How much do looks really matter to women? And how much does personality (if at all)?

[Judge]

It's neo-Marxist.

So it's the opposite to "incel" (which is arguably a fake attribution of causation to a small number of bad people).

Whatever the truth, the current "incel story" was created by a specific subset of neo-Marxists.

There certainly is a lot of solid academic research out there to back this up. It may initially sound preposterous, but it isn't.

New paper explores the rise of ‘incels’

Incel, the misogynist ideology that inspired the deadly Toronto attack, explained

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/08912432221128545

Study Reveals How ‘Incels’ Become Violent Extremists

 

[Kayla55]

This last dispute on forum ended with thread whereby some didn't accept fitting into own category at all. Denying this concept existed, and unrealistic pickups of high maintenance types and misunderstanding of being single.

My personal experience when I was young was a preacher about anti-financial and how money should be humble, yet his sexual demands were bordering explicit, not happy with sex, it had to be that!!!

So nun has home of humble belongings, wears long skirts, yet bathroom was odd, lot of makeup and cosmetics.....(society sells women as sex objects, some women comply.) But not all.
By the way, he was rude wanting me to stop dying my hair dark, no. he didn't have right to say that.
Dear value system

 

[Tired]

>joins autism forum
>instantly writes incelbait

Is this a troll?

What's incelbait?

 

[Tom]

Idk. I am male. But if I wondered about it, nature is one of the places I would look for answers.

 

[paloftoon]

James Carville and Mary Matalin

Well, they've been married 20+ years. Once you're with someone for so long, most don't care about looks because people get older and don't always look that great anyway. People can look decent if they have a lot of money and time these days if you know where to go etc.

Dave Allocca - Google Arts & Culture
This seems to be a picture of when they were both much younger, and I think Carville looks much more reasonably attractive as a younger man.

 

[Au Naturel]

I know when you are a teenager looks can matter a lot because hormones are raging uncontrollably and stuff. Hormones are known to influence our behavior (and maybe even our personality) so that's why teenagers are so obsessed about good looks and stuff.

But when you leave teen age and finally become an adult, personality begins to matter more than when you are a teenager.

I read in some other forum that a man's looks matter more than many women are willing to admit.

So my question is: Is physical attraction between men and women entirely biological? (by biological I mean is it in our DNA) or is personality (personality can mean a man's cognition, intelligence, motivation and emotions) also important? Also how much of our personality is really biological and how much of our personality is really upbringing (is personality nature or nurture)?

Does biology, neuroscience and genetics also control our personality like it does our physical appearance (by physical appearance i mean your height, penis size, your facial bone structure, your skin texture etc etc) or is there more to it than just that?

It depends on what the woman is looking for. Every woman wants a little bit from each category and possibly a lot from one.

If they just want a one night stand, looks and a suave approach will get you in. If they are looking for financial security, it is money they'll look for. Another woman might be looking for good dad material. Yet another might be looking for her dad.

Different women have different types, else all males would soon be that type. If you aren't a woman's type, that isn't her fault, nor your fault. However, you have a better chance at changing yourself than you do of changing the next dozen random women you might meet.

Cognition by itself isn't usually a big attractant. What you do with the cognition is what matters. Having a big EQ will get you much farther than a big IQ.

Your personality equals your biology plus your environment. There's no dividing the two.

Tinder stats are nonsense.

 

[Jonn]

I read in some other forum that a man's looks matter more than many women are willing to admit.

My experience is that women on the spectrum are more forgiving and less superficial.

 

[Jonn]

"Personality" is basically deviations from the average human baseline.

There are differing inherent personality traits.
You can see this in your pets that haven't been "polluted" by social indoctrination.

 

[Jonn]

When describing other people, people tend to describe them as: funny, smart, shy, outgoing, kind. These words could be used to describe 8 billion people. Very few words to describe someone's entire being, and that's because personality really doesn't exist, it's not tangible, it's just a set of tendencies.

I can't agree with your proposed concept.

We actually do have an internal "moral compass", imo.
We may perform an action and then find we are uncomfortable with the decision we made.
On reflection, we may then choose to realign ourselves to what we are inherently comfortable with, based on our own personal value system.

But, yes, our thoughts do affect our emotions.
I do agree with that.

 

[Jonn]

Your personality equals your biology plus your environment. There's no dividing the two.

