To add to this, I’d say unripped, clean clothing is not enough. A lot of men dress slovenly. Huge (cargo) shorts. Huge t-shirts (especially ones that have stuff on them such as jokes, etc). Ball caps. Hair a mess. In short, that “bro” look. To me, this is really not attractive.
Nice teeth are important, too. A man can be devastatingly handsome, but if he smiles and his teeth are really bad, it’s game over for me.
But most of all? Confidence and a great personality. Funny. Roberto Benigni is not what most would say is classically handsome, yet I find him absolutely charming. Go figure.
I’m sure that does happen on occasion, but also being behind the anonymity of the internet means people can be more honest/blunt than they would face to face. For example, in my critique of Drewder, I commented that he’s a bit heavy. I would never say that to his face (until we were close friends and I knew he wouldn’t be offended and he asked me about it first). But since in this thread he asked for opinions about his appearance, I mentioned it. Also I didn’t over-embellish his good points. I didn’t say he was akin to George Clooney. I only said he has a nice smile and symmetric features.
All I’m saying is that your observation here isn’t true for this thread so I’m not sure why you brought it up.
Yeah there are. A 0.75 waist to shoulder ratio, height, sexual dimorphism, symmetry, etc are all attractive traits in men. Physical traits can tell a woman if a man is healthy, masculine and a good provider. Those are near universally attractive.
The big difference is that at the core, women judge men on more diverse criteria than men judge women. Women value socioeconomic status, reliability, industriousness, etc in ways men do not. Men just care about fertility (age, body, face) and whether the woman would make a good mother (at least in long term mating. Not in short term mating strategies). Men just care if a woman can get pregnant. Women care about whether the man will stick around and help raise the kids on top of whether he can get her pregnant.
And in a lot of cases it’s got very little to do with their looks, as proven by how many times a guy has gone from “meh” or even “ugly” to “OMGhe’ssoGORGEOUS” after being on TV / a hit movie / getting a hit single. Dude’s looks didn’t change overnight, his cachet did.
I have my own theories about this whole subject - they are poorly formed, but here goes!
I think that ultimately for most people there is a progress of considerations when one is talking about “attractive”. Are we talking about what we find appealing on observing or meeting a new person/stranger? Or are we considering what is important a little deeper into a possible relationship? And then there is what works in a stable long term relationship. These are all potentially different.
For example, some females here have stated that men are more visually focused. I would suggest that what is at work is that the “stickiness” of visual appeal is greater for men. By this I mean that women and men both use visual appeal as a filter on first meeting, but that for men it remains a greater consideration ongoing, whereas for women it is supplanted quickly by other considerations (as long as visual markers remain above a baseline - clean, groomed, etc.). How quickly men and women move on to other considerations is the real difference, generally.
Ultimately, however, I would suggest that how the other person makes one “feel” is very important. I know it sounds like a circular argument (I’m attracted to what makes me feel attracted), but it explains the seeming disconnect between verbally describing what one might find attractive, and then seeming to abandon it for a person that “excites” you. I’m sure many of us have had the experience of someone who just has an “essence” that we find attractive, even thought the outward visuals aren’t in line with what we would describe to others as attractive (hence the ugly rock-star trope).
There has been some discussion about how women are less superficial than guys, and how they are more interested in things like personality, hygiene, intelligence, etc.
All that may be true, but from personal experience I can attest that “back when”, when I was dating, I used to get ignored a lot, until I started hitting the gym. After that, it was clear that I was much more attractive to the opposite sex. Now, some of that might be attributed to a boost in self-confidence, but most of it was purely visual. So, to say that women use visual cues less than guys do is overstating the case, IMHO.
I think that there has to be that initial attraction first but it takes more than “oh he’s cute” to keep me interested. I can (and do) appreciate a hot guy but if he’s dumb or nasty his looks wither away really fast.
