What Makes a Confident, Attractive Man?

[the_rake]

GaG, GaG, I confess I trolled you with my notorious 'alpha male' takes.

Sowwy 😢 .

Although some users already figured it out anyway, so it's not really a massive secret (although some people will be very annoyed!):

https://www.girlsaskguys.com/dating/a22533-the-male-attributes-females-are-most-attracted-to

https://www.girlsaskguys.com/social-relationships/a22616-alpha-men-on-television

https://www.girlsaskguys.com/guys-behavior/a22678-how-to-become-an-alpha-male#new

Didn't get the humour? Don't worry, it's very obscure and not everyone will laugh. Somebody described me as living in a delirium and it wasn't far from the truth!

Regardless, it became difficult to do this when I realised that some of the ideas expressed had truth in them. For this reason, I thought I ought to remedy some of the confusion and hideous misinformation with a take that 'separates the wheat from the chaff'. I think most people can agree with these aspects of dating regardless of whether they are hardcore MGTOWs or raging feminists. I simply present you with a highly uncontroversial mid-ground.

Here are the ACTUAL attractive qualities in a man:

# 1 High status

My use of the words 'alpha male' probably generated the most controversy, at least the way I used them to antagonise, anyway. For this reason, I will substitute 'alpha male' for 'man of high status'. Alas, this kind of man IS a natural leader but he DOESN'T need to be a dictator. Sometimes even the greatest leaders need to get their hands dirty but this is debatable and for the most part, these men can still be good-natured.

So what does high-status mean? We can look towards wealth, women, power...all things I tongue in cheek suggested make women want to strip off their panties for. In reality, it is the drive for these things and the confident natural born mindset. Sometimes we obtain our possessions for all the wrong reasons which is why flashing a nice Rolex doesn't always win the woman (which is fortunate indeed!).

# 2 Good looks and physicality

So, reading through the posts on this website, a lot of men are bitter because they believe that they are not good looking enough to get a woman - and women have Nazi standards when it comes to good looks. Personally, I've always experienced the opposite, considering myself at least a 7, maybe pushing into an 8 if I put a lot of effort into my appearance. Perhaps 7s and 8s just aren't good enough for those Nazi standards women have but then, I've seen pretty damn attractive women with ugly men and found myself WISHING it was enough to be a pretty boy!

Regardless, some of the harshest criticisms from men on this site were related to the fact I put status, confidence and other attributes above good looks. Maybe these men are right so I have thrown good looks into the mix with physicality to go with it. Tall men with musculature, angular facial attributes and other masculine features comprising 'physicality' are not just physically attractive. They also convey high status and appeal to the woman's survival instinct.

That's why this:

Is more attractive, than this:

(Justin Bieber file upload failed...ah, well that's such a shame)

In my personal opinion. But others may beg to differ and I can't speak for all women. I suppose that women who prefer the pretty boys are like the men that prefer anorexically thin models over women with healthy and - in my opinion - incredibly attractive curvature.

# 3 Initiative

Yes, I stand by the principle that men generally (though not always) have to do the asking out. This is a culmination of standards set by society and the fact that a considerable majority of women generally do prefer to be asked out (and spoiled with free goodies on the date too!). It makes them feel protected and feminine.

But initiative means more than that, it means offering direction and offering to take responsibility or delegate responsibilities without even having to be asked and without becoming tyrannical about the new responsibilities your leadership brings you. Graveytrain wrote a decent take on the difference between dominance and leadership (I'm not trolling this time!):

https://www.girlsaskguys.com/social-relationships/a22652-the-difference-between-leadership-dominance-in-my-personal-opinion

# 4 Positivity

Dale Carnegie was not lying that the best way to be a natural leader was to win people's influence with a positive demeanour. Something I mischievously neglected to mention when I was advocating outright sociopathy . Yes, brute force and cunning underhandedness can be effective also, let's not delude ourselves...but you can be powerful as a nice guy too and all it takes is strength of character and firm allegiance to your principles. Seriously, if this is you, don't compromise...ever. Because things will get better as long as you stand your ground.

