Agree or disagree? the level of physical attraction we feel is determined by..

Well I wasn't going to post anything else on this but I did a quick search on pheromones.

quote from cnn.com:

According to an article in "Psychology Today," how our body odors are perceived as pleasant and sexy to another person is a highly selective process. We usually smell best to a person whose genetically based immunity to disease differs most from our own. This could benefit you in the long run, making for stronger, healthier children.

Once again our primitive part of our brain according to this idea is making other people smell better to us without our intellectual part of our brain necessarily being aware of it. Actually I've had several dancers tell me I smell good and I'm still not sure why because I don't put any cologne on. I never really thought a dancer might look good to me because my primitive part of my brain thinks she could produce genetically superior children when combined with my genes.

I can see an attractive woman on stage and be turned off if she has a hairdo that dates back a couple of decades. 20 years ago I might have found her really hot. Can my primitive brain be all that primitive if my tastes change and evolve?

I agree with Pete22 - I have seen otherwise very attractive women (IMO) but was turned off by a funky hairdo, a really ugly outfit, etc. The attraction has much more to do with social learning & influence than it does with a primitive brain response.

And I'm certainly not looking at hot women for breeding stock!

CG: I simply call your rather lengthy explaination as "thinking with your lower head" (some may disagree w. term little head, hence my somewhat pc alternative)

If she's attractive (young, reasonably fit, cute, nice smile, friendly manner) the level of attraction I feel is determined by (a) how lonely (or horney) I am and (b) how much alcohol I've consumed.

"I tend to believe our more primitive brain is programmed to spread our genes with as many good looking females as we can but that is suppressed by our newer conscious intellectual brains."

True, fertile instead of "good looking" would make it more accurate, even though genes would prioritize the most fertile women in terms of order of mating, and "good looking" (e.g more symetrical features) in modern parlance would generally be interpreted at the genetic level as being more fertile

As for conscious suppression of seed dispersal, that not surprisingly has little impact on innate desire, such suppression in this case would simply be a form of wishful thinking to (among other things) adhere to societal expectations , the same way a woman wishes and hopes she can meet a monogamous "nice guy"

2 points:

1. Accepting the idea that male nonmonogamy and widescale seed spreading was the evolutionary norm for the most successful males, if not most males -that is not particuarly controversial

2. As for the next issue whether women innately are attracted (due to some genetic predispostion) to nonmonogamous males. I would say all things equal, yes little doubt of this

In fact logic tells us it seem highly unusual for women NOT to be attracted to the very (million plus year) norm that had the most success keeping the species going - namely widescale male seed dispersal

Womens "choice" in mates will generally follow their DNA programming and (in the way genes look at it) - mating with monogamous males is a high risk strategy. Now of course its all about PERCEPTION and w/o any doubt today the typical monogamous male might have roughly the same odds of moving those (the female's) genes forward as the nonmonogamous male. However genes being very very slow to change, would not typically understand this any of this, and would be operating at an earlier and dominant in time - primoridial period

"I simply call your rather lengthy explaination as "thinking with your lower head"

No doubt, but correspondingly I would argue that women in terms of the way they are attracted to men - are doing the same thing even though they carry out this charade that they are so civilized. This is part of the same explanation why one can convincingly argue that women in general are operating off their basic primordial urges when they have deep urges to mate with - controlling, deceptive, nonmonogamous and at times even violent - males

All these type arguments tend to have a very natural symmetry: for example one might say "yes, most men make decisions off their little head, and women (using their little, lets say clit) tend NOT to be attracted to men that DON'T make decision off their little head" Such men are sometimes referred to as "nice guys"

