Why do guys like to look at pictures more than women?


by latitude
Tags: guys, pictures, women
DanP
DanP is offline
#19
May18-11, 05:02 PM
P: 630
Quote Quote by turbo-1 View Post
Well, I am deadly with a Glock or a deer-rifle. I can build furniture and repair internal combustion engines, too, and I love using my tractor to do landscaping and build new gardening spots and move bulk materials. I really do like cooking, though. I don't like doing dishes or laundry, but they are things that have to be done.
Well, that's part of what make you one of the cool persons on this board. Ill drink a beer to men like you.
turbo
turbo is offline
#20
May18-11, 05:10 PM
PF Gold
turbo's Avatar
P: 7,367
Quote Quote by DanP View Post
Well, that's part of what make you one of the cool persons on this board. Ill drink a beer to men like you.
I can't let you drink alone, so I'll pop a Molson Golden to keep you company.
FrancisZ
FrancisZ is offline
#21
May18-11, 06:07 PM
FrancisZ's Avatar
P: 43
Quote Quote by DanP View Post
Ok, I understand , but what is the fact ? We did put 1 women to status of divinity while we robed all the others from most of their civil rights.

Never intended to deny that Dan. And I certainly hope you didn't think I meant that.


Quote Quote by DanP View Post
What is this supposed to mean ? Is this supposed to be some kind of math I dont understand ? 1 Women raised in myth, billions oppressed for millenniums. It doesn't add up to me to anything even remotely close to a "innate need" for enthroning women. Myabe Im just blind, but I can not see how can we have this desire innate, and at the same time do what we did as a society.

I don't pretend to know. Perhaps then there really are more odious, resentful men in the world--men with serious superiority complexes--than there are the "innate" worshipers among us.


Quote Quote by DanP View Post
Care to develop a bit on this Francis please ? Im not sure I get what you want to say.

I thought maybe you were implying that sexuality for the sake of emotional comfort (and possibly: brain evolution) was not it's purpose at all. I'm a little hokey maybe: but I envision it--that is: in addition to biological factors--as something that can also potentially induce (long term) intellectual evolution.

Who knows what is in the mind of two mating alley cats. Still I suspect that we as a species have developed something much more wonderful than cat sex (and what I understand: it's actually pretty awful for the femae cat).

It isn't simply for the purpose of propagating the species anymore. We possess the ability to empathize; and there is something deep within us that is truly fulfilled by union (they call it mating of souls). It is even more psychological than it is physical for humans--in a good relationship anyway.
DanP
DanP is offline
#22
May18-11, 07:25 PM
P: 630
Quote Quote by FrancisZ View Post
Perhaps then there really are more odious, resentful men in the world--men with serious superiority complexes--than there are the "innate" worshipers among us.
Why would you worship your equal ? You worship deities if you have faith, not humans. Men and women, Francis, are just humans. Hominidae-Homininae-Hominini-Homo. Genetically cousins to chimps. Currently the apex predator on Earth and the biggest threath to the members of his own species. A wonderful creature.

I think "man with superiority complexes" - "innate worshipers" is blatantly false dichotomy.

Superiority complexes are not always bad. They are one of the possible tools through which the human self is maintained. Haven't you observed, empirically at least, that humans with more narcissistic personality tend to be happier ? Some of our biases, are really really useful to us.

Quote Quote by FrancisZ View Post
I thought maybe you were implying that sexuality for the sake of emotional comfort (and possibly: brain evolution) was not it's purpose at all. I'm a little hokey maybe: but I envision it--that is: in addition to biological factors--as something that can also potentially induce (long term) intellectual evolution.
Sure, sex in sexual reproductive organisms is a prerequisite to evolution. If you posses genes which are making for a superior intellect, with no reproduction, there is no possibility to change the frequency of the alleles in a population. But that's all.

Quote Quote by FrancisZ View Post
It isn't simply for the purpose of propagating the species anymore. We possess the ability to empathize; and there is something deep within us that is truly fulfilled by union (they call it mating of souls). It is even more psychological than it is physical for humans--in a good relationship anyway.
There is no soul. No ghost in the machine. I seen no evidence of such thing, and nobody else did as far as I know. Sure, sex is rewarding. It is supposed to be. A proximate mechanism ensuring that you actually seek sex and genes are replicated. Sure, sex enhances the bounds between two humans. The levels of oxtyocin are never higher in the brain of a man then following an ejaculation. A more parsimonious explanation would be that this mechanism is there to ensure survival of the offspring as a ultimate cause, proximately realized through increased bonding. Perhaps, is just a your biology playing some very clever tricks on you.