# 5 Feminism - love or hate?

Feminism I have a love hate relationship with. On one hand I want political and economic equality for women, I truly do. But on the other, I see a highly emasculating effect on men post suffragettes and then second and thirdwave generation feminists. I think the 'lipstick feminists' of cosmopolitan magazine had it right... Perhaps this is a good reason not to joke around about things you believe in but regardless, what's done is done.

When it comes to dating and relationships, the question is whether you can give a woman the masculine leadership traits she desires without compromising egalitarian principles. I think the answer is 'yes' but it is a fine and often tricky balance to maintain. I don't have much theory behind this, but I think a lot of guys can agree with this out of their own experiences - always having to make the first move, buy nice things for women, buy drinks, be dominant in the bedroom, etc. etc. but never being allowed to question feminist notions of equality. And yet at times we (as men) often feel totally alienated from anything resembling true equality.

But then on the other hand women have to deal with periods, childbirth, sexual harassment / commodification / objectification, uneven pay rates, etc. so it all evens out, I guess. But with all respect I still recommend that men, while they shouldn't act like dicks, they should disregard overly moralising sentiment when it comes to dating, because if they don't, they lose (it's somewhere women have the power).

Conclusion:

Love me, hate me, it's your prerogative, but I think I have shared some reasonable perspectives (assuming I don't get banned for being such a loveable jerk). In short, yes women DO like high status, leadership men - that was no joke. Whether you need to be a tyrannical sociopath or idiot that refers to himself as alpha male to impress others is another matter (I think most here will agree that this is not necessary).

Regards, the_rake - a loveable jerk.

[hellionthesage]

This seems reasonable. Status is important as women compete over the quality of a mate while males compete for a mate. Hence status being important to push one above the others. I would say looks matter but again as mentioned it is one of many factors. As for leadership abilities, what you are getting at is charm. A person who is confident enough to be a nice guy but by extention is still confident in themselves. They win people over which in turn gives them greater status but because they are confident in themselves they do not use that status thus creating a snowball effect. The greatest leaders had this trait.(FYI ghandi was racist, so maybe not a good pic to use for said topic) I could go on the very very long list of reasons why feminism is not beneficial and is in fact detrimental but to clarify there is no wage gap women have never been equals but rather superior to men (you don't die in the stead of property or an inferior but rather a superior, something of greater value then yourself. The titanic would be an example of this with 100 women dead vs the 1358 men, something feminist conviently ignore) So traditional roles where never unequal it just seems that way because we both focus on the male traits and the male "privlidges" are more obvious (notice how everything positive like luck, liberty, freedom, justice, nature are all personified as women? Seems odd that men would have viewed women negatively if all there greatest ideals where personified as women.) But overall I would say this is a fairly accurate assesment.

[the_rake]

Interesting observations, apologies for the delay in replying. Yes, I've always thought status or more generally intrinsic qualities were higher but I think a lot of guys have hang -ups about this for some reason, eg. they don't want to admit that the problem is with THEIR mindset so they try to place the blame on women, eg for being 'fussy about looks'. Leadership is an integral element of intrinsic qualities and yes a positive outlook is one of the best ways to lead, but unfortunately not the only. This is why the rotten eggs can be attractive also, if they have the status. Gandhi had his flaws yes but he had his merits, and in any case, it was his leadership style which influenced me to use him as a pin-up man for positivity. There were probably better examples though. Yea, I've had mixed feelings towards feminism for a long time, but then I was also raised to be one. For the most part I'm trying to distinguish these views from the fake ideology I espoused as part of the troll.

