Human Attraction

There are some well-known instances of opposites attracting. Some people have noticed that very short women tend to desire very tall men. If you were to ask these women why, they’d probably tell you it’s because they don’t want their children to be short. Sure, that sounds logical enough to believe. But I believe there’s also a deeper, more instinctual reason for this sexual attraction: they are attracted to the extreme opposite of themselves. Another example would be people with an Aquiline (hook) nose. They are immensely attracted to people with a Celestial (turned-up) nose—the extreme opposite. So yes, opposites attract, but it actually gets a lot deeper than this.

A good primer to this would be my article titled “The Fundamental Difference between Men and Women.” Unfortunately, it’s about 100 pages long, so I’ll try to summarize it in a few paragraphs. I hypothesize that men pay attention to the general things and neglect the specific things. Women are the opposite: they pay attention to the specifics and neglect the generals. This opposing attention/neglect is the basis of human attraction. Men are attracted to women that attend to the specifics and neglect the generals. Women are attracted to men that attend to the generals and neglect the specifics. I realize this is quite abstract—bear with me.

 What exactly do I mean by generals and specifics? In the realm of personality and behavior, I’m basically saying that men pay attention to the big picture rather than the little details, the community rather than the individual, sameness rather than uniqueness, timeless things rather than instances, etc. Women are the exact opposite. A man’s preference for the generals is why men prefer carrying themselves with one consistent demeanor, which I call “universal behavior.” Women prefer adapting to different people, places, things, and periods of time by changing their voice, attitude, outfit, etc. I call this “situational behavior.” This kind of behavior goes hand-in-hand with “living in the moment.”

The concept of “attention, “neglect,” “generals,” and “specifics” also extends to the human face and body. In this realm, “attention” is to use a body part, and “neglect” is to disuse a body part. The general parts of the body are the chest and butt due to their universality while the specifics parts of the body are the fingers and toes due to their adaptability. This is why the human male has a preference for using the chest and butt over the fingers and toes. Over time, this produces a body with a muscular chest and butt, but poor dexterity. Females prefer the opposite, which results in good dexterity and unused chest and butt muscles, a.k.a. breasts and booty.

Why do men favor “generals” over “specifics?” A reasonable guess would be that this is caused by a high level of testosterone. And for women and their preference for “specifics,” it would be caused by a high level of estrogen. The truth is that it’s not a simple cause and effect. Studies show that men can actually raise their testosterone level by performing “masculine activities,” such as doing pushups every day. I would venture to guess that a woman could raise her estrogen level by performing fine motor skills, like handwriting or sewing. Their actions raised their hormone levels—not the other way around.

Children are nearly gender-neutral, or androgynous, until puberty begins. This is when the testosterone-to-estrogen ratio gradually tips to one side. The more masculine a man becomes, the more feminine the women he’s attracted to. For instance, a “30:1 man” would be most attracted to a “1:30 woman.” And a very androgynous man, say 2:1, would be most attracted to a “1:2 woman.” This also applies to women. I believe this is due to a subconscious strive for balance. I hypothesize that our offspring takes on the average of the parents’ testosterone-to-estrogen ratios. Furthermore, I believe that 1:1 is the ideal, evolutionarily-advantageous ratio for a young child. We don’t want a hyper-feminine or hyper-masculine child—that is puberty’s job.

I’m aware that the pictures for the female face are far from perfect, but it’s the concept that’s important. The male face on top is most attracted to the female face below it, and vice versa; the more masculine the man’s face, the more feminine the face of the women he finds attractive. This is an instance of “opposites attract” that everyone can relate to because—unlike being super short or having a hook nose—everyone has a certain degree of masculinity or femininity (as measurable by testosterone and estrogen). Matching a masculine face to a feminine face doesn’t mean much in the real world, though, because women aren’t really looking out for facial features like this. Women have their sights set on behavior.

In this article, I’ll show how the typical male is attracted to the typical female with respect to attention and neglect of “generals” and “specifics.” I expect you to have an understanding of the normal distribution, a.k.a. the bell curve, because it is extremely relevant in any discussion regarding any measurable characteristic (of humans). Estrogen hormone level, for example. This hypothesis applies to the average man or woman, therefore exceptions/outliers will exist. Do not dismiss my hypothesis on account of an outlying anecdote. If, while reading this, you find yourself disagreeing with something I say about men (or women), please ask yourself if your disagreement is based on your personal preference or because you know many, many men (or women) that it does not hold true for. I’m not going to repeat this point. For brevity, I’ll say “men” even though I technically mean “most men but not all,” and I’ll say “women” even though I technically mean “most women but not all.”

