I think I know the answer now

Helixer, I think two factors are at play in causing our attraction to women. First is the fundamental requirement of all sexually reproducing life-forms to reproduce. Second is our culturally acquired preferences. I think of it as something like language development. Humans will speak, but the particular language spoken is culturally determined. Human males will seek to reproduce, but their preferences (at least in part) are culturally determined.

Our biological preference is developed in our environment of evolutionary adaptation. On the plains of Africa, I'm doubtful that the intelligence of a woman figured into men's attraction. You have to remember that sex is cheap for a man and very expensive for a woman. A man, biologically speaking need not care if a woman will be a good mother. He can impregnate enough women in a single day to be sure that at least one or two are good enough mothers. On the other hand, a woman uses up a significant portion of her reproductive capacity in each pregnancy. That's why sex is much more expensive for a woman, and why it makes sense that it is the woman who more carefully selects her partner.

I'm guessing that your preference for dumb over intelligent women is culturally determined. I can think of a number of environmental factors that would contribute to your preference. I have been taught to prefer the intelligent look (think Sigourney Weaver) in general, although the sight of a woman who seems dumb and easy can rouse my interest.

In a sense, I think you're right that education may contribute to a woman's attitude toward motherhood. Education will help her understand that there are other ways of contributing than through motherhood. I doubt education can completely eradicate a woman's built-in impulses, but just as culture channels many of our impulses into more productive activities, I think education allows a woman to make better decisions in the context of our modern world.

I don't know, Helixer. I find intellect arousing, especially in an attractive woman. I remember a girl I went to school who 'developed' early. She was physically attractive, model-pretty, but intellectually, as dumb as a fencepost. To me, she was meh. She married her high school sweetheart, had children, and became quite matronly. I saw her about 15-20 years after high school, and she had lost the weight, and developed a personality with intellect. WOW!! I suddenly found her very attractive and had some difficulty putting her out of my mind (we were both married at that time; I'm still married, she's not). But I have noticed that intellect, personality and beauty (in that order) have to be there to catch my eye.

So, apparently, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Hey guys I envy your stance, I wish I could agree, I wish there wasn't a difference in what I feel are admirable qualities and what I'm predisposed to get turned on by.
It's funny there are always the same type of reactions when people respond to topics such as 'breastsize', like:"Well I think flat-chested women are more sexy than women with giant mellons". Just for arguments-sake if this is true why are big breasts in the adult industry overrepresented? Why do women spend millions to get boobjobs?
To me there can be only one, namely coz there's a demand for it!

The same thing with the 'dumblook', why has there been a rich tradition of dummies as sexsymbols if the majority of the men think like you guys do? And I'm not just talking about Western countries, also in places like Japan

In the first place I think it's something primordial, which the sexual normally is, forget your modern ideas, the man asserting his dominance, the woman in a subservient position.Something feminine about being led as passive, wide-eyed, naive woman getting talked into being fucked.
It's hard to see the passive feminine side in an arrogant, manipulative, intelligent distrusting feminist.

Second; what some research has shown is that intelligent women also find it harder to orgasm, perhaps coz they are less in touch with their body/nature

Last but not least what I wrote previously that children need warmth and emotion, kindness and love. I think these characteristics come more naturally in women that don't think so much. At least I tend to think of these academic type women as cold and detached and reserved in their showing of emotion.
For a career in academia or business great! But less suited for raising children.

@44994:

Second is our culturally acquired preferences. I think of it as something like language development. Humans will speak, but the particular language spoken is culturally determined. Human males will seek to reproduce, but their preferences (at least in part) are culturally determined.

What I miss here is HOW something becomes cultural? Expanding on your example of language, I think there is also partly a biological reason.Like negroes often have quite a deep voice, so I can understand how their rhythmical language evolved.So perhaps negroes in traditionally white countries are at a disadvantage not only coz their skin isn't really 'acclimatised' but also from an(inherent) language perspective. As I explained above I think there are reasons why female sexsymbols have been women that were natural dummies or have acted dumb coz they knew it aroused the male.

@Badger:So you think the Barbarella look of Jane Fonda is 'meh' and the Jane Fonda intelligent feminist look arousing?