[hellionthesage]

"they try to place the blame on women, eg for being 'fussy about looks" there is some truth to that however. I believe it was okcupid who did a study and discovered that 80% of all men, according to the women in the survey, where below average in looks. There are multiple factors for this and one could question there methodology (suggesting that if the women where on a dating site to begin with it may be do to having higher standards or they are "fishing" for a higher status male. However yes, it is also about innate abilities, though again one could argue that part of this has to do with the conflicting messages given to many men ie be strong/nice and assertive/treat her like an equal. While these are not mutually exclusive (obviously) they do tend to be hard to balance, how often does a guy in an attempt to treat her like an equal begin to look unassertive? You ask her for her opinion on everything and you begin to look unassertive despite the fact that your merely attempting to

[hellionthesage]

insure that you do not disregard her. So I think that doesn't help either. Again that isn't to say they do not play a part in it only that society isn't helping and with the complete upheavel of gender relations its very difficutl to know which rules to play by, do you go by the old rules, the new ones or something in between? So that also creates conflict. As for gandhi, yes what you stated was accurate, I merely pointed it out because so many have an overly ideolized view of him completely ignoring the fact that he was a human being with his own flaws.(Hero worship is a bit of a pet peeve of mine). Him being racist (and obsessed with enemas) does not alter the good he had done.

[hellionthesage]

As for feminism well its only focused on the so called "privledge" men had and the lack of "privledge" women had so its only natural that if you focus only on the good things men got and the bad that women got that you would percieve an injustice. I could give a very long list of why feminism is illogical and detrimental to society.

[the_rake]

Also for online dating devices such as okc, and even more so for Timber, it is very difficult to gauge intrinsic qualities from an online profile. Even in real life, looks are the first thing a woman sees along with body language (the way you carry yourself) so they are going to be the first thing she is attracted to. It's just a shame good lookers still have to open their mouth: I'm sure a lot of the men that are less adept socially would prefer it if they could rely on this alone! Then again, it's always possible that these same men have overestimated their looks.

This style of egalitarian leadership you mention is indeed a tricky balance but I maintain that it is essentially possible: doing the 'right' thing, or 'moral' thing seldom is easy. This is because of the self-sacrifice it takes, but knowing that self-aggrandisement is never enough. You have to accept your own pleasures and ambitions to which you are equally entitled to. In fact, you need to ASSERT your right to those

[the_rake]

things whilst acknowledging the woman's right to her own, and possibly even acting to provide her with those things (since in nature, your origin is not as a feminist egalitarian but as a hunter-provider caveman). Essentially, man's natural impulses have to be finely balanced with his social inhibitions and ethics (part of the reason I discussed compromising ethics in the other mytake!). This can make it especially difficult for some - introverted, analytical individuals - to interact with the opposite sex. More impulsive men can have short-term success with sexual intercourse and short-term relationships at an early age but later struggle to form close emotional bonds as they mature.

Fair enough about Gahndi. Perhaps the man himself Dale Carnegie would have been a better option (certainly better looking!).

You may say that about feminism but I don't think it can be debated that before the first two waves women had things significantly worse than men! Their marriages were arranged

[the_rake]

and difficult to escape. There was no such thing as 'marital rape'. Women did not have the right to vote and they were seen as the property of men. They were, on the whole, paid less for the same rates of labour and they were not begun to be respected for their comparable rates of productivity until during WW1. But no doubt you are about to give me a history lesson :P

[hellionthesage]

"Also for online dating devices such as okc, and even more so for Timber, it is very difficult to gauge intrinsic qualities from an online profile." Absolutely. Its like texting, it doesn't provide you with the physical communication of face to face nor the tone and emphasis of verbal communication, which is very much like a profile picture, it essentially isolates one quality from all others taking it out of context, the context being those intrinsic qualitites.(good observation on that)
" Essentially, man's natural impulses have to be finely balanced with his social inhibitions and ethics" I would agree with that but its also important to understand the biological drive for these impulses, I think more so for women then men simply because for men its beate into them from all aspects of society while women generally are not required to reflect on it. For example if you look, women who are bread winners are far less happy and more likely to cheat and divorce (so are the husbands) then

[hellionthesage]

women who are not the primary/only earner. The reason is biology made women more predisposed to recieveing resources from men not to give them. (Same reason why higher earning women are more likely to be divorced or single as well). They are constantly told they can have it all, do it all but no one actually bothers to explain why historicly women haven't been doing this.(there where never any laws barringwomen from work but rather it was viewed as an unfortunate set of circumstances that required some of them to do so, by other women no less). So I do believe in relationships and dating women do need to be more reflective and be more willing to acknowledge the impact of millions of years of evolution has had on there thinking and emotions.

[hellionthesage]

As for feminism, "Their marriages were arranged" two things with that, one being that so where the mens yet we have no sympathy for them do we? So little we don't even acknowledge that they where forced into marriage as well but rather portray them as the terrible flesh mongers they surely must have been. The other being that we ignore the fact that most where not (asia partook in arranged marriages and the rich which was entirely on the parents (yes both father and mother)). We also ignore that those men where expected to shelter the woman, clothe her, feed her (working in the fields/factories for 16 hours a day), and if need be die for her (the titanic being a prime example, where 100 women died (25%) in contrast to 1358 men who died (71%). This was directly due to the belief that women where more important then men hence the men dying (for women they supposedly viewed as inferior) while women survived (abandoning husbands/fathers/sons/brothers to save themselves, very noble of them)).

[hellionthesage]

Did you know that there is a right way to walk down the street with a woman? It came about in, I want to say, 15/1600s. Basicly the man is expected to walk closest to the street due to the practice of townsfolk to throw out chamber pots and dirty water (from wash basins and such) out the window into the street below. He was closest to the street in case it didn't quite make it it would land on him instead of her. A man was expected to fight for a womans honor (something she was not expected to reciprocate), and if you look at our stories both past and present you'll notice one common theme through out, that being that the bad guy is the one who mistreats women and the good guy is the one who does not. If you analyze old folk stories its the man who is expected to risk life and limb to save a woman who has been imprisioned. This solidifies the notion that the man must prove his worth to women (and society) and that he is the one who is disposable (otherwise why would he be the one who is

[hellionthesage]

risking there life?) the woman being imprisoned/taken captive shows her value (you do not steal or lock away something that is worthless) solidifying the idea of a womans inherint value (as can be seen in events like the titanic where they are the ones expected to be saved, not men). Then you have specifics like woman working. We have documents showing that there where female blacksmiths in england in th 1400s. Women worked the mines, well until it was deemed unsafe. Men of course still worked in the unsafe conditions because again they where disposable. We know that women couldn't vote yet few know that neither could men. Men didn't get the right to vote in the US until around the 1850s (it started in the 20s but took time to be acknowledged by all states) which is only 70 years before women. Now of course we can claim that it was sexism that men got the righ to vote before women, or we could ask why? What where men doing that women where not?

[hellionthesage]

The answer being war. Men where forcibly drafted into war. Now prior to this both men and women did have the right to vote, IF they happened to be wealthy land owners. The idea was that they where contributing to the running of the country through property tax and there for had a right to vote. So the poorer men claimed they where contributing to the country with there very lives and as such deserved to have the right to vote. Eventually they successfully aruged the case. Women on the other hand did not wish to go to war (in fact in an English survey, 70% of women stated they did not want the right to vote purely on grounds that they did not wish to be drafted into war). Eventually we created a more equal situation where women where able to vote, except it wasn't equal because only men where drafted. Beginning to see a trend? Feminism fought for womens right to privledge without having the responsibilities that whent with it. Again there are many other examples.

[MissLebanon]

Honestly, everything you've written here is true. Like literally. Everything I was reading I was agreeing with in my head. Yes I am an egalitarian and that can be taken as being a feminist but honestly, relationship wise, I'm just looking for leadership equality. Damn right I absolutely love being ASKED on a date and having him pay for it. But doesn't mean I ain't gonna return the favour in different ways haha.
And, I have got to say, you picked a fine ass specimen. Joe manganiello? Absolutely! 6'4 tank of hotness. Justin Bieber? Attractive but pretty boy attractive like he could probably be prettier than me and as a middle eastern girl surrounded by tall burly rugged men I ain't looking for that XD

[the_rake]

Yes, it is definitely true: many women DO prefer a masculine man that makes them feel more feminine around them. Rugged handsome men that will embrace a traditionalist dating mindset, eg buying nice gifts and asking the woman out. I think this has angered many men who have hang ups about equality. And yes, I chose Joe Mangianello after watching true blood... if I was just 2 inches taller and a little buffer *sigh*

[MissLebanon]

... So 6'2 and reasonably built? You make that sound like something other than a very good thing.

