Thread: ATTRACTION ?

Hi guys, attraction ? In order for species to multiply they need to 'pro create', hope that is the correct term (?) So in order for that to happen, like needs to be attracted to like, a rhesus monkey to a r m, a monarch butterfly to a m f, a pygmy shrew to a p s. And of course humans to humans.

I'm hoping the answer to my question is to be biological and not societal but I'm thinking perhaps social upbringing may have something to do with it also !?

My question - What is going on when attraction isn't mutual ? e.g. You are attracted to someone and are thinking of asking them out for a date. BUT, on mentioning this to your friends they immediately warn you that you 'are not her type' ! You ignore your friends and proceed to ask the person for a date only to be declined 'politely', your friends were correct ! Why are we attracted to some people, but not to others ?

BARCUD

On the broad species level, there are genes that determine what types of stimuli will result in the physiological reaction of attraction. These are less strict for some animals than for others; one study showed that male turkeys will go into a mating dance at the sight of a fake female's head suspended in midair.

People are of course more complicated, with a lot of previous experience effecting it, especially when it comes to specific people, but on a broad scale some basic genetic influences are still involved.

Why are we attracted to some people, but not to others ?

Humans have many qualities that other animals do not. What really sets us apart is language (which allow us to take primitive mating calls to the next level and charm females with a stirring speech or a beautiful song) and religion (many of us believe in living life as God so wills us too, which often affects the kind of people one will mate with). Aesthetically pleasing males and females will mate more often, yes, but even they can be picky sometimes. People quite obviously have fetishes for people with big feet, BBW girls, midgets, Dominatrixes...the list goes on...people are too complex to fully understand their own behaviours fully. A proposed reason for foot fetishes is that the foot and genital representations in the primary motor cortex are right next to each other (behind the central sulcus) and one area can invade the other.

Attraction, or mate selection, requires an investment. We're familiar with the apparently wasteful sexual dances and baubles of male animals. But I think the cost of just identifying viable mates is often overlooked, because humans are so fond of the activity. We feel the girl turkey ought to always have a discriminating eye out for handsome guy turkeys. But really she does better as a singleminded eating machine.

The male turkey can afford to strut around ogling and so forth, because his reproductive investment is only cheap sperm. He can also afford to help the female make her mate selection, so she needn't waste any time or energy in that. I call this the dumb daughter hypothesis. For her part, the female need only run away - as she would from any predator or horny male bird - or allow mounting by a blatantly obvious same species male. The boy turkey's bold markings afford her almost total disregard for mate selection. So the dumb bird may go on pecking.

Viewed this way, the male display is not a frivolous and wasteful investment. It is paying the female's end of mate selection.

The male needn't be very attentive to detail either. He can hunt about humping everything that'll let him. This doesn't cost much, and it's probably a better strategy to be stupidly assertive than understanding. Perception, attention, and discrimination all have costs to be weighed against other solutions.


Humans are weird. Like, what's with the pretty females? Is this to say socially clueless males should singlemindedly pay the costs of reproduction while perceptive females manage mate selection?

I recommend Matt Ridley's The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature.