This is another post on speculative thinking based on evolutionary psychology. It was inspired by a comment made by GoodLookingAndSleazy on an Open Thread. He wrote:
It’s funny when girls say that “personality is everything.” WTF do they even mean? Confidence? Sense of humor? Being nice? Cocky? The only thing universal and consistent about what women want in a man is looks. And that itself is pretty uniform. It’s mostly the dudes facial structure. Men like different traits in women. Ass men, breast men etc.
The observation that women want one particular kind of guy while men have somewhat varying preferences has been made in black-pill circles and is commonly stressed there. It is quite obvious why there is only one archetype of man that is sexually desired and the closer to it you are, the more you can get laid. It is the tall, dark, stranger. Height overrides even a pretty face. (This is where I disagree with GoodLookingAndSleazy.) In other words, a tall guy with an average face will do better than a short guy with an attractive face. This taps into basic genetic programming as tall men are simply physically more imposing. In fact, you, dear male reader, are also aware of this because you yourself tend to treat taller men better than shorter men. An obvious example is deference in everyday situations. Let me give you one example: I am a pretty tall guy (6’3″/190cm) and I have worked under managers who were shorter than me. This occasionally led to incidents where we would bump into each other in the hallway, and I would get out of this way because he’s my boss, but he would do so as well because I’m the taller guy.
Height correlates with all kinds of positive attributes. Taller people are, up to a certain height, healthier. They also tend to be more intelligent. Generally, they are seen as natural leaders. This may be hard to accept for some, but I notice this in real life over and over, i.e. a taller guy is a more obvious choice for a promotion or for election. For instance, look up the height of guys like John Kerry or Donald Trump, for example. Then look up the height of your typical vice president. Trump’s VP Mike Pence is significantly shorter. It is inconceivable that Pence would have run for president, with Trump as the VP candidate because the optics would have not have been great. There is now enough data available to conclude that the taller presidential candidate is more likely to win the election.
However, when it comes to women, men assess them based on sexual preferences. It would be interesting to speculate why there are leg men, ass men, or boob men. I have a hunch that leg men tend to be shorter men. Note that leg men want tall, slender women with long, slender legs. My anecdotal evidence tells me that short men are much more attracted to tall women than tall men, probably in an attempt to positively influence the genetics of their children. Yet, tall women are objectively less attractive because their proportions are unfavorable compared to short women. This is why the biggest porn stars tend to be short and petite. Madison Ivy is below 5′, for instance. On a petite woman, a nice set of tits looks spectacularly big. A tall one, on the other hand, would need impossibly large implants to get a similar effect. I’d say that this is only a poor approximation anyway because she can’t make her bones shrink so you end up with a somewhat unwieldy woman in the bedroom whereas a petit one you can throw around on the bed to your heart’s content. (Yup, women are into this!)
I am not so sure why there is a difference between ass men and boob men. Obviously, connoisseurs of the female form don’t view these categories in either-or terms. I think only very rarely would a guy go for the woman with the biggest rack, and ignore that she is 150 lbs. overweight. I have come across speculations online that a focus on the female’s behind is a sign of a more primitive society. I even recall one video on YouTube in which the presenter made the possibly tongue-in-cheek argument that the recent focus on big butts in US popular culture is a consequence of broad cultural decline. Part of me thinks that this idea is not entirely unreasonable because big butts are not just a consequence of exercise, or butt implants, but also simply of being fat. With obesity being a mainstream occurrence in the United States, it could well be that the focus on the ass is just an adaptation to the environment. If women get fatter and fatter, which makes her boobs comparatively smaller, then any male trapped in such circumstances is basically forced to look at her ass instead. Also, when the majority of people around you are overweight and there are flabby big asses everywhere you look, then a woman with a nice firm butt stands out much more, and so does a woman with a big firm butt.
In any case, a woman can appeal to men in different ways. Some plain Jane could get boob implants to appeal to boob men or do squats in the gym to shape her ass, with the goal of reeling in an ass man. If she was born tall, she could slim herself down and do cardio to get nice long legs, in addition to running tight-ass game. In any case, no matter with what genetics a woman was born with, she has plenty of options. Of course, some women have more options than others. On the other hand, as a guy, you better be born tall with a nice frame, i.e. wide clavicles. Your can work on your looks, but, compared to women, you have less to work with. Then again, you have other ways to get laid, for instance by focussing on your career and running provider game. You can furthermore directly trade money for access to attractive women and bang every hot hooker or escort you see. A woman does not really have that option.
This blog depends on your contributions. So, share your view and comment on this article (comment policy). Then, to ensure the survival of this blog, donate. If you haven’t bought Aaron’s books yet, buy them, all of them. Lastly, if you want tailored and honest advice, book some one-on-one consultation sessions.