Male vs. Female Perspective

Men have a “convergent” perspective. To evaluate attractiveness, men look at the face and body because these cater to convergence. Women have a “divergent” perspective. To evaluate attractiveness, women pay attention to personality and behavior because these cater to divergence. When I say behavior, I basically mean how someone acts in social interactions. By looking at personality and behavior, a woman can spend minutes to hours evaluating a man’s attractiveness. By looking at the face and body, a man only spends a second or two evaluating a woman’s attractiveness. This instinctive male behavior is frowned upon in society today.

               As I said before, men focus on “generals,” which are the ubiquitous and timeless things. In the realm of facial appearance, these are the shapes and proportions of facial features (e.g. wide nose), and the color contrast between skin and hair. These things are timeless so they do not change according to a trend or an era. These things are ubiquitous so they can be compared among people. This is what men look at. The higher your testosterone-to-estrogen ratio, the more you look at these things and disregard the things that women look at. The female perspective is focused on the unique things—the incomparable. In the realm of the face, these are hairstyles, tattoos, piercings, clothing, adornments, accessories, jewelry, etc.; the seasonal and situational things.

Men should try to understand the female (divergent) perspective and women should try to understand the male (convergent) perspective. Women have a grossly oversimplified understanding of what men are into: big boobs and big butts. On the other hand, men do not understand that women are paying attention the personality and behavior. Furthermore, most men do not understand why certain behaviors are construed as attractive to women.

This article is all about male-female equivalents: how face and body are equivalent to personality and behavior. The purpose of these equivalents is to give you a better understanding of the sexual desires of the opposite sex. I’ll start off slow by just switching between the male and female perspectives. That is, I’ll explain how a man focused on face and body is equivalent to a woman focused on personality and behavior. Second, I’ll get more advanced by also switching the presentation of their subject. That is, I’ll explain how attention to “generals” and neglect of “specifics” is equivalent to attention to “specifics” and neglect of “generals.”

Switching Perspectives: Body-Behavior Equivalents

Behavior is doing things—socializing, interacting, or participating. To neglect these is to have little or no behavior. In the realm of the body, doing things is demonstrated by muscle and neglect is demonstrated by fat. Body-behavior equivalents shouldn’t come as a complete surprise since everyone knows that an active, sporty lifestyle (i.e. behavior) can produce a fit body.

- The way a man sees a fit woman is equivalent to the way a woman sees a sociable, interactive, participative man. They are equally attractive. A common bit of advice women give to a man is to “be confident.” This is equivalent to men advising a woman to “be fit.” Furthermore, a man’s view of a fat woman is equivalent to a woman’s view of a shy man. They are equally unattractive.

- A man who tries to improve his behavior is equivalent to a woman who tries to improve her body. In other words, a man who makes an effort to “step out of his comfort zone” and socialize, interact, and participate is equivalent to a woman who makes an effort to work out.

- A man who works out his body is equivalent to a woman who works on her social skills: they’re disregarding the perspective of the opposite sex. Neither is directly effective for attracting the opposite sex. That is, women don’t really care for a man with a buff body in the same way that men don’t care for a woman confidently speaking in public. It’s not all for naught, though, because these things can indirectly lead to increased attractiveness.

- Attractiveness has a scale. In regard to the body, a “1” at the bottom of the scale is very fat, and a “10” at the top of the scale is very fit. In regard to behavior, being very shy is at the bottom of the scale and being very self-confident is at the top. In between 1-10 is being awkward or stifled. That is, doing things with hesitation, inhibition, or not to the fullest extent. For example, approaching a stranger and then speaking quietly. Or, dancing but being afraid to raise your arms. These subtle behaviors are often called body language. Keeping your head up while walking pass strangers is an example of self-confident body language.

A study found that women find men who dance with wide and big movements to be more attractive than men who dance with stiff movements. The study claimed that women pay attention to how men dance because it is a courtship that displays health and reproductive potential. I disagree with this claim. A physique also shows off these traits yet women hardly pay attention. As aforementioned, I believe women pay attention to this because they have a “divergent” perspective. Secondly, a good dance is hardly indicative of health and reproductive potential—women are simply more attracted to confidence than shyness.

- Alcohol, a.k.a. liquid courage, makes it easy for a person to socialize, interact, and participate without inhibition. Thus, men can use alcohol to temporarily appear more attractive to women, which are paying attention to behavior. Steroids are drugs that make it easy for one to lose fat and/or gain muscle. Thus, women can cycle steroids to temporarily appear more attractive to men, which are paying attention to the body. In this way, alcohol and steroids are equivalent in that they both temporarily boost one’s attractiveness.