Gentlemen three this time: Helixer, aneros_user44994, and Badger!!!! 😀 😀 😀 😀

Another great topic,IMHO! For me its has been a more mysterious mix in the same general field. It is aesthetic, but not anything about conventions of visual beauty; more about the woman's ambience and attitude, naturally, unconsciously and consciously expressed, and the whole dynamic manner and carriage of her body, arms, hands, head, eyes, chest expansion, hips, legs and feet; the way she occupied and animates space. The way she expands and contracts space; her sense of energies generated and radiated – or hyperized and grasping (the energy vampire!) are all part of it for me, and have been since early on, long before I could/would so articulate this.

And this all wonderingly carried with the always intriguing dance between our biological and cultural gene/meme inheritance. Is this a linear scale, a two-dimensional diagram, a three or four dimensional matrix scaffolding emerging here, or...

is falling in love with love just falling for make believe, all beyond belief all

artform

For me, there are a variety of kinds of attraction I feel. I'm definitely a breast man. There are times I think this is learned and times that I think it is inborn. I can be captured by cleavage. Whether inborn or learned, it doesn't really matter. I am captured either way. Now I have some choices to make. I could surrender to the attraction. I've done that and it has its appeal. I could resist or deny the attraction. I've done that. I don't find that appealing. What I am learning to do now is "transcend and include" my attraction. Embrace the attraction without being captured by it. It's what I mean by "raising the energy."

I gotta say this is the forum I've been looking for for a long time. Thank you for your thoughtful ideas. I also gotta get a better name.

Gosh guys--I have to vote for simplicity. I'm not very sophisticated and, for me, sex remains a "contact sport." I don't care why. I don't care about the underlying theory.

Secondary to vaginal folds against the lateral surfaces of my shaft or a cervix pressed against my glans, the delicate and velvety skin of a woman's breasts against my pecs scores quite high.

This, even more so since Aneros play has fine-tuned my nips and the surrounding tissue.

I've never consciously chosen women based on their presumed ability to suckle young. Anything more than a handful is a waste.

My analytical mind is a blessing and a curse. It is capable of bringing some things to consciousness that would otherwise remain hidden. I think that's good. But it is also able to obscure and disguise other simpler ways of knowing. I'm often accused (maybe that's too strong a word) of complicating things. That's true. However, it was my analytical mind that figured out that there must be more to my orgasmic response than impregnating a woman. Now I have to drop the analysis to have the simple experience. The analysis provided a map, but the map is not the territory.

The way I see it is the more we evolve the more tightly strung the dichotomy between the frontal lobe and our reptilian brain. The more we have to delude ourselves to justify our primal urge for reproduction. After all we do it to orgasm not to reproduce. And as we all know orgasm doesn't have to be sexual. Perhaps women are biologically programmed, like men are wired to have sex to orgasm, to enjoy making baby's and desire this, like men are tricked into making babies coz the orgasm for men is normally linked to ejaculation. But women in the past became nuns as well, so who knows?If men can have orgasm without ejaculation maybe there's still hope for the women as well!
At what point will man's awareness have evolved so much that our evolutionary predicament tying us to our animal past finally snaps? What is the point when the tightly strung string, the only thing holding these 2 diverging opposites together, finally snaps and the humanity has let go of its remaining link to the animal kingdom?Perhaps the digitalization of our lifes will open our eyes and teach us how to be true to ourselves

I can think of two other reasons why males might be sexually attracted to women who look/act dumb (if such a bias does exist): 1) the male assumes (consciously or unconsciously) that her defenses to his sexual advances are low, and 2) her dumbness might be perceived (again, consciously or unconsciously) as youthfulness, which males are hardwired to find attractive because it connotes health and ability to bear children. Indeed, the "dumb bimbo look" does not age well; women over the age of, say, 40 who still look and act like dumb bimbos are off-putting because by that time it seems more symptomatic of a cognitive disability than of youthfulness.

