Do women like shy men?

Post Reply New Topic

Ask the girl out. It's as simple as that. If you're too scared to do it, ask yourself what you're scared of. Are you scared she'll say no? If she says no, nothing will change. you'll be in the same position as you are right now: dateless. I'd be more afraid of not asking.

There is women as there is men out there for every kind of person, even shy people. The problem always comes in when its meeting people just right for you. To me, it seems like a dice toss, or winning the lottery to come across people you match with.

I tried to ask this girl out but froze and my face turned super red and I chickened out! I am not used to this kinda thing!

Being shy is cute if you're good looking, being shy is creepy if you're ugly, it's as simple as that.


That being said, a shy good looking male will get beaten by a extroverted good looking male. women prefer stronger males because it is their biological imperative to do so, stronger males = stronger offspring, more resources, etc etc.

Fallacy alert. Fallacy alert.
Strength has nothing to do with more resources, if that were the case humans would be below a whole litany of other animals that are both larger and stronger than us. Cunning is a much more valuable trait in that regard. As for biological imperative with strength, numerous species feature females that are larger and stronger than their male counterparts, therefore we can't claim anything with nature in this regard. It's a currently held societal belief, but it's not a hardwired genetic instinct.

Only up until a few centuries ago, strength had plenty to do with resources and it's still in the biology, which takes a VERY long time to change. Men had to be strong enough to slay a woolly mammoths, strong enough to fend off saber tooth tigers, etc.

But I wasn't being literal in talking about strength, and I was talking about humans in addressing the female imperative to seek out an efficient male, it's in their biology to emphasize male utility because women don' have the muscles required to deal with the environment, thus they seek out males that do.

Again, killing a mammoth is one thing, tracking it to the proper location, separating it from the herd, cornering it, and wearing it down is another. Those "cunning skills" were much more fundamental to killing the mammoth than having the strength to jab a spear in it. Fending off animals was much more about having a larger group than anything to do with physical strength. A solitary hunter doesn't go after a large group of animals unless it can isolate one, and in the case of say a saber tooth tiger and a human male, the tiger wins regardless of how big and strong the human male is due to it's vastly superior agility and speed (assuming the human isn't using his cunning in the form of a weapon). Strength is a culturally driven aesthetic, it doesn't hold up in nature. Here in the west we celebrate strength and so yes, women will gravitate towards that ideal, but it's not nature. Medieval Europe celebrated fatness, it was a sign of prosperity, and women gravitated towards fat men and vice versa. Ancient Egyptian culture celebrated slender almost what we would call feminine men, and women gravitated towards that. When one hears an aesthetic ideal pumped from youth to young adulthood it's easy to subconsciously make that a preference and mistake it as "instinct".

Some food for thought: small organisms, i.e. Bacteria kingdom, Chromista kingdom, and Protozoa kingdom have much more biomass than the remaining "large organism" kingdoms (Plantae, Fungi, Animalia)-- on a biomass level they are much more powerful than us, if they stopped functioning every other kingdom would perish. That's power, which is vastly superior to mere strength.

Edit: syntax and structure.

Most of this sounds right, but I take issue where you said strength doesn't have anything to do with more resources when it was in fact the case throughout human history. Hunting does require cunning but much of it is still a massive endurance test, for instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_hunting which is pure endurance (nothing clever,just chasing the prey down to the point of exhaustion).

Hunters in Africa still hunt that way: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=826HMLoiE_o

Predators also tend to avoid prey if the prey shows that they're capable enough to inflict injury, to certain degrees, Most predators would rather go after a fat calf than a bull, if men have more bulk, the predator would be less likely to pounce on them, which is an advantage to humans.

Much of the human mind is lagging far behind our technology, none of this applies today but women still find those traits attractive because they were a huge advantage in the past.

Yes I agree sir preferences in attraction is a culturally learned behavior. Some deviate from the 'norm' however and manage to develop their own taste individual of what the conformist society deems 'attractive' and 'unattractive'.