- A male pick-up artist is equivalent to a female wearing makeup or push-up bras. They’re both false advertisements in the perspective that matters to the opposite sex. The man’s charming personality comes from pick-up lines he memorized from the internet. His self-confident behaviors are reenactments of successful routines posted on YouTube. His personality and behavior—the things that matter to women—are fake. The woman deceives people by using makeup to draw on a beautiful face. Cosmetic surgery is permanent deception. She also “cheats” by wearing corsets or push-up bras for a better figure. Her face and body—the things that matter to men—are fake.

- Oftentimes, in a long-term relationship, the man or the woman will get “too comfortable”—he or she will get lazy in maintaining their attractiveness. For a man, this would mean turning into a shy and/or awkward beta male. For a woman, this would mean getting fat. Either of these could spell the end of the relationship.

- Men do not care if a woman is shy. Men do not care if a woman doesn’t socialize, interact with people, or participate in anything, so long as she is hot. A shy woman is equivalent to a fat man. Women do not care if a man is fat, so long as he’s amicable and carries himself with self-confidence.

If women are so concerned about personality and behavior, why do men bother working out? Why not develop self-confidence directly? For men, a lot of self-confidence is derived from having an aesthetically-pleasing face and body. This is due to the male convergent perspective. Thus, men will work out to look better to feel better about themselves. This then carries over to social interactions as self-confident behavior—a large part of the ideal man to women. It is difficult—if not impossible—for a man to skip the male perspective, which focuses on looks, and go straight to self-confident behavior. (This is the goal of many pick-up artists.) The more testosterone flowing through a man’s brain, the more attention he pays to appearance. If a man doesn’t derive any self-confidence from his looks, I’m willing to bet that he also doesn’t desire an attractive-looking woman. Basically, his perspective is androgynous or feminine.

The female equivalent to the above is a stretch but I’ll try. If men are so concerned about looks, why do women work on self-confident behavior? Why bother engaging in social interactions, attending events, or participating in activities? Why not just acquire a fit body? Perhaps women feel better about themselves from engaging in all these social interactions. This self-esteem is then used to mentally and physically push herself while working out to develop a better body. It may be difficult for a woman to skip the female perspective, which focuses on behavior, and go straight to acquiring a fit body. I definitely see it as being possible, however.

Neglect of Specifics (Clothes) == Breasts and Booty

Now I’ll switch perspective and presentation. For a woman to be super attractive, it takes more than just a fit body. Well, technically, it takes a body that’s less than 100% fit. I’m talking about boobs. Women, by nature, neglect the general things. In the realm of the body—the male perspective—this means women neglect to use the chest and butt. This disuse results in fat localized to the chest and butt, a.k.a. breasts and booty. For men, being super attractive is more than just being self-confident. Men, by nature, neglect the specific things. In the realm of personality and behavior—the female perspective—this is many, many, many things…

- Neglect of hairstyle, clothing, adornments, accessories, etc. is equivalent to breasts and/or booty. Hairstyle, clothes, etc. are specifics. They can change by tomorrow. They change according to the situation, environment, weather, fashion trend, etc. Neglecting specifics is what men do because their attention is on the general things. I’m not saying that a homeless man in ragged (i.e. neglected) clothes is a chick magnet. It is the act of neglect because, remember, the female perspective is behavior. For example, a man rolling up his sleeves to get work done is attractive to women because he’s showing disregard of his shirt—a “specific”—for a greater cause. Another example would be having well-groomed hair and then messing it up from dancing or having sex (i.e. “sex hair”). The “bad boy look” is wearing a tilted hat, a “popped” collar, some unbuttoned shirt buttons, and some holes in the jeans. These things are attractive to girls because they demonstrate neglect of clothes. To be super attractive, though, it should be the act of neglect. That is, knocking your hat off center, pulling apart your shirt collar, and so on.

- If you’re a man, you must find it bizarre that women are attracted to these things, especially when you consider how much they care about their own clothes and wearing them properly. This is equivalent to how men give so much attention to the chest and butt, by developing these muscles all the time, yet are attracted to the neglect these muscles (i.e. boobs and booty). This must be mind-boggling to women.

- To be attractive, one must possess and then neglect. One cannot simply neglect. A man must have proper clothes and then neglect them. He should have a proper hairstyle and then neglect it. He must actively show neglect of specifics to be attractive because it is behavior that women look at. This is why you often see pictures of male models tearing apart work clothes. This is why male strippers start their routines in a proper work uniform and then take it apart piece by piece. Men may see this as pointless. “Why even bother buying fancy clothes, gelling hair, or donning a fancy suit, if in the end I’m only going to neglect it?” A woman must possess a body by eating (a lot) of food, and then neglect to use the chest and butt muscles. She cannot simply neglect the chest and butt by not eating much food because there would be no fat—no surplus calories—to accumulate at the underused body parts.