I'd say as long as a bimbo is still attractive she'll be more attractive than someone else of her age. Age doesn't play a factor over and above what it does anyhow, I wouldn't say this applies specifically to dummies.
If there's an attraction or not is the dummy's personal preference, a dummy isn't any different from any other woman. What I would say however is that we do tend to associate dummies with warm and emotional whereas smarter women as cold and detached. Again as vice versa the motives are either making babies or looking after the babies. And natural selection has helped us along by making it easier for dummer women to climax( more chance of fertilization)as it has assigned women the task of making babies and looking after them, not to become geniuses

Helixer,

Ayn Rand and your bimbo downloads? Hmmm, that's quite a dichotomy, why not &imgrefurl= http://flamingsneakers.blogspot.com/&h=404&w=550&sz=23&tbnid=WmFYVkSsaBIviM:&tbnh=98&tbnw=133&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmargaret%2Bhamilton&zoom=1&q=margaret+hamilton&hl=en&usg=__webc2LnUWCt0ovnwlbZjQeqx-gg=&sa=X&ei=x6sOTYSoL5H4sAPt4LDnAQ&ved=0CBsQ9QEwA g">Margaret Hamilton and those bimbos? Tough choice huh! :rolleyes: All kidding aside I'm kinda of surprised that you see those "ladies" as the dumb and naive type. Frankly they look more like the skanky, jaded type to me. Btw. I'm also a fan of flat chested women, in my experience they put far greater effort into lovemaking. Unfortunately the large breasted women that I've known have tended to rest on their laurels. I know that I'm generalizing a good bit here, but I'm just saying. If this is true what does it say about the genetic potential of the human race that many males should be more attracted to half witted women? I'd say we're doomed.

All kidding aside I have had several very intense relationships with what you might term intellectual women. (For the record they were quite a step up from Ayn Rand or Margaret Hamilton in the looks department). Frankly, I've often found the pursuit of such women very exciting and quite rewarding as well.

Btw. I'll be back to you when I find a pic of naive, dumb looking flat chested lady to share. lol

Paul

@Polecat: Sexy, naive and arousing, but skanky??? marie claude bourbonnais skanky? You sound like a jealous bitch criticizing a bigtitted gourgeous woman coz she's flatchested and ugly herself.
I hadn't really expected that qualification, you're pulling my leg right?

MC Bourbonnais on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/user/dialoguequent?feature=mhum#p/a/u/0/ksvoW8zR56o

As I explained above, I'm not talking about the 'benefit' of having a relationship and arguably a relationship with a more intelligent woman is preferable(arguably as IMO man has little in common with the psyche of either)or which type of titties is better during sex, but how we're wired to react!!!

So, please, no pics of flatchested women I don't care what you think they are like in bed, or what great conversationalists they might be 😉

I agree with aneros_user44994, Badger, rook & Polecat. More than a mouthful of tit is just a waste.
As the idiom goes "...different strokes for different folks!"

I agree with aneros_user44994, Badger, rook & Polecat. More than a mouthful of tit is just a waste.
As the idiom goes "...different strokes for different folks!"

I'm glad that you can agree with them, coz you all seem to have completely ignored what I've written, which is rather curious as I am meant to be topicstarter :confused:.Hmm, lemmings have majorityview as well.....all the time!

Helixer makes an unarguable point. I am clearly wired to react to the images in the video he posted (MC Bourbonnais). Intellectually, I look at those pics and see fake breasts, too much makeup, and a ridiculous outfit. But when I settle in and put away my intellectual judgment, my body reacts with pleasure and desire. Clearly those breasts are larger than a mouthful but not a waste in appealing to my visual system.

I am wired that way. But I am specifically working to rewire myself. As an engineer, I know that if I'm to rewire a system I need to know a lot about the existing wiring. I have to think about what of the wiring I can change and what I must keep or will decide to keep.

I didn't ignore what you've written, I simply disagree with you. Why do you persist in denigrating those people who disagree with your point of view by implying their thoughts are sub-human? This is just another of your unjustified ad hominen attacks on a fellow members opinion.

I'm glad that you can agree with them, coz you all seem to have completely ignored what I've written, which is rather curious as I am meant to be topicstarter :confused:.Hmm, lemmings have majorityview as well.....all the time!

Helixer makes an unarguable point. I am clearly wired to react to the images in the video he posted (MC Bourbonnais). Intellectually, I look at those pics and see fake breasts, too much makeup, and a ridiculous outfit. But when I settle in and put away my intellectual judgment, my body reacts with pleasure and desire. Clearly those breasts are larger than a mouthful but not a waste in appealing to my visual system.
I am wired that way. But I am specifically working to rewire myself. As an engineer, I know that if I'm to rewire a system I need to know a lot about the existing wiring. I have to think about what of the wiring I can change and what I must keep or will decide to keep.

