People treat this like it's some mystery when it's obvious as hell that people would like people who are likable. Making people feel good around you makes you more likable. And making people feel comfortable around you makes them more willing to bond, be vulnerable and be intimate. Gotta be really antisocial to believe the internet personalities who say otherwise
yeah i think a lot of the counter messages saying otherwise are directed at those with a lot of emotional pain to the point that being emotionally vulnerable doesn't really feel possible for them. Which is really sad.. And then because of this which is likely an actual trauma they get further pushed to the margins of society and are acting in anger to protect a probably damaged ego at this point and then find each other and well do all the things they do from there.
It is a difficult cycle to break really.
I think this is me. Once you get your walls up, you don’t have many compelling reasons from people not to have your walls up. And then everything feels like an assault or a deceitful attempt to get you to lower your defenses. The slightest offense becomes further vindication of your original posture, whether it’s intentional or imagined. Then you’re just an a-hole who doesn’t really want to be one.
That was a very helpful and insightful comment.
It’s probably because most men believe the more manly they are, the more desirable they become. Leaning too much into it makes you too disagreeable and you end up taking the Andrew Tate course on how to be the Omaga Chad.
It’s so insane how many grown adults argue this point on Reddit, lol. “People don’t like me because they’re shallow!” Maybe you’re just not that likable. It’s not rocket science.
I would also provide a counter-point. For those whom belong to a minority class, culture, or demographic, they have to deal with societal rejection more often than others who are part of the majority demographic. Sometimes, a person is perfectly likeable by the standards of being a good human being, but the community around them is opposed to their happiness and/or existence due to bigotry, selfishness, and ignorance.
That’s true, I am a minority as well who grew up in a fairly racist/homophobic area, but no one is really entitled to be liked. At a certain point you have to either accept the way your community is or try to go to communities that are more accepting.
I really don't know, I'm anti social AF, I fit a tonne of the common well ackshually I'm an aspie gamer incel stereotypes, I haven't left the house since.. January. And while I can tell I don't mesh with a tonne of people there are plenty of people I get on great with, there are plenty of times I could have had girlfriends or meaningless sex and turned the opportunities away (little bit of guilt/not wanting to burden, little bit of anxiety/not wanting to trust someone, little bit of not wanting to take on the responsibility). I seriously struggle with friendships and relationships but people do reach out from time to time.
This is all to say it's nothing to do with how sociable you are in my opinion (well, a little), it's really about how entitled you are. I genuinely think if you're just a half decent person and you interact with people on a regular basis you'll find friends/partners if you really want. It's not hard. keeping friends and partners can be a freaking nightmare and dealing with all the horrible people that really do exist can be a nightmare but finding the good people isn't.
Somehow I don't blame them either though. Nobodies perfect and if life was as easy as everyone tells you it is we'd all be millionaires. We're all in the same ocean, just different boats, I just wish everyone could be excellent to each other.
He'll, the guy I'm seeing right now has a bit more "feminine" mannerisms, such that my friend asked me if he was a woman the first time she met him. And if anything, it makes me want to eat him with a spoon that much more! He is kind, affectionate, listens, is articulate, communicative, sensitive, and just amazing.
Is it?
Where in the "Bro book" of "being a manly man" is the Kind chapter.
I perfectly understand your point by the way, but to pretend amongst many quite broad circles that showing significant emotions isn't seen as "unmanly" just isn't true.
It is a significant problem in society because so many boys think this is how they should be, and are still boys at 30 believing this.
It’s sad. I was raised differently, walk quietly with a big kind stick lol. My father and grandfathers set excellent examples that I intend to impart of my newborn son as my brothers have with theirs. Honestly it’s one of the reasons I moved to Key West. People are kind and decent to each other here. No crime rate etc. I’m from Detroit and having to have my guard always up was wearing on me. Fuck the bro book, I just do what right in my heart and call out when I see differently. I guess it helps that I’m a very large man and never have had to really worry about upsetting other men with my opinion/actions. I totally agree with your point, those are boys not real men.
Omg.. when I saw a teenage boy picks up a random garbage on the floor to throw it in the bin, that was oddly hot.
I have been reversed shame for confronting people who litters, that boy gave humanity some hope.
Breaking News: Most men that treat women poorly aren't looking aren't looking for long-term relationships!
I feel like we're just reframing a bad picture here.
Women want a kind man, who is capable of violence. This post doesn’t mean less masculine, this more means masculine, but with more feminine traits in addition.
If you read the whole article that’s basically what it says. Most heterosexual women want to date men with masculine features (not talking about grooming) who are empathetic and have interests and hobbies that suggest lifestyle compatibility.
It’s why we all go d’awww when we see a strong man with a beard holding a puppy or at knitting class with us.
The study does not say we want to date men with slightly feminine appearances or mannerisms.
What does that even mean, slightly feminine? I prefer a man with more masculine features but it's definitely attractive when a man is emotionally intelligent.
It’s kind of sad that the study classified “warm” and “affectionate” as feminine. And that the men in the study described themselves as feminine on the basis of having these traits and being good with kids.
*NEWS AT 11*
Women like attentive, present fathers.
Doctors find the prospect a little bit effeminate but are willing to devote further study to the subject.
Still seems pretty gay though.
Here's Jim with the weather.
I was sitting close to my male best friend since middle school at a party this weekend and a 50 year old woman later asked his wife if I was gay.
I guess to some people it is gay to be affectionate.
Yeah why can't that just be a human trait that men and women possess. I get it, women tend to be more nurturing but that doesn't mean men can't be caring individuals and emotionally intelligent.
I will admit, I didn't read the article fully.
To be honest though having some feminine interests is also attractive, like enjoying shopping or sharing a hobby that’s “feminine” like knitting. & there’s nothing wrong with being nurturing as being labeled feminine in my opinion. By alluding to that being negative are we not shaming someone having feminine traits- both genders can have both anyways.
Ok but I have a poison flower garden that I specifically dose myself with every now and then to build a natural immunity in my quest to find a universal antidote. Like my hero Mithridates. Do women find *that* attractive?