34 thoughts on “Open Post: What Men and Women Find Attractive in Each other and Why”
Lots of good points made. Firstly the male height argument. Yes, American presidents above 6 feet tall has been the norm for over, I don’t know how many decades. I think the age of television caused this. I’m 5′ 11, masculine facial structure, and toned but not huge. When I’m around tall, buff guys I just feel inferior, even if my facial structure is better. They just stand out more, but they tend to be easy to get along with as opposed to the over-compensationing short guys.
About big asses being a sign of degeneration I tend to agree. Kim Kardashian is a great example of that. She usually attracts black dudes, and she prefers them, at least the wealthy celebrities. Funny how the only one she stuck with was the most dysfunctional one. The other ones she just destroyed.
About tits, I do remember a manager I worked with saying that he liked short girls with big tits, but he didn’t know why. I tend to agree with him. I love tits, but only if the girl is in shape. No fat chicks PERIOD. A girl with big tits and a small waist sets me off. Which brings me to ass and legs. I only like them if the girl goes to the gym to get them nice and firm. A fat girls tits ass and legs never mean anything to me. It all looks gross.
So I mentioned in a recent thread how I met a coworker who has the “hourglass” figure? Looks all natural. Basically like Marilyn Monroe. Who was hot as FUCK. I think these girls were just naturally blessed.
Your co-worker got the “coca-cola bottle”-shape ;-p
If you want dates as a guy, you have to at least have some confidence. Most women won’t respect you otherwise.
As a women you don’t have to. Guys could care less if you are insecure, unconfident, awkward or nervous or shy (for the most part).
Also, as a women you don’t have to have high social status.
Confidence alone won’t get you any dates, though. Here is a relevant article:
“Confidence alone won’t get you any dates”
Right, but 90% of the time, you still need it.
Confidence alone doesn’t guarantee a date, but you need it.
A lady can sense your vibe and if you’re a pushover, she’ll be able to tell and even if you got a date or two, at some point she would lose interest and move on (give or take).
Many women doesn’t respect unconfident men, even if you’re kinda cute.
Tho perhaps it’s different if she’s just looking for a lay.
That’s an entirely different point. You can, of course, shoot yourself in the foot. I’ve written a few articles on “anti-game”, which address this issue. You may find it interesting to check them out.
Yep, confident enough to approach as long as she considers you physically attractive in the first place. Otherwise all bets are off. If she thinks you’re hot she has already decided whether she wants to fuck. You can only blow it at that point if you offend her or are a complete idiot by not escalating. Trust me, I know.
They “perceive” physically attractive men as more “confident” by nature. Plus to protect their ego, when a guy they check out “rejects” them by not approaching, they rationalise it that he must not be good enough for them in some way.
About “status,” I always thought it was the weakest part of LMS. For this reason: It’s the only one that depends on the other factors to exist. In other words, if you have looks, status is a given. If you have money? Same thing. Status without either of the other variables? I don’t think it exists, no matter how “confident”a guy with mediocre looks and money the dude has.
It’s important for good looking men to be confident IN their looks to approach women as it is the most important part of LMS.
Relating to the frame and height vs face question: would it be better to be “bigger” (muscle and fat) even if it meant your face is less defined? I’m 6’1 but have a naturally smaller frame (clavicle, and I’ve always been thin). I’m lifting weights and gaining weight just to see what will happen.
I’m not sure this can be answered in general as it depends on your bone structure. I’d say that you want to avoid having a doughy face. On the other hand, if the trade-off is between slightly reduced visible bone structure and a visibly more imposing appearance, then the latter is probably preferable.
As Aaron said, it’s very individual. Depends on how your body stores bodyfat.
I’m one of those people where my face stores all the fat. I have to get really lean to have any lines in the face, otherwise my face looks like a soccer ball.
Other guys tho, they can bulk up to 25% bodyfat, look shirt on big and have a chiseled jaw (don’t store fat in the face).
As someone who’s almost 6’4 and white I can agree that people treat you differently. I’d say I’m average in looks and have hooked up with some decent women.
One thing that I’ve recently noticed though and this is probably common sense but leaning out has helped my confidence and I think women find me more attractive. Less fat on your face equals more bones showing. Also one thing I’ve been working on is thickening my neck. I think having a thick neck as a man is a must to display more dominance.
Off topic, One thing that has also helped me a lot with women was dancing. I’ve signed up for dance lessons earlier this year and it pushed me out of my comfort zone. Basically it taught me to be more witty and get used to touching women outside of sex and leading. I think this is huge and would help many guys.