There is something about the hair that can be attractive or unattractive. I'm not sure why that is. I do know all my sisters are brunettes and I find blondes to look better. It doesn't seem to make much sense to me unless I reason that my primitive brain senses a greater difference in genes. The same girl will look better to me a lot of the time if she has blonde hair instead of brown. I tend to believe our more primitive brains have a lot of influence over who we are attracted to. However I guess more recent experiences could alter that perception. ie you remember having some hot times with brunettes and you suddenly feel very attracted to or turned on by brunettes as a result. That may have something to do with endorphines getting released in your brain associated with memories. I'm not really sure though. I think much of what everyone does is following some very old attraction laws that evolved in our brains long ago. If someone does something different, they may have learned how to break away from their more animalistic urges. I'm only speaking about my opinion of the male brain. I'm not sure how similiar the primitive female brain may work. I suppose females want a dominant male but also able to provide and care for her. The so called alpha male seems to attract women easily. He may not be the nicest guy around but he's dominant and seems to be in charge. I'm not really sure though, some women seem to like being the boss around the house and telling their husbands all the work that needs to be done. Maybe being attracted to the dominant male is all a ruse until they get married and then she changes. Just speculating.

I'd have to say attraction for me is at least 75% "biological." There are females that are strong beauty standards from other cultures, whom I DO find beautiful, and in general there's a wide range of shared characteristics, culture to culture. But there are just some characteristics that I can't grasp -- the freaky long necks of those giraffe women with bands of gold around their clavicles from Burma, for example; the preference for hairy cheeks in Goa; the super-duper-large buttocks of West Africa (steatopygia, say it three times fast). The females I prefer, in terms of looks, are prototypically late-adolescent, vivacious-appearing, slender, elongated, perky. The website domai.com generally represents this type quite accurately in nearly all its models for me (though the photos themselves aren't particularly 'sexy' when you come right down to it, just girls nude outdoors mostly).

I think in the long run the more you LET it be biological, the happier you are. When you start going for a girl that you're "trained" to like -- for example someone with a lot of makeup which under low-light conditions might "fool" you into thinking is smooth complexion, but who actually isn't particularly "naturally" appealing -- you end up trying to fulfill society's "shoulds and shouldn'ts." I notice a set of females who appeal to me, but who are not stone-cold-solid 10s in our culture. Generally I not only really like their looks despite my culture's lessons otherwise; but also I "magically" turn out to like their ATTITUDES and minds more, as well. And conversely for them, if they're "my type" then I tend to be "their type" too. Must be something to that ... pheromones or immune systems matching, or something. So when I find a personal 10 whom everyone else rates as "only" a 7, I know I've got a better chance.

Still not getting anywhere with them, but at least it's a step in the right direction. :P

About 100% genes for me. What I like in a woman has been constant since I was a teenager. Short, slim, excellent skin and teeth. Clear eyes. Lips a little full to very full. Tall and full set women have almost no attraction for me. Yes, they can work at creating an attraction . . . it isn't the same. Oh yes, how could I forget . . . the teeth can have braces which for whatever reason I find very attractive. The gold teeth and the like (tats/branding) are pretty much a turn off. Although I've see a few funny tats or sick tats that were nice . . . like the girl with "White Boy's Money" tattooed large on her back, another young woman with property of so and so tattoed above her chest, etc.

Paging Dr. Phil. Dr. Phil to the white courtesy phone....

I sometimes wonder what might be in my genes when I see a picture of a pretty girl on a book cover with 2 nice long sharp eye teeth but she looks sexy. I believe just a few hundred years ago, some of my ancestors were called Barbarians by the Roman Empire. The Romans just couldn't beat them in battle so they gave them a bad name. Someone once jokingly called me the last of the Vikings, instead of laughing, I started wondering if I might have some Viking blood in me. I thought it wasn't a bad fantasy to see yourself as a Viking in a strip club, looting all the booty.

Look at 2 different pictures of the same sexy chick. The first picture is a front shot totally nude. The second picture is with her ass turned toward the camera

Which picture would most males consider sexier?

Number 2 because it exactly equates the the standard evolutionary mating position, with genes mattering way more than a modern civilized construct, in this case the "missionay position"

Of course for women the missionary position itself in female orgasmic terms is highly disadvantageous compared to doggy/ape style (or on their stomachs with butt slightly up). Evolution once again talking. The dominant timeframe wins

Dr. Phil. LOL! :)

I've only seen him a couple times . . . my gut reaction was negative. Seemed like a holy than thou prick. Of course, I don't care for Oprah either. The real slime ball was that guy from Cinncinati (sp?). Donohugh (sp?) put on a nice show although for the most I didn't appreciate his political views.