And lastly, lets do not forget that what makes a intimate relation a good one is way more than sex. Evolution, neurobiology , rearing environment, social exchanges, learned behaviors, the environment in which the actual intimate relationship takes place are all meaningful in making or breaking an intimate relationship. Interconnected in very interesting ways.

But to be fair, Ive heard man saying that "you cant just make sex with a women if you don't have a (higer?) connection with her". Thy where extremely few and far between, and most of them didn't got too much sex anyway. Too concerned with "higher connections". Served them nothing but frustration.
DaveC426913
DaveC426913 is offline
#23
May18-11, 08:02 PM
DaveC426913's Avatar
P: 15,325
I always figured men like to look at women more than women like to look at men for a very simple reason.

On average, and all else being equal, men's attraction to women has a relatively larger visual and visceral component. What women tend to find attactive is less the physical skin-deep and more the internal personality-type traits - traits not forthcoming in a magazine photo Simiarly, men cannot divine easily what they find attractive in a woman by reading about her in a romance novel.

Please, don't everyone jump on this with specific examples about how women can find men physically attractive, and that men like women with great personalities - I'm saying statistically there's a tendency, all other things being equal.
lisab
lisab is offline
#24
May18-11, 08:09 PM
Mentor
lisab's Avatar
P: 2,917
Quote Quote by DaveC426913 View Post
I always figured men like to look at women more than women like to look at men for a very simple reason.

On average, and all else being equal, men's attraction to women has a relatively larger visual and visceral component. What women tend to find attactive is less the physical skin-deep and more the internal personality-type traits - traits you cannot divine from a magazine photo.

Please, don't everyone jump on this with specific examples about how women can find men physically attractive, and that men like women with great personalities - I'm saying statistically there's a tendency, all other things being equal.
Yes I think so too. I'd even say, based solely on my own experiences, that the difference is overwhelmingly obvious...no need for statistics to notice it, haha.

As far as the OP's question, Why do guys like pictures more, I'd say because men and women are simply wired differently. Thankfully .
Vanadium 50
Vanadium 50 is offline
#25
May18-11, 08:18 PM
Mentor
Vanadium 50's Avatar
P: 15,619
Quote Quote by DaveC426913 View Post
I always figured men like to look at women more than women like to look at men for a very simple reason.
because the female body is a beautiful work of art, while the male body is hairy and lumpy and should not be seen by the light of day?

(with apologies to Dave Barry)
DaveC426913
DaveC426913 is offline
#26
May18-11, 08:19 PM
DaveC426913's Avatar
P: 15,325
Quote Quote by Vanadium 50 View Post
because the female body is a beautiful work of art, while the male body is hairy and lumpy and should not be seen by the light of day?
Also that.
Pengwuino
Pengwuino is offline
#27
May18-11, 08:19 PM
PF Gold
Pengwuino's Avatar
P: 7,125
Quote Quote by Vanadium 50 View Post
because the female body is a beautiful work of art, while the male body is hairy and lumpy and should not be seen by the light of day?

(with apologies to Dave Barry)
Or as Elaine from Seinfeld would say, the male body is utilitarian - it's like a Jeep.
DanP
DanP is offline
#28
May18-11, 08:44 PM
P: 630
Quote Quote by lisab View Post
Yes I think so too. I'd even say, based solely on my own experiences, that the difference is overwhelmingly obvious...no need for statistics to notice it, haha.
Gonna ask you something. You walk on a street, bar, gym , whatever. You see a man. One of you opens a conversation. 2 minutes.

What makes you interested in him enough to want to see him a second time ? Discover more about him ? In a word, what makes you want discover his personality ?
OmCheeto
OmCheeto is offline
#29
May18-11, 08:49 PM
PF Gold
OmCheeto's Avatar
P: 1,370
Quote Quote by lisab View Post
Yes I think so too. I'd even say, based solely on my own experiences, that the difference is overwhelmingly obvious...no need for statistics to notice it, haha.

As far as the OP's question, Why do guys like pictures more, I'd say because men and women are simply wired differently. Thankfully .
You should bring this question up at the fair this year while we are camping. It will be fun to listen to a bunch of geriatric types try and answer this question.

Unfortunately, there is no type of service(wi-fi nor phone) where we will be, so be prepared with lots of Venn diagrams.
DanP
DanP is offline
#30
May18-11, 09:01 PM
P: 630
Quote Quote by DaveC426913 View Post
What women tend to find attactive is less the physical skin-deep and more the internal personality-type traits - traits not forthcoming in a magazine photo Simiarly, men cannot divine easily what they find attractive in a woman by reading about her in a romance novel.

.
However, interesting enough is that studies at university of Minessota on young humans concluded that the most important predictor of getting a second date is physical attraction for both man and women.

