Quote:
However, this method makes an enormous assumption. It assumes that there actually IS sexual tension between two people. This is not always the case. Most commonly this sexual tension is not mutual when there is a disparity in the looks department between two people. Have you ever noticed how you get really nervous/anxious when a really attractive girl walks into the room? By contrast, have you noticed how you don't even notice, much less get nervous, when an unattractive girl walks into the same room? If an unattractive girl were to ask you if they could borrow your eraser would your heart rate increase? Probably not. In the same fashion, girls could give a shit less when they come into contact with men that they deem to be "beneath" them in terms of looks. Women get approached by men MUCH more often than men get approached by women. If anything, they are much more used to dealing with the pressures and anxiety of dealing with complete strangers of the opposite sex. Thus, unless the girl deems you to be at least as attractive as her, if not more, she will not feel any realistic amount of sexual tension just based off an initial encounter where no words have been exchanged.
You argue against an assumption by making massive assumptions of your own that are even more flawed that the assumption you are arguing against.
You assume that a men are attracted to women in the same way as women are attracted to men. The analogy of the unattractive woman not making your heart race only follows if this is the case. However, female and male attraction are fundamentally different. Men care much more about the raw physical appearance of the woman, especially gender cues that indicate youth, fecundity, fat storage, ability to give birth, etc. Women factor in a hell of a lot more than just face and body - they notice subcommunication - is this guy comfortable in his own skin, confident, easy going, social value - who's he here with, does he have connections and influence, preselection - are other girls interested in him, and so forth. A simple experiment - show women photos of men - in some the men are surrounded by women who are looking at the guy and smiling, in others the men are by themselves. Women rate the SAME MAN as more attractive when he's surrounded by women than by himself. Guess what - men don't rate a girl any hotter regardless of what she's surrounded by. Female attraction is not the same as male attraction.
This is a major limiting belief you have that is wrong. It's not slightly wrong, it's completely 100% incorrect. There's no better way of showing this than with a single picture. I came back from Odessa, Ukraine last week. Whilst there, I couldn't stop noticing smoking hot 9s with the ugliest, fat, slobs I'd ever seen. Not just occasionally, ALL THE TIME. Finally I had to take a picture - remember this is not an exception or a one-off - this is the RULE there.
Why is this? Is it some crazy country where it's opposite day every day? NO. It's because the men are dominant, leading, masculine and don't give a fuck, and the women follow and are feminine and submissive, and THAT'S what attraction is. It has NOTHING to do with the physical features of the guy and everything to do with the fact that he is comfortable being a MAN, being SEXUAL, being DOMINANT. That's all that matters. There is sexual tension between ALL men and ALL women simply by the virtue of them being men and women, as long as the man is confident enough to COMMUNICATE it to the woman.
As a side note, a friend of mine, who is a very good-looking, athletic, muscular DOCTOR who's incredibly intelligent, funny, interesting, and excellent at expressing sexual intent through his eye contact, was REJECTED a few days ago by a woman because he wasn't BALD or FAT, which is what the woman preferred. This is what is masculine to HER, and it's her type. What YOU THINK is attractive has NOTHING to do with what women think is attractive.
CHAT