This one dancer with the braces cut me off after just under 20 dances. I asked her if I had done anything wrong. She says no, you just like me too much and have bought too many dances. Another guy came up and wanted to buy and she said she needed about a 3 dance rest, which shocked him and me.

I didn't get the Dr. Phil reference. Why did he get mentioned? Explain plz ... :( ...

I thought the Dr. Phil reference basically mean't you need help and fast---- Either the strippers for wanting to be branded or tatted with idiocy or me for liking certain classes of women i.e. women with braces or sick tats or women that are too young looking.

I was watching this promo that kept comming up recently. This cop was interrogating young man and stated what type of 22 old man likes 16 year old virgins? The answer is supposed to be a sicko pedophile, of course. I was thinking a normal healthy man. Times change. And, a lot of it has to do with attacking males and promoting more government.

I should have written or both. :)

Jablake: As the saying goes, there wouldn't be a need for a law against a grown man having sex with a young, nubile girl (I'm talking 16+, for clarification) if it was something that most men didn't want. The fact is, we DO want that!

Cultural norms change. Women in combat would have been considered dishonorable not too long ago and now we're supposed to consider them heroes. Also, there was nothing wrong with a man wanting a young bride to build a family with. Now, the woman is more properly viewed as a career woman i.e. wage slave-- also, that would have been considered dishonorable not too long ago. Fortunately or not most people gladly adopted whatever beliefs the media or government commands.

the level of physical attraction "I" feel is determined by..

1. $$$$$$$
2. hornyness
3. $$$$$$$
4. lonliness
5. $$$$$$$
6. willingness
7. $$$$$$$

I'm glad to see that the equivalency "career [person]" : "wage slave" is not seen as counterintuitive. I agree with it too. Sad that a career is no better than "what you have to do to pay the bills" but American employers have driven it there.

I understand exactly what you mean BG! I think.

I don't understand at all what you mean, Bones. That you're attracted to women with $$$$$$$? Or that you're attracted when you have $$$$$$$ to spend on a woman?

Latter sir.

I do sometimes find that I "get horny" if I have a fistful of dollars, too. I remember one occasion when I ended up getting twice as much money as I had thought I was going to get out of the ATM. I think it went something like this. On Friday I thought I was going to go mongering, so in the early afternoon I went to an ATM and got the maximum. Then something came up, so I didn't go mongering. So then I planned to go on Saturday, so first thing in the morning, having forgotten that I'd already made a withdrawal, I went straight to an ATM and got the max again. So there I was with double the max in my pocket.

The presence of all that "extra" cash simply fueled my fire to get lappers. I didn't actually end up spending any more than I usually would have at a strip club, but it was somehow "more exciting" because I had this big buffer sitting below me. I could really blow it IF I WANTED TO. I didn't actually end up blowing it all, but somehow there was extra excitement just because of extra cash on hand.

And not, extra cash in the bank -- there have been plenty of times when I got a big check, but didn't cash it. I just deposited it. It's not a question of having a high or low available bank balance. It's a question of having a thick or thin wad of $20s directly in my pocket.

Weird? Am I dysfunctional? My horniness is directly proportional to cash on hand! Hey, I have something in common with the dancers after all! :)

OK, now I see what you're saying. Sort of like, "It's payday. Let's party hard!" I don't exactly identify, because I've disciplined myself not to let my spend be dependent upon how much I have on me. In other words, I try to always carry more than I would ever need, and to spend it according to how hot the girl and the dances are, not to blow it just cause I have it. However, if I were broke and I saw a really hot girl, I would still feel just as attracted to her. It wouldn't be like, "Oh, she's nothing special, since I'm short on cash." Thus, my complete puzzlement at Bones' $$$$$$$.

whew!