21 Dec 2008, 6:55 pm
AutisticMalcontent wrote:
[
In truth, this is my annoyance, I believe there is a progression of attraction concerning romance or courtship. I think it goes something like this:
Physical Attraction --> Charisma/Personality --> Intelligence
This is my "theory" of physical attraction. It is kind of like Maslow's Hierachy of Needs. I believe that physical attraction must established first and foremost. If not, I believe you can't progress to the possibility of interacting on a charm/personality based level. I think intelligence comes last, and is generally superfolous to the whole equation, it is not imperative to be that intelligent in relationships. The first two things appeal to women on an emotional level, and if you don't appeal on this level, you won't progress romantically at all. It's game over at either physical attraction or personality if you don't fit the bill. That's just what I think.
In truth, this is my annoyance, I believe there is a progression of attraction concerning romance or courtship. I think it goes something like this:
Physical Attraction --> Charisma/Personality --> Intelligence
This is my "theory" of physical attraction. It is kind of like Maslow's Hierachy of Needs. I believe that physical attraction must established first and foremost. If not, I believe you can't progress to the possibility of interacting on a charm/personality based level. I think intelligence comes last, and is generally superfolous to the whole equation, it is not imperative to be that intelligent in relationships. The first two things appeal to women on an emotional level, and if you don't appeal on this level, you won't progress romantically at all. It's game over at either physical attraction or personality if you don't fit the bill. That's just what I think.
I think Physical Attraction does start the whole attraction process, but a guy becomes very unattractive very quickly if he doesn't have much to offer in brains department. To me that seems to imply that intelligence is pretty important! Also I know a guy who has got a PhD in Astrophysics - he is not my type and I don't find him even remotely physically attractive - but when sometimes he is talking about these theories he appears actually very attractive - even in physical sense - May be I need to get my brain fixed!
21 Dec 2008, 9:07 pm
21 Dec 2008, 10:14 pm
21 Dec 2008, 10:30 pm
Jwa wrote:
AutisticMalcontent wrote:
[
In truth, this is my annoyance, I believe there is a progression of attraction concerning romance or courtship. I think it goes something like this:
Physical Attraction --> Charisma/Personality --> Intelligence
This is my "theory" of physical attraction. It is kind of like Maslow's Hierachy of Needs. I believe that physical attraction must established first and foremost. If not, I believe you can't progress to the possibility of interacting on a charm/personality based level. I think intelligence comes last, and is generally superfolous to the whole equation, it is not imperative to be that intelligent in relationships. The first two things appeal to women on an emotional level, and if you don't appeal on this level, you won't progress romantically at all. It's game over at either physical attraction or personality if you don't fit the bill. That's just what I think.
In truth, this is my annoyance, I believe there is a progression of attraction concerning romance or courtship. I think it goes something like this:
Physical Attraction --> Charisma/Personality --> Intelligence
This is my "theory" of physical attraction. It is kind of like Maslow's Hierachy of Needs. I believe that physical attraction must established first and foremost. If not, I believe you can't progress to the possibility of interacting on a charm/personality based level. I think intelligence comes last, and is generally superfolous to the whole equation, it is not imperative to be that intelligent in relationships. The first two things appeal to women on an emotional level, and if you don't appeal on this level, you won't progress romantically at all. It's game over at either physical attraction or personality if you don't fit the bill. That's just what I think.
I think Physical Attraction does start the whole attraction process, but a guy becomes very unattractive very quickly if he doesn't have much to offer in brains department. To me that seems to imply that intelligence is pretty important! Also I know a guy who has got a PhD in Astrophysics - he is not my type and I don't find him even remotely physically attractive - but when sometimes he is talking about these theories he appears actually very attractive - even in physical sense - May be I need to get my brain fixed!
I like your idea of having process stages. However, I think your list is comprised of subcategories specific to your personal preference, I.e. it's not general. To make it completely general, I'd say:
Physical attraction -> Personal Power and Influence -> Personal Character and Depth
(Physical properties) (Material properties) (Intangible properties)
and then each type of property could have its manifestations, depending on the woman's taste:
Physical Attraction: strength, leanness, beautiful face, beautiful skin
Personal Power & Influence: money, status, charisma, personality, fame, respect
Personal Character & Strength: intelligence, bravery, honesty, loyalty, resourcefulness
So woman #1 might like a strong guy with a lot of personality and who is brave. Woman #2 might like a guy who is lean, rich and intelligent.
But while this is an interesting exercise in classification of males and their properties, it seems like empty systematizing to me.
I.e. this classification system doesn't really contribute to any understanding of attraction dynamics or process, or support the development of methods that will help attract a woman (apart from the act of aggregating and sorting properties of male dates).
