The idea that men are more concerned with physical appearance...

[shortbuss]

I see the argument used over and over again to justify men valuing women's physical appearance to the extent that it is valued in our culture.

I'm not an expert, but I did recently take a neuroscience class wherein we explicitly reviewed the differences in male and female brains. I found that men are indeed generally better at handling spacial problems. However, there was never a single citation regarding men being innately more visual in regard to aesthetics, than women.

My theory is that this is an argument that may not be substantiated by science, but instead proliferated as an easy excuse for some to fall back on when the discrepancy of beauty standards between the sexes is brought to attention. (and for the love of god don't assume I'm saying men have no physical societal expectations. I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that you'll never see a man sensually washing a car and eating a burger in a speedo as he slides around in bubbles for a Carl's jr. commercial.)

Anyway, I'd like to be very clear that I am not interested in discussing the subject without facts. We can speculate all day over the topic, but what I am looking for concrete evidence one way or the other. Can anyone provide me with a reputable scientific study that confirms the idea that men really are innately inclined to be basically shallow?

I mean no offense to men, and this is not a personal attack on anyone. If anything I am arguing that I think men may be smarter, and more depthful than our culture gives them credit.

______________________________________-

As a female who enjoys art as well as the shallow delight of an attractive man, this whole concept has been antithetical to my personal experiences. That's not to say that I could not be an exception to the rule or something, but it raises my suspicion that much more.

 

[NinjaSurfer]

I see the argument used over and over again to justify men valuing women's physical appearance to the extent that it is valued in our culture.

I'm not an expert, but I did recently take a neuroscience class wherein we explicitly reviewed the differences in male and female brains. I found that men are indeed generally better at handling spacial problems. However, there was never a single citation regarding men being innately more visual in regard to aesthetics, than women.

My theory is that this is an argument that may not be substantiated by science, but instead proliferated as an easy excuse for some to fall back on when the discrepancy of beauty standards between the sexes is brought to attention. (and for the love of god don't assume I'm saying men have no physical societal expectations. I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that you'll never see a man sensually washing a car and eating a burger in a speedo as he slides around in bubbles for a Carl's jr. commercial.)

Anyway, I'd like to be very clear that I am not interested in discussing the subject without facts. We can speculate all day over the topic, but what I am looking for concrete evidence one way or the other. Can anyone provide me with a reputable scientific study that confirms the idea that men really are innately inclined to be basically shallow?

I mean no offense to men, and this is not a personal attack on anyone. If anything I am arguing that I think men may be smarter, and more depthful than our culture gives them credit.

______________________________________-

As a female who enjoys art as well as the shallow delight of an attractive man, this whole concept has been antithetical to my personal experiences. That's not to say that I could not be an exception to the rule or something, but it raises my suspicion that much more.

I think you begin your search with a strong prejudice-- that physical preference is somehow "shallow."

Who's to really judge that aesthetic vs mental preference is qualitatively "better" or "less shallow" than the other?

I can accuse women of being shallow and only appreciating personality-- where I spend a ton of hours in the gym and it is not appreciated one bit. They are the inconsiderate ones for not appreciating the hard work I put in at the gym.

In fact, I think you might be the one who has been brainwashed by society to automatically consider physical appreciation "shallow" in nature.

The only scientific study I need is my own experience and preference-- in that I would bang Kim Kardashian all day long knowing how big of a slut she is. I can talk all the shit I want but one look and show me some skin and I'd dump my life savings to her. What other scientific study do you really need?

 

[addictedartist]

I have always considered why women are beautiful because they make me feel good,
aesthetics play an important role in culture as a whole, our vehicles have top of the line technology and keep lookin different with each new engine, my point being that one specific super elite economy class car could be produced that never breaks down and then a whole fuck load of people would be out of business which is to say that even though every man has a woman he regards 'top of the line' he recognizes the fact that it is an impossible standard however a desireable archtype to adhere to, because it is psychologically stimulating to consider the possibilities of having a relationship.

'Every significant vital sign- body temperature, heart rate, oxygen consumption, hormone level, brain activity, and so on- alters the moment you decide to do anything… decisions are signals telling your body, mind, and environment to move in a certain direction'
what humans look like on the outside is a result of their genetic makeup, so its whats on the inside that counts; as they say.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I think you begin your search with a strong prejudice-- that physical preference is somehow "shallow."

