What do women find attractive in men?

[Random witch]

26 minutes ago, Vivaldo said:

Ya that's great. But if all this is true, then why is this 'does size matter' topic so hyped? I mean there should be some truth to it.  

I think the size of the man part is a subjective preference of the woman and not an objective fact that big ? are attractive. Correct me ladies if I am wrong.

You know what? When I was younger and I hooked up with a guy because he seemed cute and attractive in my eyes. When I saw his dick for the first time he felt awkward because he believed that he's dick small. I didn't give damn about it and I didn't knew that it's considered small. Later I discovered that he watches porn and he compares his dick size to the porn actors. 

Dick is dick and once woman is vet penetration is fun and pasturable, more few centimeters or less few centimeters, it doesn't matter. We have clitoris don't forget, when I see a man I don't think about what he has in his pants but I observe his fingers and wonder what he can do with those?

 

[Vivaldo]

9 minutes ago, Random witch said:

You know what? When I was younger and I hooked up with a guy because he seemed cute and attractive in my eyes. When I saw his dick for the first time he felt awkward because he believed that he's dick small. I didn't give damn about it and I didn't knew that it's considered small. Later I discovered that he watches porn and he compares his dick size to the porn actors. 

Dick is dick and once woman is vet penetration is fun and pasturable, more few centimeters or less few centimeters, it doesn't matter. We have clitoris don't forget, when I see a man I don't think about what he has in his pants but I observe his fingers and wonder what he can do with those?

 

That settles it for me.

Does size matter? is the argument created by men with tiny brains and not dicks. 

This myth is reinforced again and again by beliefs, subjective opinions and enlargement businesses amongst men and women. It not related to great sex and those who fall for this trap will try endlessly to change their reality, never accepting the truth.

 

[Random witch]

14 minutes ago, zazen said:

It's not true for every woman but what about most? We have to work with generalisations because if we take every nuance we won't be able to get a accurate grasp of reality. If a minority of men or women are able to handle something should that mean we tell the majority that its okay to their own detriment? 

 

I understand society trying to progress, but at the same time some wisdom from religion or tradition was there for a reason. Conservatives are the brakes on progress, liberalism is the accelerator. If we accelerate too fast it can cause issues without holding a brake on to certain limits our biology, psychology and emotions can have. 

 

I understand judgment is bad ie slut shaming etc but on the flip side not letting women or men know the consequences of actions is equally bad. Not as a moral judgment, just as a if you do A, you may experience B. The same way people have the choice to smoke or drink and no one judges it, yet the consequences are known, the same should be told for casual sex. I think the consequences of casual sex are starting to show up now in the stats and happiness levels for example. 

Our society constructed in order to create order. It constructed in a way that serves the current situation. Also, our sexuality is constructed in a way that serves the current situation.

People at the hunters gatherers era had different sexuall dynamics, we aren't sure about what their sexual life was like because there's no evidence but there are many assumptions which one of them was that everyone fucks everyone basically.

in the beginning of the era of the agricultural revolution women's sexual repression served this goal. Men knew that their children are their children and their property goes to their biological children after their death. The fact that women sexually repressed, and this repression served the current situation, says nothing about women sexuality separately from this cultural construction. 

 

 

 

[Random witch]

2 minutes ago, Vivaldo said:

That settles it for me.

Does size matter? is the argument created by men with tiny brains and not dicks. 

This myth is reinforced again and again by beliefs, subjective opinions and enlargement businesses amongst men and women. It not related to great sex and those who fall for this trap will try endlessly to change their reality, never accepting the truth.

 

They cause suffer for themselves when they're think in that way and putting all their self esteem on something that they can't change and women don't much care about.

[soos_mite_ah]

3 hours ago, Random witch said:

I don't know if it's true for all women in all their life stages, but there's a common assumption that every woman who sleep's with a man get attached and needy as a lost puppy because this is how her body works or something, that's bullshit, sorry, but it's not true for all women. Don't forget how women are socialize, to hide and ignore their sexual needs, being afraid of being seen as "slut", too many partners for women it's a shame in our society and better for her to stick to one in order to save her reputation (If she cares about it). Yes, emotional attachments does exist but it's not the reality of 100% of women after they're doing sex. It also depends on many factors like the age of the women, how confident she is etc. If she's insecure she would be more easily attached to any guy she sleeps with, out of neediness. Insecure guys have the same behavior with women.

100% agree. Women are just as capable of having no strings attached sex. Having sex with her doesn't gurantee that she's going to be in a relationship with you and same goes for guys as well. That's one of the many reasons why the whole "there is no relationship without sex" gets on my nerves. 