[the_rake]

6'0 but 6'2 and a little buffer would still be very nice ;P

[MissLebanon]

6 foot is still pretty impressive my friend XD Then again I'm 5'4 so anything above 5'10 is incredibly impressive to me XD

[the_rake]

I know, I had a bunch of friends at uni who were all 6'3 so to them I was pretty average height if not a little short hah! But a 6'2 guy that's pretty chiselled is going to be damn near perfection (not too tall, not too much muscle) in my view. Damn I envy those fellows!

[MissLebanon]

Woah... How can you be so tall (don't go into the science XD) one of my friends is 5'11 and she always goes on about how the perks of being tall are beyond awesome which obviously irritates me quite a bit.
A lot of men are envious of your height as 6 foot is not even close to being considered near short anywhere. Very lucky guy.

[the_rake]

Haha, well I know that in some cultures, eg India 6'0 is indeed massive. When I 've been there, I had birds eye view over any crowd. The same could be true for the middle east but I have never been, so would not know. Here in UK I am reasonably tall - not that much more so than most however. A lot of women (especially if they are quite tall themselves) will set the bar at 6ft as a minimum, really. It must be annoying to be just 5'11.

[MissLebanon]

As a middle eastern chick (no I'm not muslim XD) it can seriously vary to the point where it is concerning. ALL of the males in my family and extended family are tall. My dad is 6'1 my uncles range from 6 foot to 6'4 and my grandfathers were both 5'10 which was pretty good for back then. I'm the 1 out of 4 chance that my parents kids would be short. Yay!
Then there are the average height arabs 5'8 + and then there's the real short ones.

ANd yes, they're so close yet so far. If only they could get that one inch taller!

[the_rake]

Wow you have a family of giants! You must all have tins of that green giant sweet corn. Only my uncle and grandfather in my family are nearly my height, and I never met the latter. Yea, so that's some pretty crazy variety. Do you live in Lebanon or the states?

[MissLebanon]

Yes green giant sweet corn. Absolutely. You got it XD
Ah, yes, imagine trying to play wrestle with your 6'4 uncle as a younger teen = fun (lots and lots of pain)
Haha, neither of them I live in Australia.

[Anonymous]

Real "alpha males" wouldn't care what women want, nor take the time to think about it. Only alfalfa males would bother with this, you little rascal.

by the way, capitalist worship is usually done by dependent little ass kissers.

[the_rake]

But I really am Alfa like super duper alfa-Alfa!

[fondue]

I thought it was obvious. Good troll though, I liked it. Those are very rare. Unfortunately, I think I'm gonna keep signing off like this now.

Best - The Real Slim Shady.

[the_rake]

Hahaha, no some people got really angry about it!

[fondue]

I know, I read through the angry comments. They were pretty funny.

[the_rake]

Yea, I been doing this for a while so I choked on my food more than once! Even now it makes me laugh... I don't think there is any hope for me lol.

[BackInGame]

LOOKS. MONEY. STATUS and some bad reputation is a bonus.

[the_rake]

you're overestimating looks - girls already have looks, they don't need more of them ;-)

www.allclip.net/.../hugh-hefner-playboy.jpg

c0.nrostatic.com/.../...ce-jay-z-vibe-vixen1_1.jpg

www.datingskillsreview.com/.../...irls-in-club.jpg

[Anonymous]

Capitalism does not matter.

[the_rake]

I never mentioned capitalism in this mytake, but respectfully, it is a reality in the 21st century and everyone, proponents of the ideology or not, needs to adapt to the system.

[ImTheQuestionGuy]

Lol that was funny

[the_rake]

What they say is indeed true, I am a douchebag as the Americans say

[ImTheQuestionGuy]

I'm an American but I would call you Just a funny person

[the_rake]

Thanks ;)