Personality can be altered by the environment, but there is an inherent personality to begin with, imo.

 

[Jonn]

Yes, which works for cartoons.

Yes, like "Beauty and the Beast."

Forget that...
Bad example.

 

[Jonn]

Even when when the villain is attractive he is viewed as sympathetic. The only example I can think of of a sympathetic unattractive villain is the penguin from one of the old Batman movies. That's the only one I can think of.

Have you watched "Shrek"?

 

[Suzanne]

Personality is far more important to me, than looks, as looks often do not go with personality and personality is far more long lasting and makes a relationship work or not, as the case may be.

 

[Hypnalis]

@Judge

The definition of "incel" was initially a simple description: "male who is celibate for any reason, and would prefer not to be celibate".

At any given time it includes quite a lot of people. ASDs are over-represented in that group, but so are homeless people, people with physical disabilities, 100% normal young men of high school age, military on active duty, divorced men, etc etc.

Note the mix: some with "special identities", who "deserve" almost as much sympathy as a sad puppy. And others who "deserve" none: they are surely the cause of their own misfortune.

Then we have "incel phase 2": "incel" redefined as the worst of the original definition, including some false claims made for political purposes. Somewhere along the way, some males sorted themselves into that category, and started talking on the web.

That led to where we are today, where the facts have become completely overshadowed by propaganda. Including much of the research /sigh.

I listened to an interview with William Costello who is an expert (there's a link to a paper he wrote (with several others) in the wikipedia article for "incel"). His observation was: "If incels are so bad why are they associated with so little actual violence in proportion to their numbers?".

The answer to that blew away almost all of the "Pearl Clutching" weasel-worded "research". Most of it wasn't based on fact.

Another interesting and relevant factor is that "everyone" had casually ignored the known fact that extremely violent people associate with groups of noisy, unhappy people, and may later blame any violence they perpetrate on the group.

This "reverses cause and effect", and makes the raw numbers quite suspect. The question that must be answered in every situation isn't "was the AH associated with online incels", but "was the AH violent because they were an incel?".

This was highlighted in a very well known "goth" school shooter a few years ago. They guy's mother had told the police - paraphrased from memory - (a) he's crazy, and (b) he's turning actively violent. Goth or deranged psychopath who had chosen to blame others for his own innate issues? Psycho OFC - Goths are weird, but not innately exceptionally violent (except for the "cutting" - I don't get that at all).

Correct for cause and effect reversal, remove one guy who isn't easily classified, but killed multiple people, and incels are more noisy than violent compared to other men with the same demographic.

BTW - I'll link the interview if you like, but I'm not interested in disproving any or all false claims on this topic. It's clear you've done some actual research, which I respect. But I'm not trying to change the world via AF - just keep AF honest

Back on point: About 30% of incels are ASD (Costello had data on this). We almost certainly have some in the forum. But what are the odds they are violent psychos? IMO, almost exactly the same as the odds any ASD is inclined to violence - so probably a good bit less than the male population as a whole.

Which is why I can do without people posting on-line pejorative phrases based on the "male = incel = terrorist" false equivalence (this excludes your post - reasonable dissenting views are fine).

Last point: there's something that surprisingly doesn't seem to have made it into "common knowledge", but is probably where the "new, progressive" definition of incel started: "Young Male Syndrome".
Since it must have been there at the start, I've always assumed it's left out now because it doesn't fit the political narrative ("incel = terrorist").

If you feel like tracing this, please share your conclusions. I'm interested, but I know (via other interviews by the guy who interviewed Costello) that there's work being done in this area, so I'm waiting for that.

 

[DrBadStrings]

Sounds like you're angry with woman because of your own faults and are looking for an excuse to blame them. Go to therapy dude because you are seriously out to lunch.

 

[Tom]

My favorite animal for mating ritual is the Bowerbird.

First the male Bowerbird builds a show nest (bower).

Then he collects various objects, some useful some just pretty or for show and sorts them in piles.

Finally, last but not least he dances for the more plainly colored (camoflauged) female.

The female will visit several bowers and then makes a kind of short list of a few favorites to revisit before finally making her selection of the lucky guy.

These tips will only help you attract a Bowerbird, but there are a few bits that I think have some application.

 

[Tired]

My favorite animal for mating ritual is the Bowerbird.