Who's to really judge that aesthetic vs mental preference is qualitatively "better" or "less shallow" than the other?

I can accuse women of being shallow and only appreciating personality-- where I spend a ton of hours in the gym and it is not appreciated one bit. They are the inconsiderate ones for not appreciating the hard work I put in at the gym.

In fact, I think you might be the one who has been brainwashed by society to automatically consider physical appreciation "shallow" in nature.

The only scientific study I need is my own experience and preference-- in that I would bang Kim Kardashian all day long knowing how big of a slut she is. I can talk all the shit I want but one look and show me some skin and I'd dump my life savings to her. What other scientific study do you really need?

Man I was typing something up but... This^

 

[Architect]

I think you begin your search with a strong prejudice-- that physical preference is somehow "shallow."

Agreed. Odd that the poster demands a scientific discussion but starts it out with a strong value judgment. Then another assessment that our culture finds men shallow. Which I don't follow since in our culture more men than women get positions such as judges, artists, etc.

Anyhow I doubt you'll find a difference in the gross brain structures, but you'd need to look at the connectomes, which we are barely beginning to map (and then only for nematodes such as C Elegans.) Even then you might not see what you are looking for, the wiring is likely to be somewhere between the visual preprocessing nerves behind the eyes, with a hookup into the male hormone system.

Best bet is to measure whether men release hormones when sighting beautiful or naked women. What you'll no doubt find is that yes, men respond to beautiful and/or naked women. What do you expect? Of course somewhere in mens programming is something that wants to respond to female attributes. It's necessary to produce reliable erections. Most married men I observe do manage to go beyond that and get to the 'not shallow', if that makes you feel good.

Going further, it is true that women appreciate a mans position and money. Isn't that shallow? Or is it just more genetic programming, which encourages a woman to find a man that can provide for her and her babies.

Additionally, there are problems with measurement. Taking the Kim Kardashian example above, I find her repulsive. Always went for the nerdy oddball girls myself.

 

[Puffy]

Defensive much guys.

Shallow means 'of little depth', if you only value someone's surface appearance, then I'd say that's shallow, in fact, it's hardly treading in the water.

 

[Cognisant]

I thought this thread was going to be about men being vain

I'm just saying that you'll never see a man sensually washing a car and eating a burger in a speedo as he slides around in bubbles for a Carl's jr. commercial.

Do you want to see that?

Personally I'd be quite happy to see men treated as sex objects in commercials as every bit as much as women are, I see nothing wrong with it, indeed I'm interested to see what it is that women find attractive so that I can emulate it.

Likewise I would like to see more women in movies and other media who have attractive personalities because as it is there are incredibly few. An attractive female personality is neither necessarily slutty nor prudish, for me an attractive female personality is one in which the person in question is opinionated, driven, and passionate about what she stands for, if a woman came up to me and yelled in my face to shut the fuck up because I'm wrong and then she gives a comprehensive rational explanation why, I'd fall in love with her right there on the spot.

 

[Puffy]

Personally I'd be quite happy to see men treated as sex objects in commercials as every bit as much as women are, I see nothing wrong with it, indeed I'm interested to see what it is that women find attractive so that I can emulate it.

This is increasingly the case in the UK. UK men are really into fashion as well, more so than the states or other places I've visited anyway. (It's still worse for women though.)

To be honest, I'd rather we just toned it down. I left the country for 2 weeks last month, the first thing I noticed returning (to a staggering degree) was how sexualised my culture is. It creeps me out sometimes.

 

[Cognisant]

I've also considered creating a range of cleaning products specifically made for and targeted at single men, think about it, every other cleaning product (that isn't for cars or car engines) is advertised at women, but single men and many non-single men have to do their own cleaning, so there's a demographic of consumers that nobody else is trying to sell stuff to who I imagine, if given the choice between "soccer Mum's cleaning up after the kids" product and "a bachelor of style and taste is preparing for company" product, well I know which one I'd choose.

 

[RaBind]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owGykVbfgUE

 

[Latte]

I like women only for their innards, and not just visually. The taste of her appendix as I licks and gnash. The texture of her kidney covered in warm lovely blood. The sensation of her sleek, slimy entrails coiling around my neck down to my chest, where I rub it across my skin amorously.