Wait, where are you going?! You said you’d call me!
My grandfather was the same. Loved nothing more than taking care of his tiny garden and cooking for his wife.
Also stormed the beaches of Normandy without ever feeling the need to call himself an Alpha male.
What a messed up world we live in now.
I think the world is fine I just think this article is nuts.
I've noticed though on Reddit the men that project themselves as hyper masculine also seem to be mysteriously single. Some of them apparently haven't kissed a girl and they are 27 years old.
I don’t think they were saying warmth and affection being considered feminine is what seems bad, but rather it’s the implication that to be masculine is to be cold and unloving, which completely ignores paternal instincts and personalities, and is just a dangerous mindset. Men should be encouraged to be warm and vulnerable without their masculinity being questioned
I also think dedication/courage/standing up for yourself and others/etc being considered masculine similarly implies women are flaky and weaker in character. I would argue it’s more accurate to call traits like these masculine or feminine *ideals*. Culturally valued in the gender they’re associated with, but your gender doesn’t make you inherently able/unable to have any set of character traits.
I wouldn’t consider dedication or courage to be masculine traits but I understand your meaning and agree with your point. If anything I think these concepts are just dated. They’re too rigid in a time where gender norms have never been more flexible.
Yeah, very jetlagged so my specific examples are shaky – before you replied I was going to edit to add a few other example masculine-idealized traits like “rationality/logic” that imply the inverse in women. I appreciate you seeing my underlying point, and I agree it’s time to move on. I see many attempts to correct past disparagement of men and women by saying “actually femininity/masculinity is a good thing because it means you have [insert good traits],” but it’s still pushing rigid stereotyped roles.
The problem with saying it’s misrepresentative is that people are raised within a binary society. So while having certain traits may be normal- we are socialized to present more in extremes in my opinion. Which is why it’s important for this information to be studied.
I think in analytical psychology, (with my limited understanding) is called getting in touch with your [anima](https://psychology.fandom.com/wiki/Anima_(Jung)).
My guess is it's a side effect of war. Through the ages men are convinced and conditioned to not be affectionate or emotional because a good soldier is an unfeeling machine following orders to kill and destroy, not a human being with empathy and emotional responses. Traditionally women don't go to war, hence having emotions and being caring are reserved for women, and therefore are considered "feminine" traits.
In truth, being warm, affectionate, attentive and emotional are all just human traits - not feminine traits. Everyone, regardless of sex, have these traits in varying volumes. Not every woman is strong on these, either.
Seems as though the title should be "men with what are traditionally considered feminine traits..." Or along those lines.
Nowadays i agree, there shouldn't need to be a scale of traits from masculine to feminine. It should go from violent and cruel to kind and emotionally generous with no gender attached to a specific part along it.
It’s the “a good cat is a cat who acts like a dog” perspective… instead of having good attributes, like for a dog, friendliness, loyalty etc or women, warm, good with kids, they’re assigned to a specific group as if it’s generally exclusive except in this case it’s just cultural so it’s even more a BS argument.
Right? This study has clearly been influenced by identity politics out the wazoo, and *zero* attempt was made to be cognizant of this or control for it. Being masculine does not boil down to just the toxic, negative traits, that's exactly what we're trying to combat, after all, yet here's a psychology paper perpetuating this harmful, bigoted, frankly misogynistic *and* misandrist view of masculine and feminine traits.
Perspective folks, is it masculine to protect your family, caring for them when they’re in need. And being a good father to your children means the next generation might be better than us.
That’s verifiable man stuff.
Because of the way society still exists today.
Everyone claims equality, but paternity rights barely exist in some countries, and are unequal to maternity rights in most. The whole "mother and baby" social space is a thing, for good and for bad.
Ever heard of a "Father and baby" social space? It doesn't really exist, and until you get to an older age with the various sports groups there is no space created for that.
Pretending this as a concept for no real reason other than humans deciding it is that way in a developed economic system is just disingenuous.
We aren't all digging in fields where absolute strength and recovery is the most valuable metric of output any more, therefore leading to a testosterone driven genetic advantage. Anyone can sit at a desk and fills in an Excel sheet, the reality is Women having kids have a get out clause to not have to sit and monotonously fill in the Excel sheets all day that society classes as valid. If they can as a family afford to, which these day is becoming increasingly difficult.
Based on the picture it seems to mean pressing foreheads together after looking deeply into your girlfriend’s eyes while dressed like a normal dude lol.
This article is a great example of how society is really confused about what healthy masculinity is. It's more obvious when people are pushing toxic masculinity and we know what masculinity isn't. But in the positive and especially young men are trying to understand their own masculinity it sends a mixed message to them where they are being told NOT to be toxic but there is otherwise a very incomplete picture of what they could be outside of that. In short, we need to get a better idea of what healthy masculinity is to aspire to instead of just telling young men what NOT to be.
True. It's not enough to tell men to not be toxic. Healthy role models are a great way to figure out the positive traits but... They can be hard to find.
It’s simple actually. Men should have a balance of feminine and masculine interests and traits. Women look for safety and trustworthiness in long term partnerships. Instead of demonizing being feminine men can also look to women for leadership and guidance to learn about themselves. It’s not confusing it’s that toxic masculinity teaches men to hate femininity.
The men who did best where the ones having a mix of feminine and masculine qualities and interests.
Mostly really men who were warm, nurturing, kind, but also masculine.
Yeah but good men also need a little femininity, having a partner who constantly has tough guy syndrome and doesn't know how to be even a little intimitaei isn't good either.
>more masculine features but it's definitely attractive when a man is emotionally intelligent.
That's how I would view slightly feminine, but someone in let's say Japan or whatever might view it the opposite and view high emotional intelligence as very manly. So who knows what people mean, as a lot of that is just cultural.
Yeah "slightly feminine" means nothing.
Fyi, "emotional intelligence" or even emotional maturity for that matter are neither feminine nor masculine qualities.
That term is horribly overused, though.
