"Ideal" man and woman

Remove all ads!

In a recent research conducted in Poland (link just in case, though it's in Polish), it turns out "macho" is the type of man women are after, which is also more or less in accordance with what men believe. Translation (just the relevant paragraph):

For women, the ideal man should be: well-kept, well-groomed, pretty [sic], proportionally built, with a hairy chest, fashionably dressed, tanned, musculated. He should also be mature, understanding, warming, taking care of himself, honourable, amusing, independent, tough, risk-taking [literal translation ranges from rash to devil-may-care], determined.

And now the way men see the ideal woman:

According to them, she should be: delicate, good, warm, intelligent, listening, loving, sincere, trustworthy, caring - loving children. And appearance? - we look for a middle-height brunette or blonde, marked by a fluidity of movement, delicacy, sensuality, naturalness and an athletic [literally sporty, which is less than athletic], firm and lithe body.

Reeks supermarket, I know. Such surveys produces scores which encompass such broad ranges of subjects that they lose much of the indentifying factor. Additionally, there is a lot of inconsistencies. However, those inconsistencies is something I'd like to address.

It seems - also according to the sexuologist (a noted professor) who's preparing the commentary - that women officially prefer a, "smooth-spoken, nice, well-brought-up guy," whereas in reality they do prefer a blood and bones guy. "Guy" is the word they used. I will agree the picture is broad and falls somewhere between Ken and Rhett Butler. What's worrying is the association with a wish machine that I've been having recently: i.e. that basically the deal is that the man should at all times respond "appropriately" to the situation, with an overtone of submission or a form of subservience hidden in all the requirements and particular characteristics thereof, as well as the expectation of being all this and that. I am also especially worried by the high rank of "risk-taking" as a requirement. It doesn't read, "able to take risks for his family." It reads "rash" or even, "devil may care," as a trait of character - speaking in the relationship vernacular, a "turn-on".

As for men, I notice a worrying tendency to focus on the one hand on a surprising catalogue of good, pro-family, traditional qualities (which I wouldn't have expected) and on the other hand on the body, which is being addressed in a near-technical manner suggesting the possibility that it's being evaluated from the point of view of sexual performance rather than aesthetic factors.

While there's no direct inconsistency, the coexistence of several of those traits is somewhat problematic. For instance, sensual and natural... what's that? Sensually natural? More like naturally sensual. It doesn't necessarily ring of anything bad, but I'm sensing some degree of stimulus-seeking here. Lollita charm, don't know what. Then also delicacy and sporty, athletic body put together are certainly viable, but I do wonder what they suggest. Aren't men looking for tough ladies these days? I don't want to make premature judgements, but it seems to me this ideal is highly influenced by female models of mass culture - be it characters from films or computer games or even porn perchance.

To sum up, to me it seems there's a bit of an inconsistence in the way women see the ideal man. In how men see the ideal woman, there's no inconsistence in the mental and emotional traits, although there may be some inconsistence in the physical traits or the combination of those and aforementioned mental and emotional traits. Men's ideal woman emerges as a pro-family image, after all, while women's ideal men strikes as not quite the family guy, more of a macho to impress and stir the blood.

I must say I am more worried by women's ideal, since it doesn't mentioned anything like good husband or good mother or good or loving anywhere. "Honourable" seems to progress through "independent" to "tough" and even "risk-taking", which suggests an overall macho image, rather than being honourable for itself. I can't help regarding the combination of certain factors such as "understanding" which goes together with "caring for himself" and the machoistic traits coming together with a layer of empathy suggest a "teddy bear" longing, which is, unfortunately, something I have been able to observe around here.

However, I'm a man myself, so I am less able to notice the dangers and potential trouble in the way men see the ideal woman - apart from the seemingly difficult to reconcile high physical/sexual traits with good wife and mother characteristics. The content, the matter, is not as worrying as the way it is framed. I realise it may be as worrying to the ladies as the women's picture of an ideal man might be to me - although it would be an overstatement to say it deprives me of my sleep.

Now I'd like to ask your opinion about this, perhaps also how it is where you live - is it different anyhow? I'm guessing not really, at least if you were to take a poll like this one. Prove me wrong, though. How does this relate to us? Is it good or bad? Is it good that women seem to appreciate tough men again and that men seem to want a family woman? Or is it prevalent and worrying that one gender wants a handsome teddy bear and the other wants a mellow flexible doll? Discuss please.

 

Personally I think such a survey takes meaning out of the answer, and about all you are left with is that people like the people they like.