@MultiD: Exactly. I'll tell you something else, not only has the multiorgasmic approach of looking inwards made me a better musician, it has also made me more aware of what I really want. To know your heartsdesire you have to be in touch with your body first. Be able to hone into what feels good, coz it's your feelings that drive your thoughts that drive your actions. Like with the piano, your playing isn't determined by your intellect but by your 'feeling', i.e. your conscious AND subconscious mind. This is why you have to work from your feeling to your thoughts, this way there won't be the disconnect.
The disconnect we feel is because men have had to adapt to women, sold out to the female. This is why we can't intellectually understand our feelings, coz they aren't our thoughts, if they were there wouldn't be a disconnect with our feelings, ergo we've been brainwashed.
Society is materialist and sex is an asset instead of a mutually pleasurable experience, women decide what type of sex is right and what type of sex is wrong.So rape exists and you have thousands of women chasing the 'right man'. Men are penalized because women are property, a man doing what he was made to (have sex) is punished harshly.
What happened to 'imagine no possession'?, why did the feminists not put their political might into abolishing rape after the anticonception pil was introduced?
Because that's not their evolutionary strategy, if women's strategy had been the same as that of man then there wouldn't be any possession and a brotherhood of man.
But it's obvious that the evolutionary strategy of the male and female is different. For men it's primarily about orgasm, for women it's primarily about making babies and looking after babies. So women look at men in the context of how they can be used for these goals.
Quite frankly the more I understand about what motivates the female the more repulsed I get, yet still aroused by a bigtitted bimbo
Perhaps now with the advent of the Aneros and the seperation of orgasm and ejaculation, man is presented with the opportunity to break the status quo and for the first time in their evolution hone into their hearts desire and be true to theirselves? Perhaps now that we understand that the orgasm reaches its pinnacle when we turn inward and realize our evolutionary strategy can be realized without the female,the veil of the bs and the hypocracy can finally be lifted, the selling out and loss of integrity can finally be recognized and we no longer have to delude our intellect with the loftiest of reasons. Perhaps now we can be true to ourselves and our evolutionary goal

Helixer,

My bad, I failed to realize that this was just another in a series of your angry rants about women. Another rhetorical conversation in written form, where dissension is met in the harshest of terms. For all appearances with some of your other posts as of late it seemed like you were mellowing out a bit. But no such luck. Btw. I have no idea who Marie Claude Bourbonnais is other than a woman that you seem to have great reverence for. Clearly I struck a nerve with my appraisal of her. I was just saying that (my taste aside), she doesn't fit the criteria that you held out! "Dumb", well who is to say, but naive? Seriously? Perhaps there is something lost in translation here, but there is simply nothing about those images that remotely suggests "naive". You added a new one, "sexy" in your most recent post, and I can understand that. But then again, any woman that a man is attracted to is sexy, yes? By definition if he finds them sexually attractive they are sexy.

I thought you were looking at specific criteria, in this case, dumb and naive vs. intellectual women and what men are most drawn to. Also, for the record, I was agreeing with at least one of the points that you made, i.e. that men may be biologically programmed in this fashion, to which I added that this may be the undoing of our species (tongue and cheek). But that appears to have gone by the boards (rage can do that kind of thing).

Seriously man, you need to get a handle on your anger, maybe lay off the caffeine for a while, ya know.

Paul

This is a serious topic, if you can't even be bothered to read what it's about why even comment?
I'm not going to be lured into mudslinging.If you seriously want to debate MY TOPIC use the quotebutton, then we can be sure what your write is not about a figment of your imagination.
Also use arguments to substantiate your view.
Otherwise please be a lemming somewhere else, thank you!

FYI: The only reason I gave the youtube link was to show you hadn't even looked at the pictures but already had your (unsubstantiated)opinion ready.
Judging by what you proceeded to write it's obvious that you not only continue to delude yourself even after I've called you on your bs, but that you appear to be suffering from a curious form of dyslexia or perhaps it's myopia?, where you disregard what's been written and make some unsubstantiated claim like"

My bad, I failed to realize that this was just another in a series of your angry rants about women

"
Perhaps you can clear your name by quoting me, so we can see you're not off somewhere in phantasia cuckoo land.
.