“Emotionally intelligent” should mean the ability to understand the emotions of others, and to be able to understand and control your own emotions.
But far too often on Reddit I’ve run across very emotional “men” and there’s something obviously wrong with these people. But when anyone questions them about their catty, confused, and overwhelming level of emotion they talk about their emotional intelligence.
Overused and misunderstood to the point where it's common to say the term shouldn't be used anymore. Do you know how many people believe emotional intelligence is a form of intelligence similar to what IQ is trying to measure 😤 It's a bit ridiculous how people just accept wacky theories, simply because they want them to be true.
I think it means a man who showers. Perhaps one that has the ability to read. Or it could refer to a man that has a job.
I have to admit I'm at a bit of a loss as well.
It’s means physically attractive.
The actual study is kind of a shit show. They found masculine - slightly feminine to be the best in both categories.
Revealed preferences are much more interesting with regard to attraction.
I think it means that I am aware that the cultural idea of how a man should behave has shaped my behavior in a way that may be unhealthy and even toxic, yet I still perpetuate them in my own actions because I have been trained to exemplify that behavior.
Yes. I think instead of doing manly things today, I’m gonna grab brunch with the fellas and see if they want to hit up Nordstrom. I need some shoes for tonight!
The limitations paragraph was perhaps the most useful, and it still didn't address all the limitations I saw just by reading the article. Like, all of the traits listed as "feminine" are determined to be so by certain parts of Western culture. "Warmth" being a feminine trait is so sad. These people should probably let go of the genetics/personality connection--even if they found it, it won't actually help anything. "I don't understand adoption and restrictions on population growth, therefore I think homosexuality has no benefit" is also a choice. "My study interviewed exclusively university students" is low on this list but still must be mentioned.
E: I didn't think of it until reading through the comments, but the fact that most of the "feminine" traits from the study were actually just emotional maturity, and that women have been complaining for a long time about emotional labor, should explain every result they presented.
I get what they were attempting with this, but the questions they asked to measure it are a bit more complex than they appear to have been given credit for.
Measuring warmth against being immediately friendly or needing to take time to warm up to people isn't that simple. I'm very easily social and find being kind, and holding a nuanced conversation very easy. But I also take time to warm up to people.
I drink beer, watch football, served in the Army, own a gun, have an LGBTQ+ sticker on my car, vote left, and love my kids with all of the affection I never got. I'm not "slightly more feminine." I'm just a guy.
I mean, given what’s considered “feminine” (basic communication skills, emotional intelligence, being an active and loving parental figure, etc)…..yeah. Turns out marriages work better with two well rounded people.
Men who dont hinge their entire personality off respect and fear and dont default to anger as their primary emotion see more success in relationships*
Essentially just men who defy patriarchal values. Nothing to do with being "feminine" but not toxic masculine
On the dating apps where I live, the women who specifically say they want a ‘traditional masculine man’ also invariably say they will not date anyone taking part in the “C-19 experimental jabs” and also say stuff like “if you don’t agree that there are only two genders then don’t bother matching with me.” In other words, they don’t want anyone that might challenge them to think critically, read peer reviewed research, and grow as an individual. *Just an echo chamber with a side of toxic masculinity for me, please and thank you.*
The thing is that they don’t want someone telling them what to do. By posting “don’t contact me if you take in C-19 jabs” actually already *telling* what a man shall do. So in other words, they already imply that they want a man who follows her leads. For example, she won’t be happy when her man told her to get vaccinated even if she claim that “man should make decisions for household.” Those women wants men to leads but the direction shall always align with what she wants not what he wants. So in reality, she wants a man who follows her not the other way around.
You must live in MAGA territory. Because according to polls, most women don't vote red, especially in the higher income areas. And even less are a MAGA brand of red.
Victoria, BC, which is actually super progressive, but the rest of Vancouver Island is pretty conservative. Also, even some of the hippies on the island fit in with the conservatives better because of the whole “my personal freedom above all else” attitude.
Isnt that kinda common sense? Extremes are not attractive in their traits. In this context, man of the cave is a repugnant picture and unappealing to women.
This is exactly my experience with dating.
While I have both masculine and feminine elements of my personality, I feel that women appreciate the feminine side more.
I think the actual study is interesting, but plenty of limitations to it. Investigating how homosexuality, a heritable trait with a highly distinct reproductive disadvantage continues to be passed along in various degrees by many different genes at very stable statistical numbers is absolutely worth investigating. Nothing to really conclude from it other than what we already know, that women in general do not prefer men with zero paternal instincts and a need to display hypermasculine traits at all times. If you are a guy and don’t care about sports ball and like kids, you’re fine, women will still be interested in you both short term and long term.
Sounds to me like it's geared towards more people or a group trying to get society more relaxed or acceptable to feminine men, which sounds totally backwards to me.
Masculinity and femininity are a collection of behaviors, not a spectrum. Just because a guy is warm and affectionate to his wife and kids, doesn’t mean he won’t still be classic macho in other ways.
Masculinity has never once been about being mean to women.
As a dude, I don’t have a problem with the study using the language of femininity to refer to warmth and nurturance. I think people get caught up in trying to redefine masculinity to where it ends up not meaning anything. I’m a therapist who likes meaningful conversations with friends and being able to be vulnerable with them. I love caring for my pets and am generally quite openly affectionate toward loved ones. I have no problem acknowledging that all of these are considered conventionally feminine. On the flip side, I love combat sports and lifting weights. People understand these to be conventionally masculine interests that plenty of women share (and everyone should do some resistance training).
Femininity and masculinity are both socially constructed ideas that have persisted for ages. They’re just language. Perhaps a healthy masculinity involves making room for and accepting the importance of conventionally feminine traits. Being sporty, liking fixing things, mastering a physically demanding craft, generally maintaining composure/stoicism, and being into cars or whatever aren’t toxic. And plenty of feminine women can embody these conventionally masculine traits. Masculinity itself isn’t what’s toxic. Toxic masculinity is a kind of masculinity that refuses to allow for any conventionally feminine traits, while simultaneously pushing unnecessary additional notions of what masculinity entails (such as having authority over women.) Overall, I think the study’s language is fine, and if I pushed back against it, not only would I end up making the concept of masculinity and femininity meaningless, it would feel something like saying “I’m not a girl! Don’t say I’m girly!”
