singles thread

[Katster]

Neils theory works i guess, i am certainly more grown up than the last time i was single. I have been going to the gym for years but never really looked at other guys when i was with someone but i have been going more often lately after the split so could just be that i guess?

I do have a television set i just don't have tv. I watch dvds and will eventually get the internet sorted again.

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

Went out with my son last night for his birthday and I ended up having to fight off the attentions of some bloke trying to pick me up. Guess I was a little flattered.

I used to get approached by blokes quite a bit. But then again I did used to go to gay bars and clubs quite a bit! At first I found it flattering but then it got on my nerves a little. Basically those were my heavy duty drinking days and all I really wanted was to be left alone to drink.

[Katster]

I get what you're saying here, but I find it reductive and somewhat sexist in part. You may be talking about relationships, rather than attraction.

Either way, the strength you're talking about is ambigious. A man could be perceived as strong, but in actual fact just doesn't give a shit. It appears the same, but not giving a shit is not attractive. Or strength could be a facade, something that women perceive far better than men. But most women will not want someone simply because they are strong. They'll want someone and then hope that they are strong, and on considering a relationship, hope that they can add to that strength in union. It's about attraction, first and foremost. And that is simply about that gut-feeling. Not the basic look of a man, but his ora. This is far more about self-confidence than it is strength.

and here i have a problem. Because personality wise i am still well into my indie boys. Although having said that i have never previously even attempted to befriend gym men. They might be really nice. I might be surprised!

But yeah, physically i have for some reason turned my attention to nice toned muscles and i can't bloody help it!

I am off to the gym now for todays fix lol.

[Katster]

Or she just fancies a shag from a toned hard body stud

no comment!!

[eFestivals]

I get what you're saying here, but I find it reductive and somewhat sexist in part. You may be talking about relationships, rather than attraction.

It's not sexist. I'd say something equal happens with men's tastes over time too.

And no, I'm talking about visual attraction only, commenting back precisely on what Katster commented on herself.

Either way, the strength you're talking about is ambigious. A man could be perceived as strong, but in actual fact just doesn't give a shit.

Nope. I'm talking visual attraction.

We all know that how a person might be perceived doesn't match the reality.

But most women will not want someone simply because they are strong.

On an evolutionary level - a "base attraction" - that's precisely what 99%+ want*. They have a biological need to be protected.

(* there are of course always exceptions. In biological/genetic terms there are always 'mutants' against the evolutionary trend).

How that "strong" is interpreted by each individual changes (so not all women need to see big muscles for that 'strong' to be satisfied) but the base attraction behind it does not.

That's how I see it working, anyway.

It's about attraction, first and foremost. And that is simply about that gut-feeling. Not the basic look of a man, but his ora. This is far more about self-confidence than it is strength.

aura, you mean.

I agree in part, but what is primarily taken from that is 'strength'. Self-confidence is merely one way that strength can be expressed.

Edited August 3, 2012 by eFestivals

[worm]

On an evolutionary level - a "base attraction" - that's precisely what 99%+ want*. They have a biological need to be protected.

Yes, but the social and physical environment has evolved too. We don't live in a primitive environment. Those are not our needs now. Just look at feminism. You need to consider the ideological effect too. Women's emancipation and sexual liberation being two huge examples.

I'm not sure that explaining a man's base needs in a general way makes it any less sexist. I meant sexist due to the generalisation that women are attracted to strength. They are sexually attracted to all sorts, strength is just something that women admire. It can be part of the attraction in a father bond, a brother bond, a friend bond; not necessarily a sexual or loving one. They can be attracted to other women due to strength. Strength is just strength. It has little to do with romantic attraction.

Edited August 3, 2012 by worm

[worm]

I agree in part, but what is primarily taken from that is 'strength'. Self-confidence is merely one way that strength can be expressed.

I think you're just trying to put everything you can into a theoretical term to fit. Strength is far too ambigious to be in any way meaningful. For example, a woman could be attracted to someone sensitive and needy (the latter being very rare indeed) and you could say that this shows strength through being honest and vulnerable.

And that's another thing. A woman wants a man to be vulnerable. And there is no greater attraction on earth than a woman being made to feel that her shared experiences are profoundly real. That is the cornerstone of true love and where the idea of the lover comes from. It is an ego-less experience and one of complete and utter vulnerability, unlike the man whose resources she saps for her own self-confidence and ego.

[eFestivals]

Yes, but the social and physical environment has evolved too. We don't live in a primitive environment. Those are not our needs now. Just look at feminism. You need to consider the ideological effect too. Women's emancipation and sexual liberation being two huge examples.

when humanity is able to finally over-ride all of its naturally-evolved instincts then humanity might finally be on the road to being civilised.

Until then, all people are driven by their 'natural' instincts, and cannot ignore them and often can't over-ride them.

I took Katster's comment as being a statement of her recognition of that she cannot ignore.