Then there is a plethora of other interesting studies, one was very cool and ingenious IMO.

The sweaty T-shirt study in which females where given T-shirts used by males for 3 days. The T-shirts where mapped to the facial symmetry of the man who used them.

Some females where on ovulation, some not. All where given the T-shirts and asked to smell them and tell who they would find attractive for dating. Interestingly enough, the females on the peak of fertility choose T-shirts which corresponded to men with high facial symmetry. Facial symmetry is considered one of the cues for good genes, and one of the components of what we consider an attractive human.
Why would females evolve such a mechanism of detection, if not interested in the cues of good genetics ?

Why some studies show a change in the preference of females in what man they find physically attractive visually whatever or not they are on contraceptive pills ? Why do preference preferences in women who are not on the pill change during the course of the cycle ? It seems that man with powerful masculine facial traits are more likely to be chosen as partners at the peak of fertility, while in the rest of time preference seem to lean toward man with less pronounced masculine features.

Why is there so extremely rare to find a female which choose to mate with a guy which is shorter in height than her ? Universally across cultures, females will statistically go for man taller them themselves.

Why some studies show that male faces which are rated as highly "trust-able" are scored in attractiveness by the same female low ?

And then you have the cuckoos, females which will marry one man, and they will simply mate to create an offspring with another man, hiding the truth of paternity from their husbands. The incidence of this phenomena is not as low as to call it negligible or bad luck.
FrancisZ
FrancisZ is offline
#31
May18-11, 09:03 PM
FrancisZ's Avatar
P: 43
Whether it's just men that enjoy looking or not, the one serious character flaw to always be wary of: pedo-bubble behavior...


lisab
lisab is offline
#32
May18-11, 09:07 PM
Mentor
lisab's Avatar
P: 2,917
Quote Quote by DanP View Post
Gonna ask you something. You walk on a street, bar, gym , whatever. You see a man. One of you opens a conversation. 2 minutes.

What makes you interested in him enough to want to see him a second time ? Discover more about him ? In a word, what makes you want discover his personality ?
I like bold. If it's the guy who starts the conversation, he starts off with bonus points because that takes guts. Bold, but not arrogant.

Humor is *very* important...critical, in fact. But not mean humor, of course - I hate bullies.

Those two are the big ones for a first conversation.
DanP
DanP is offline
#33
May18-11, 09:13 PM
P: 630
Quote Quote by lisab View Post
I like bold. If it's the guy who starts the conversation, he starts off with bonus points because that takes guts. Bold, but not arrogant.

Humor is *very* important...critical, in fact. But not mean humor, of course - I hate bullies.

Those two are the big ones for a first conversation.
No physical evaluation at all ? And I want to be very clear here, I do not ask see him other times as a friend, but as a possible romantic partner.
lisab
lisab is offline
#34
May18-11, 09:37 PM
Mentor
lisab's Avatar
P: 2,917
Quote Quote by DanP View Post
No physical evaluation at all ? And I want to be very clear here, I do not ask see him other times as a friend, but as a possible romantic partner.
Ah. Ok, clean is a big one - I think my nose is more sensitive than average. It would be nice if the guy is at least as fit as I am. And a little taller than me but not too tall (I'm pretty short). I'm not a fan of beards or long hair.

But actually none of those are required (well, no facial hair comes close - yes I know it's illogical but since when does physical attraction follow logic?). A wicked fast wit will make up for a *lot*.

But none of the physical traits by themselves will make me get to know a guy. In other words, I never just look at a guy and think, I'd like to know more about him. I'm just not wired that way.

I will say, there are physical traits that I see and think, I don't want to get to know him.
rootX
rootX is offline
#35
May18-11, 09:52 PM
rootX's Avatar
P: 1,295
I go when I see girls with tattoos or nose/lips piercings.

So, I think it depends what kind of girl picture it is. Neither I would find skinny or fashion padded women attractive.
DanP
DanP is offline
#36
May18-11, 10:04 PM
P: 630
Quote Quote by lisab View Post
It would be nice if the guy is at least as fit as I am.
Good instincts. IMO soon, fit will be the new sexy :P (OK, research seem to say that fit was always sexy ). What do you think, can be such a preference evolved, or you consider it more as a part of social interaction ? I.E, since you exercise and make an effort to look good, be fit and healthy you just want someone with the same respect for himself ?


Quote Quote by lisab View Post
I will say, there are physical traits that I see and think, I don't want to get to know him.
Interesting way to put it. Physical repulsion. I really like how you put this one, Lisa.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Women: how have guys you've liked approached you Relationships 18
My pictures General Discussion 42
Guys' Rules for Women General Discussion 32
Pictures of other sun's General Astronomy 2