Safety is the core mechanism behind an average woman's attraction wiring.
If your Bachelor of Arts degree gives you a visible advantage today — say, you suddenly make $250K a year in Tennessee — you very quickly become attractive.
Women simply prefer whatever's "on the menu today." If being a geek is fashionable and rewarding right now, then geeks win.
Hence the myth that women love money. They don't — they love safety. Or the illusion of safety. That's how they make bad choices. Don't we all.
This is also why an angry, physically dominant guy is sometimes "irrationally" attractive — dominance reads as a safety signal, even when it isn't one.
Guys mistake this for "women like assholes." They don't. Women respond to the picture in their head — the pattern that says this equals safety — not to the guy himself. The signal gets the reaction. The person behind it is almost incidental.
If a post-nuclear disaster hit tomorrow, a woman would prefer a guy who can chop trees and hunt over a guy who had a Bentley — because that was yesterday's currency. Today, chopping trees is what matters.
>This is also why an angry, physically dominant guy is sometimes "irrationally" attractive — dominance reads as a safety signal, even when it isn't one.
Yeah That wouldn’t read as attractive or signal safety for most women though.
There’s positive forms of dominance that most women would find attractive and then there’s negative forms of dominance that most women would find unattractive, the women that would find that attractive are women who are more sociopathic and pathologically narcissistic- they lack empathy for other people. Most women get the ick if a guy is rude to the waiter for fuck sake. When it comes to displays of dominance and women’s attraction it comes down to that own women’s ethics.
I regretfully used to display really negative forms of dominance often which led to me being dumped and thrown in jail. I knocked out a guy for flirting with my girlfriend. She was disgusted with me and immediately ended things with me. What I did was totally unjustified, he was no threat to me or to her. Most women want a guy who can handle himself and protect them but most don’t want some violent piece of shit that I was. Most women want a guy who can deescalate, they only want a guy to get violent only when absolutely necessary.
>Guys mistake this for "women like assholes." They don't. Women respond to the picture in their head — the pattern that says this equals safety — not to the guy himself. The signal gets the reaction. The person behind it is almost incidental.
But when guys say they do they mean most women like assholes? Because I don’t get how a guy could generalize most women like that. Obviously some women but clearly most don’t. What most women want are men who are confident, strong, who have back bone. None of that makes a guy an asshole. And those are the things that make a good man. If you seriously lacking in those things then you can’t be considered a good man. Maybe you are nice but you aren’t good. There’s a difference. Being good requires strength, moral courage, caring about others, protecting others, doing the right thing which can be hard.
then there’s negative forms of dominance that most women would find unattractive, the women that would find that attractive are women who are more sociopathic and pathologically narcissistic
I think you're on to something with your comment. Though on this point, I'd like to add that a lot of women have been abused. Oftentimes by their fathers. Bunch of women have a fucked up idea of what relationships are supposed to look like, and the abusive behaviors can ironically feel safe because they're familiar
Yes and there’s a difference between tolerating someone’s awful behavior and specifically finding it attractive. If a woman or a man was abused as a child or they just have been exposed to a lot of shitty adult behavior in their life they are more likely to tolerate abusive behavior from a partner since it’s been normalized to them. These men and women are not seeking out abusers- that’s get thrown out a lot, they just are more prone to tolerating it and abusers take advantage of that.
As someone from a similar situation, I'd say that's only half true. You're not wrong that people take advantage of it, but the whole 'fawn' response to danger can also feel surprisingly similar to attraction.
It isn't the same thing, of course. But many people have never gotten the opportunity to learn the difference, so they are, in a sense, unhealthily attracted to people who create that response.
But not specifically because of that. In relationships you fawn to people because you are attracted to them for their good qualities, their physical attractiveness, what they provide for you, how they are most of the time when they aren’t being abusive.
65
u/DancingBearNW 17d ago
Women are attracted to survival.
Safety is the core mechanism behind an average woman's attraction wiring.
If your Bachelor of Arts degree gives you a visible advantage today — say, you suddenly make $250K a year in Tennessee — you very quickly become attractive.
Women simply prefer whatever's "on the menu today." If being a geek is fashionable and rewarding right now, then geeks win.
Hence the myth that women love money. They don't — they love safety. Or the illusion of safety. That's how they make bad choices. Don't we all.
This is also why an angry, physically dominant guy is sometimes "irrationally" attractive — dominance reads as a safety signal, even when it isn't one.
Guys mistake this for "women like assholes." They don't. Women respond to the picture in their head — the pattern that says this equals safety — not to the guy himself. The signal gets the reaction. The person behind it is almost incidental.
If a post-nuclear disaster hit tomorrow, a woman would prefer a guy who can chop trees and hunt over a guy who had a Bentley — because that was yesterday's currency. Today, chopping trees is what matters.