>>518631622
attraction to "looks" actually works differently between the genders.

males look for physical features on the womans body which indicate effective partner material.

females look for any traits/visual cues that indicate ability to be an effective partner.

quick examples:
females with cutsey looks, and not very strong, indicate most men and women would protect them, leading to higher likelihood of them and the child surviving.

men with a high paying job, and able to fix the house, means the woman and child will survive the winter, and other serious threats.

you can LOOK at a female to see if she has the higher survivability in most traits. visual cues are on the body in most cases.

you cant look at a males body and know how smart he is. and while muscles help, not all jobs and scenarios require muscles, so it only "helps" if hes fit, but its not a done deal on its own.


this is why women call men shallow for liking physical bodies, and men call women gold diggers for liking guys with money.

we dont understand how the others attractions work.

we see women thinking if they just made all women ugly in games/shows, men would like less physically fit bodies, when thats just not how men work. but women WOULD like men more, if negative traits are portrayed as good. (example being told a guy at school is popular with all the other women, suddenly he becomes attractive, if she once didn't find him attractive, but the reverse wouldnt work. guys wouldnt find a woman more or less attractive just because shes popular with other guys.


to the OP
>>518631622
something else is wrong. if hes a tad autistic/on the spectrum with social interaction issues, he can trigger warning signs, even if hes a perfectly fine individual. (and to be honest, everyone thinks they are fine/good, when in reality they are just some prick antifa retard or something, thinking "im the good guy!")