Alright guys and gals these days, welcome to it a 3 part mini posting series on attraction. I know what your thinking "Holy 'S'! Doc is actually writing articles again?", and the short answer is yes... so lets leave those long time no read comments for less specifically purposed threads, yeah?

Okay... Like I mentioned I'm going to break this into 3 parts to answer the 'why' behind attraction... Methods are simply different hows... replications of the symptoms of the true cause... the why


So, in this first segment I'm going to go over the basics... the "oh duh" aspects of this that you probably know... but may not have though about very often.

First things first... because its the easiest part for me to get to the core of, and because in our male populations eyes and in some females eyes as well it's the first item of importance.... we come to purely physical attraction.

Now when it comes to physical attraction there are 2 predominant schools of thought:

A) Everyone is a 10 aka we are all equal but different
B) No one is a 10 aka we are all different and thus not equal

Now I would say that neither of these schools of thought are incorrect, or correct as they are... simply incomplete. Everyone has differing "tastes" based off of a blend oh biological and social influences on their lives. Hence a girl I consider a "9" or really smokin' hot you may consider to be only marginally attractive and vice versa. (Duh!)

Yeah yeah thats great Doc, but wtf does this have to do with finding that secret key, that elusive why? In a word... everything.

Have you ever seen a girl... who for no particular social reason you just couldnt seem to take your eyes off of? Maybe you even said to a buddy... "Jesus, do you see that girl?" and he said something like "Yeah... she's not bad"... and you thought to yourself... "not bad? really? she's amazing! Are my standards slipping? Am I getting desperate?"... No you weren't... you just had a brush with biology in action...

You see like a pop star... your 'genes' (okay poor pun) don't lie. Your genes know what other gene types with be mesh with and create lovely strong offspring. What you saw was something your gene pool wanted that didnt match with your friends gene pool... hence your seemly distorted attraction. How does this help us you may wonder? Her genes know that its a good match too... it's like this little biological matchmaking system happening behind the scenes.

So maybe going for that girl you consider a 6 or 7 isnt really such a good idea... because it just so happens that the girl you think is a 8 or 9 is probably more attracted to before you so much as say a word

Some food for thought next time you lock eyes with a woman who for no particular reason at all... you find more attractive then everyone else does... chances are she feels the same thing.


Alright I'm gunna chop this first one off here... look out for Part II where I'll be explaining that special something about her personality... aka the Yin & Yang of Masculine and Feminine energies

Really? Is there a source or experiment or some sort of publication verifying this concept?

To me it seems a little outlandish that one's genes could recognize and know what other genes would specifically create outstanding offspring (beyond the apparent). I am used to the traditional model where signifiers of attractiveness in women are bound by universally accepted physical attributes such as symmetry, youth, waste/hip ratio, and apparent healthiness. Obviously there are cultural bias, but I would associate the small discrepancies within societies with classical conditioning and the past experiences of the 'beholder of the eye.'

Anyways, nice read. I will probably spend quite a while pondering this like a nerd... Any sources would be cool though.

_________________
There are no failures, only feedback.

There actually have been studies done verifying the correlation of certain look types being attracted to certain look types and the reciprication... But to be totally honest I'm not about to look through all of my material to find where the study I was writting about was contained.

And the traditional and universal indicators do absolutely hold true.. that is proven... however it has been shown that it goes deeper then that, and best as it can be concluded is broken into smaller genetic groupings then universal... I will say this has not been proven into scientific law yet to my knowledge...

But as a theory it work exceptionally well outside of the "labs" and out on the streets if you will... and for me no matter how much I may love a theory... something working in practice is better