What I mean is, someone might like a risk taker - if the risks taken did not negatively impact their lives, and if their own lives lacked excitement. Someone with an unstable life might not want a risk taker, she might want stability.

Personally I dont even think women are sure of what they want - they want a lot of conflicting things, and end up with guys who hurt them. They want nice bad boys - such a thing isnt possible. they want risk and excitement, but not to get hurt.

 

Proteus makes some good points.

I know from past conversations with some of my female friends that many things they see as qualities are unlikely to occur in the same person (especially the nice bad boy example). Indeed, much of what girls my age appear to be looking for will inevitably lead to them getting into a relationship with someone likely to betray or hurt them in some way. Naturally, I am waiting for all males to get the blame for these few.

I strongly suspect this could be the case. Women don't seem to want to be able to totally predict everything their partner is going to do. They want someone who will make their lives more interesting than the average person's. I guess this also leads into spontaneous romantic acts as well.

Unfortunately, people who are unpredictable aren't going to fit in perfectly with a stable relationship.

Feels that way, doesn't it?

Chev pointed out a couple of possible incompatabilities; indeed, it appears the ideal woman is both blonde and brunette!

 

She alters her hair colour on a whim in keeping with her personality!

Jokes, I dont tend to prefer a certain hair colour over another. hair just contributes to attractiveness. Some hair and eye colour combinations really look good.

 

Chev, the male part neither suprises nor worries me. Remember, you're asking about a wish-fulfillment situation, so of course the person will want it all. If I could design my perfect woman, she'd be a shape-changer just so I could have multiple ideals of beauty and sensuality fulfilled (yes, I do have multiple) in one woman. As it is, my wife (hey, I don't think I've mentioned I just got married yet!) comes awefully close to one, so I'm happy, but in a wish-fulfillment situation, you have to expect people to ask for everything, especially the contradictory and impossible.

The women do worry me, but doesn't suprise me. I've known too many women just like that. Of course, I expect age range has some influence on these things. Still, a lot of women these days don't really seem to know what they want, and when they fix in on one thing, it is generally the most immediately satisfying, not the most long-term characteristic. Even if you do consider that this is actually a compilation of many different responses, I have seen these exact contradictions portrayed in the way many of the women I've known have looked for a man.

It seems that, if anything, this study shows that women are less able to identify the difference between an impossible ideal and a real possibility, or to settle on a viable set.

I expect the hairy chest thing must be european, it's absolutely out here.

 

In the US there was a poll a few weeks ago about the ideal man. The only part I really remember was the $60,000 annual salary with a $600,000 home -- I could only conclude women responding to the survey were financially inept.

 

Interesting, gentlemen, interesting. Keep it coming. Do we get anything from the ladies? I'd rather this wouldn't become one-sided.

@Decados:

I confirm that. I remember the most extreme example being a woman who admitted she liked when a partner said one thing and did another. I then said but that was dishonourable, wrong, it meant lying and breaking promises. She said yes, but she couldn't help it. And so on.

I'd say so. I always try to make it interesting for a lady I care for and for friends as well. I think people appreciate such things. Not always perhaps, but maybe in general.

Alas, you are right again. However, I think what most men are after - especially at a young age - will lead to disaster too. There are two things they're typically after: looks and sexual availability. With that kind of requirements it's easy to set oneself up for being cheated many times over. Girls and young women, in turn, tend to end up with guys who treat them like dirt.

I don't blame them in the traditional sense, though. See, no matter what feminists say, women do need someone who will protect them, take care of them, provide for them and the family, which even means taking charge. They develop bonds of a consequent nature and with the wrong kind of guy, it leads to wrong things. Men can develop unhealthy dependencies too - generally they say the party which cares less controls the relationship. It varies between relationships, so people have mixed experience.

@Proteus:

I'm not even sure they do want that. They might think they do and they might consciously want those guys, as a matter of choice, but in reality... who knows. I'd say some are prone to being dissatisfied with a nice guy's lack of challenge and with a bad guy's lack of manners and consideration both. That means they're hard to satisfy in general. I have a couple of theories, but let's hear something from the ladies first - I don't want this topic to turn into a complaining fest. I'm hoping for some enlightening discussion here.

 

I wonder if the inconsitency Chev noted in the women's wishes are not indicative of two different ideal men they would like. One to have a relationship with (dependable, honourable) and one to be 'adventerous' with (risk-taking, macho).

As for the men's ideal woman, nothing much surprising there, except perhaps the loving children trait. I suspect such a trait would be less prominently desirable here.