[zazen]

2 hours ago, Random witch said:

Our society constructed in order to create order. It constructed in a way that serves the current situation. Also, our sexuality is constructed in a way that serves the current situation.

People at the hunters gatherers era had different sexuall dynamics, we aren't sure about what their sexual life was like because there's no evidence but there are many assumptions which one of them was that everyone fucks everyone basically.

in the beginning of the era of the agricultural revolution women's sexual repression served this goal. Men knew that their children are their children and their property goes to their biological children after their death. The fact that women sexually repressed, and this repression served the current situation, says nothing about women sexuality separately from this cultural construction. 

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, soos_mite_ah said:

100% agree. Women are just as capable of having no strings attached sex. Having sex with her doesn't gurantee that she's going to be in a relationship with you and same goes for guys as well. That's one of the many reasons why the whole "there is no relationship without sex" gets on my nerves. 

Yeah its very interesting. We are more socially monogamous by nurture but genetically polygamous by nature. Monogamy had a  stabilising affect on society, and incentivised men to provide, provision for their kids and family which worked well for growing economy, civilisation etc up to this point, it was the engine for it. What we go to now will be very interesting. 

 

Sex comes with emotions. The only reason to engage in sex is because it provides good emotions, your body is flooded with oxytocin and bonding chemicals afterwards? I guess if people engage in sex with multiple partners that bonding chemical is diffused between multiple people so it's not like your relying on any one person to get those good feels from, in this case if one person leaves its not heart breaking. Another thing to look at is whether engaging in this numbs our neuro chemical response to the point its easier to engage in casual sex and it not be so bonding anymore, the same way we get desensitised to any thing providing us dopamine and all those other feel good chemicals. In the past people only went through 1-3 heart breaks in a life time, now with less stigma, longer life spans etc people experience 3 heart breaks probably by mid 20's and so it blunts us. 

Edited November 22, 2021 by zazen

[Jacob Morres]

@soos_mite_ah would have to agree a bit with that point. I think making it a goal like that doesn't make sense 

I think you can have attachment and bonding without the sex. I think the sex is just part of the mix 

Edited November 22, 2021 by Jacob Morres

[Preety_India]

4 minutes ago, zazen said:

Sex comes with emotions. The only reason to engage in sex is because it provides good emotions, your body is flooded with oxytocin and bonding chemicals afterwards? I guess if people engage in sex with multiple partners that bonding chemical is diffused between multiple people so it's not like your relying on any one person to get those good feels from, in this case if one person leaves its not heart breaking.

For some reason I just can't have sex like that. I just get so emotional during sex that I might end up crying later. I cannot even imagine sleeping with many people at the same time. For me sex is a deeply emotional intimate thing that I just can't share randomly at all. 

I might easily get attached to the person I'm having sex with. Just how I'm. My preference I mean.

 

 

[zazen]

14 minutes ago, Preety_India said:

For some reason I just can't have sex like that. I just get so emotional during sex that I might end up crying later. I cannot even imagine sleeping with many people at the same time. For me sex is a deeply emotional intimate thing that I just can't share randomly at all. 

I might easily get attached to the person I'm having sex with. Just how I'm. My preference I mean.

 

 

Thats how most women are, or so we are told, but is it psychological condition through culture or biological or both. We know your body releases bonding chemicals to bond to your partner, this was a evolved response so that in case you gave birth you would have a man around to take care of you and the child. I just wonder if in the modern world, the response is blunted to the point we can have more casual sex without it being such a big emotional deal. Another point is the fact maybe women instinctively know its wrong and so that's why most casual sex needs to be done under alcoholic influence to rationalise it as a excuse, or to lower their inhibitions to not feel socially bad having casual sex.

Add to that the social stigma and psychological hang ups, that could be also affecting your biology and making women feel degraded after casual sex. It's the chicken or the egg debate, does our biology affect our psychology, vica versa or both. So interesting.

Edited November 22, 2021 by zazen

[Preety_India]

4 minutes ago, zazen said:

Thats how most women are, or so we are told, but is it psychological condition through culture or biological or both.

I'm not sure to what degree this is because of culture or psychological. I constantly feel this is biological. 

Kinda hard wired for it. 

[soos_mite_ah]

10 minutes ago, Jacob Morres said:

@soos_mite_ah would have to agree a bit with that point. I think making it a goal like that doesn't make sense 

I think you can have attachment and bonding without the sex. I think the sex is just part of the mix 

Yeah. Sex is one way to connect if you wish to use it in that way.