- A man can be very social, interactive, and participative and yet still be unattractive if he pays attention to the specifics instead of neglecting them. This would be a man who makes sure all locks of hair are in their correct positions. Or ensuring that his dress shirt remains properly tucked into his pants. Or constantly making sure the bill of his cap is perfectly centered. This kind of nitpicky behavior is unattractive to women. It is equivalent to a woman who heavily uses her chest and butt muscles and, as a result, does not have big breasts or booty. A self-confident man who doesn’t neglect the specifics is equivalent to a woman who works out her entire body, including the chest and butt.

- A man who works out his chest and butt is equivalent to a woman who acquires lots of clothes and accessories. The man is bettering his body—general. The woman is bettering her ability to adapt to different environments—specific. From a woman’s perspective, the man’s efforts are in vain because it does nothing for his attractiveness. His physique is also pointless from a utilitarian perspective. In today’s world, muscles aren’t needed to drive a car or to type on a computer; muscles are hardly used in 99% of today’s occupations. From a man’s perspective, the woman’s efforts are in vain because the outfits and accessories do nothing for her attractiveness. It’s also pointless in today’s world. Most of us live in air-conditioned units for most of the day so it’s not like we need a fur coat to survive the winter or boots to cross a river.

- A man who compliments a woman on her looks (face or body) is equivalent to a woman who compliments a man on his personality or behavior. These compliments aren’t really taken to heart because they cater to the wrong perspective. A comment that women would appreciate is one in her realm of personality and behavior. For instance, “Nice dress. It really fits the occasion.” This is equivalent to a woman saying “nice biceps” to a man. Both compliments make the person feel appreciated for their endeavors.

Neglect of Individual == Breasts and Booty

- Women say they want a man with goals and aspirations. Why? Because a man focused on goals is sort of forced to neglect the specific things in life. With goals, he has less time to devote to one-on-one interactions with people, including his girlfriend/wife. This is attractive. It is equivalent to a woman who does a lot with her hands and feet and, as a result, neglects her chest and butt—the “general” parts of the body.

- Men are often advised to be a jerk, instead of a nice guy, to win a woman over. This is good advice, but what exactly does it mean? It doesn’t mean men should be rude, insult, bully, or pester a woman. It’s all about disregard of the individual in favor of the group, community, or population. Relative to a group of people, a single person is a specific. A man is attractive if he aims to please the masses rather than one person. This is why musicians, professional athletes, and celebrities are attractive to women. They don’t have time to pay a lot of attention to their girlfriend or wife. They don’t accommodate to her special needs and wants. Believe it or not, this is attractive. This is equivalent to a woman who disregards her chest and butt because she is busy doing dexterous activities instead.

- Men are often advised to not be clingy, suffocating, smothering, needy, etc. but why? Men are advised to not treat a woman like a princess, put her on a pedestal, be at her beck and call, allow his life to revolve around hers, adapt to her schedule, or prioritize her life over his, but why? The commonality among all these behaviors is that they give a lot of attention to an individual, which is a specific relative to the community/group. It’s all very nice, thoughtful, and logical, but unattractive. A smothering or subservient man is equivalent to a flat-chested and flat-butted woman. An attractive man would spend his time and effort on his own life, rather than the life of the woman he likes. He attends to his goals, his friends and family, and his community—the bigger picture.

- A woman wants a man focused on the “bigger things” rather than her all the time. Women want to have to work to get his attention. Women want to chase. Men, on the other hand, would be perfectly okay if a hot woman plopped right onto his lap. She is not any less attractive if she’s an “easy catch.” The saying, “We all want what we can’t have,” is only true for women when it comes to attractiveness. Women want men that show indifference to specifics, which includes herself. The male equivalent is a woman with big boobs and booty. Again, the opposite behavior is a man who’s at a woman’s beck and call—unattractive.

- A woman is not less attractive if she pays extra attention to a man. Yes, I realize “Stage 5 Clinger” is a popular saying. I’m also aware that pop culture mocks “overly-attached girlfriends.” Why do I think this then? Because a woman who pays attention to a man’s special needs and wants is equivalent to a man who works out his chest and butt muscles. I switched perspective and presentation. I believe a man is simply indifferent to the special attention his girlfriend/wife provides, and she is indifferent to the size of his chest. Their efforts do serve a purpose though: he feels better about himself and she feels better about herself.

- “Not giving a fuck” is not caring how others perceive you in public. This is attractive male behavior. It’s achieved through deeply-rooted self-confidence. A confident man does not let an embarrassing moment ruin his demeanor because he knows deep down that he’s still great. A man who disregards the outcome of a specific social interaction is equivalent to a woman who disregards the general parts of the body: her chest and butt.