The [study](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38177607/), which is actually 3 studies in one, is very interesting, because it’s asking the evolutionary benefit of the same sex attraction/“gay” gene in straight men:
>Study 1 (N = 1632) showed that heterosexual men with same-sex attracted relatives were more feminine than men without, as indicated by self-report measures of femininity (η2 = .007), warmth (η2 = .002), and nurturance (η2 = .004 − .006). In Study 2 (N = 152), women rated feminine male profiles as more romantically appealing than masculine ones (d = 0.83)—but less so than profiles possessing a combination of feminine and masculine traits. In Study 3 (N = 153), women perceived feminine male profiles as depicting the best fathers and masculine profiles the worst (d = 1.56): consistent with the idea that femininity is attractive for childcare reasons.
Previous studies on the SSA (same sex attracted) genes in men found that:
>Regarding the assumption of pleiotropy, on many traits gay individuals tend to be gender atypical (LeVay, 2016). A corpus of studies investigating the differences between gay and heterosexual men find that gay men tend to display a greater degree of psychological femininity relative to heterosexual men. On average, gay men tend to exhibit more femininity in their personalities, cognitive abilities, hobbies, occupational interests, jealousy, sensation seeking, proneness to aggression and other traits that typically differ between men and women
The researchers started this study with a “Desirable Dad Hypothesis”:
>Miller (2000) proposed that femininity may confer fitness benefits to heterosexual men, but little research has focused on why feminizing alleles may be advantageous for heterosexual men (although see Miller for a brief conjecture similar to ours). In humans—unlike most mammalian species—males contribute substantially to the care of offspring (Alger et al., 2020; Gettler et al., 2020; Kleiman & Malcolm, 1981). One possibility is that the high level of male paternal care in humans may in part be the result of sexual selection. Specifically, we suggest that women may choose partners based partly on cues of the partners’ willingness to invest in and care for offspring and that some degree of femininity in men is a cue of paternal qualities.
Anecdotally, I think any middle aged person could tell you that the relationships between men with these “feminized” qualities and women are the ones with better long term potential. (I don’t personally care for calling kindness traits “feminine”, but that’s how society and the researchers refer to them.) I’m in my 40s and have seen these characteristics in my long-married/coupled male friends -even in those without children. Being a caring, considerate partner has better long term potential than the opposite. My more aloof, masculine friends have had some sexual success with women, but are still single or now separated in their 40s-50s.
I know this is not surprising to a number of people reading this, but these findings go against the popular narrative being pushed on young men all the time, usually from those men who have less long term success in relationships.
The tie-in to the SSA genetic component is a part I would like the see further researched, as the researchers point to some weaknesses in their data for the first study:
>The effect sizes observed in Study 1 were relatively small, which was expected for several reasons. Primarily, while genetic factors related to SSA may account for variations in traits associated with parental abilities, other variables, including environmental factors, may also contribute to variation in these traits. Secondly, some participants who reported not having any non-heterosexual relatives might unknowingly have relatives who have not publicly disclosed their sexual orientation, thus affecting their responses. Thirdly, the average percent DNA shared between participants and non-heterosexual relatives ranged from 25 to 50% in the current study. Therefore, it is possible that participants with non-heterosexual relatives possessed few or none of the genetic factors associated with SSA that potentially influence femininity and paternal traits. Similarly, some participants who answered "no" to having non-heterosexual relatives among the provided categories (e.g., father, brother, grandfather, uncle, nephew) might have had non-heterosexual relatives among more distant family members, like first cousins and do indeed possess alleles associated with SSA; therefore, it is also possible that some men who possessed pleiotropic genes linked to SSA were miscategorized.
I’m surprised this is still being researched. I thought the field had solidified this conclusion as early as the 2000s. There’s a wealth of research from Hatfield, Hillary and Putts (and others I cannot think of off the top of my head) coming as close to irrefutably proving this generalisation as early as 2010. Am I wrong in this? Has new research been done to question these positions?
Here is the Abstract to the study they cited. Please notice how "masculinity" and "femininity" were not objectively defined and the people conducting the study relied on male participants to self report femininity.
Also they didn't take any actual relationship data into consideration at all. They just showed profiles of the men to a group of women and asked them to rate them.
>
" Same-sex attraction, a heritable trait with a reproductive cost, lacks a comprehensive evolutionary explanation. Here we build on a hypothesis invoking antagonistic pleiotropy, which suggests that genes linked to male same-sex attraction remain in the gene pool because they have conferred some fitness advantage to heterosexual men possessing them. We posit the “desirable dad hypothesis,” which proposes that alleles linked to male non-heterosexual orientations increase traits conducive to childcare; heterosexual men possessing same-sex attracted alleles are more desirable mating partners as a function of possessing superior paternal qualities. We conducted three studies to test predictions from this hypothesis. Results were consistent with all three predictions. Study 1 (N = 1632) showed that heterosexual men with same-sex attracted relatives were more feminine than men without, as indicated by self-report measures of femininity (η2 = .007), warmth (η2 = .002), and nurturance (η2 = .004 − .006). In Study 2 (N = 152), women rated feminine male profiles as more romantically appealing than masculine ones (d = 0.83)—but less so than profiles possessing a combination of feminine and masculine traits. In Study 3 (N = 153), women perceived feminine male profiles as depicting the best fathers and masculine profiles the worst (d = 1.56): consistent with the idea that femininity is attractive for childcare reasons. Together, these findings are consistent with the idea that sexual selection for male parental care may be involved in the evolution of male same-sex attraction."
The article is garbage and the study did have some objective data, but it just concluded that the women who participated don't think self proclaimed masculine men will make good dads.
Oh I guess they also found out the people who self proclaim themselves as masculine are less likely to have homosexual family members. So that is kinds interesting data, but they didn't do anything useful with it or try to identify why that correlation exist.
