It's very difficult to speak for all guys when it comes to physical attraction. What I find attractive may vary slightly from another guy.
We can ALL definitely agree on worldly attractive "features" on men and women but who am I to judge a couple who may not appear to attractive to me when they're so obviously attracted to each other.
Part of me understands it's subjective.
Part of me also understands some are actually lying to each other daily and settling for someone they don't find attractive. They actually fake their way through it all.
Let's hope that's not the norm.
But another part of my brain also believes that nature has given us a (sort of) template to look for in another which helps us to propel our species forward and really, when I consider all that is needed to survive, procreate, and function - how much of a role can our physical attributes play with regards to an agreed upon attractiveness?
Does it really matter how attractive we are or not with regards to "survival of the fittest"?
Sure... If we're in shape and attractive we might have a one-up to pass on those Genes and therefore, seeking out those traits may prove beneficial.
Who doesn't want beautiful strong healthy children, right?
Sure... When we as men feel emotionally connected towards certain women enough to want to commit and reproduce, her body type will have an impact. Such as child rearing hips, emotional strength, capable of nurturing a child and such; these attributes DO have an instinctual effect on us causing us to be drawn towards them.
Yet, our beautiful (sometimes not so smart) brain gets in the way, doesn't it?
Given a choice we may be more apt to choose wrong, for the wrong reasons, we may choose physical attractiveness over other things just to satisfy "those" part of our desires. I'm positive lots of people walking around today are products of physical desires and nothing more.
I realized at some point that I am personally a product of two good-looking people who were not able to function together successfully in a relationship. My Mom was hot. My Father was cool and handsome. Together - as a couple they didn't work out for many reasons despite their attractiveness to each other.
The conclusions I've reached in this area is that nature may be more of a "crap shoot" than anything else because our natural brain hasn't had the time to surpass our physical desires and the social world we've built with it is far too young to even itself out.
For me, as I've been upfront and honest in this area, I MUST be physically attracted to a woman before I search for other things about her. Something you can read in my article:
In the past where I've failed to look deeper I've suffered the consequences of my actions through drama, hardship, mental anguish, disparity, and so on.
In other words IF and WHEN I've let my physical attraction override my common sense and gut intuition it ALWAYS turned out bad. Every freaking time, no doubt.
BUT does that necessarily mean I should be searching first for women I'm not attracted to and then "see" if it leads to a commitment or not?
Physical attraction is something I have absolutely no control over and is something I can NOT create or make happen "after that fact". It's either there or it isn't.
If I'm to wait until AFTER we connect and communicate on another level for the attraction or chemistry to kick in AND since I've already stated I can't create something that just happens - then I'm left with a woman who would probably only make a great friend and nothing more.
Now on the other side - who am I to say that "good" or "great" friends can not make a healthy happy childhood for their offspring. Perhaps they can function better or provide better means for those over those who are like me, a product of sexual desires and the nice thought that there was something more.
Since I do not have proof of that concept I can not disprove it at this point BUT looking at us as humans and what makes us happy and balanced...
Sexual desires and the physical part of connections from kissing, hugging, cuddling, and affirmations that out partner is in many ways is physically attracted to us IS and will ALWAYS be a part of that balanced happy life our bodies and brains needs to feel happy and therefore pass on that happiness to others.
My answer is YES, a man can and probably has committed to a woman he's not physically attracted to for reasons of his own.
I'm sure it has been done and will continue to happen. After all, there are lots of men and women in this world and given a large set to choose from, probability says it's going to happen.
Yet I still believe the feeling of attraction must come first and for those men who "look past" it all too often are really only settling. I still believe that couple may be missing something very important to their overall happiness.
Let's call it the "touch" factor. Really it's chemistry and attraction. It's an instinctual desire that you've found a match.
I would NOT want a woman who was not turned on by me to want to commit or "force" herself to commit to me for other reasons alone AND I would not, could not, commit to a woman I'm not physically attracted to.
My belief is YOU should expect the same from YOUR man.
Obviously going from the purely physical or the chemical reactions in our brain to full commitment is not recommended.
There MUST be something more.
You must be capable and willing to communicate in such a way which strengthens the relationship and not tear it apart.
However, with regards to a guy committing when he's not physically attracted to a woman, sure it happens - hopefully less often than not but with that question will always come more questions which in the end might destroy any relationship started without some form of physical attraction as in:
- Is he settling?
- Does he believe he's not good enough?
- Is his extreme attraction to certain women caused him to override his intuition and ignore the real parts which together make a great relationship? Meaning the guy finds himself searching for women he's not attracted to just to avoid his painful past , bad decisions or rejection.
- Do you want a guy to commit to you when he's not attracted to you?
- How would that make you feel later on especially if you are physically attracted to him?
In the end, as I see it, a relationship without chemistry or physical attraction, no matter how deep the connection or communication goes already has a name - it's called a friendship, nothing more.
A man who wants to commit to a woman based solely on that friendship, just because maybe he thinks she'd make a great mother or something like that is NOT something I would wish on any woman because a woman has a healthy balanced "need" to be desired, loved, felt, touched, squeezed, hugged, adored, complimented, and to feel special in his eyes like SHE is the only one for him.
Since writing this it has come to my attention through deep inner exploration, reliable outside sources, and through lots of new research that a man experiences TWO forms of attraction and BOTH are BEYOND his CONTROL.
One is mostly PHYSICAL as what was covered above.
The other is EMOTIONAL.
Which I believe is great news because with a little physical attraction (which if you ask me IS the easy part) you can create an emotional (trigger like) attraction from a guy just in how you communicate to him.
AND the even greater part is...
The emotional attraction is longer-lasting and better designed to form a greater more stable relationship with a man AND is achieved through an actual REAL SKILL you can learn.
You might not be able to trigger a physical attraction in a guy if you're not physically appealing to him not matter how you do your hair and through what you wear or even how you walk (in other words things that can be changed or altered quite easily) BUT...
You can trigger his emotional attraction because it has nothing to do with how you appear physically to him.
It has EVERYTHING to do with HOW you communicate and CONNECT with a man on a deeper level.
Here are my thoughts I came up with and sent out to my private readers in a newsletter. (I may or may not delete this part later.)
These are very generally only related to a type two guy which is okay because it IS the most common type. If you haven't read my Understanding Men Made Simple - There Are Only Two Types Of Guys - make sure you pick it up below because in the end I show you WHAT you must do to connect with him in a very simple way. It's just not filled with the details the program above has.
What A Man NEEDS to Feel To Fall In Love & Want To Commit To You.
Men are as simple as this:
They FEEL. They THINK. When they feel more, they think more, and the cycle continues. They process their feelings by thinking through them in their own manly way which can learn about the book I just released called The Silent Man.
Men FEEL – as in when they see a woman they’re attracted to which causes them to THINK more and connect more to you inside their emotional brain.
The difference between type one and type two at this stage comes down to a simple matter of ACTION.
FEEL –> THINK –> TAKE ACTION.
Type TWO: The guys who don’t get you (or the man’s brain I’ve dissected for you in the last letter) …
FEEL –> THINK –> Sometimes take ACTION but mostly internalize their actions which generates or perpetuates the cycle.
This is a MAJOR difference between the two types. It also affects you directly because if you’re to create an emotional bond with either type, HOW you do it is a little different.
We’ll get more into the action part later so keep opening your emails by hopping on my newsletter below.
In today’s letter I’ll take what he felt and turn it into what he NEEDS to feel and trust by the end – it will not only make sense but is guaranteed to blow your mind when it comes to men.