I’m curious as to whether the OP is male or female. I admit that I have not fully read every post here to find out.
But if you’re male, then dude, your OP is the epitome of mansplaining. And you’re wrong.
If you’re female, you’re trying to speak for all women and this thread makes it clear that you’re wrong.
Sorry. Didn’t see the mod note.
This does not explain why some women fall for losers, lotharios, miscreants and violent psychopaths. Attraction is completely subjective.
If we are to believe what women tell us, they absolutely DO find men they do not personally know to be sexually attractive. There does seem to be a difference in how they may or may not act on that attraction. But these differences may be due less to biology and more to societal mores and gender roles. Even after the sexual revolution.
But I must ask. Have you really never met a sexually aggressive woman?
Periodically, in this venue or some other venue, someone like gisaaanr comes along and makes a post like this.
There tend to be a handful number of replies in which people reject the sexist assertion that men and women are different in the stated way, and don’t give any credence to the notion that such a difference exists. Let’s call those people “egalitarians”.
There tend to be a substantial number of replies in which people take a nuanced approach: that the differences alleged by the OP (of whatever thread it happens to be) aren’t that absolute, that they’ve been overstated here, that some of the reasons for the observed differences may be social or situational, and that it is misleading to make such a sweeping “men from Mars, women from Venus” type of reductionistic statement. Let’s call them “acknowledgers of difference”. They aren’t saying the observed differences are bullshit, don’t exist, etc, but they aren’t necessarily onboard with attributing them to innate differences.
And then there tend to be a handful of replies in which people state or imply that yes there are built-in differences created by biology or evolution or whatever which are responsible for the differences spoken of by the OP, even if they disagree with some specific things that the OP said. Let’s call these folks “fundamentalists”, in the sense that they believe there’s a fundamental (built-in, innate) difference between the sexes involved here.
———
One of the most difficult concepts I’ve tried to explain is that after a few zillion of these threads, each of which has people replying to them in those ways, one tends to absorb a notion of what the prevailing attitude is. And that prevailing attitude is sort of an “average” of those types of replies and beliefs. And it lies somewhere between egalitarian and not-so-egalitarian, if you see what I mean. Not anywhere close to as fundamentalist as gisaaanr’s assertions lie, mind you, but somewhat more fundamentalist than, say, GreenWyvern, Lorene, Renee, or Chimera would seem to be based on their posts in this thread.
isn’t the ops ranting part of that incel screed on reddit and other dives ?
Grrr. I didn’t want to be accused of junior modding. But since you ask, those posts were mean and not the least bit helpful. Unlike yours. :rolleyes:
You know damn well that I know how to discuss when discussion is warranted. Sometimes what is warranted is a big fat eyeroll. :mad:
ETA: I can be civil to the OP, but not to the other posters. Therefore, I’m outta here.
I’m curious to know how you’ve come to hold these ideas. Of course women can find men sexually attractive before they know them. We have eyes. We have preferences that spark that initial attraction. Like someone else pointed out, your theory doesn’t take into account all the bad boys and losers out there who are quite attractive, but don’t have any intention of becoming a provider of any sort. For example, I give you the ex Mr. BeeGee. I didn’t show interest in him because he had a great job or looked like a provider for the children i never planned on having. No, I saw a tall drink of water with dark hair and a leather jacket. I was hooked.
As a female, I disagree. I have been very sexually attracted to some men based simply on their looks. That doesn’t mean I’m going to jump in the sack with them. And, of course, looks are only one thing. If, hypothetically, I was single and looking for someone, those looks wouldn’t be worth a damn if he couldn’t string together an intelligent sentence or have a sense of humor.
What you’re describing has a very specific name for some people who do indeed believe it to be a human mating strategy: “Alpha Fux, Beta Bux.” Often it’s tied to “red pill” and MRA talking points that are very nihilistic, but I do think the theory may indeed have some science behind it, from an evolutionary standpoint.
I was going to ask a broader version of this question. Free advice: Get to know a wide variety of women (and men, too - we’re not all Barney Stinsons)… and instead of talking at them, listen to them.
That’s how it initially struck me as well. Subsequent posts by OP confirmed that it was cribbed from just that sort of environment.
The obvious insult to women aside, it’s also the implied insult about mens’ inability to control themselves, including their thoughts, around attractive women that irks the fuck out of me.
Tempting! But today is surely my day to be shot from a cannon into a brick wall,* so I will regretfully pass.
I like this part. 
I agree. It takes more than just an attractive body for me to typically want to jump in. I’m not that visual a person, I guess.
There’s definitely a phenomenon there, but how much is innate, and how much is just that most girls grow out of the ‘bad boy’ stage after realising that hot only counts for so much, and a guy who doesn’t need to hide from the police, does his share of the washing up, and doesn’t blow his whole paycheck (on the occasions that he has one) on dumb stuff when the electric bill’s due is actually a far better guy to build a life with. Even if he is tending towards a keg instead of a 6-pack.
I mean, speaking as a woman I can certainly look at a hot guy and get turned on, but it’s not overpowering the effect of the mental ‘jerk klaxon’ if he sets it off. I can appreciate, and imagine, and not touch with a barge pole.
I have friends* who seem to have more difficulty with that, and hop from hot jerk to hot jerk, but they come in all genders, as do the ones who dated hot messes in their youth then settled down with someone less drama prone.
*Mostly they’re not really friends any more, tbh; there’s a limit to how long I can get involved in the unending drama before I’m regretting that you can’t just send people to a nunnery nowadays.
There is related research. You might be interested in “The Myth of Monogamy: Fidelity and Infidelity in Animals and People” by Baldash and Lipton. They spend a lot of time looking at research related to birds making me think of it during Broomstick’s bird references. Just breaking out the difference between social monogamy (forming long-term/lifetime pair bonds) and sexual monogamy was an interesting framework that usually goes missing in these types of discussion.
Why are women attracted to the “bad boys?” Well one really good reason is that while looks might get you a first go 'round it usually takes more than looks to keep a woman around. “Bad boys” are a relationship disaster and they know it, but keeping a woman on the hook is a feather in their cap and has a lot of advantages for the guy. One of the ways they accomplish this is to get really, really good at sex. Most women don’t meet many men who are good at sex so finding one that’s good at it AND hot is freaking magical–for a while. “Nice guys” could learn a thing or two from the “bad boys,” such as where the clitoris is, how to give good oral and learn that it’s no advantage to be able to rub one out in under a minute. If “nice guys” spent as much time and effort learning how to be fun in the sack as they do complaining how women only want “bad boys” they’d get laid a lot more often. Perhaps even getting a second chance at it, even.
The problem with this theory - along with that pushed by another poster who a couple years ago once said something to the effect of, “An ugly woman can overcome her ugliness disadvantage by giving really good blowjobs” - is that you can’t even get to the “laid” part without having been attractive in the first place. It’s circular reasoning.*“How can someone get sex more often? By getting really good at sex.” * An ugly woman may not even get the opportunity at all in the first place to demonstrate her prowess at blow jobs, and a “nice guy” may not get the opportunity at all in the first place to demonstrate his knowledge of how the clitoris works and how to pleasure it. It’s an illogical Catch-22.
Uh, hasn’t the OP heard of Chippendale Dancers?
The ladies aren’t there for the beverages.
I swear I thought this was a zombie from a while back. I remember nearly word for word this whole OP post. Do the MRA/incel groups send people here to practice or something? Do they actually LITERALLY have a script?