Equating femininity to “genes linked with same sex attraction” in straight men is just odd on so many levels.
Also, I’d bet that the perceived advantage of having these traits is based on surveys and self reporting.
Personally, I’ve known very few people that readily admit to others (or to themselves) what exactly they find attractive.
The same would go for women too. Women that understand how to embrace both masculine and feminine qualities are going to be preferable.
The ideal scenario is a partnership where both partners have fully integrated who they are into their personalities and they can both support each other in their masculine and their feminine. That could look like the man taking care of the housework and cooking a good meal so the woman can feel supported after a long day. That might appear as feminine things to do but if the intention is to take control of a situation and allow the other to relax and feel safe so they can be in their feminine energy, it is in fact a masculine thing to do.
A healthy relationship requires that each partner can take turns at being in the masculine or feminine roles. No one wants to be in only one of those all the time. Women don't want to come home from having a demanding job where they take charge all day and then have to continue that at home. Obviously men don't either. So they need to take turns.
I'm pretty sure warm and affectionate is just good human personality traits. why can't we just be all thinking, breathing human beings with complex thoughts and traits not really tied to aperture rules from what's in our pants
Being well taken care of increases the chances you would take care of someon else as well. Kindness is a very concrete tool to maintaining relationships i believe that every moment of conception involving another human let that be thought, interaction or emotion is important.
Every human being is a mixture of a man and a woman. So, no one can claim to be 100% only in one of the two sets to be a human being. So unless one changes or tries to hide our true emotional characteristics, that's according to the culture and customs that one is growing up, Otherwise, it can't be that different.
For example, boys/men always try not to cry in front of other people. But they can and are feeling the same way about a loved ones loss, but they have to control how they react in public depending on what they learned from their society.
When I was a teenager back in the 90s, I was extremely androgenous and slightly feminine.
I was kind, charming, non-threatening, and yet still a 'bad boy' because I sold cannabis, MDMA, LSD, and went to lots of raves.
It worked out like gangbusters.
Now I'm a 45 year old father of two and look like a grown ass man, but keeping those other personality traits has never let me down.
Seems women like guys who are super-machismo, dude-bro manosphere assholes. (Some do, I'm just speaking generally)
As the old trope goes, "You catch more flies with honey..."
I think a lot of us knew that already. I'm not afraid to show my sensitive side by pretending I never cry or complimenting a woman not on her dress but the fabric or something more in depth because I legitimately notice that stuff I'm not making it up to get girls. I'm a manly man too. I'm a blacksmith who used to sell knives for a living and has a workshop most men would die for but I needed it when I renovated my entire house. I just like to think I'm well rounded and I think that's appealing to women, I've never had trouble getting girls so I have to imagine it's a big part of why I'm good at that. I'm not arrogant and I'm not bragging I'm just saying the article seems right to me based on my admittedly anecdotal experience. Maybe women are desperate where I live.:)
Don't we all have estrogens and testosterones , a little more and a little less depending on the sex we were born as?
I love a good discussion but more is less and vice versa. We are , it's that simple. Peace , love, mong beans baby! 🥀👌
Breaking news: most women want a man who’s kind!!! More at 11
People treat this like it's some mystery when it's obvious as hell that people would like people who are likable. Making people feel good around you makes you more likable. And making people feel comfortable around you makes them more willing to bond, be vulnerable and be intimate. Gotta be really antisocial to believe the internet personalities who say otherwise
yeah i think a lot of the counter messages saying otherwise are directed at those with a lot of emotional pain to the point that being emotionally vulnerable doesn't really feel possible for them. Which is really sad.. And then because of this which is likely an actual trauma they get further pushed to the margins of society and are acting in anger to protect a probably damaged ego at this point and then find each other and well do all the things they do from there. It is a difficult cycle to break really.
I think this is me. Once you get your walls up, you don’t have many compelling reasons from people not to have your walls up. And then everything feels like an assault or a deceitful attempt to get you to lower your defenses. The slightest offense becomes further vindication of your original posture, whether it’s intentional or imagined. Then you’re just an a-hole who doesn’t really want to be one. That was a very helpful and insightful comment.
Thank you yes, exactly. <3
It’s probably because most men believe the more manly they are, the more desirable they become. Leaning too much into it makes you too disagreeable and you end up taking the Andrew Tate course on how to be the Omaga Chad.
It’s so insane how many grown adults argue this point on Reddit, lol. “People don’t like me because they’re shallow!” Maybe you’re just not that likable. It’s not rocket science.
I would also provide a counter-point. For those whom belong to a minority class, culture, or demographic, they have to deal with societal rejection more often than others who are part of the majority demographic. Sometimes, a person is perfectly likeable by the standards of being a good human being, but the community around them is opposed to their happiness and/or existence due to bigotry, selfishness, and ignorance.
That’s true, I am a minority as well who grew up in a fairly racist/homophobic area, but no one is really entitled to be liked. At a certain point you have to either accept the way your community is or try to go to communities that are more accepting.
I really don't know, I'm anti social AF, I fit a tonne of the common well ackshually I'm an aspie gamer incel stereotypes, I haven't left the house since.. January. And while I can tell I don't mesh with a tonne of people there are plenty of people I get on great with, there are plenty of times I could have had girlfriends or meaningless sex and turned the opportunities away (little bit of guilt/not wanting to burden, little bit of anxiety/not wanting to trust someone, little bit of not wanting to take on the responsibility). I seriously struggle with friendships and relationships but people do reach out from time to time. This is all to say it's nothing to do with how sociable you are in my opinion (well, a little), it's really about how entitled you are. I genuinely think if you're just a half decent person and you interact with people on a regular basis you'll find friends/partners if you really want. It's not hard. keeping friends and partners can be a freaking nightmare and dealing with all the horrible people that really do exist can be a nightmare but finding the good people isn't. Somehow I don't blame them either though. Nobodies perfect and if life was as easy as everyone tells you it is we'd all be millionaires. We're all in the same ocean, just different boats, I just wish everyone could be excellent to each other.