 

A woman I knew used to say that there were two types of men, the ones you dated and the ones you married. Now I doubt all women think the same (she was a bit of a nutter after all), but there could be some truth to this. At the least it could be that women favor either this or that type (and sometimes both, as this acquaintance of mine did)

 

Hah. Many men talk about the girl you date and you marry, too.

 

I've always been told that I'm the marrying type, not the boyfriend type.

A friend of mine decided that, when a girl calls you a nice guy, shes insulting you without meaning to. Think about what shes saying - she will never date you in her whole life, but wants you to be her friend until she finds a boyfriend, after which she has no need for other male company.

 

Biological trickery, all of it. Humans desire mates who exhibit characteristics which indicate general health and offer the best chance for survival of a large number of superior offspring. It's our huge brains and ability for abstract thought processes which allow us to believe that we are consciously making the choice of who to desire as a potential mate.

Ziad,
I think it is very common for a woman to want it both ways. She desires (at a biological level) an exciting relationship with a risk taking, dangerous, tall, handsome, etc. 'alpha male' with whom she can conceive a superior offspring....And she wants a sensible, safe, dependable mate who can help to make a secure life for her and her child.

Chev,
The technical aspect of a male's concept of a desirable mate may be worse than you thought. For instance, men tend to prefer females with a waist to hip ratio of .7....it just so happens that such a ratio indicates optimal fertility and better general health.

Regardless of how we rationalize our desires we are slaves to our biology.

 

This is so very true They're probably thinking in terms of the same "criteria" as well.

 

It's also been shown that preferences change between fertile and infertile periods.

Yup. I suppose the weight of other factors depends on how civilised a male we're talking about.

Hmm... All of us? I think people get over biology to some extent as they learn about it. If therapists can talk someone out of attraction to destructive relationships, I suppose a normal male without issues could be taught about a couple more important factors than .7 - and after all, a woman generally chooses the same man to conceive and rear her children with. I think biology is only a problem if we can't get a grip of it.

 

Luckily, most humans are not actually such slaves to biology. The human psyche is incredibly complex and raises us well above the level of base instincts. Not to say that such things aren't a factor, but rather that they aren't the determining factor anymore.

This isn't even accurate. The 'ideal' waist to hip ratio has changed drastically over the centuries. In ancient Greece it was nearly 1:1, in modern Hollywood, its more like .4. Socialization is ultimately a much more powerful influence on us than our instincts and genetics.

As the old addage goes, genetics is the gun, society aims and pulls the trigger.

 

Wonder if the common man's preferences haven't remained more similar over centuries than the changing artistic ideal.

 

NOG,
I think the human psyche is incredibly complex only in the context of our ignorance on the subject. Humans seem to have a knack for considering anything we don't understand yet as 'incredibly complex' even going so far as to put a mystical spin on unknown or possibly unknowable matters.

Also, take 2 minutes to search for info on .7 waist to hip ratio before you discard the idea completely.

Chev,
To deny your own nature is exhausting, even if a person were to learn why they behave in a certain manner on a biological level and then will themselves to 'get over biology' they still have to answer to their nature. If you modify your behavior based on enlightenment it does not mean that you have changed what you are. You have just changed how you behave. A therapist may be able to convince some individuals to avoid destructive relationships but not eliminate the attraction...nature persists.

You're either a slave because you obey your nature or you are a slave due to the wracking desire you endure while denying your nature.

 

Psychology studies, at least the various ones I've read, state that culture has an influence on waist to hip ratio preference for men, but when exposed to photos, men, regardless of culture, almost always .7. This would suggest that there is a conflict between what one feels they they should want and what they indeed want. Ultimately what this comes down to is while men may idealize something other then this .7 ratio, when it comes down to sensual perception, men tend to revert to a common preference.

 

Nunsbane:
Hmm, that .7 stuff is interesting. As to complexity, I'm more referring to what I do currently understand of the human mind. The fact that it is a blatantly incomplete web does not alter the fact that it is already evidently a vastly complex one.

 

Unless that attraction wasn't in the person's nature. At some core level, it's alien to the person's nature, I'm sure. Just need to dig deep in some cases.

Perhaps, but it's hard to say which is the case. And I'm guessing the nature that wants to be a slave is a corrupted one. Purify it and it won't want any slavery again.

Obviously, preferences of the biological nature aren't all personality issues alien to our core nature. Sometimes it's really an expression of who we are. But I believe we can change. To some extent at least. I can certainly say my taste in women has changed and I believe it was in no small part due to how I developed morally and intellectually. Emotionally maybe. Then again, we all undergo some changes in that regard as we grow up.

I believe both genders have conflicts like that and not only in the area of looks.