But one thing that can be agreed upon is, like you say, 'cunning' skills or what I would rather just call intelligence, prevailed in human pre-historic times.

So many believed ancient humans would have been physically strong. My opinion is they would have been physically fit, yes, but certainly not like the ripped bodybuilders that women go after.

It would have been much more easier to survive if you were lean, what one might consider 'thin but fit'. Men would have needed to be good runners and sprinters. http://forum.bodybuilding.com/attachmen ... 1401998418

Not just that but in those times there would have been times of food shortages and disease. They were hunter-gatherer societies. If weather problems meant lack of fruit and vegetables to collect, and if you failed at hunting the animals, there would have been times of food shortages, meaning they would not have had access to the necessary nutrients the body needs to develop muscle in the first place. Diet matters just as much as exercise, so when times were tough you'd just have to starve, thereby losing muscle and body fat.

Most of what I am saying is opinion though.

Anyway, the Homo Sapiens of pre-historic times used their intellect and wit to outlive the more barbaric and brutish Neanderthals, this is just pure fact.

Whether they were 'shy' is another question.

Though some sources have mentioned those with autism just might have survived well enough alone. With no interest in social activities, they would have instead spent their time doing the necessary things for survival; making sure their supplies, weapons, food, etc. were well-stocked and thinking of hunting tactics as if they were excluded from the tribe they would have self-taught themselves to survive alone.http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 22849.html http://evp.sagepub.com/

But aren't you essentially saying in your post yourself sir that fitness is just as important as tactics.

Yes those men are extremely fit, but then there are men in the western world who eat healthy and workout using weights and other machines, 'bodybuilders'.

A thin and lean male who uses strategy and wit like running the animal to exhaustion to avoid combat would have fared much better than a strong but clunky and slow moving man.

But which one do you think western women often prefer?

http://i.imgur.com/rLZpB.jpg

They'd probably prefer 'Built' and 'Ripped' over 'Ottermode'.

Unlike Aristophanes I don't believe purely intelligence matter. Some level of fitness is required to be recourceful as well.

But for some odd reason, some people would only class the African hunters in the video you shared as 'skinny'. I say they are thin but fit, the ideal level of fitness for survival in prehistoric times in my humble opinion.

Perceived acquisition of resources is much more important than strength. Why do so many women like musicians, when most of them couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag. The singers in One Direction wouldn't put the fear of a beating in anyone.

Yes, shy male with recourses is better than a strong male without.

In short: If you are shy or lacking in confidence, you can make up for it in other ways, OP.

No, women typically do not like shy men or men that lack confidence or are introverted or whatever. The ones that say they do or that they're out there are saying it more so they don't appear shallow or mean than any actual truth behind it. That's how I've personally perceived things, I feel like I like have to trick anybody into liking me. Whatever.

I'm so kind and I don't lie, I'm so tired of hearing that as if that means anything to anybody other than the bullies who want to walk all over me. It's not a positive quality.

@Klowglas

I'm not saying strength doesn't/didn't play a role, I'm just saying culture today over inflates the value strength has in nature, and certainly the value of strength in a modern automated society. Women currently do have a preference for strength, but a lot of that is based on society promoting it in the male ideal, it just as easily could be some other physical trait. Let's put it this way, someone like the Rock, while a physical specimen, would not have been overly beneficial to a tribe-- he'd be slow, quick tiring, and consume an inordinate amount of food for what he provides to a hunt, which generally require some amount of long endurance. Furthermore, I seriously doubt a person of the Rock's size could exist in a harsh environment that didn't provide consistent and well balanced nutrition.

Even these days women still prefer strong men over smart/cunning men but usually that falls to strong men being more likely to be confident over the smart types.

Intelligence and strength aren't mutually exclusive, confidence is situational for anyone...

I think general survival skill is more important than confidence, in order to stay alive so I can date anybody in the first place.