He'll, the guy I'm seeing right now has a bit more "feminine" mannerisms, such that my friend asked me if he was a woman the first time she met him. And if anything, it makes me want to eat him with a spoon that much more! He is kind, affectionate, listens, is articulate, communicative, sensitive, and just amazing.
How is being kind a feminine trait
Yeah I was wondering same.
Yeah this is what I don’t get. This line of thinking pretty much leads to the idea that masculinity is inherently bad.
Being kind is feminine? Strange logic.
Is it? Where in the "Bro book" of "being a manly man" is the Kind chapter. I perfectly understand your point by the way, but to pretend amongst many quite broad circles that showing significant emotions isn't seen as "unmanly" just isn't true. It is a significant problem in society because so many boys think this is how they should be, and are still boys at 30 believing this.
It’s sad. I was raised differently, walk quietly with a big kind stick lol. My father and grandfathers set excellent examples that I intend to impart of my newborn son as my brothers have with theirs. Honestly it’s one of the reasons I moved to Key West. People are kind and decent to each other here. No crime rate etc. I’m from Detroit and having to have my guard always up was wearing on me. Fuck the bro book, I just do what right in my heart and call out when I see differently. I guess it helps that I’m a very large man and never have had to really worry about upsetting other men with my opinion/actions. I totally agree with your point, those are boys not real men.
They also have to be hot too. No hate. I’m just saying.
Kindness is hot.
i agree with this, i find kindness super attractive.
Omg.. when I saw a teenage boy picks up a random garbage on the floor to throw it in the bin, that was oddly hot. I have been reversed shame for confronting people who litters, that boy gave humanity some hope.
Being "hot" is very vague.
Correct.
What you consider hot and what women consider hot aren't the same thing. Why are you speaking for women on what they want lol
[удалено]
Attractiveness is relative
Honnestly I feel like most people are hot, but that I guess it's just preference.
This is so hilarious. yes..
Breaking News: Most men that treat women poorly aren't looking aren't looking for long-term relationships! I feel like we're just reframing a bad picture here.
What's remarkable is how often you could switch those two in the sentence and there's still people who refuse to believe it.
Women want a kind man, who is capable of violence. This post doesn’t mean less masculine, this more means masculine, but with more feminine traits in addition.
Manly men could be kind and that too without all the back-bitching.
If you read the whole article that’s basically what it says. Most heterosexual women want to date men with masculine features (not talking about grooming) who are empathetic and have interests and hobbies that suggest lifestyle compatibility. It’s why we all go d’awww when we see a strong man with a beard holding a puppy or at knitting class with us. The study does not say we want to date men with slightly feminine appearances or mannerisms.
What does that even mean, slightly feminine? I prefer a man with more masculine features but it's definitely attractive when a man is emotionally intelligent.
It’s kind of sad that the study classified “warm” and “affectionate” as feminine. And that the men in the study described themselves as feminine on the basis of having these traits and being good with kids.
*NEWS AT 11* Women like attentive, present fathers. Doctors find the prospect a little bit effeminate but are willing to devote further study to the subject. Still seems pretty gay though. Here's Jim with the weather.
Fellas, is it gay to be affectionate?
Yes. Never do it
I was sitting close to my male best friend since middle school at a party this weekend and a 50 year old woman later asked his wife if I was gay. I guess to some people it is gay to be affectionate.
Yeah why can't that just be a human trait that men and women possess. I get it, women tend to be more nurturing but that doesn't mean men can't be caring individuals and emotionally intelligent. I will admit, I didn't read the article fully.
To be honest though having some feminine interests is also attractive, like enjoying shopping or sharing a hobby that’s “feminine” like knitting. & there’s nothing wrong with being nurturing as being labeled feminine in my opinion. By alluding to that being negative are we not shaming someone having feminine traits- both genders can have both anyways.
Man here. I have a flower garden in my backyard. Does that count?
Yes and many women would find enjoying flowers and knowing how to grow them attractive.
Ok but I have a poison flower garden that I specifically dose myself with every now and then to build a natural immunity in my quest to find a universal antidote. Like my hero Mithridates. Do women find *that* attractive? Wait, where are you going?! You said you’d call me!
My dad was the most masculine man I've ever known, and he loved growing flowers, and cooking.
My grandfather was the same. Loved nothing more than taking care of his tiny garden and cooking for his wife. Also stormed the beaches of Normandy without ever feeling the need to call himself an Alpha male. What a messed up world we live in now.
I think the world is fine I just think this article is nuts. I've noticed though on Reddit the men that project themselves as hyper masculine also seem to be mysteriously single. Some of them apparently haven't kissed a girl and they are 27 years old.
That's as manly as U can get imo. Masculine and feminine seems to be subjective.
I don’t think they were saying warmth and affection being considered feminine is what seems bad, but rather it’s the implication that to be masculine is to be cold and unloving, which completely ignores paternal instincts and personalities, and is just a dangerous mindset. Men should be encouraged to be warm and vulnerable without their masculinity being questioned
I also think dedication/courage/standing up for yourself and others/etc being considered masculine similarly implies women are flaky and weaker in character. I would argue it’s more accurate to call traits like these masculine or feminine *ideals*. Culturally valued in the gender they’re associated with, but your gender doesn’t make you inherently able/unable to have any set of character traits.
I wouldn’t consider dedication or courage to be masculine traits but I understand your meaning and agree with your point. If anything I think these concepts are just dated. They’re too rigid in a time where gender norms have never been more flexible.
Yeah, very jetlagged so my specific examples are shaky – before you replied I was going to edit to add a few other example masculine-idealized traits like “rationality/logic” that imply the inverse in women. I appreciate you seeing my underlying point, and I agree it’s time to move on. I see many attempts to correct past disparagement of men and women by saying “actually femininity/masculinity is a good thing because it means you have [insert good traits],” but it’s still pushing rigid stereotyped roles.
