Are women's attraction to men random?

[xxoo]

No it really is that he's just much better looking. The style of photos are broadly the same.

 

All this tells you is that women who want a hot-looking guy responded to your fake picture. The fact is, hot-looking guys are not the only guys who get interest on OLD. Individuals get interest from women for many different reasons, because women have many different attraction patterns.

 

It doesn't tell you anything about why no one responds to your real profile.

[dreamingoftigers]

...and.

OLD is just supermarket shopping, everyone is looking for the best they can get.

So when I look on the shelf for that tin of beans, do I chose the one that looks like it fell from a height, the one with the torn label, the dusty one, the one with the short expiry date, the one from some company I have never heard of? NO, I want the perfect tin.

Yes, that squashed tin of beans will most likely taste just the same but why take the chance when there is the risk that it may be rotten inside.

 

Faced with rows of men and women, people choose the "perfect" one FOR THEM. Sexual attraction is all, and although in real life it is possible to be highly attracted to less than perfect people, why take the chance? When there he/she is on OLD, the very person that gets your juices flowing.

You don't need to work on any attraction, you know that man/woman has the attributes that you find attractive, once that is out of the way, you can then set about finding out if he/she ticks the rest of the boxes.

No response, then there will always be someone else to shift your attention to on OLD.

 

Your attractive fake profile may be getting some attention, but you forget that many women will have passed him by too, as he is NOT what they want.

 

I find it weird that you have two identical profiles, except picture.

 

If I had been talking to Guy A, and then Guy B messaged me with the EXACT SAME profile, I would assume I was being played with and stop communicating with both.

 

PLUS if Guy A has attributes that are attractive to certain women, I.e. blonde hair....... And then Guy B messages those SAME women and he has black hair (just an example) then they would just be like "oh I'm into lighter guys" or whatever.

 

Trying to get Guy B to rope Guy A's women is foolish. Guy B needs to find his niche.

 

Different kinds of guys surge in popularity given the era, region, etc etc etc. Whatever factors influence the girls you that make up the overall market.

 

In my case (and I'm a weirdo, I admit that) there are certain physical traits that work for me that ARE DEFINITELY NOT conventionally handsome. I notice guy's hands and shoulders for instance. But hey, what guy would suspect that?

 

I also don't date really dark-haired guys because my Dad has black hair. So it icks me out a bit. My husband is the fairest guy I ever dated. Blonde. Now I have two pale children that burn super-easily (arg). My dating pattern makes me look racist LOL but it's really the dark hair. I inherited it as well.

 

So if Guy A had those nice shoulders and rough hands, WOW.

 

Then Guy B, with his dark hair and soft hands blech.

[No_Go]

Now I'm almost to curious to see the fake dude pictures

 

No it really is that he's just much better looking. The style of photos are broadly the same.

[MGX]

I find it weird that you have two identical profiles, except picture.

 

If I had been talking to Guy A, and then Guy B messaged me with the EXACT SAME profile, I would assume I was being played with and stop communicating with both.

 

Since Guy B is the unattractive one, you wouldn't ever click on Guy B's profile to know that it is the same. You'd only go to Guy A.

[William]

There will be no posting of pictures or dating profiles as that violates our policies here and, further, it appears the thread has developed into a looks theory thread rather than addressing the randomness of women's attraction so let's get back to random, or not, attraction and how it relates to women. Thanks!

[Hyperion227]

I find it weird that you have two identical profiles, except picture.

 

If I had been talking to Guy A, and then Guy B messaged me with the EXACT SAME profile, I would assume I was being played with and stop communicating with both.

 

PLUS if Guy A has attributes that are attractive to certain women, I.e. blonde hair....... And then Guy B messages those SAME women and he has black hair (just an example) then they would just be like "oh I'm into lighter guys" or whatever.

 

Trying to get Guy B to rope Guy A's women is foolish. Guy B needs to find his niche.

 

Different kinds of guys surge in popularity given the era, region, etc etc etc. Whatever factors influence the girls you that make up the overall market.

 

In my case (and I'm a weirdo, I admit that) there are certain physical traits that work for me that ARE DEFINITELY NOT conventionally handsome. I notice guy's hands and shoulders for instance. But hey, what guy would suspect that?

