Making the Most of It

Kelly Brook photo credit.

Despite attraction being the elusive beast that it is, I'm not sure that making ones-self attractive is all that complicated.

Singlicious's thinking is a good example:

It's true those of us without a low waist-to-hip ratio generally understand that our attraction lies elsewhere (boobs, in my case), but I think that if we care about attracting men, we generally still dress in such a way as to approach that ideal as much as possible (not meaning skimpily, necessarily, but to create the illusion of a smaller waist, etc.).

We're all physically less than perfect, making 'perfect' a foolish standard to begin with. What does perfect even mean? What Vogue determines? But we are critical animals - more so of others than ourselves - which leads us to compare others to our imagined 'perfect' physical template.

Decades of observing female bodies leads me to this: Everyone has at least one great physical asset. It might be gorgeous lips, or delicately turned ankles, a graceful neck or, ahem, a great set of boobs. Acknowledging this is, ie: the woman doing so to herself, is good. Equally good is extending the realism to note the other stuff that MIGHT not be as beautifully formed. From that point, it is fairly simple to manipulate one's outward appearance to highlight the selling points and perhaps camouflage some others.

I'm assuming that our theoretical woman WANTS to either look attractive to men or actually attract them.

What I see in many women is a way of dressing or using makeup or styling their hair that demonstrates a lack of realistic stock-taking. (BTW, men are as bad or worse, but I'm not interested in them.) If you're a short woman with a big butt, capri pants will accentuate this fact. If you have big thighs, skinny jeans don't work, unless you want us to look at your thighs first. Crocs in public are always wrong. And so on.

Men are simple to the point that we can easily determine which woman is comfortable in her own skin, and who is trying too hard to be something else. Consider a hunting metaphor - the decoy duck looks okay from a distance, but don't try roasting it.




Bottoms Up, Decoys.

Curves

Pic credit

Allegedly, many guys prefer a body type that includes a low waist to hip measurement. Nothing new in that: a slim-waisted girl with hips and boobs will always catch your eye.

But there's more subtlety to attraction than just curves, and women without that specific fat/bone/muscle configuration seem to understand that their attraction might lie elsewhere too. Sure, the hour-glass might catch my eye initially, but it's so fleeting as to be almost irrelevant.

Yes, we are superficial animals...superficially. The layers of attraction are deep enough - and sufficiently abstract - that Jessica Rabbit is only a minor distraction, deemed valuable only by perceived cultural norms. Gosh, I'm sounding like some awful psych professor.

Pfft. Cultural norms indeed.

My point is that attraction is SO individual as to be beyond easy characterization, an excellent state of affairs. Curves are TOTALLY in the eye of the beholder.



Bottoms Up, Attractors.

Just One Thing

If - dear Lord, it's a big one, I know - I could imprint one thing into the brains of couples, it would be this:

Okay, TWO things.

One. Guys want to know their woman respects them. Corollary: the worst emotion you can have towards us is CONTEMPT.

Two. Most men are petrified of an angry woman. This wide-eyed primal reaction leads us to behave in really odd ways, viz: defensively when no defense is required, or guiltily when no guilt pertains. Yes, strange.

Here's the reality check: if you're a woman and you are contemptuous of your male partner for even the slightest sliver of time...it's over.

And if you're a guy, and you your woman behaves dismissively, it's over. Dude. Srsly.

One or other of you must walk.



Bottoms Up, Couplers.