Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Something I’ve been pondering lately, is the seemingly paradoxical fact that women tend to find balding men quite unattractive while simultaneously finding greying very attractive.
Both are associated with aging and both are largely genetic, I believe, although balding more so, which might be part of the explanation.
The best I’ve been able to come up with, is that balding, since it is associated (and probably caused by) high levels of DHT, it can be an indicator of aggressiveness to the point where it is detrimental to the woman. Not that every balding man is aggressive, but I don’t think it is a coincidence, that some men will shave their head to seem more tough.
Women generally like other traits associated with higher levels of testosterone, but only up to a certain point, e.g. a study (which I can no longer seem to locate) found that especially large traps are found to be less attractive. These along with the deltoids have more androgen receptors, which makes them more susceptible to growth when testosterone is high.
These muscle groups are also good indicators of steroid use. The almost spherical shoulders some bodybuilders have are not achieved by hard work alone.
On the other hand, greying can happen from stress. I don’t think the exact mechanism is known, but I have a theory, that it is caused by the body’s ability to absorb micro nutrients being diminished during stress and the hair follicles not receiving enough of especially zinc and copper (pure speculation on my part). A man with greying hair has endured and survived stressful situations and his ability to do so is attractive.
It just seems strange, that two things that are somewhat closely related are perceived so differently. Also strange how the pattern with which they present are opposite with balding happening on top of the head and greying on the sides.
Edit: I belive this was the study I was thinking of:
Men’s Bodily Attractiveness: Muscles as Fitness Indicators. Notice the womens very low size preference of the trapezius in figure 1.
There’s no real paradoxical fact here. I reject the premise that women find greying very attractive, especially young women. It’s more the case that women, even young women sometimes, can find men quite attractive in spite of greying.
Sure, girls and young women can have daddy issues—and middle-aged women can find silver foxes more palatable than they do young men. Daddy issues or not, it's interesting, amusing, and perhaps disturbing how many young women will automatically call you "daddy" in bed these days, without any prompting.
For the most part, young women prefer older men, but just by few years, albeit they’re far more flexible on that than they are on things like height and status. If you’re famous, an authority figure like her coach/teacher/professor, her boss at any job ranging from fastfood to PMC, or just tall/handsome, a girl/woman who’s supposedly “not into older guys” might suddenly find herself into an older guy. As opposed to men of all ages who generally prefer the youngest women possible all else equal, their datapoints pressed-up against the y-axis like barbarians sieging the wall.
What’s potentially more paradoxical is that women find a full-head of hair on men attractive—and there’s a large contingent that finds bald men attractive—but the in-between, the no-man's land of material balding such as this is universally despised by women. This is often rationalized as such men being too insecure to just shave it all off, thus being a repellant to women for Not Being Confident and Not Being Themselves.
However, this could easily be rationalized differently in a universe similar to ours, that such balding men are brave rebels, who proudly hang onto their few threads and are more secure in Being Themselves than the cowardly men who shaved it all off at the first sign of trouble. I posit that, in our universe, such balding men get pattern matched to suburban dads, basement dwellers, and anything in between and around the potentially radioactive zone. Such men are portrayed as boring, lame, and low-status in pop-culture and mainstream media; girl’s and women’s attraction are highly guided by social cues, so balding men get the shaft.
Obviously, as always, there is substantial Be Attractive, Don’t Be Attractive involved. There can also be some Russell Conjugation: You’re bald/balding, but Jason Statham rocks the shaved head.
Can we please write like everyone is reading and we want them to be included, especially those from vulnerable/marginalised communities such as bodybuilding? If you talk to a Person of Bodybuilding, they’ll be happy to tell you that results like cannonball delts come not from steroids, but from eating clen, trening hard, constantly testing your limits, anavar giving up.
My personal belief is that traps are underrated rather than overrated for men looking to increase their attractiveness. As you mentioned, traps along with deltoids are androgenic signals, dominance traits that girls love. Traps are a noticeable distinguisher between lifters and DYELs, even when clothed. They’re like omnipresent evidence that you’re jacked. And men spend the majority of their time around women while clothed (presumably). As a man with solid traps or a woman accustomed to dating (a) men (man) with solid traps, men lacking in traps can look sort of weird, as if there’s a weird gap between their head and shoulders, their necks long like a giraffe or sauropod’s (“three-horns never play with long-necks” — Cera, a body-shamer before her time).
In that linked study, it’s important to note that it was conducted using just survey questions, with a stylized drawing of a man to identify muscles: “’How do you find the [MUSCLE] most attractive?’ using a Likert-type scale (7 = highly muscled to 1 = not muscled at all).” So no (experimentally manipulated) photos involved, no skin in the game (unlike online dating studies). On a funny side note, both male and female self-perceived attractiveness were positively correlated with the import placed upon male muscle size in general (Figure 6) and the correlation being… stronger… for women.
I might be overestimating how attractive women find it. It is mostly based on the response I have received, even from women in their early to mid twenties.
They could love some dominance traits and not others. I think women generally select for a partner that has the visual cues signaling a capacity for violence, but simultaneously isn't overly aggressive. Some traits might signal too much aggression.
Counterpoint: Large traps creates the illusion of narrower shoulders, women put a lot more emphasis on broad shoulders, so the larger traps makes the body seem less attractive overall.
Good point. They do call it a preliminary study calling for more research.
Maybe, maybe not, but we're already in just-so story territory over here. And overly could be doing a lot of work, where overly could vary tremendously depending on the particular woman and the point-in-time within her lifecycle. Undoubtedly there are some women who might get scared off by any muscularity beyond DYEL-status, but men must cast a wide-net if they want any semblance of consistent success, so counting on finding The One who loves you for your DYEL-physique and who you are may not be a prudent strategy.
I suppose that's theoretically possible, that large traps can function like a wide waist in distracting from the V-taper. However, that's like a zero'th world problem for almost all men, a bridge that they'd have to cross if and when they get there. In practice, I would say from casual empiricism, trap and shoulder development are positively correlated among male gym-goers. I basically see almost no men with what I would say are over-trained traps, or shoulders for that matter, relative to the rest of their physique. However, I regularly see those with what I would say are over-trained biceps and/or triceps relative to their physique.
Chicks are accustomed to squeezing arms to subconsciously or consciously feel-up bicep and tricep formidability, but traps are often a pleasant surprise for them upon squeezing: "wait... wtf kind of muscle is this?! teehee.”
More options
Context Copy link
Before you over think it, research suggests that women are far more diverse in their preferences in men than the obverse.
Men tend to be very consistent in their ratings of female attractiveness, with most men concurring in terms of what they like.
I believe the going hypothesis is something to with reducing intrasexual competition for mates for women, since they won't end up coveting each other's husbands all the time.
So you have women liking all sorts of niche and inane shit. Some of them like muscular dudes, some like dad bods, some of them are a fan of androgyny or twinks.
So you might have a small vocal minority gushing about silver foxes while the majority of women are merely meh in that regard.
If I squint a bit I could see how this could be true in a vacuum, hence the concept of niche-maxxing for men on the red/purple/blackpill interwebs. However, in practice, female mate choice-copying leads to women wanting the same men, whether via OLD, social media, or meat-space social circle.
If I had to reconcile the two, I'd say that mate choice-copying works primarily when someone is already predisposed to like that kind of person to some degree.
So, sensitive theater kid gets a girlfriend and that bumps up his value the most for other women who have a degree of preference for theater kids.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
????
This couldn't possibly align more poorly with all my experience.
There are men who are into cheerleaders, and homely nerds, and fit yoga/gym addicts, and obese landwhales, and MILFs and GILFs, and amputees, and big boobs and small boobs, and every race creed class and color... a quick perusal of any porn site will confirm this. Show me any woman on planet earth and I will find you a man who fetishizes exactly that type of woman.
Not to say that there isn't also a diversity in women's preferences. But suggesting that they exceed the diversity of men's preferences seems nonsensical on the face of it.
I linked the article, so you'll have to take it up with them haha
It doesn't seem so implausible to me, if I had to model it, it would look like women being more uncorrelated with each other, such that say, for any given man only 50% of women agree on his attractiveness. The other 50% have diverse interests.
On the other hand, perhaps 90% of men find the same cluster of women attractive, while the remainder are hog wild and will jerk it to anything that's not a platonic ideal (and maybe even that).
I don't think the study even bothered to test such an insane diversity in sexual preferences, but a few thousand people into midgets and amputees doesn't really disqualify the general idea.
I'm not particularly invested in this, but it at least doesn't seem glaringly incorrect to me!
Edit:
To clarify further, I envision women being into like 50% muscular classically handsome dudes, 30% twinks, 10% KPOP stars and so on. They don't splinter into millions of sub groups with vanishingly small fractions of the total.
On the other hand, 90% of men will fuck any woman who isn't morbidly obese (depending on how many beers they drink first), they might be guys who prefer ass over tits (or cultured thigh men like me), but they're not that picky at the end of the day. And then the rest are a fractal mess of everything else, shemales, midgets, ball busting and whatever nonsense can tingle the overactive horny receptors men are blessed with.
So you can with a straight face say that men are more consistent while simultaneously having far more varied tastes in the corners.
There’s a few different ways of looking at it.
We know that a certain X% of top males end up getting the majority of female sexual partners. So in actuality, women’s mate choices converge a good deal.
Physical attractiveness also matters less to women than it does to men. Social status is more relevant to women. Ask them about the axis they actually care about - “who’s more attractive, this rich CEO or this poor McDonald’s worker” - and their preferences will start converging very quickly.
Finally for what it’s worth, /r/bbw has 760k subscribers to /r/nsfw’s 4mil subscribers. Not an absurd difference.
While I broadly agree, I think it's an error to simply compare /r/bbw to a single subreddit.
There are at least dozens of large subs catering to the "vanilla" taste in female nudes, and a couple more ones for the chubby chasers too.
So the end comparison might be 1 million of the big lads to 20 million of the normal degenerates 🙏
But many of those subscribers are the same people.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090626153511.htm
More options
Context Copy link
I'm not saying that men are a homogeneous bunch who like only one body type in women, of course there are ass men and boob guys.
What the research showed was that they were significantly less heterogenous than women.
I'll see if I can rustle up the study later.
Edit: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090626153511.htm
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link