I'm not sure that explaining a man's base needs in a general way makes it any less sexist. I meant sexist due to the generalisation that women are attracted to strength. They are sexually attracted to all sorts, strength is just something that women admire. It can be part of the attraction in a father bond, a brother bond, a friend bond; not necessarily a sexual or loving one. They can be attracted to other women due to strength. Strength is just strength. It has little to do with romantic attraction.

'strength' is the instinctual basis for all female-to-male sexual attraction I'd say (but with 'strength' being recognised in different ways by different people), just as - for the younger male, at least - child bearing/rearing is the instinctual basis with the genders reversed. We need partners who can meet our instinctual needs.

Nothing of that stops 'strength' also being an important part of other non-sexual relationships.

[eFestivals]

I think you're just trying to put everything you can into a theoretical term to fit. Strength is far too ambigious to be in any way meaningful.

I know what I mean, even if you're not getting it.

For example, a woman could be attracted to someone sensitive and needy (the latter being very rare indeed) and you could say that this shows strength through being honest and vulnerable.

I could, but I wouldn't.

Someone who is self-confident feels able* to overcome something - which is the demonstration of their (believed in) strength.

(* it doesn't mean they actually are, of course)

And that's another thing. A woman wants a man to be vulnerable. And there is no greater attraction on earth than a woman being made to feel that her shared experiences are profoundly real. That is the cornerstone of true love and where the idea of the lover comes from. It is an ego-less experience and one of complete and utter vulnerability, unlike the man whose resources she saps for her own self-confidence and ego.

all that is something which comes along long after any initial visual attraction, and so is of no relevance to what i'm saying.

Edited August 3, 2012 by eFestivals

[worm]

when humanity is able to finally over-ride all of its naturally-evolved instincts then humanity might finally be on the road to being civilised.

They haven't all been overiden. We still desire sex. We still have an emotional attachment to sex. But we don't need it to set up a bond of protection anymore. There is nothing to be protected from. We are attracted because it looks good. Want (beauty) is far more relevant to desire than need (strength or whatever).

'strength' is the instinctual basis for all female-to-male sexual attraction I'd say (but with 'strength' being recognised in different ways by different people), just as - for the younger male, at least - child bearing/rearing is the instinctual basis with the genders reversed. We need partners who can meet our instinctual needs.

I'm sure I've just pointed out the problem with this. Nevermind, I'll take it as your opinion.

[feral chile]

It's not sexist. I'd say something equal happens with men's tastes over time too.

And no, I'm talking about visual attraction only, commenting back precisely on what Katster commented on herself.

Nope. I'm talking visual attraction.

We all know that how a person might be perceived doesn't match the reality.

On an evolutionary level - a "base attraction" - that's precisely what 99%+ want*. They have a biological need to be protected.

That's how I see it working, anyway.

Or maybe men have a biological need to be perceived as strong.

or maybe it's to do with breeding stock - the strongest likely to be healthiest and more likely to produce strong, healthy offspring.

But being a cynic, I suspect it's once again to do with status - the male who looks the strongest is likely to be at the top of the pecking order (looking at things from an evolutionary perspective).

[Katster]

Neil is right on that. I have no way of stopping this new liking of muscles. Its a purely physical thing, something totally alien to me really. I have never gone for any certain physical type before, the skinny indie boy thing was just a coincidence as it was their personalities i liked. Maybe its because i am getting near to the end of being able to reproduce? So my natural instinct to find k mate is determining my taste? God knows.

It could just also be because i am starting to take more care of myself so am noticing other people who have already been doing so?

Or it could all be andy carrolls fault.

[feral chile]

Neil is right on that. I have no way of stopping this new liking of muscles. Its a purely physical thing, something totally alien to me really. I have never gone for any certain physical type before, the skinny indie boy thing was just a coincidence as it was their personalities i liked. Maybe its because i am getting near to the end of being able to reproduce? So my natural instinct to find k mate is determining my taste? God knows.

It could just also be because i am starting to take more care of myself so am noticing other people who have already been doing so?

Or it could all be andy carrolls fault.

What was your ex like? You might be trying to distance yourself from him emotionally, by avoiding the same type of man.

It's fun analysing things, but the truth is, there's no way to get at the reasons behind attraction. Just enjoy!

Edited August 3, 2012 by feral chile

[worm]

all that is something which comes along long after 'attraction', and so is of no relevance to what i'm saying.

You're right. Good point. Then we're talking about perception. The women wants those things afterwards, but they perceive them in a man.

In essence, a good lover exudes sexual confidence. Not self-confidence, but sexual confidence. This is what draws women.

In anthropological studies, it's been found that females go for the most sexually succesful male.

So would you call this strength? I'd just call it sexual confidence. You aren't over-coming anything. You're just confident in your sexual ability.

Edited August 3, 2012 by worm

[feral chile]

You're right. Good point. Then we're talking about perception. The women wants those things afterwards, but they perceive them in a man.

In essence, a good lover exudes sexual confidence. Not self-confidence, but sexual confidence. This is what draws women.

In anthropological studies, it's been found that females go for the most sexually succesful male.

So would you call this strength? I'd just call it sexual confidence. You aren't over-coming anything. You're just confident in your sexual ability.

