We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Thursday, October 9. 2014
I know how complicated a question that is. Are we talking about a date, a party conversation, a friend, a one night stand, friends with benefits, a husband's pal, an affair, a boy-toy, a potential marriage, etc?
If one is fortunate enough to be an appealing female, you know that all men will consider the notion of having a romp with you. They can't help it. Indeed, it is a no-brainer. You are a love-or-sex object before they even know you. Your Mom taught you that oafs want their hands on your body, creeps want to sneak into your head, and gentlemen try not to be either oaf or creep.
Women do live in a somewhat different mental world from men. As a shrink, I know both worlds. I know that many women find physical attractiveness appealing, tall guys with masculine physiques and regular features, etc., but I'm not asking about that, or that alone. And I am not asking about "marriageable," with its implications of good prospects, money, breeding, cultural affinity, intelligence, knowledge, skill sets, potential to make a good parent/mate, etc. Seductive expert men who try to get into your head? Red flag, always - those are would-be Bill Clinton types. Many women are drawn to charming sociopaths, and they know it because it connects with their own flaws. Been there in youth, done that, recovered, as have so many young women.
I am just asking about general "appealing," like somebody you want to talk to at a party and feel drawn to. Readers know that I have always loved Atticus Finch and that I married the closest I could find who also had good genes, who has effortfully made a lot of money while I pursued my medical calling, and been a great dad, a very hard-worker, a boy scout, and a loving and loyal husband despite his own difficult imperfections. Lucky me.
I will start it off:
The traits I find quickly appealing and charming in men are courage, honor, manliness, humor, shyness, but a confident attitude towards life and an easy, relaxed deportment which says that they are comfortable in their skin. They like to play sports and to play with power tools, books, and guns. Those things are instantly appealing to women like me, chemically. You do not have to mate with them, but I can just like it the way you like that chocolate dessert that you do not need and will not eat. We are not animals, but we do enjoy some people more than others. Decent men are the same way with the charming women they meet and enjoy. Normal guys who are out in the world develop instant crushes several times daily just from a chemical reaction.
How about you ladies? What appeals to you, in guys?
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
*sense of humor - but more 'wit' than 'humor,' since men think toilet and sex jokes are 'humorous.'
*taller than me (I'm pretty tall)
*muscular build, but not overdone (do not like huge muscles and veins...ick!)
*goal-oriented and achieves those goals
*strong-but-silent type (I can trust he will protect me, but he's not a loudmouth jerk that flips off someone who cuts him off on the freeway)
Sense of humor (and yes, I agree with MissT - "wit" rather than juvenile potty humor). And I like talkers - I'm not crazy about the silent types. I remember many dates where I was searching for some common interest to talk about and just got "Yep" and "Nope" for answers.
Manliness and confidence.
I love baseball - I always have something to talk about with fellow baseball fans!
Physically (not as important as non-physical qualities):
I've always been a sucker for the dark hair/blue eyes combo - and yet most of my boyfriends have been blonds (again, that's not really that important to me.)
LOL on the 'silent.' I didn't mean completely not talking to me! What I meant was, I don't want a man who gabs like a woman and constantly talks over me. ;-)
Ladies, please: Be honest! Really honest.
Too many studies have established that most women prefer "bad boys, with an aloof, smart-*ss attitude", so don't give us the old fashioned, "I want a chivalrous, Prince Charming" routine.
I'm not buying what you're currently trying to sell.
Um, Earl, I believe that those studies asked rather young women about their preferences.
With a bit of luck, some of us actually live to grow up, and with a bit of time, we become more sensible...
Earl, you've been reading too much about bimbos and stupid dames.
Bimbos aren't the typical woman, they just get more press.
Stupid dames aren't the typical woman, they just get more press.
"Studies" don't talk to the typical woman, only bimbos and stupid dames.
The typical woman does not have time to take part in those idiotic studies, anyway.
Earl, I'm with ya'.
And my experience is personal, not from the Press.
I have had two different women tell me:
I can't date you, you drive a USED car!!!
You are too funny and nice, you're not the 'marrying' kind of guy.(This when I was buying flowers to thank the Vet who 'fixed' my dog)
And if I had a dime for every time I heard......."You are like a brother; you are sooooo nice; you are too nice; and my personal favorite.........you aren't complicated enough!
Sorry, people but all I see is a major disconnect between what is SAID and what is pursued.
OK, my first quick thoughts of what I find appealing...
Because I am tall, the first thing I notice is height. I also like a man not to be too slim, even a little weight is ok. Next, I like humor, honesty, and confidence. I do notice clothes if the occasion requires dressing up, but not to a fashion model extent. Old fashioned politeness and deference for a lady is super attractive to me. (Maybe because I am older and have always been treated that way.) If it gets that far, I like a man to be able to use tools and repair small things or change a flat.
Earl, I really was never attracted to the bad boys. They were a little scary, I think. Sometimes I was attracted for a short time to the geeks and nerds, but they didn't hold my interest.
Maybe the smart... attitude could be mistaken for confidence for a while.
sense of humor - don't have to be a clown, just a sense of humor.
down to earth
It depends on the age of the woman and her situation. I think younger women want an attractive man that their friends will approve of and/or be jealous of. I think an older woman wants a "good" man who she can control. She would pass up a "great" man if she couldn't control him. I would say more about this but my wife has just informed me it is time to make dinner.
Intelligence and independence of mind, and an attraction to the same in a woman.
A sharp sense of the ridiculous.
No primping or over-manicuring.
Instinctive resistance to being pushed around.
Enough humility to allow for thoughtfulness about new information, but no dithering. When he makes a decision, he should have follow-through.
Your answer agrees with Churchill.
Courage is rightly esteemed the first of human qualities... because it is the quality which guarantees all others.
I am amazed how much I agree with the women who have already posted here. Witty, definitely. I can be seduced by a fine sense of humor. I find self-confidence very appealing. Not the sort of strutting egotism and self-importance too many men display, but an air of being at ease with himself and his abilities. He has to be taller than me and not super skinny. A deep voice and a wide mouth are also appealing. Some men just smell right to me - pheromones I guess.
No attraction to fast talking bad boys, ugh.
Ditto the qualities listed by Dr. Joy Bliss +
Confident masculinity (=my husband)
Strong, silent type (honest)(=my husband)
Rugged (=my husband)
Funny (=my husband)
Relaxed (/=/ not my husband, darn it)
I quote Mark Steyn, hosting Rush on April 1, 2011 :
"Women always say they’re looking for a sense of humor, but they never actually are, Valarie, believe me."
You have to imagine the scene. I've been there myself.
"There has to be more to our relationship than just laughing at jokes."
Cavell says that the male failing is skepticism ("how do I know that ...") the quest for unconditioned certainty without seeing the contingent conditions that make certainty what it in fact is.
The female failing is the search for true love without seeing the contingent conditions that make love what it is. What Kant calls fanaticism.
http://tinyurl.com/jvg3g23 (go up and down a few pages)
Philosophy does not arise for women.
My theory of men and women is based on a three step loop which repeats forever.
1. Woman sends man on a quest, which serves to test his devotion.
2. Man likes to be sent on quests, but being average on the average will sometimes screw up.
3. Woman shows man that she's satisfied with him.
A lot said above has to do with man fitting into his role in the loop.
Where does feminism come from? It starts with the quest but not directed at any man in particular, so it goes no further. Something is wrong and men have to change to fix it. All there is is demands.
Nagging is steps 1 and 2 only, without 3.
All are a female inclination starting with 1.
The wild success of Get Smart in the 60s was from Barbara Feldon always reaching step 3. American men were in love with her for that. She wasn't particularly hot, or actually was ridiculous as hot. It was all about showing she was satisfied with Max.
So I'd say women want, in various guises, a man who will go on quests for her, so she can send him.
Interesting observation, and if I may, one that lives in the domain of ideal and principle and does not, like many of all the female posters in this thread allude, exist on an options list of peripheral features like the window sticker in a car lot.
Some of you ladies need to rethink that paradigm.