 

I also don't date really dark-haired guys because my Dad has black hair. So it icks me out a bit. My husband is the fairest guy I ever dated. Blonde. Now I have two pale children that burn super-easily (arg). My dating pattern makes me look racist LOL but it's really the dark hair. I inherited it as well.

 

So if Guy A had those nice shoulders and rough hands, WOW.

 

Then Guy B, with his dark hair and soft hands blech.

 

By your logic then my two profiles would both be successful but with different women. That's not the case. One profile seems to tick boxes lots of women. My real profile ticks the boxes for none.

 

The profiles say broadly the same thing. They're not identical as that would be silly. Cue someone now trying to argue that with a few slightly differently worded points guy A would get 40 messages a day and guy B zero.

 

I don't know why you're all trying to stretch logic here. 1 guy (who's great looking)averages over 40 messages/responses a day. The other (average looking) gets ZERO. Not a few, ZERO. Nada. Nothing. It has nothing to do with ticking boxes for some women this way but maybe I will tick other women's boxes with my look. Hot guy ticks A Lot of boxes. I tick none.

 

Elaine upthread had it right. It's no more deep a process than choosing cans of beans at the supermarket.

[elaine567]

Ok so you've written all that simply to agree with me that women are shallow and choose based primarily on looks. Cool u get that.

 

Everyone, men and women will do the quick "looks" check first and then take it from there.

It is not really about shallowness, it is about practicality.

No-one is going to consider dating anyone they DO NOT find attractive on some level. This is a person you are going to kiss, make out with, and have sex with sooner or later, you do not want to do all that with someone you basically find unattractive, do you?

 

OLD works on a purely superficial level, few will read the profile of anyone they find ugly or unattractive in the first place.

Whereas in real life, that "ugly dude" who gets a 3 on OLD, can have great eyes or a winning smile or is hilariously funny, or highly intelligent, or can charm the legs off an donkey, so his total score may move from a 3 to a 10 and he IS then considered attractive. He may only be attractive to one or two women or he may be attractive then to many, it all depends on him and how he projects himself.

 

If OLD is not working for you, stop complaining, you cannot change the world, it is what it is.

Get off OLD and go meet some real live women.

[Hyperion227]

Everyone, men and women will do the quick "looks" check first and then take it from there.

It is not really about shallowness, it is about practicality.

No-one is going to consider dating anyone they DO NOT find attractive on some level. This is a person you are going to kiss, make out with, and have sex with sooner or later, you do not want to do all that with someone you basically find unattractive, do you?

 

OLD works on a purely superficial level, few will read the profile of anyone they find ugly or unattractive in the first place.

Whereas in real life, that "ugly dude" who gets a 3 on OLD, can have great eyes or a winning smile or is hilariously funny, or highly intelligent, or can charm the legs off an donkey, so his total score may move from a 3 to a 10 and he IS then considered attractive. He may only be attractive to one or two women or he may be attractive then to many, it all depends on him and how he projects himself.

 

If OLD is not working for you, stop complaining, you cannot change the world, it is what it is.

Get off OLD and go meet some real live women.

 

Ok so you're saying that women know in real life that they are attracted by many different things and that looks are often relatively unimportant but when they go on a dating website they switch this knowledge off and shop for those metaphorical pretty cans of beans?

 

Well you're just using a lot of words to say that they're basically stupid.

[elaine567]

Elaine upthread had it right. It's no more deep a process than choosing cans of beans at the supermarket.

 

But that is only the first step.

Is this someone I can see myself having sex with?

NO - reject

YES - I will contact or express interest with the intention of going on a date.

 

It is then onto assessing compatibility and suitability as a partner, that is where the "depth" come in.

[jen1447]

I'm kinda puzzling over why it'd be surprising that at first glance, someone would be more interested in someone they find physically attractive - particularly if that's all you have to go on - than someone they don't.

[Hyperion227]

I'm kinda puzzling over why it'd be surprising that at first glance, someone would be more interested in someone they find physically attractive - particularly if that's all you have to go on - than someone they don't.

 

That's true. That's all you ever get to know about someone on a dating site. If only they invented a chat function so you can talk and find out more. Or give space underneath the pictures where people can write about themselves.