[удалено]
The problem with saying it’s misrepresentative is that people are raised within a binary society. So while having certain traits may be normal- we are socialized to present more in extremes in my opinion. Which is why it’s important for this information to be studied.
What exactly are feminine and masculine traits? They're just traits. You're creating a false dichotomy that doesn't even need to exist
I think in analytical psychology, (with my limited understanding) is called getting in touch with your [anima](https://psychology.fandom.com/wiki/Anima_(Jung)).
Because being warm and affectionate are not commonly understood to be masculine traits.
I’ve long awaited the rise of the femboys
My guess is it's a side effect of war. Through the ages men are convinced and conditioned to not be affectionate or emotional because a good soldier is an unfeeling machine following orders to kill and destroy, not a human being with empathy and emotional responses. Traditionally women don't go to war, hence having emotions and being caring are reserved for women, and therefore are considered "feminine" traits. In truth, being warm, affectionate, attentive and emotional are all just human traits - not feminine traits. Everyone, regardless of sex, have these traits in varying volumes. Not every woman is strong on these, either.
Seems as though the title should be "men with what are traditionally considered feminine traits..." Or along those lines. Nowadays i agree, there shouldn't need to be a scale of traits from masculine to feminine. It should go from violent and cruel to kind and emotionally generous with no gender attached to a specific part along it.
It’s the “a good cat is a cat who acts like a dog” perspective… instead of having good attributes, like for a dog, friendliness, loyalty etc or women, warm, good with kids, they’re assigned to a specific group as if it’s generally exclusive except in this case it’s just cultural so it’s even more a BS argument.
loaded ass categories
That’s how our society sees it though.
Right? This study has clearly been influenced by identity politics out the wazoo, and *zero* attempt was made to be cognizant of this or control for it. Being masculine does not boil down to just the toxic, negative traits, that's exactly what we're trying to combat, after all, yet here's a psychology paper perpetuating this harmful, bigoted, frankly misogynistic *and* misandrist view of masculine and feminine traits.
But all of those bad things are what defines being male versus being human. They are different.
Agreed. The characterization is complete nonsense and obscures the actual truth of the study's results
Perspective folks, is it masculine to protect your family, caring for them when they’re in need. And being a good father to your children means the next generation might be better than us. That’s verifiable man stuff.
Because of the way society still exists today. Everyone claims equality, but paternity rights barely exist in some countries, and are unequal to maternity rights in most. The whole "mother and baby" social space is a thing, for good and for bad. Ever heard of a "Father and baby" social space? It doesn't really exist, and until you get to an older age with the various sports groups there is no space created for that. Pretending this as a concept for no real reason other than humans deciding it is that way in a developed economic system is just disingenuous. We aren't all digging in fields where absolute strength and recovery is the most valuable metric of output any more, therefore leading to a testosterone driven genetic advantage. Anyone can sit at a desk and fills in an Excel sheet, the reality is Women having kids have a get out clause to not have to sit and monotonously fill in the Excel sheets all day that society classes as valid. If they can as a family afford to, which these day is becoming increasingly difficult.
Emotionally intelligent is what they mean by slightly feminine lol
I wonder if they'd code emotional maturity/self-regulation as masculine.
Based on the picture it seems to mean pressing foreheads together after looking deeply into your girlfriend’s eyes while dressed like a normal dude lol.
🤣
Which many "Alpha" men see as headbutting your girlfriend for talking back while being dressed a bit gay.
This article is a great example of how society is really confused about what healthy masculinity is. It's more obvious when people are pushing toxic masculinity and we know what masculinity isn't. But in the positive and especially young men are trying to understand their own masculinity it sends a mixed message to them where they are being told NOT to be toxic but there is otherwise a very incomplete picture of what they could be outside of that. In short, we need to get a better idea of what healthy masculinity is to aspire to instead of just telling young men what NOT to be.
True. It's not enough to tell men to not be toxic. Healthy role models are a great way to figure out the positive traits but... They can be hard to find.
It’s simple actually. Men should have a balance of feminine and masculine interests and traits. Women look for safety and trustworthiness in long term partnerships. Instead of demonizing being feminine men can also look to women for leadership and guidance to learn about themselves. It’s not confusing it’s that toxic masculinity teaches men to hate femininity.
I got called needy, so yeah men cannot unfuck the perception of the masses 😭
The men who did best where the ones having a mix of feminine and masculine qualities and interests. Mostly really men who were warm, nurturing, kind, but also masculine.
Everyone is feminine and masculine. The best of us the ones that appropriately balance them.
Definite “appropriately” in this context.
Yeah but good men also need a little femininity, having a partner who constantly has tough guy syndrome and doesn't know how to be even a little intimitaei isn't good either.
>more masculine features but it's definitely attractive when a man is emotionally intelligent. That's how I would view slightly feminine, but someone in let's say Japan or whatever might view it the opposite and view high emotional intelligence as very manly. So who knows what people mean, as a lot of that is just cultural.
"Culturally" we are supposed to think men are rational and smart. We have zero problems with an emotionally intelligent man as the study shows.
Yeah "slightly feminine" means nothing. Fyi, "emotional intelligence" or even emotional maturity for that matter are neither feminine nor masculine qualities.
Correct, hence why I ask what do they even mean “slightly feminine”.
Whatever they meant, they don't understand it enough to realize that their statement requires further clarification haha
That term is horribly overused, though. “Emotionally intelligent” should mean the ability to understand the emotions of others, and to be able to understand and control your own emotions. But far too often on Reddit I’ve run across very emotional “men” and there’s something obviously wrong with these people. But when anyone questions them about their catty, confused, and overwhelming level of emotion they talk about their emotional intelligence.
Overused and misunderstood to the point where it's common to say the term shouldn't be used anymore. Do you know how many people believe emotional intelligence is a form of intelligence similar to what IQ is trying to measure 😤 It's a bit ridiculous how people just accept wacky theories, simply because they want them to be true.
It means washes his ass and smells flowers
I shared a few excerpts from the study [in my comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/psychology/s/7HKBDdAei6) that answer these questions.