Imagine had I, a male, said about my attraction to females that included only nice ass, long legs, a beguiling smile, and flowing hair? Or even femininity, social graces, and ability in the kitchen or bedroom?
Yet you see men for peripheral abilities or even physical traits? If he rumbles, is taller, and makes you laugh?
I'm confirmed in my view that women are fairly incapable of idealizing a relationship, which, not surprisingly, lowers expectations by men that they'll, unlike the Feldon character, ever join them in idealizing the relationship for what it is, which is a tripod of him, her, and it.
"It" is the external, verifiable, recognized and agreed foundation by which any relationship thrives or dies.
So ladies, as long as you see us men as implements and our characteristics as features that serve only your ways, means, and ends, naturally that's what we'll reflect back, or less. For my part, having known two narcissistic women well, and having gone to all lengths on their behalf, I shall thoroughly and unfailingly idealize the relationship and I shall expect you do the same.
I shall hold you chest and waist in somewhat less esteem.
Odds are high I'll die alone, of course, but I will not be an disposable automobile or house or closet of clothes either, and that's a cost I can live with.
If you're dependent, then be dependent, starting with understanding that you can send us to the ends of the earth and back as many times as you wish, but that once you devalue that idealism in us and make it your own unilateral manipulation, and therefore your temporary utility - which is a broken contract we want no part of - naturally we're done too.
At that point you do not either love or ideal us, because you have rejected our honor and fidelity and replaced it with that set of childish whims - that fairy tale man; that artist's cover on a trashy romantic paperback.
I prefer to see you as my equal. Are you woman enough to see yourself that way too?
A lot of theories here from men who claim to know what women find attractive, strangely disassociated from what the women report.
It's the cause of a lot of frustration and resentment, this idea of not meeting a kind of secret standard. The truth is, we don't generally want a guy who's always trying to live up to our mysterious, unattainable ideals. We want a guy who knows who he is and has his own moral compass.
If a guy is going to focus intensely on what I want him to be like, which is a somewhat risky business to begin with, it's really important for him to listen instead of making up what he imagines I want. That's just a way for two people to drive each other crazy.
So he absolutely must listen to something neither of you can possibly understand or work with; this mysterious unattainability, yet not listening is what you functionally expect from him if he's a capable man.
I'm significantly less interested in unraveling how you legitimately blame men for not rejecting your irrationality than I am in knowing if you have the ability to self-correct that it. You're blaming from both sides of the same coin.
The corrected paradigm is not just if women will meet and treat men as equals, but if they grasp that we won't live in a constant anxiety while you shift emotionally from pillar to post, expecting us to adapt and conform to thin air while you perpetually consider your exit strategy.
If you're that dependent, accept that we've already accepted it as a condition of knowing you. It's in our DNA and we're well able to idealize both our relationship with you and you yourself for it.
Wow. I couldn't make sense of a single word of either of your posts, but they sounded really unhappy.
And you ladies know how to deny us men.
Thing is that of the two genders one makes rational sense and appeals to verifiability and equality, while the other appeals to its own admittedly obscured, unrealized emotions.
So, you know, have some grace and drop the pretense of adult accountability. We're more than able and willing to accept you for who you are.
2) Strong character, including a willingness to stand up for justice
3) Low voice
4) Taller than me
To Earl and the other guys who think women all want "bad boys." Yes, I suppose that was true when I was 16. But my idea of a bad boy then was a guy who smoked, had a fake ID so he could buy beer and drove a little - but not too fast. Times have changed. And I grew up.
One problem is that some men do not seem able to distinguish between "strong" and "jerk" and "nice" and "wimp." I've been turned off by jerks who, trying to impress me with their alpha male creds, bragged about their income and treated waiters and other "little people" like garbage. But I was also unimpressed by the guys who strove so hard to be "nice" that they came across as indecisive betas.
Nothing drove me nuttier than conversations like this:
Him: Hi, want to do something tonight?
Him: Whatever you want to do.
Me: I don't know. Go to dinner?
Him: OK. Where do you want to go?
Me: I don't know. Where do you want to go?
Him: Whereever you want to go.