[LookAtThisPOst]

That's true. That's all you ever get to know about someone on a dating site. If only they invented a chat function so you can talk and find out more. Or give space underneath the pictures where people can write about themselves.

 

I remember when POF used to have a chat feature, but they disabled it because women got tired of being instant messaged every time they logged in.

[jen1447]

That's true. That's all you ever get to know about someone on a dating site. If only they invented a chat function so you can talk and find out more. Or give space underneath the pictures where people can write about themselves.

 

Fair enough. But then why would it be puzzling that someone would be more interested in someone they find physically attractive whose bio reads "enjoys hiking and sports and loves sunny days" than someone they don't find physically attractive whose bio reads "enjoys hiking and sports and loves sunny days"?

 

You're still getting only the most transparent veneer of an identity in a written bio, and chatting is essentially anonymous electronic communication.

[BlueIris]

That's true. That's all you ever get to know about someone on a dating site. If only they invented a chat function so you can talk and find out more. Or give space underneath the pictures where people can write about themselves.

 

I thought most sites are like that. Match gives lots of information about the person and you can message back and forth. I was on POF a few years ago and there was a chat function. (oops, just saw above that they disabled it)

 

If you're not a good looking guy, don't use sites that are ONLY about looks.

[Hyperion227]

Fair enough. But then why would it be puzzling that someone would be more interested in someone they find physically attractive whose bio reads "enjoys hiking and sports and loves sunny days" than someone they don't find physically attractive whose bio reads "enjoys hiking and sports and loves sunny days"?

 

You're still getting only the most transparent veneer of an identity in a written bio, and chatting is essentially anonymous electronic communication.

 

Well that's fine if you want to argue that women only ever are attracted to conventionally good looking men. Or that they completely erase the fact from their minds that they are often attracted to guys who don't look great in a few photos. Or that they can only talk to one guy at a time and can't possibly respond to the less attractive profile AS WELL.

 

What you're arguing, in relation to my story, is that conventional good looks always trumps average looks. That women stupidly make all decisions in online dating on the photos. And that it's a waste of time them chatting as the photos are the sole determinant of their decision.

 

Yes, I agree with you.

[jen1447]

What you're arguing, in relation to my story, is that conventional good looks always trumps average looks.

 

In the introductory/superficial realm, particularly of dating websites and "swiping left" or whatever they call it (e.g. windowshopping), yes.

 

Why would you think someone would be superficially interested in someone they don't find physically attractive? Would you buy a painting you don't like instead of one you do or download a song you hate instead of one you love? Read a book that doesn't look interesting and ignore your favorite author? I don't get it.

[Hyperion227]

In the introductory/superficial realm, particularly of dating websites and "swiping left" or whatever they call it (e.g. windowshopping), yes.

 

Why would you think someone would be superficially interested in someone they don't find physically attractive? Would you buy a painting you don't like instead of one you do or download a song you hate instead of one you love? Read a book that doesn't look interesting and ignore your favorite author? I don't get it.

 

Yes but if you think that, actually, in real life women are interested in much more than looks and that looks are not synonymous with attraction then you're just saying, like Elaine, that these women are being stupid for ignoring these facts the moment they're on their lap top.

 

That's fine. I never said I was confused by any of this. If people didn't always try to claim that looks have nothing to do with this I'd never have bothered creating the other profile. I'd have come to the conclusion that attraction in OLD always comes down to looks earlier.

[xxoo]

Again, there are dozens and dozens of ways that women are attracted to men. Looks is surely one of them, and a primary one for some women. But why focus on it when there are so many others, as well?

 

A woman who is not attracted to you is either finding no attractive qualities, or is finding unattractive qualities. Each woman is looking for something a bit different, but none of them found what they were looking for.

[jen1447]

Yes but if you think that, actually, in real life women are interested in much more than looks and that looks are not synonymous with attraction then you're just saying, like Elaine, that these women are being stupid for ignoring these facts the moment they're on their lap top.

 

You keep missing the superficiality argument of OLD that keeps being made. Looking for dates on websites is windowshopping. How sophisticated do you expect that to be, and again, why would you expect someone to stop and look at an item they don't find appealing at a glance?

 

RL interaction is indeed far more complex and much greater levels of evaluation are possible thru it. In fact I already wrote an entire post about that up the thread somewhere.