wings.
> 
> I admire the aspirational position you and Enchantment take, I truly do. And no doubt if more people shared and expressed it, we'd likely all be better served.
> 
> 
> In terms of attraction, as it pertains to beauty, I don't believe we have a choice. The things that make the blood rush and heart palpitate are not optional, regardless of how they are expressed, whether it be physical characteristics, behavior, scent, attitude, etc.


Well then let's aspire to express and share it and be better served.

Maybe about the beauty thing -but- I believe it is based on both experience and biology, not biology alone. I also don't think it's based on the craps shoot better offspring biology that is being talked about here because that doesn't make sense in the modern world. It doesn't make sense in humankind. It's illogical.


----------



## alphaomega

Trenton said:


> Well then let's aspire to express and share it and be better served.
> 
> Maybe about the beauty thing -but- I believe it is based on both experience and biology, not biology alone. I also don't think it's based on the craps shoot better offspring biology that is being talked about here because that doesn't make sense in the modern world. It doesn't make sense in humankind. It's illogical.



Evolution don't care what time it is.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Deejo

Trenton said:


> Well then let's aspire to express and share it and be better served.


You go on ahead without me ... I'll catch up.



> It doesn't make sense in humankind. It's illogical.


Fascinating ...


----------



## Trenton

Deejo said:


> You go on ahead without me ... I'll catch up.
> 
> 
> 
> Fascinating ...


You just wish you weren't already there.


----------



## Deejo

Trenton said:


> You just wish you weren't already there.


You're right.


----------



## Trenton

Deejo said:


> You're right.


Finally. Now let's go about creating that utopia we've been wanting to.


----------



## Deejo

Trenton said:


> Finally. Now let's go about creating that utopia we've been wanting to.


Wait ... in your utopia do all of the women look like Mila Jovovich and wear leather halter tops? If so, we're good. Let's do it.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Deejo said:


> Wait ... in your utopia do all of the women look like Mila Jovovich and wear leather halter tops? If so, we're good. Let's do it.


No, they look like Alexander Skarsgard and wear cod pieces.


----------



## Deejo

See? It's all about communication.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Deejo said:


> See? It's all about communication.


So really the take away from this thread is that Mila is hot and Alexander is hot and all we really want is to see them walking around nearly naked. 

Communication indeed.


----------



## AFEH

alphaomega said:


> Evolution don't care what time it is.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


:rofl::rofl:


----------



## alphaomega

Ahhh. mila is truly the Fifth Element.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Trenton

Milla is hot but Alexander doesn't do it for me and I don't really have any desire to see anyone walking around naked or in leather. Darn it! So close!

Hrm...I guess it's all relative because there's more than sperm + symmetry ='s best chance for offspring.


----------



## Deejo

All in all, I do think attraction and the determining factors for beauty, are all parts of what we have discussed:
evolutionary biology, hormones, cultural dynamics, social programming, media, and robust imaginations.

I do not believe that behavior is in the same bucket as attraction.


----------



## Trenton

Deejo said:


> All in all, I do think attraction and the determining factors for beauty, are all parts of what we have discussed:
> evolutionary biology, hormones, cultural dynamics, social programming, media, and robust imaginations.
> 
> I do not believe that behavior is in the same bucket as attraction.


Ya, we agree.


----------



## alphaomega

Maybe Alexander and you, from your first looking at him, wouldn't mesh well with your genetic code?

Btw. WHY doesn't he do it or you? His looks?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## alphaomega

I have nothing but desire of seeing beautiful women naked and/or in leather.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

alphaomega said:


> Maybe Alexander and you, from your first looking at him, wouldn't mesh well with your genetic code?
> 
> Btw. WHY doesn't he do it or you? His looks?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


She isn't in to him because she digs his father more. He is wealthier afterall. Female biology 101 = needs a good provider.


----------



## Trenton

I don't like blondes and I don't like blue eyes generally speaking hence the lack of instant attraction.


----------



## Runs like Dog

I dig older broads.


----------



## alphaomega

Runs like Dog said:


> I dig older broads.


Me too! Fk! Older chicks rock the boat! Nothing more sexy!
:smthumbup:


----------