What other scientific study do you really need?

I don't know, but it should probably have a sample size larger than one.

I can be attracted both primarily physically and primarily mentally (though things such as body movement, posture and expressions do reflect mental states, so it's hard to entirely separate), but no matter how physically fit a person seems, if there are certain things present in their personality and demeanor, the person as a whole becomes/is undesirable, and the physical attraction ceases to be. This has not seemed to go the other way to such a strong degree.

One could speculate (I am terribly sorry) that the degree to which different aspects of people affect one's appreciation of the other aspects or the whole of a person depends on which ways the brain is integrated. For some people they will have more of "a whole of a person" that they are attracted to. For others the aspects will be enjoyed or disliked in a more separate manner.

The average male brain is significantly less integrated than the average female brain. Cases of abnormally high fetal testosterone have been strongly linked to autistic traits, which again is strongly correlated with/"caused through" the lack of integration between brain areas.

I would suggest for thought, the idea that in males, there is a higher incident rate of brain development towards systems where the assessment of the likability of personality cannot override and subdue the assessment of dat ass so that reactions of attraction to dat ass becomes dependent upon a set of personality requirements. An emergent phenomena.

 

[Minuend]

I think "studies" like such only reinforce stereotypical behavoiur and seperate aspects of the human mind into parts that might not even be a fair or accurate division. Our knowledge on how different parts of our brain works and communicate still has its mysteries.

No matter, I see no point in making such assumptions when you will have to know an induvidual to know what that person thinks. What good are generalizations when I want to interact on a personal level?

 

[Darby]

I don't know anything about any studies, but I did have a bit of a funny conversation with my roommate the other day while watching a movie which went something like "Which one of them do you think looks better?" (two women on screen). I reply, "I don't know, I've seen the brown haired one more, she seems -" "Goddamnit Darby! You're allowed to be shallow for two fucking minutes!" it then ended in utter silence between us because I didn't have a preference based solely on physical attributes (in other words, I'd have sex with either of them and I thought it would probably still feel good, and whether their hair was brown or black wasn't my concern).

 

[EditorOne]

Yes, well, I had an interesting conversation with a 50-ish woman I know in which she explained that her duty, as an attractive, well endowed (self-described hourglass figure), intelligent woman was to only allow similarly physically Alpha males to breed with her. All women seek their genetic equal, she said, and it was only the best for her. Yes, a "J," you betcha.

I was astonished and then thoughtful.

First, I'd not have connected the concept of "hourglass figure" with her physique. Attractive, but either she took the measurements long ago or she measured selectively.

Second, I was talking to a woman who had never married and, so far as I know, had had only one committed relationship - to a man who turned out to be already married, as she finally twigged.

Not wishing to cause offense with a sharp comment, I controlled my impulse to sputter "but but but but" and retreated into INTPesque/chameleon mumbling and nodding.


On the other hand, there's an old joke: Why did God give women a vagina? So men would talk to them.

 

[Roni]

I like looking at horses. I enjoy photos and paintings but especially love seeing them move. Their power and grace fascinates me.
I don't enjoy being close to live horses though. They smell. And sometimes they bite or step on your foot. I don't want to get too close.
No doubt horsists object to this. They'd tell me if I just took the time to get to know a horse I might even enjoy his intelligence and personality.
Sorry horsists, I can't be bothered. I just like to watch.

 

[Architect]

First, I'd not have connected the concept of "hourglass figure" with her physique. Attractive, but either she took the measurements long ago or she measured selectively.

@E1, 50ish women always round down.

 

[Cognisant]

I wouldn't mind being judged by my personality, if the sort of personality women liked wasn't such a douche.

I can't remember who it was but I remember reading a post by a female member that basically said if you want to get a girl's attention you have to act as if you're better than her, which disgusted me so much I very nearly made a thread about it.

 

[NinjaSurfer]

I'll fuck anything with two legs and a vagina. The legs could be negotiable depending on what day of the week it is.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I'll fuck anything with two legs and a vagina. The legs could be negotiable depending on what day of the week it is.