22 Dec 2008, 4:48 am
22 Dec 2008, 5:09 am
AutisticMalcontent wrote:
Shiggily wrote:
NeantHumain wrote:
I think you're making a few typically aspie presumptions here. First, you're conflating knowledge, or really a litany of facts, with intelligence. Second, you are mistaking mere intelligence or knowledge for something more existential. Intelligence is just the ability to adapt to one's environment. The rote memorization of esoteric facts may be interesting if you have Asperger's syndrome, but it really won't captivate a woman at all (with very rare exceptions possibly). If a woman wanted facts, she'd get an encyclopedia; if she wanted logic, she'd use a computer; if she wanted a lecture, she'd take a class. You need to use your intelligence to adapt to what women want. Make yourself more personable, spontaneous, and interesting. Instead of reading about, thinking about, and talking about concepts and the goings-on of life, maybe you should stop intellectualizing and start living. An analytical approach is appropriate in some situations, but you need to break out of the aspie fallbacks of the comforting routine and cold fact. If only for your own sake, getting some new, less bookish interests can only make you a more well-rounded, more fulfilled person; of course, it isn't stopping you from enjoying solitary, more esoteric pursuits with the rest of your time.
Of course, you were asking for women, but hey, at least as an aspie guy, I know this much about women.
Of course, you were asking for women, but hey, at least as an aspie guy, I know this much about women.
concur except for the logic part, I might seek out a mathematician.
but my list of desirable qualities included genius level IQ and degrees in math and/or science, and not social skills or great looks (though I like them).
so... I am probably not a good person to ask this question to.
hmmmmm. But then again, I go back to my theory listed below. I think unless a guy attracts you physically first and then personality wise/charisma wise secondly, you probably won't know the level of his intelligence, or be interested it. I believe you have to appeal to a woman physically and personality wise before anything else can occur, because these two things satisfy women's interest in you. Why else do women date extraverted guys or physically attractive guys. It isn't because they are brainiacs, it is because they appeal to women on an emotional level, as opposed to a logical one. If logic/intelligence held ANY importance romantically, nerds would be picking up girls like they were nothing important.
Why is it so easy for guys to be manipulative romantically? Because women trust them on an emotional level. I believe the whole female circuitry is based on emotional intelligence, and not logic or reason. Look at everytime a girl is cheated on and dumped by her bf. She wonders "Why did he dump me, I thought he cared about me so much, and I really did love him". She doesn't think "Well he dumped me because he found another girl who he thought was more physically attractive than me, and that is why I'm single again." Presumptious, of course. Logical on my part, of course. Case closed
I disagree. I am not attracted to guys physically unless I get a change to "pick their brains". They might be attractive but they do not peak my interest at all unless I find them intellectually appealing. For me logic/intelligence does hold romantic importance because I think logically/rationally and I avoid overly emotional people. But I like nerds. My husband is a nerd (linguistics) he is 6'4, lanky, clumsy and average looking. But to me he is attractive because he is smart and can hold a conversation with me, while most people I know cannot.
Most women make decisions emotionally... I am not most women. I did not pick my "mate" for emotional reasons. I picked him for logical reasons.
22 Dec 2008, 5:12 am
22 Dec 2008, 7:24 am
22 Dec 2008, 10:24 am
Shiggily wrote:
They might be attractive but they do not peak my interest at all unless I find them intellectually appealing.
Same. I'm attracted by personality traits and intellect. Physical appearance comes very low in the list. Can't help it.
22 Dec 2008, 10:59 am
22 Dec 2008, 1:19 pm
Shiggily wrote:
I disagree. I am not attracted to guys physically unless I get a change to "pick their brains". They might be attractive but they do not peak my interest at all unless I find them intellectually appealing. For me logic/intelligence does hold romantic importance because I think logically/rationally and I avoid overly emotional people. But I like nerds. My husband is a nerd (linguistics) he is 6'4, lanky, clumsy and average looking. But to me he is attractive because he is smart and can hold a conversation with me, while most people I know cannot.
Most women make decisions emotionally... I am not most women. I did not pick my "mate" for emotional reasons. I picked him for logical reasons.
Most women make decisions emotionally... I am not most women. I did not pick my "mate" for emotional reasons. I picked him for logical reasons.
you know Shiggily, reading some of your posts feels like looking in a mirror... I'm so happy that you're already married cause otherwise we would have been competing for the same males (and they are very few and far between)
22 Dec 2008, 1:55 pm
22 Dec 2008, 1:56 pm
22 Dec 2008, 3:01 pm
22 Dec 2008, 3:18 pm
22 Dec 2008, 6:36 pm
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| US Cut Ukraine Off NATO's Intelligence Channel:Reports |
06 Mar 2025, 12:53 am |
| I wish we had an aspie earring |
25 Feb 2025, 12:35 pm |
| What do you think about YT's The Aspie World? |
16 Feb 2025, 5:22 pm |
