In Tiffany’s post (which we’ll call bait) she claims that physical attraction may not be as important as we have been lead to believe. Of course, she makes this claim after “Carefully inspecting” photographs of sex symbols. If physical appearance is as unimportant as she claims, I have to wonder why lingerie and gym memberships are so popular. If it is all about personality, I would think that self-help books would outsell plastic surgery. Plus, I don’t think that Fabio or Robert Pattinson would have such big careers.
Here’s the thing (and this doesn’t happen often), on some level I agree with her. For women, attraction works differently because they have more of an investment in sex. A man can simply have sex and not even call the next day. I’ve heard rumors that this happens. But women may have to raise a child that results from sex. There is more for them to consider and that typically involves “status” more than physical appearance. Women want a man who can provide for a family. Women don’t set out to have a child who struggles with school and may never have a job.
Here’s the problem that I have with what Tiffany claims: This was going on before humans could verbally communicate. If you go back in time, before you could read the hieroglyphics on the wall, how did women choose a mate? How did they know who would be a good provider if not for physical appearance? Prehistoric women must have based their decisions on biceps or the size of a mans club. And those instincts are still hard wired into the female brain.
I guess my thought is that looks may not open the door for you but they put the door in what would otherwise be a wall. We all have certain physical characteristics that appeal to us. That’s makes us think that we have a certain type. My teenage daughter may have said it best, “If I’m trying to decide whether or not I want to date a boy, his appearance might help me make that decision faster.” Hmm, like within the first ten minutes that they allow in a speed dating event?
Photo courtesy of Brainsil @iStockPhoto
Appearance certainly plays a role in determining who we will have sex with. And I agree that there are certain cues our brain may read better than we are able to. The Robert Pattinsons are nice to look at but that doesn’t mean he will be a good provider, in fact I would bet that there has been a shift away from the nice body. Anyone who looks that good probably is more interested in playing the field a lot.
I wouldn’t say that there is one look that all women are attracted to and that the guy with the GQ looks isn’t necessarily going to get all the girls because A) he looks too high maintenance, B) He seems out of our league C) probably has a really small penis because of the steroids he used to get that great looking body.
I think it’s safe to say that Robert Pattinson would be a good provider but I know what you mean. Just because a man is attractive doesn’t mean that you won’t be supporting him financially. He could care about his looks in an effort to get a sugar momma.
I’ve actually had the debate about the guys with the GQ look. More specifically, “metrosexuals”. While some women like a man with soft skin and a clean shave, others find that to be a bit girlie. There is no “one size fits all” when it comes to attraction. And yes, I said “size” because it seems that it actually does matter.