Isn't that tautological?

[worm]

What was your ex like? You might be trying to distance yourself from him emotionally, by avoiding the same type of man.

Explain my ex and my cousin then?!

[Katster]

What was your ex like? You might be trying to distance yourself from him emotionally, by

avoiding the same type of man.

It's fun analysing things, but the truth is, there's no way to get at the reasons behind attraction. Just enjoy!

he was a big bloke but not toned or anything, but not fat either. Mentally he relied on me completely, which was part of why i had to end it. I was drained. So figures i would be looking for someone to look after me now?

I am greatly enjoying it. Its a whole new and different ball game!

[worm]

Isn't that tautological?

Guilty as charged.

It was in a study in which two males were introduced to a group of females. One sexually succesful, one not.

What do you make of this strength thing Feral?

[eFestivals]

They haven't all been overiden. We still desire sex. We still have an emotional attachment to sex. But we don't need it to set up a bond of protection anymore. There is nothing to be protected from. We are attracted because it looks good. Want (beauty) is far more relevant to desire than need (strength or whatever).

Nope, we don't 'need' to.

Similarly, the happily married man doesn't 'need' to go off shagging people who aren't his wife and risk everything they don't want to loose, but do all the same.

That's not me giving an 'instinct' excuse for infidelity, they don't have to do that - choice is involved. But so is a procreation instinct involved too. And I'd say, ultimately, that's why it happens when all logic says it really shouldn't. Instincts are there, and sometimes some people give in to them.

As far as a initial visual attraction goes - which is presumably the sort of thing Katster was meaning - there is *only* instinct to give that attraction. There is no logic which can explain why a person might find one just-sighted attractive person eminently more shaggable than other similarly attractive person.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and what drives that eye is instinct not logic.

[feral chile]

Explain my ex and my cousin then?!

Don't have enough information even to speculate. And of course, half the time we don't know why we're doing stuff ourselves. She probably doesn't know what she's doing, or why.

[feral chile]

Guilty as charged.

It was in a study in which two males were introduced to a group of females. One sexually succesful, one not.

What do you make of this strength thing Feral?

I think it's initially to do with dominance - a physically strong male probably feels confident within a male grouping to start with, as soon as he reaches maturity. If he feels strong, and this is mirrored by his peers, that inner confidence, combined with his physical attributes, will attract women.

In the study you mentioned, a lot of factors could be at play there. Probably body language plays a huge part - women are very good at picking up on non verbal cues. That's why we can pick up on what's not being said.

[worm]

Or maybe men have a biological need to be perceived as strong.

or maybe it's to do with breeding stock - the strongest likely to be healthiest and more likely to produce strong, healthy offspring.

But being a cynic, I suspect it's once again to do with status - the male who looks the strongest is likely to be at the top of the pecking order (looking at things from an evolutionary perspective).

I just don't buy it though. I think it's far more shallow than that. Women are attracted to beauty and sex-appeal, just like everyone else.

[feral chile]

I just don't buy it though. I think it's far more shallow than that. Women are attracted to beauty and sex-appeal, just like everyone else.

Yes of course, but we're looking at why certain attributes, such as physical strength, should be considered beautiful.

I personally don't find muscles attractive at all. I don't like being controlled, so masculine aggression/dominance (or the appearance thereof) doesn't do it for me.

Edited August 3, 2012 by feral chile

[worm]

Don't have enough information even to speculate. And of course, half the time we don't know why we're doing stuff ourselves. She probably doesn't know what she's doing, or why.

Well, she sensed that I changed my behaviour around him. He is exceptionally self-confident and she did always go on about the alpha male thing with moi. And he's bigger than me. She does seem to be into muscles now. But he's over-weight. His cheeks have dropped. He's not exactly attractive because he doesn't care. He's funny, but not really the animated type. He's going very bald and has a full side of grey hair. He's doing lots of stuff for her. That ties into the whole resource thing. But it could just be an ego-boost. Getting treated well by a much older bachelor whose had his day and wants nothing in return. And he is into cool stuff like me.

Not exactly distancing though, is it?

Edited August 3, 2012 by worm

[worm]

Yes of course, but we're looking at why certain attributes, such as physical strength, should be considered beautiful.

I personally don't find muscles attractive at all. I don't like being controlled, so masculine aggression/dominance (or the appearance thereof) doesn't do it for me.

Bingo. This is my issue with strength and dominance. Bollocks, women want to be able to throw themselves all over someone and get completely lost in the experience. That's them being dominant. And speaking as a male, I want a woman to throw herself at me. Fuck all this biological need crap. It's neediness. Relationship seeking. I want to get lost with someone. That's it.

Most evolutionary theory and such like is inherently sexist because it looks at the male. Rubbish. Women hold the cards. They always make the first move. They say when and when not. A woman that stands back and waits is not a woman who'll get what she wants.

And some self-contained hard man is hardly going to get lost with you in the throngs of delight. 'Thanks pet' is about the best you'll ever get.

Edited August 3, 2012 by worm