Also, oxytocin, the bonding chemicals, is something that men deal with too. But for some reason whenever the psychological/biological argument comes up, this argument is almost always used for women only. So, if men are able to feel the effects of oxytocin and still do things casually, I don't see why women wouldn't be able to either. Granted, the effects vary from individual person to individual but I guess what I'm trying to get at is that we need to get rid of the whole binary of *men are hard wired for casual sex* vs *women are hard wired for relationships.* Because that shit is an over simplification and can result in a lot of fucked up thinking. 

I talk about this more in one of my journal posts: 

 

On 9/29/2021 at 0:16 PM, soos_mite_ah said:

I also think there is a misconception of women and how they are super emotional and how they need attachment. Sure, some people are like that, but I don't think its a women's thing. There is the opposite stereotype for men as well. And I have a strong suspicion that this bias skews people's sense of self awareness and how they act and view the opposite sex.

I'm going to start with men first. I think there is this expectation for a lot of men to engage in meaningless sex, not always because of sexual exploration (there isn't anything wrong with that) but due to a form of masculine posturing. This could range anywhere from viewing women as conquests, not wanting to be emotionally vulnerable because it's seen as feminine or weak, having the expectation that you're supposed to want it all the time even in cases where you feel incredibly uncomfortable and violated, the notion of if you say no that you're less of a man (which often ignores or in some cases glorifies cases of sexual assault), and feeling the need to lose your virginity to prove your masculinity. I'm sure there are more examples but these are just a few things that are off the top of my head. 

I also think of a particular anecdote. This is a particular conversation that I swear I encounter about once every couple of years. The scenario goes like this. There is a group of guys that are talking near me (not really paying attention of whether I or my friends exist). One of the guys starts talking about how they are committing to this one girl for a relationship. The other guy says something along the lines of "what do you mean you're getting into a relationship? That's gay bruh. What about fucking bitches?" This has happened a few of times and in those times, either me or my friend look to one another and just jokingly ask "fellas, is it gay to want to be in a heterosexual relationship with a woman?" 

And that's precisely the thing. By definition, there is nothing gay about that. But because a lot of performative masculinity is tied to having a lot of partners and not expressing your emotions by developing meaningful relationships, it's seen as less masculine and therefore gay to get into a relationship. Like this makes sense but my friends and I just stand there in rainbow confusion whenever we encounter situations like these because huh lol?? And of course, this conversation also has shades of homophobia and sexism (the two being pretty linked up together but that's another post) in the conversation as well where even if it's considered gay, why would it be a bad thing?? Like are manly men not supposed to have fulfilling relationships with women? Are they just supposed to see them as a means to a sexual end and that's it? 

Which then brings me to women. A lot of women are perfectly at peace with having no strings attached sex. We just want to have some basic human decency, know you aren't a psychopath, and know that we are safe and it wouldn't be awkward. And in order to do that there needs to be some basic social and emotional connection. Even if I were to do something that's no strings attached, I'm not going to just go home with someone with a total stranger in most cases. Because not only is it dangerous, but there isn't that amount of context that was built up and it can be awkward. And the irritating thing is that guys will look at this and assume that we're super emotional/ clingy/ easily attached when really we're just asking for the bare minimum for attraction. 

And there are some women who internalize this type of thing and assume that their only option is extremely no strings attached casual sex because why tf would men ever want anything more and if you are asking for more, you're "one of those girls" who is being annoying and asking for too much. It lead to a lot of people compromising what they actually want and compromising their boundaries. I have been tempted to do that in a few instances. There is this notion that men don't care about women and they only want to fuck them and that's it. And sometimes, even when you genuinely want something casual, you're made out to believe that you're still asking for too much when you're really asking for basic respect and safety.  

[zazen]

 

2 minutes ago, soos_mite_ah said:

Also, oxytocin, the bonding chemicals, is something that men deal with too. But for some reason whenever the psychological/biological argument comes up, this argument is almost always used for women only. So, if men are able to feel the effects of oxytocin and still do things casually, I don't see why women wouldn't be able to either. Granted, the effects vary from individual person to individual but I guess what I'm trying to get at is that we need to get rid of the whole binary of *men are hard wired for casual sex* vs *women are hard wired for relationships.* Because that shit is an over simplification and can result in a lot of fucked up thinking.

Yeah for sure, men also bond with sex. Thats why leo said in a comment recently that for men the relationship doesn't begin until they get sexually involved. Sex love bombs us with chemicals that bond us, this could be seen as bad as it can cloud or judgement of the partner overlooking red flags or mis aligned values, traits etc. 

I think with guys its more easier because we'r designed to spread seed. So we can pair bond with a woman, but then go and just have sex and nothing more with some one else. We can be physically polygamous, and emotionally monogamous at the same time with more ease. With women because price / cost of sex is so high due to child birth, maybe evolution designed women to bond more with just one person, and then to not feel like having sex with more than that one person to ensure security, provision for the child. In general women need to feel emotional connection to have sex ( this is a protective mechanism from evolution ) and men have sex to feel emotional connection. 

It could be we are generally polyamorous with intervals of monogamy. In the past it was monogamy for life (as life span was short), now its monogamy one at a time as our life spans have tripled in the span of 100 years. 

[soos_mite_ah]

2 hours ago, zazen said:

With women because price / cost of sex is so high due to child birth, maybe evolution designed women to bond more with just one person

Or you could also make the argument that women are also likely to polygamous and be ok with causal sex because back then the odds of your child dying as an infant were so high that you needed to be getting laid regularly and with multiple partners to have a wide range of genetic content to ensure the survival of the child. 

[Federico del pueblo]

On 21.11.2021 at 8:46 PM, Vivaldo said:

I want to know what exactly women find attractive in men...... 

A big D.

[zazen]

Perfect timing

[Random witch]

13 hours ago, soos_mite_ah said:

Or you could also make the argument that women are also likely to polygamous and be ok with causal sex because back then the odds of your child dying as an infant were so high that you needed to be getting laid regularly and with multiple partners to have a wide range of genetic content to ensure the survival of the child. 

THIS.

@zazen You see, you can explain sexuality whatever you want, there's multiple ways to explain things, eventually, everyone stick to what suits his ego. I'm sure that for you men, believing that woman want you for all her life after doing sex with you is very nice to your ego, but it's only a sweet nice believe and self deception. The question is what are you interested in? In not so ego flattering and complicated truth or in this simple generalizing sweet cute truth?

Also, today's survival for women is much easier than in the past. We have the ability to earn money and have money, property, we don't have to be dependent on someone in order to survive. We can easily avoid pregnancy with effective contraception it's much easier to survive in this society compared to the past.

In the past there were lack of effective contraception so when you do sex chances are you get pregnant and if you get pregnant you want to stick to the man who made you pregnant, why? because other man wouldn't take care of a child that isn't his.

Women had no property or power so they couldn't survive without men, at those times, better to stick to one man who can provide your survival needs and compromise on his defects and have a lot of children rather than striving for death alone (Or striving alone with different children from different men to death).

But now? We can survive without man, it's not a matter of life or death anymore, things changed and because it's much easier for us to survive some of us would enjoy of their sexuality for the sake of sexuality. Relationship with men aren't crucial for our survival anymore. Some women would tell you that it's even a burden on them to be in a relationship with a man because relationship requires work, time, patience, compromises.

Also, I tried to think about it through the lenses of the spiral dynamics.

Women who are at stage blue have different perspective than women at stage green.

Woman at solid stage blue are more likely to stick to the first man they sleep with and they might take sex much more seriously than a woman at solid orange or green.

Women at stage orange take sex less seriously than women at stage blue and they see this as a tool for negotiation with men to meet their materialistic and egoic needs. They aren't completely enjoy their sexuality yet and are use it as a currency in order to gain more status, power, etc. They are more likely to chase men who considered attractive strong and alpha and less feminine. They are more likely to manipulate men they're considering weak.

Women at stage green are more curious about exploring their sexuality genuinely. They are less obsessed with relationship definitions and materialistic interests, they care about the present and don't that bother themselves about the future. They appreciate the spiritual connection of the two. They appreciate feminine characteristics in men more than women at the stage orange because they aware to the masculine characteristics within themselves. I think women at stage orange are more in deny about it which creates a masculine shadow.

I don't know much about women at stage yellow at spiral dynamics but I guess they are the more loner, intellectual and independent version of women at stage green.

 

 

 

Edited November 23, 2021 by Random witch

[Federico del pueblo]

3 hours ago, zazen said:

Perfect timing

I was just kidding with my post, to see how much outrage it would cause ??

[Shin]

13 hours ago, Federico del pueblo said:

A big D.

And a square jaw.

I can't believe you forget the most important part.

[Federico del pueblo]

12 minutes ago, Knowledge Hoarder said:

 

That's outrageous!! Hide that post!??

Hi man. I must say that you have really changed a lot!!

[Gesundheit2]

The only way I can see dick size mattering is if women do boast about their man's dick between each other as a part of the "upwomanship" game they play.