- “White knighting” is coming to a woman’s aid when she’s in trouble or hurt. Logically, it is sound: I do something for her, later she’ll do something for me. Wrong. It is seen as unattractive behavior, because it is attending to the needs of an individual whilst neglecting the community. This is equivalent to a woman who heavily uses her chest and butt muscles rather than her hands and feet. Even if a man’s intentions were pure and he wasn’t trying to get anything out of the woman, she will see him as unattractive. Say, for example, a woman falls and scrapes her knee. A man sees this and rushes to her aid, because he once did the same. He will be seen as unattractive in her eyes.

- Many males who lack experience with females fall into the “friend zone.” What happens in most of these cases is that the guy has applied The Golden Rule, or ethic of reciprocity, to the relationship: “One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.” Here’s the thing with the Golden Rule: it works for everything in life except human attraction. So when this inexperienced/unenlightened male is interested in a girl, he’ll clear his schedule to spend time with her, spend his money on her, ditch his friends to pamper her, etc. In his mind, he’s thinking (logically): more time and effort put in equals more time and effort in return. Thus, as he does these things, his expectations for reciprocation get bigger, but in actuality he’s becoming less attractive to her because he’s paying too much attention to a specific individual, a.k.a. being clingy, smothering, etc. As a result, he gets “friend zoned.” The female equivalent to the friend zone is a woman who puts a lot of time and effort into working out her chest and butt because she thinks men will find it attractive. As a result, she loses her big breasts and booty, and men are no longer attracted to her. This woman invested a lot of time and effort into something that makes sense logically: a fit body is healthy.

- Many people believe males end up in the “friend zone” because of their aforementioned subservient behavior and because they are too shy. That is, the guy is afraid he’ll be turned down or rejected when he asks her out or expresses his feelings for her. Being shy and a pushover is the ultimate combination of unattractiveness for men. It is equivalent to a woman who is fat yet does not have big breasts or booty—the worst body type for a woman to have.

If you take a step back, you can see how absolutely bizarre it is that women are attracted to men who do not pay attention to them. And equally bizarre is that men are attracted to fat on certain parts of the body. Modern science (i.e. evolutionary theory) does not have a good explanation for these. It’s been hypothesized that a woman with large breasts is able to produce a lot of milk for the child. However, studies have shown there is no correlation between breast size and milk production. Furthermore, a woman’s breasts are not some special female-specific organ. It’s just plain fat that results from disuse. Secondly, modern science does not have a good explanation as to why a big booty is attractive to men. A common hypothesis is that it shows a woman’s capability to bear a child. This hypothesis is probably based on the fact that the butt is near the womb. In reality, though, a curvaceous butt just has more fat than a flat butt. I recognized that the chest and butt are very similar in function and location, relative to the limb, so I labeled them as “general” parts of the body. This led me to a single explanation for why both breasts and a booty are attractive to men. My hypothesis encompasses all of human attraction, including the female perspective. Modern science doesn’t really have a hypothesis on why women are attracted to “jerks.” Also, truly anything can be considered an “evolutionary advantage.” For example, if women were attracted to clingy men, the “evolutionary advantage” explanation for it would be just as valid as the explanation for why women are attracted to “jerks.”

Men often ask each other, “Are you a ‘boobs guy’ or an ‘ass guy’?” The interesting thing I’ve discovered about this is that it’s based on the man’s own chest and butt development! So if a man has a muscular chest and butt, then he’ll like both about the same. If a man has an androgynous body then he won’t be attracted to breasts nor booty. If a man has a weak, fat chest and a firm gluteus maximus, he will be an “ass guy.” If a man has a fat caboose from his 9-to-5 desk job but a strong chest from doing pushups every day, he will be a “boobs guy.” Furthermore, if this same boob-loving man started doing butt exercises every day and stopped doing pushups, he will turn into an “ass guy.” This doesn’t just apply to the body but also the face. For instance, a man with a well-defined jaw will be attracted to a woman with rounded cheeks. To summarize, sexual desire for a feminine facial/body feature will not present itself until the man himself possesses the masculine version of the same facial/body feature. It doesn’t end there. This also applies to women and the female perspective. A woman won’t be attracted to a man who treats his clothes like crap unless/until she is properly wearing her own clothes. A woman won’t be into a man who disregards her presence unless/until she is adapting to his unique needs and wants.

Fact: when you pay attention to something, you are inadvertently neglecting something else; attend one thing, neglect the other. No man has ever said he’s attracted to a woman who frequently uses (i.e. attends to) her feet instead of her butt muscles. Yet just about every man likes a big booty. No man has ever said he loves a woman who frequently uses her hands, yet just about every man loves breasts. My point is that it’s the neglect that is attractive—not the attention to. It doesn’t matter exactly what the attention is on. No woman has ever said she’s attracted to a man who attends to the needs/wants of the population rather than the individual. Yet just about every woman is attracted to a man who doesn’t focus on her all the time. No woman has ever said she loves it when a man is catering to a large audience, but woman do love it when a man is not bending over backwards for her.