By this point, I'm gritting my teeth. YOU called for the date, and you're making me plan the evening for you? That's the sort of thing many men seem to think will win them brownie points for being considerate. NO! We want some decisiveness and authority from you. That doesn't mean we want guys who will slap us around or yell at the waiter if the steak is too well done.
He's interested in spending time with you. He's probably willing to pick you up and drop you off and to pay. He's interested in pleasing you and so he wants to know what you'd like. He asks for your point of view because he values it.
Sounds like he values you.
And this makes you nuttier than normal so you grit your teeth. You just must be offended because he, after all this, actually had the presumed but unspoken role of sweeping you away to some event he could then risk your hidden displeasure over because you couldn't be bothered to participate in a conversation like an adult.
This of course means he's spineless and manipulative, but at the same time he must never ever go a little too far being decisive and commandeering.
He's supposed to divine all this, somehow, because you're worth it.
A guy who doesn't suffer fools well appeals to me. He's less likely to dole out B.S. if he ain't takin' any. Also, guys like that are funny and don't think they are. That's awesome.
"He's supposed to divine all this, somehow, because you're worth it."
The guy was not supposed to divine anything. He's supposed to call me up and say, "Hey, you want to go a concert or dinner (fill in the blank) tonight?" He's the one making the date - so what's the game plan here? It never really mattered what he wanted to do, I went to events on dates that I wouldn't have chosen to go to on my own or with girlfriends, and much of the time, I had fun.
But calling me and then being wishy-washy, yeah, that is a big turnoff.
Please stop telling me what I "really" think. Women here are saying what they like and appreciate about men, and you're here to tell us we're all liars and you know what we really want.
Obviously I didn't tell you what you wanted - neither of us could possibly comprehend that. I told you that, in effect, you were behaving like an irrational prima donna.
From there it's a small step to grasping why men are dropping out of narcissistic feminized culture in droves.
Interesting to read the responses from "regular" women who disagree with your perceptive "red pill" posts.
Certainly they all gave up "bad boys" years ago and now want just decent guys (mostly as sperm depositories and ATMs , of course) and they want them with benefits: tall, sense of humor, good teeth, strong resemblance to George Clooney....
How do such sensible women justify initiating 70% of all divorces? Divorce being a device that impoverishes and destroys those decent guys they claim to love so much, while enriching those same said women, so they can pursue the next alpha that gives them the tingles.
The solipsism, self-rationalization and self-centeredness of women is too obvious! (from a guy married to a nice gal and wonderful mother, for 30+ years)
Agreed Earl. Add to that the fact that women enjoy some 90% of custody agreements, sixty percent of college enrollment, at least five rights men cannot have, tens of percent less death by violence or danger, a good half dozen years longer lifespan, billions of dollars a year in wealth redistribution from men, entire governmental aid programs, and through it all that perpetual chip on their shoulders about how inferior/oppressive/unfair/stupid male culture is such that the world must be gifted with scores of these unnatural women-only organizations, policies, and ideologies.
The Patriarchy is not the only sexist clan on Earth, as it turns out.
Then take a look at the comment from Di, below this one. From my mention of having known two narcissists, she concludes I find all women narcissistic. I'm not sure whether to defend against the latest non starter or just let her continue to display just that rank irrationality, the irrationality that sadly more and more men find too common among women.
Of course, I enjoy inflatable dolls too, and this acute deconstruction of my real, statistical observation of the effects of real feminine behavior presumably Di expects to deploy defend that gender. Seems inadequate, somehow.
So there we have it all over again. Dislike the tone, reject the facts, get personal, and completely miss the point, which in my comments has simply been that as much as I adore women and idealize relationships with them, many of their recourses to love and unconditionality is to find a way to eventually express their selfish hysteria and ruin things.
Which brings us back to rhhardin's theory above.
I just invited my gentleman caller (who does not look like George Clooney - where did Earl get that from these comments? Who said that? - but is manly, intelligent and funny) over to grill steaks and watch the playoffs. I am anticipating a very pleasant Saturday night. C'mon Orioles!
I will leave you to stew about awful "narcissistic" women and prima donnas. You have had 2 dreadful relationships, so, well, what else is there to say? Mr. Rationality has our number.
Enjoy your weekend. Perhaps someday your dream woman will come along - and she won't be one you have to inflate with a bicycle pump.
I agree with you about the wishy-washiness. It's one thing to be flexible, and another not to take ownership of your own desires to begin with, which is the first step in all real negotiation and generosity, not to mention intimacy. And then the next step is: if you want to learn, listen. (If you don't want to learn, don't complain of being mystified!)
The desirable traits most women are posting about here are pretty similar. They're not exactly pie-in-the-sky, either, are they? I mean, I meet guys with these qualities all the time. They're as welcome in friends and neighbors as they are in my excellent husband.
If you really want to know something more than anecdotal blather, go to the following 2 sources:
Then read the book:
"What Women Want - What Men Want, Why the Sexes Still See Love & Commitment so Differently, by John Townsend.
Cut to the chase:
Men want - youthful beauty, a sweet disposition, adoration, and attention.
Women want - resources, power, wealth or income, status, plus a long list of other things of lesser importance like humor, height, attractiveness, etc.
Nonsense, Maddog. That view is an antiquated biology-centric fiction driven by smug psuedo-enlightened scientific literalists. It short circuits mind and soul as much as secular progressive humanism does rational thought and accountability.
It's a component, not the whole phenomenon, especially where human awareness enters.
This doesn't stop plenty of rock-ribbed individualists claiming to be somewhere on the libertarian-conservative axis accepting it, including some who write here, but it always amuses me because it flies in the face of most of the rest of the sound thinking on that axis. I suspect it's the need to be all open minded and contemporary appearing to the left.
There is, of course, quite a bit more to it.
Absolutely. If you want to know what women want, whatever you do, don't ask some women and listen to the answers--that would be anecdotal blather. Go to a website written by a guy and a book written by another guy: no anecdotes, no blather.
Whatever works for you.
Like millions of others, I was impressed by "The Road Less Traveled." My admiration for Scott Peck took a hit when he called Al Gore's "Earth in the Balance" "an almost holy book."
It took another big hit when it was revealed that Peck was a serial philanderer who had numerous affairs with both men and women. Yes, life is difficult. Peck made it even more difficult for those who were close to him. Peck said some wise things, but I don't know that I'd use him as my go-to guy when it comes to figuring out relationships.
As Texan99 said, don't listen to what actual women tell you. Sit among yourselves and tell each other what you think women want. That method is also used by radical feminists who tell each other what men are like and they're a notably happy bunch, aren't they?
Your ability to throw out non sequiturs is challenged only by your deft use of the reply function, placing comments out of sequence and context.
Of course, I didn't cite Peck as an authority on relationships. I referred to his use of a previous hierarchy of the levels of actualization of mind as a rebuttal of the behavior-by-hormone rubbish trotted out of secular scientific literalists.
Your pot shots don't constitute Di.
And your insults and condescending attitude constitute debate. Yep. Got it.
You mentioned failed relationships with 2 narcissistic women. If they were in fact narcissistic (since your definition of narcissism seems to be "women who disagree with me and fail to meet my expectations") well, it appears they weren't the only narcissists in the relationship.
Good day to you.
Virtually every comment you make is based on a fallacy, Di, each one different. That's dishonest.
I'd say you're taking an ego position.
I find it interesting that a couple of the commenters profess to not want bad boys and then turn around and unknowingly describe that kind of behavior as desirable.
For example, warriors are men of violence by definition. Ergo they are bad boys.
The man who doesn't care what a woman thinks can also be described as a bad boy.
A couple of the commenters say they were attracted to bad boys in their youth but have "outgrown" them.
It has long been shown that women compete for the alpha males. They want to be bred by the alpha males, men who have socio-economic power, prestige and or great physical strength, and then find a beta male to help them raise the offspring.
And the time to be attracted to such a man is when the eggs are pristine, the woman is young and in the best physical condition to bear children.
I like to think there's a place where women who don't get the creeps about men who think this way can be very happy with them. Keep them out of circulation as long as possible, or at least as long as the women are still pristine.