First the male Bowerbird builds a show nest (bower).

View attachment 133938

Then he collects various objects, some useful some just pretty or for show and sorts them in piles.

View attachment 133939

Finally, last but not least he dances for the more plainly colored (camoflauged) female.

View attachment 133940

The female will visit several bowers and then makes a kind of short list of a few favorites to revisit before finally making her selection of the lucky guy.

These tips will only help you attract a Bowerbird, but there are a few bits that I think have some application.

Heh yes and some males are sneaky and instead of searching for their own items, will go and steal it from other males. Nature is fascinating

 

[Atrapa Almas]

Perhaps some scientific data to add to the conversation: Sex differences in sexual attraction for aesthetics, resources and personality across age

There are several factors at play here, and a lot has changed since the late 1960's when birth control became available, as well as how the feminist movement has evolved from the 1970's to the 1980's to the 2020's. There are "old school" feminists (Boomers and Gen X) and there are the "modern" feminists (Millenials and Gen Z), and the narratives women pass along to each other have changed. In response, the narratives that men pass along to each other have changed, as well.

Ever hear the saying, "There are people you have sex with and there are people you marry?" (paraphrasing) This is a relatively new concept, say from the time that birth control was put on the market. It is a part of that feminist movement that gave females the freedom and power to express their sexuality with multiple partners. Prior to that, many people didn't take risks like that. People could be attracted to each other, but due to the social stigma of out-of-wedlock relations and pregnancy, it was more of a social construct to "get to know each other" and/or wait until after marriage until having intercourse. I say this knowing the realities of teenage pregnancies back in the day. My parents were teenagers, but "made it work", and they never divorced. In general, overall, this was the mindset.

The biological or instinctual aspects of attractiveness have not changed through the millennia. We are all looking for the same basic things such as all the "indicators of physical health and fertility" in a potential mate. The same things that we see with animals competing for mates on those nature documentaries, happens with humans, as well. Initial attraction and acceptance is around physical attributes. This will get you as far as the initiation of a potential relationship.

Then there are the psychological and psychiatric components, personality, emotional control, self-discipline, intelligence, etc. that determine whether or not this person is going to be a good life partner.

I think where many people get frustrated with are these situations where a "nice person" has some sort of physical attribute(s) that make them "unattractive" and they never get to that first stage of someone actually wanting to initiate a personal relationship. "I'm a nice person, why can't I find a boyfriend or girlfriend?"

The opposite may occur, as well. The physically attractive individual who can always get the first date, even have many sexual partners, but nobody wants a long-term relationship with them. They likely have some sort of psychological or psychiatric component that makes it nearly impossible to maintain a long-term relationship. "I'm an attractive person, why can't I keep a boyfriend or girlfriend?" "Where have all the good men/women gone?"

If we look at some of the research data coming from the Tinder dating app, we begin to see some startling trends. This is where we see statistics like the top 5, 10, 20% of men are getting access to 95, 90, 80% of the women out there. The vast majority of men out there are completely invisible to women. Roughly 15% or so are actually physically attractive to women, 85% of men are not going to get a second look from a woman. Roughly 25-30% of men under 30 are virgins in 2024. 5% for women under 30. This suggests that some women are sharing the same men.

Then there is the delusional components where some young women are looking for "6's", (more than 6ft tall, 6 figure income, and 6in between the legs) which, in reality is LESS than 1% of males.

Thanks for the reply and the article link. I was about to ask the OP why did he asked a question if he already had his answer so clear to make fun of other people responses...

To add to your response, we tend to think in the human past as if monogamy was the norm and people actually did chose their couples like we do now, but I dont think thats the case.

Humans penis-vagina combination is made to create vacum on the vagina and extract any prior semen there before ejaculation... Thats quite a biological hint about how did we reproduced. So it was probably more like grupal sex than monogamy.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Neri]

I think a well developed sense of humour is attractive in a guy, it shows that he is reasonably "well adjusted" and intelligent, which are a significant draw card for a majority of females. It also makes him more fun to be around, which, for obvious reasons, women like.

 

[Jonn]

I think a well developed sense of humour is attractive in a guy, it shows that he is reasonable "well adjusted" and intelligent, which are a significant draw card for a majority of females. It also makes him more fun to be around, which, for obvious reasons, women like.

Spoiler

Aw, shucks...