Neglect of Situations == Breasts and Booty

So far I’ve described behavior that shows attention to general things or attention to specific things. A person can also act in a general or specific manner. I call this universal or situational behavior. These are completely opposite ways to carry oneself. Men focus on the general things so men adopt universal behavior. This means having one consistent demeanor at all times. Women focus on the specifics so women adopt situational behavior. This means constantly adapting to the current situation (e.g. person, place, or thing), like a social chameleon.

- When a man wants to approach a woman he’s interested in, he’s often advised to “just be yourself.” What does this really mean? I believe it means adopting a universal behavior and disregarding situations. That is, acting the same way you usually act all the time, regardless of who you’re with, where you are, what the circumstances are, etc. Doing this allows a man to show his idiosyncrasies and unique personality. This is attractive male behavior. A man who neglects situations is equivalent to a woman who neglects her chest and butt muscles.

- Situations have the potential to change how a person acts. A situation can come from person, place, thing, or time. Say, for example, a man sees a pretty woman selecting fruits at the supermarket. He’s interested in meeting her, but he’s mindful of the situations: one, they’re at a grocery store, which is not a typical or designated place for hitting on chicks, like a bar or club; two, she’s busy. An unattractive man takes these into consideration and does not approach the woman. His behavior is equivalent to a woman who heavily uses her chest and butt muscles. An attractive man would disregard these situations and approach the woman.

- An unattractive man adopts situational behavior, just like a woman. In other words, he adjusts his behavior according to situations. For example, if he’s talking to a woman he’s attracted to, he may lower his voice, tell more lies, talk about his income, etc. He has changed himself according to the woman. This is often the definition of a douchebag. A popular instance of changing behavior is using a higher-pitched (more polite) voice when talking to a respected elder, or CSR over the phone, etc. Or, being cautiously quiet around a stranger yet talkative around a familiar friend. Or, looking around for cues on how to act when entering a new venue. It’s more than acceptable for a woman to do these things—it’s expected. But when a man does these it’s unattractive. A situational man is equivalent to a flat-chested and flat-butted woman—it’s expected for a man to have a flat, muscular chest but not a woman.

- A big part of universal behavior is leading conversations and social interactions. You choose the topics to talk about. You decide what to do. When you lead, you have to adopt universal behavior. An attractive man is one who leads conversations and interactions. After all, women want a man to “sweep them off their feet.” A man who leads is equivalent to a woman who attends to her hands and feet. Neither of these mean much to the opposite sex but, remember, it is the neglect that is attractive. A man that’s leading is simultaneously disregarding what a woman, or any individual for that matter, wants to talk about or do. This is equivalent to a woman who disregards her chest or butt muscles because she’s devoting her energy to doing things that involve the hands or feet.

- An unattractive man follows someone’s lead. Women would say that this man is boring or a pushover. A man who follows a woman’s lead is equivalent to woman who heavily uses her chest and butt muscles—both are unattractive. He may be applying logic to his relationship: I wouldn’t like it if someone took charge and led me around, so why would she like it? Female attraction does not follow logic. Women want to follow a man’s lead, because it gives her the opportunity to adapt to situations. “Going with the flow” or being cool with whatever the woman decides is being a spineless pushover. I’ve always found it funny when a man says, “I can be whatever you want me to be, baby.” This is one of the worst things a man can say to a woman. It’s fine when a woman says it, though.

- The opposite of a pushover is someone who’s assertive. This often means infringing on the personal space of others. For instance, you’re walking and talking to a friend about Pokémon cards. When a pretty woman walks by, you may stop talking or talk quietly because you’re afraid she might hear you and think less of you. This is what an unattractive man would do. He reacts to the situation. An attractive man would continue his conversation and not mind who hears, even if it’s not something others want to hear. A man who doesn’t change himself in the presence of others is equivalent to a woman with breasts and booty.

- Staring into someone’s eyes is a sign of disrespect in Asian cultures. I’m actually surprised this isn’t the case for all cultures because it is an invasion of personal space. It’s very common, instinctual even, to look away when someone catches you looking at them. This is done to be polite to the other person. It’s basically saying sorry without speaking. This is what an unattractive man would do. It’s attractive for a man to not look away or “back down” when someone catches him looking because it shows that he’s not reactive. That is, he doesn’t feel the need to change his behavior to momentarily appease a single individual. A man who disregards the feelings of an individual is equivalent to a woman who disregards her chest and butt muscles. Both are attractive.