Regardless of how you look, with confidence you can take advantage of opportunities in front of you and not let them slip by. Girls like confidence.
Assuming there are girls into you to begin with. There may be some, but there will be even more into you of course if you’re pretty handsome.
So yeah, looks count for a lot.
“Girls like confidence”…
I would rephrase that as the reverse. It’s not so much that girls like confidence. It’s just that they don’t like taking responsibility for moving things forward, making things happen etc.
It’s not like something that gives you extra attraction or interest points… It’s more like they enjoy the fact that they get to be lazy and you do all the hard work.
Looks are a positive feedback loop for your confidence.
If she finds you attractive she’ll put in an effort to keep the conversation going vs. giving you hard time.
Alek, you are right that women don’t like to take responsibility for escalating. But haven’t you noticed that women also like to be “taken” by a dominant man. We had a discussion about this recently and most people agreed it is a huge turn-on for women.
Argubaly this is only amplifies attraction but doesn’t help at all if you aren’t attractive to her to begin with.
You’re doing the traditional mistake that PUAs make… conflating different terms into one universal “attraction” term.
What you described is her getting turned on. It’s not “increasing her attraction”.
I think it just speeds up the process lol. “No time like the present.” “The sooner the better.” Etc.
“The observation that women want one particular kind of guy while men have somewhat varying preferences…”
If women have one particular kind of preference as the data suggest, how is it that a man can be attractive to one woman and not another? He’s an 8 to one girl while he’s a 5 to another. Shouldn’t there be a general consensus on his overall sexual market value?
@Chris, both of you are over-stating it.
– A man can’t be an 8 to one woman and a 5 to another all that often. Unless he meets a ton of women he won’t run into that variance.
– Saying women have identical taste is also an over-estatement
The truth is a bit moderate. It’s that women’s variance in judging men’s looks is smaller. That is it varies less. But it does vary.
Saying it doesn’t vary at all is a silly exaggeration. Saying it can vary a lot is also a silly exaggeration.
I don’t agree with you here. There is much stronger consensus among women regarding which men are really attractive than there is among men regarding women (cf. leg men et.). Of course, it’s not the case that there is perfect agreement. We do have some examples of men that are universally considered extremely attractive, e.g. Brad Pitt, George Clooney, or Leonardo DiCaprio.
“Both of you are over-stating it.”
I meant, both of those views overstate it. You’ve incorrectly ascribed an extreme view (Strawman) to Aaron. He himself doesn’t push the “no variance in how women judge looks at all” viewpoint. You’re just creating a fake dichotomy.
When I wrote that facial structure was most important I incorrectly assumed that short guys weren’t even part of the equation. I can’t even fathom a world where short guys are considered hot by women. I can’t even imagine what kind of world short guys live in, and I consider myself an empathic person.
* With the exception of Hollywood. People are always astonished at how short Tom Cruz, Sylvester Stallone, and Mark Wallberg are. Even Arnold is not as tall as people think he is.
Tom Cruz is 5’ 7. That’s not short but that’s not really tall either.
Looks > height up to a point.
Like looks don’t matter so much if you’re a midget.
Tom Cruise has a net-worth of hundreds of millions of dollars. Old-style PUAs used to bring him up as an example of a “short” guy who gets a lot of pussy, conveniently ignoring the fact that he’s world-famous, extremely wealthy, and handsome.
In regards to Tom Cruise,
“…he’s world-famous, extremely wealthy, and handsome.”
If you extract the two variables, fame and wealth, would this suggest that Tom Cruise would do poorly with women due to his short height if he was an average person in society?
He’d still get women because of his looks. However, his height would hold him back. This is obvious to anyone who has ever been in a crowd. Short guys are basically invisible while taller guys stand out.
Since height > looks
“I have a hunch that leg men tend to be shorter men. Note that leg men want tall, slender women with long, slender legs. My anecdotal evidence tells me that short men are much more attracted to tall women than tall men, probably in an attempt to positively influence the genetics of their children.”
What do you consider to be short for a man? I’m a “leg man” and I don’t think I’m short (I’m 5 ft 11). Anecdotal I know, so it’s possible I’m an outlier. Unfortunately we don’t have meetings where we examine women’s legs so I don’t know if most leg men are a lot shorter than me.
I’ve also learned from my, uh, studies that there is a substantial minority of leg men that like thick, muscular legs. Depraved heretics obviously. So not all leg men have the taste you assume. I have the “classic” taste you describe though.
“Yet, tall women are objectively less attractive because their proportions are unfavorable compared to short women. This is why the biggest porn stars tend to be short and petite. Madison Ivy is below 5′, for instance.”