I find a tattoo on the upper arm attractive. Rrrrrowwrr… It’s the best when the tattoo is high enough that it’s just barely exposed when the man is wearing a t-shirt, and you just want to push up that sleeve to see the rest of it. This look is even better if the man has a decent-looking biceps. Or triceps, I guess it would be in this case.
I have to agree with you. Many of us guys never get the message or, if we do, it comes late in life when we are set in our ways. Honestly, nobody told me about this stuff (hence reading questions in forums like this.) They made us shower in HS gym class and I learned that someone would make fun if I smelled but nobody was handing out fashion tips or even favorable comments at any point. I thought girls liked my down-to-earth charm and if nobody is going to notice the clothes or hair anyway then why not be comfortable? I suspect this is true of many guys.
XY-chromosomed being here, too - and if I can put in my 2 cents, I think one reason many guys are unaware of things like “Don’t wear large baggy cargo shorts” is because most of us have probably KNOWN a guy, back in the day, who dressed sloppily or broke the fashion rules, and yet ***was ***highly popular with the girls, and so hence figured that that sort of attire wasn’t a negative, in the eyes of women.
The thing is, it’s one thing if a college-aged man does it. He’s young and it’s more forgivable. Further when all the guys on campus are dressed like this, there’s not a whole lot of choice for the women and they typically just go with that.
I’m 45. I see a lot of guys my age dressed like this when casually out. It’s the equivalent of a woman my age with a perm and a folksy sweatshirt/knit pants.
To me, this is ok to wear if cleaning the house, yard work, but not as daily wear. At work, it’s really not much better. The typical look is khakis, button down shirts… not tucked in. The older guys have well kept shoes, grooming, ironed shirts, etc… the younger ones are a mess all around. I don’t believe a single one has ever polished their shoes or ironed their shirts.
I think guys go for this big and baggy look because they think it hides their weight. It doesn’t. It magnifies it.
There is a lot of truth to that. I worked out in my mid to late 20’s and got blatantly hit on constantly. I am fairly good looking when I am in shape but not so much when I let myself go as I found out in my 30’s. It think that applies to everyone - male or female. I am taking better care of myself these days and getting unsolicited results again but hits from 40+ year old women aren’t something I want to encourage.
My father was usually good looking when he was younger and even still is today to some (think someone like Tom Seleck or Burt Reynolds). That probably wasn’t a good thing because he took all reasonable comers even when my parents were married and I was a little kid. I still have to point out to former beauty queens that I don’t want to hear about what a great guy he was during their relationship because there is an obvious timing problem with their compliments.
A really physically attractive man can easily have a line of women out the door that all claim to their boyfriends and husbands that they don’t care much about looks. What they mean is, a provider, father and lover are completely different things and few men can satisfy all three.
Ive dated quite a few men in my life and if you lined them all up they would appear to have nothing in common. Well dressed, sloppy dressers, short hair, long hair, bald, tall, short, overweight…etc…You get the picture.
I find attractive men, attractive, but that doesn’t mean I’m attracted to them. Bottom line for me is personality and connection. Ive never been attracted to someone because of their looks. Attraction comes from knowing someone, becoming friends and building trust.
I remember this guy used to come into my work(before I was married). He was well over six feet, big guy, lots of unruly hair escaping from his ponytail, I mean he was big and scary looking, but my god when he smiled I would melt. Every time I saw him and he smiled I wanted him to wrap me in his arms and hug me. Mmm
My husband on the other hand is shorter than me(5’5). Doesn’t have great teeth, but to me he is gorgeous. Seriously, my man can dress. He looks good in everything he wears, and you wouldn’t catch him dead in a pair of track pants. He LOVES clothes. That aside we have so much in common, and we have so much fun together, and that’s the most attractive part.
Is that true, though? That was the long-held stereotype, but I think women judge men just as harshly on looks. I’ve met many, many women who have very rigid restrictions on a dating partner’s height or ethnicity, for example.
As a woman this strikes me as counter-intuitive. I think if you apply those filters, you’re past the point of deciding someone looks good and on to deciding if he’s a good fit for you, which is altogether different.