- It is unattractive for a man to ask for permission before doing things. It shows that he’s willing to change what he’s doing to accommodate for the person(s) he’s with—situational behavior. Oftentimes he doesn’t explicitly ask whether he can or cannot do something. Instead, it’s in his body language. It is unattractive for a man to talk with upward inflections at the end of his sentences all the time. This subtly communicates that he’s not firm on what he’s saying and it’s open to be changed. Or, while socializing, he will say or do something bold and, immediately afterwards, sneak a glance at the person as if to ask, “Is this okay with you? Because if it’s not, I can change it.” He doesn’t actually say anything but he’s paying close attention to the person’s reaction to see whether they approve or disapprove. This is called seeking validation/approval. A man who’s ready to change himself at the whim of a person—usually the woman he’s attracted to—is unattractive.

- Women like the “bad boy” type, but what does that really mean? A bad boy does what you’re not supposed to do. That is, he disregards societal norms, local rules, and etiquette. Say, for example, a man is really attracted to a woman and has a primal urge to make love to her. There is a situation, however: they’re in a library. You are supposed to be on your best behavior at the library—there are kids around! An attractive man would disregard this situation, take the woman to an empty aisle, and make out. Or, say they’re at a clothing store. The attractive man may lead her to a vacant dressing room to have sex. He neglects the rules in place to satiate his desires. This bad boy behavior is equivalent to a woman who neglects her chest and butt.

- A woman can also have universal behavior and neglect situations like an attractive man. She would sort of be like a tomboy. This has no effect on her attractiveness, though, since the male perspective is looking at the face and body. The equivalent is a man with “manboobs” or a booty because he’s devoting extra attention (read: energy expenditure) to using his fingers or toes. For example, he knits all day. This has no effect on his attractiveness since the female perspective is looking at personality and behavior.

Women Are Biased Toward Good Looks and High Social Status

Everything above was written with the assumption that women simply look at personality and behavior to determine attractiveness—attraction in its purest form; a world without bias. In the real world, however, women also look at appearance and social status. This is why a very popular hypothesis on what attracts women is “LMS: looks, money, status.” The LMS hypothesis has a few holes, though: one, it doesn’t acknowledge the fact that women are attracted to charm, wit, displays of self-confidence, etc.; two, it isn’t just women who desire a spouse with a lot money—men, too, want it; moreover, this has nothing to do with human attraction and everything to do with getting free stuff. So, is the final equation for female attraction: appearance + social status + personality + behavior? Not really. It’s still personality + behavior, but a woman’s judgment of these two things is greatly influenced by appearance + social status. (I don’t know if you can make an equation out of that.) Women use appearance, social status, and reputation to make prejudgments about one’s personality and behavior.

Where does this bias come from? It stems from the way women think, which I explain in detail in “The Fundamental Difference between Men and Women, Part 3: Personality and Behavior.” Basically, a woman’s thought process goes “if that, then this.” For example, “If a man is in an Armani suit then he must be successful; therefore, he’s very smart and self-confident.” Or, “She has thousands of followers on a social media website (i.e. she’s popular). She must be extremely amiable.” Or, “He has a Ph.D., so his opinion on this medical issue is gold.” This “if that then this” thinking goes way beyond making prejudgments, too. For instance, “If he chooses a water Pokémon then I will counter with a fire Pokémon.”

Women jump to conclusions about a person’s merit (or actual substance) based on his/her appearance. The most popular example of this phenomenon is the creepy guy versus the romantic guy; two men that do the exact same thing to a woman and receive completely opposite responses because of how they look. Say a man overhears a conversation between a female stranger and her friend talking about how she loves vanilla cupcakes. The next day, he gives her a vanilla cupcake and introduces himself. If the man is handsome, the woman would consider this to be very romantic. If the man is ugly, the woman would think it’s very creepy—the difference between romantic and creepy lies in how good-looking the man is. Another example: a woman sees a man sitting alone, keeping quiet, and looking around. If the guy is handsome then this behavior would be seen as brooding and mysterious—hot. If the guy is ugly then he would come off as a shy, awkward loser. Now, I’m not saying that women base attractiveness on appearance, as men do. I’m saying that a woman’s judgment of a man’s behavior/actions is “clouded” by his appearance.

               It’s not just good looks; women are also biased toward men of high social status. Certain accents of the English language carry high social status. The British accent is associated with intelligence and sophistication. This allows a dumb brute from the UK to score many ladies over in America, where they’re inclined to believe he’s actually intelligent. The Australian accent also has high social status in America. As for non-native English speakers, European accents tend to carry high social status whereas Asian accents of English usually carry low social status. And then there’s height. People assume that a tall man is more financially successful, more self-confident, and more capable of protecting a woman than a shorter man. A tall man also has a big physical presence, which automatically garners more respect and attention than a smaller person. A man that’s tall or has a certain accent has an “unfair” advantage over other men when it comes to attracting women. Women are biased towards the high-status man right off the bat, quite regardless of how shy or lame he actually acts.