How are they “objectively” less attractive if plenty of guys find them more attractive? I much prefer the proportions of taller women. They look more sleek and elegant, whereas short women often look odd to me. No matter how thin they are everything looks squashed and unnatural. I can’t date short women without wishing they were taller.
I also dislike how short porn stars usually are and this is one of the reasons I don’t watch much porn. Very few porn stars have the kind of body that appeals most to me.
“On a petite woman, a nice set of tits looks spectacularly big. A tall one, on the other hand, would need impossibly large implants to get a similar effect. I’d say that this is only a poor approximation anyway because she can’t make her bones shrink so you end up with a somewhat unwieldy woman in the bedroom whereas a petit one you can throw around on the bed to your heart’s content. (Yup, women are into this!)”
This assumes one cares about boob size. If everything else is great a woman can be flat chested for all I care. Nice boobs are just a bonus to me.
And taller women appeal more to me for throwing around too. They look like they can handle rougher treatment and give a bit back. And you feel more like a conqueror when you, well, conquer them.
There are always outliers. By and large, though, I think my statements hold. For instance, I don’t think I’ve ever encountered a tall guy who was obsessed with dating tall women while I have met quite a few short men who shared their preference with me, sometimes in bizarre situations, i.e. some midget at a convention gets chummy with you and suddenly shares his preferences with regards to women.
The general beauty ideal for women is the hourglass figure. A shorter woman has a much easier time reaching that while it is next to impossible for a tall woman. In colloquial German those women are referred to as “surfboards”, which is really fitting: tall, no pronounced hourglass figure, slim, no boobs or ass to speak of.
Short women appeal to your protective instinct. Tall women don’t. I don’t think anyone disputes this. Also, short women are easer to “dominate” in the bedroom because they weigh less, ceteris paribus.
“The general beauty ideal for women is the hourglass figure. A shorter woman has a much easier time reaching that while it is next to impossible for a tall woman. In colloquial German those women are referred to as “surfboards”, which is really fitting: tall, no pronounced hourglass figure, slim, no boobs or ass to speak of.”
As you said in your original post though, this is subject to men’s individual preferences. You obviously care much more about the curves, the boobs and the ass than I do, so you want that hourglass figure and don’t find as many tall women appealing. I’m much more interested in long legs and a slender figure, so I prefer tall women and don’t care about boob size at all. I actually prefer those “surfboards” to short women…
I also want to point out that there is definitely a very small supply of women with great legs (for leg men). I think a woman needs to be at least 5 ft 6 (usually 5 ft 8 +) to have nice legs. Of the women that are tall enough plenty aren’t slim enough due to our increasingly fat societies. Then even if a woman is tall enough and thin enough she needs to be blessed with the right proportions; I’ve known girls that were tall enough but had proportionally longer torsos and shorter legs.
I thought of an example of a tall, leggy woman that I know you found very appealing: Taylor Swift in her prime. I think most leg men are in to that kind of body type.
“Short women appeal to your protective instinct. Tall women don’t. I don’t think anyone disputes this. Also, short women are easer to “dominate” in the bedroom because they weigh less, ceteris paribus.”
Tall women appeal to your protective instinct too (they’re still women) just in a different way I find. Short women seem like they need looking after in a similar way to children or small animals. Tall, beautiful women appeal to your protective instinct in a similar way to an exotic pet or expensive work of art. In any case, I don’t really want to be a woman’s “protector” in the traditional way and actually find it kind of annoying when girls I’m dating try to appeal to my protective instinct. Maybe I’m just weird.
I agree that short women are easier to dominate in the bedroom but this is precisely why I prefer to dominate a tall woman, the extra challenge is exciting to me.
Looks are more important than height.
Better to be 5’ 7 and handsome than 6’0 and not attractive.
Granted, there’s a cut off somewhere. Being handsome but only being like 3 feet tall for example.
Even if Tom Cruise wasn’t famous or wealthy, him being handsome definitely counts for something.
Very few men are handsome. If you’re somewhat good looking and 5’7″, you’ll have a hard time competing with a guy who is 6″ or above but with more average facial features.
Aaron, for what it’s worth, I am 5’6″ so for that reason I am always going to be a beta at best–I definitely don’t prefer the “surfboard” body type (albeit I don’t totally rule it out). In fact that is my least favorite body type.
My preference is voluptuous, curvy women. Height is irrelevant but I suppose I very mildly prefer my own height. I go for round youthful faces, straight dark hair, and full figures–you would likely say overweight. I like boobs especially but also wide hips/rear, and I love a squishy belly (not a hanging pannus of fat).
I have heard that poorer men prefer this type, and I have always been of limited means–and that wealthier men prefer trimmer partners and smaller breasts. I can see why this would make sense but I would appreciate your take.