(^.~)

 

[Smooch]

Men are more visually stimulated than women. They're also less selective. In general, attractiveness is an indicator of good health. Having sex with an attractive person means there's a better chance of producing favorable offspring than with a less attractive one. It may be shallow, but it's kind of engrained into us.
Women are shallow too. To the person who said they wouldn't mind if men were sexualized in commercials so they would know what women like: They already are. Notice the old spice commercial. Also, axe and Gillette commercials come to mind.

I realize that the idea that men are shallow so they can produce better offspring is somewhat outdated. Having a an intelligent conversation with someone is probably a better indicator of whether you'll have favorable offspring with that person :P But honestly it is what it is. People aren't going to stop being shallow.

 

[scorpiomover]

I've seen women around fit men. They gush over such men, with a much stronger indication of desire, than most men.

I've seen women on hen nights with a male stripper, and men on stag nights with a female stripper. The women attack the men with gusto, literally ripping his clothes off. The bouncers normally let this happen, because they simply can't stop the women, not without dozens of bouncers. Men are far easier to control in such situations.

This convinced me that women have much stronger hormonal sexual desires than men, and that it is affected by physical appearance just as much as men. When I've mentioned this to women friends, they agreed firmly, that their sexual desires were much stronger than men's.

Thus, I believe that the reason that men appear to be more affected by physical appearance more than women, is because (a) women are also sexually attracted to other factors, while most men seem oblivious to most other factors, giving men the appearance of being more concerned with the physical than women, and (b) our societal values we have been raised with, are that men are attracted much more to physical appearance than women, and so our neural pathways have been conditioned since birth that way, and have thus become so strong, that we now take that for granted, and find it difficult to imagine things to be any other way.

I've also considered creating a range of cleaning products specifically made for and targeted at single men, think about it, every other cleaning product (that isn't for cars or car engines) is advertised at women, but single men and many non-single men have to do their own cleaning, so there's a demographic of consumers that nobody else is trying to sell stuff to who I imagine, if given the choice between "soccer Mum's cleaning up after the kids" product and "a bachelor of style and taste is preparing for company" product, well I know which one I'd choose.

Dove and Nivea have cleaning products for men. See Dove for men and Nivea for men. I suspect that other such companies do too.

 

[intpz]

I, for one, don't give half a shit how I look like.

 

[Arachnid]

This convinced me that women have much stronger hormonal sexual desires than men, and that it is affected by physical appearance just as much as men. When I've mentioned this to women friends, they agreed firmly, that their sexual desires were much stronger than men's.

I don't think women have much of a sense for how horny most men are. I don't think men have a very good idea of how horny most women are either. I'd guess that it's probably pretty similar between the genders.

A theory: women are probably also more aggressive on hen nights because of the societal double standard that men are always able to protect themselves and that it's impossible for them to be raped. "Why WOULDN'T a man enjoy 10 women clawing at him." Men on the other hand are taught to think even flirting with a woman could be grounds for some sort of sexual harassment. Women are also very careful to hold back their sexuality for fear of being a "slut." Most likely these women are letting out a lot of sexual tension when they get into a situation where they are "supposed" to be sexual.


Here's an interesting article that talks about some research done that shows how when men are primed with money, their criteria for a suitable mate becomes more selective, particularly around physical attractiveness. Women didn't show this result and they also valued creativity and social standing more than men did.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/head-games/201207/are-men-shallow

Also, in case no one has heard of this, one of the theories of why men are more "shallow" so to speak, where as women are "deep" (how deep are your pockets? lol), has to do with the investment expected out of each of the biological parents.

Men are capable of impregnating an indefinite number of women. This means that a man's criteria for who they should have sex with is pretty low. Back when our biology was primarily shaped, there were no paternity tests, so it was to a male's benefit to sleep with as many suitably attractive women as possible, and have the most genetic offspring. There were no expectations of support or "responsibilities" after impregnation, unless you were in some sort of relationship with them. Looks provided an easy heuristic (not always accurate, but useful) to determine who would most likely provide the healthiest children.