Men aren’t “guilty” of doing this because men don’t think in terms of “if that, then this.” Men only pay attention to the “this,” which results in objective, unbiased judgments. Well, masculine men, anyway; I believe over 50% of men today are quite emasculate and thus don’t think objectively. The biological root of this is that the way men use their neurons is the inverse of the way women use their neurons. Men pay no attention to the name, which bears status and reputation, and instead look at just the substance. For instance, if given a random song, a man may say, “Wow, this is very good; catchy melody.” Whereas a woman may say, “Okay… but who sang this?” She’s unwilling to judge its value based on substance alone. I could also argue that men aren’t biased because their perspective is on the face and body, which can be judged in an instant. Personality and behavior, on the other hand, take time to judge; thus, by looking at social status and reputation one can save time.

One final point on the female bias toward high status: women aren’t looking to dispel a myth, or disprove a common stereotype, or show why people shouldn’t “judge a book by its cover.” On the contrary, women will see to it that the prejudgment holds true. For instance, take the man in the Armani suit. To own such a high-status outfit, he must be financially successful, which means he must be smart and self-confident. Let’s say he’s actually dumb and shy—this is the actual “substance.” Most women will disregard this. A woman will go on a few dates with him and treat him as if he is very smart and self-confident. For instance, she may be really attentive and intrigued as the man rambles endlessly about something stupid. It’s not that she’s in denial. It’s just psychology, I suppose. It’s exactly like a blind taste test. When people are blindfolded and fed chocolate and told it’s made from rare cacao imported from a secret Amazon rainforest, they would be inclined to believe it tastes divine. If they were told it was made in a sugar factory in America then they would say it doesn’t taste special at all. Or, say you’re given food from a foreign country. If it has the consistency, color, shape, and size of dry dog food and came from a bag similar to a dog food bag, you may be grossed out and say it tastes like dog food even if, in actuality, it’s delicious honey graham crackers.

Miscellaneous

Opposites attract. The hyper-masculine man is most attracted to the hyper-feminine woman. This conflicts with modern society’s image of a perfect relationship, where the man and the woman share similar interests. Truth is, a masculine-minded man does not take interest in the same things as a feminine-minded woman. He would be into timeless, ubiquitous things like computer technology or a hypothesis on human attraction. She would be into special moments and unique things like a wedding dress or who should take care of the baby on Saturday night. Their interests are at opposite ends of the spectrum.

There is a new trend in society where women do not settle down (and produce offspring) with the man they are most attracted to. I call it a trend because they aren’t following natural instinct but rather modern society, which encourages women to marry a man that shares common interests and shows that he would be a good caretaker of a newborn child. Women see masculine (attractive) men as being good for short-term relationships only, like a one-night stand. Women see less masculine, less attractive men as being ideal for long-term relationships, like marriage and reproduction. Thus, it’s the emasculate males who are spreading their seed, which I believe has the dire consequence of an increasingly effeminate, estrogenic generations of males and females.

Opposite perspectives is often the source of conflict in your typical, monogamous relationship. A masculine man’s perspective is on the face and body. This applies to how he sees his girlfriend/wife and self-improvement. Thus, it’s common for men to get frustrated when their girlfriend/wife doesn’t put effort into bettering her body. It’s also common for a man to feel unappreciated for his efforts at the gym. On the other side, a feminine woman’s perspective is on personality and behavior. This applies to how she sees her boyfriend/husband and self-improvement. Thus, it’s common for women to get frustrated when their boyfriend/husband doesn’t put effort into being social, participative, etc. Also, her efforts to adapt to situations often go unappreciated. For instance, a man won’t compliment her on choosing the perfect shirt to wear for their summer picnic.

               Many men think that all women are sluts or disloyal or sleep around with a lot of men. “Unfortunately,” there is truth to this. I’m not saying this as a bitter, butt-hurt man or a misogynist, but rather as someone being objective. Awhile back, I hypothesized that neurons are affected by estrogen in such a way that women are “hardwired” for situational behavior. This produces a personality that “lives in the moment,” “goes with the flow,” follows one’s lead, and adapts to the present situation/person. All of these personality traits directly oppose firm adherence to a long-term goal, such as being loyal to a husband a hundred miles away. What these traits do encourage is to be “swept off your feet,” possibly by a man and what he wants to do in the heat of the moment (e.g. have sex). Again, this isn’t an attack on women—just an objective observation. Society would probably be better off accepting this behavior, which I believe is biologically-based, rather than scorning it.