Women on the other hand are thought to be more discriminating due to the fact they have more limited reproductive capacities (have to carry each child for 9 months) and they also care for each child after they are born. This made it more important for women to seek support, social standing, ability to provide, etc. There is a theory with some evidence that women have a mating strategy that basically results in women finding a suitable provider, and then cuckolding them to get "great genes" from another, probably more physically attractive, man. This would result in the women getting the best of both worlds: a male that can provide for and protect her and her children, while still getting the "best genes".

A simple example is, why does donald trump get to marry and sleep with super models, where as oprah does not seem to get the same kind of attention? These male and female mating tendencies may just be an unfortunate and unfair biological programming that is left over from an earlier age.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Spoiler

I don't think women have much of a sense for how horny most men are. I don't think men have a very good idea of how horny most women are either. I'd guess that it's probably pretty similar between the genders.

A theory: women are probably also more aggressive on hen nights because of the societal double standard that men are always able to protect themselves and that it's impossible for them to be raped. "Why WOULDN'T a man enjoy 10 women clawing at him." Men on the other hand are taught to think even flirting with a woman could be grounds for some sort of sexual harassment. Women are also very careful to hold back their sexuality for fear of being a "slut." Most likely these women are letting out a lot of sexual tension when they get into a situation where they are "supposed" to be sexual.


Here's an interesting article that talks about some research done that shows how when men are primed with money, their criteria for a suitable mate becomes more selective, particularly around physical attractiveness. Women didn't show this result and they also valued creativity and social standing more than men did.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/head-games/201207/are-men-shallow

Also, in case no one has heard of this, one of the theories of why men are more "shallow" so to speak, where as women are "deep" (how deep are your pockets? lol), has to do with the investment expected out of each of the biological parents.

Men are capable of impregnating an indefinite number of women. This means that a man's criteria for who they should have sex with is pretty low. Back when our biology was primarily shaped, there were no paternity tests, so it was to a male's benefit to sleep with as many suitably attractive women as possible, and have the most genetic offspring. There were no expectations of support or "responsibilities" after impregnation, unless you were in some sort of relationship with them. Looks provided an easy heuristic (not always accurate, but useful) to determine who would most likely provide the healthiest children.

Women on the other hand are thought to be more discriminating due to the fact they have more limited reproductive capacities (have to carry each child for 9 months) and they also care for each child after they are born. This made it more important for women to seek support, social standing, ability to provide, etc. There is a theory with some evidence that women have a mating strategy that basically results in women finding a suitable provider, and then cuckolding them to get "great genes" from another, probably more physically attractive, man. This would result in the women getting the best of both worlds: a male that can provide for and protect her and her children, while still getting the "best genes".

A simple example is, why does donald trump get to marry and sleep with super models, where as oprah does not seem to get the same kind of attention? These male and female mating tendencies may just be an unfortunate and unfair biological programming that is left over from an earlier age.

I somewhat agree with these kind of explanations, since they do make the most rational sense in terms of evolution. The only problem I have with them though is that they generalize that all women are that calculating, status-seeking, or resourceful. Some women just impulsively go after the shiniest thing they see without thinking about security and child support, especially young females still in their teens or early twenties(though to some extent they unconsciously may still go after those with security, status, and resources). And then you have women that aren't all that tapped into their instincts, who just like a certain person and want to be with them.

 

[Arachnid]

I somewhat agree with these kind of explanations, since they do make the most rational sense in terms of evolution. The only problem I have with them though is that they generalize that all women are that calculating, status-seeking, or resourceful. Some women just impulsively go after the shiniest thing they see without thinking about security and child support, especially young females still in their teens or early twenties(though to some extent they unconsciously may still go after those with security, status, and resources). And then you have women that aren't all that tapped into their instincts, who just like a certain person and want to be with them.

Yeah, I agree with you. I think that it's possible that there are sub populations with different preferences. If people can go so far as being gay and lesbian (not that there is anything wrong with this, just that it's VERY different from the "standard" mating preference!) I don't see why there couldn't be alternative strategies.

I also think that most of these aren't really "conscious" thoughts. People have their feelings and then try to rationalize them however they can.

I imagine that there is probably a way to fit the college aged girls into the same framework. I'm assuming by "shiny things" you mean "popular guys", "confident guys", and "dangerous guys". Those to me imply social standing and a willingness to take risk, a masculine trait. The dangerous ones might be categorized more under the "semen provider" label. lol.