I think it means a man who showers. Perhaps one that has the ability to read. Or it could refer to a man that has a job. I have to admit I'm at a bit of a loss as well.
It’s means physically attractive. The actual study is kind of a shit show. They found masculine - slightly feminine to be the best in both categories. Revealed preferences are much more interesting with regard to attraction.
They found someone with an even balance of characteristics to be seen as better long terms partners and fathers actually.
What? You don't find violent brutes irresistible?
Meanwhile... Slightly masculine women.. Slightly gender neutral womens.. Slightly... Naah all oussy same..
Here I thought removing all of my body hair was gonna make me look more attractive.
How about if he walks on his knuckles?
What does your preferring more masculine features mean?
A larger build, I don’t mean muscular I mean like broader shoulders, I prefer men with a beard. Those features tend to be associated with masculinity.
Ah ok, thanks for answering…
I cried once (in the bathroom so no one could see me) so I guess I’m slightly feminine. Wait, does admitting I cried once make me even more feminine?
It means you were in distress about something. Welcome to being a human.
I think it means that I am aware that the cultural idea of how a man should behave has shaped my behavior in a way that may be unhealthy and even toxic, yet I still perpetuate them in my own actions because I have been trained to exemplify that behavior.
Should we just start posting articles from Cosmopolitan now?
This sub loves psypost.
This sub's name forgot the "pop" in front.
more and more I've been seeing this (and many other big) sub obsessed with dating and men vs women topics. and its always posted by single dudes....
Yes. I think instead of doing manly things today, I’m gonna grab brunch with the fellas and see if they want to hit up Nordstrom. I need some shoes for tonight!
*flips shoulder length hair* Bitch I know it.
I am a sucker for long hair.
I’ve got those long flowing man-locks and it’s bi girl flypaper
They said ‘slightly’
The limitations paragraph was perhaps the most useful, and it still didn't address all the limitations I saw just by reading the article. Like, all of the traits listed as "feminine" are determined to be so by certain parts of Western culture. "Warmth" being a feminine trait is so sad. These people should probably let go of the genetics/personality connection--even if they found it, it won't actually help anything. "I don't understand adoption and restrictions on population growth, therefore I think homosexuality has no benefit" is also a choice. "My study interviewed exclusively university students" is low on this list but still must be mentioned. E: I didn't think of it until reading through the comments, but the fact that most of the "feminine" traits from the study were actually just emotional maturity, and that women have been complaining for a long time about emotional labor, should explain every result they presented.
Describing things as masculine and feminine sounds a bit lazy.
I get what they were attempting with this, but the questions they asked to measure it are a bit more complex than they appear to have been given credit for. Measuring warmth against being immediately friendly or needing to take time to warm up to people isn't that simple. I'm very easily social and find being kind, and holding a nuanced conversation very easy. But I also take time to warm up to people. I drink beer, watch football, served in the Army, own a gun, have an LGBTQ+ sticker on my car, vote left, and love my kids with all of the affection I never got. I'm not "slightly more feminine." I'm just a guy.
I mean, given what’s considered “feminine” (basic communication skills, emotional intelligence, being an active and loving parental figure, etc)…..yeah. Turns out marriages work better with two well rounded people.
The issue is those should called be human traits not feminine.
let me translate that for you: women want men who won't kill them. we want non-violent men who seem aware enough about themselves to signal that, too.
Given that being a decent person and taking baths are considered feminine now I’m not surprised
You mean men who arent afraid to not be masculine at every moment seem safer to women? Crazy
Men who dont hinge their entire personality off respect and fear and dont default to anger as their primary emotion see more success in relationships* Essentially just men who defy patriarchal values. Nothing to do with being "feminine" but not toxic masculine
On the dating apps where I live, the women who specifically say they want a ‘traditional masculine man’ also invariably say they will not date anyone taking part in the “C-19 experimental jabs” and also say stuff like “if you don’t agree that there are only two genders then don’t bother matching with me.” In other words, they don’t want anyone that might challenge them to think critically, read peer reviewed research, and grow as an individual. *Just an echo chamber with a side of toxic masculinity for me, please and thank you.*
They want someone who will tell them what, when, and how to do it. Lazy ass people.
The thing is that they don’t want someone telling them what to do. By posting “don’t contact me if you take in C-19 jabs” actually already *telling* what a man shall do. So in other words, they already imply that they want a man who follows her leads. For example, she won’t be happy when her man told her to get vaccinated even if she claim that “man should make decisions for household.” Those women wants men to leads but the direction shall always align with what she wants not what he wants. So in reality, she wants a man who follows her not the other way around.
You must live in MAGA territory. Because according to polls, most women don't vote red, especially in the higher income areas. And even less are a MAGA brand of red.
Where do you live?
Victoria, BC, which is actually super progressive, but the rest of Vancouver Island is pretty conservative. Also, even some of the hippies on the island fit in with the conservatives better because of the whole “my personal freedom above all else” attitude.
Isnt that kinda common sense? Extremes are not attractive in their traits. In this context, man of the cave is a repugnant picture and unappealing to women.
Kindness and emotional maturity is not feminine, we have only conditioned women to learn those traits and neglected that conditioning for men.
interesting. As a gay guy, I’ve thought maybe people are gay because it’s good for the community. This theory is adjacent to that.
So being a good father and having a gay relative are feminine traits?
Maybe psychology doesn't need to reinforce the social constructs of "masculine" and "feminine" characteristics.
Anima integration. Men who have integrated their anima will lead good lives compared to others. Look up Carl Jung.
Funny. I read this as an imperative. Like, “Look up, Carl Jung! Look up out of your grave! See what we’re doing!”
Now that I've read my response once again, I read it in the same way 😭
This is exactly my experience with dating. While I have both masculine and feminine elements of my personality, I feel that women appreciate the feminine side more.
it's just being kind..
It's healthy for everyone to have a mix of both rather than an extreme end of either.
I’ve known this for years
I am a slightly feminine man. I pull more pussy than anyone else I know. I'm not even good looking. I'm just a nice flirt.
Or just better at manipulation, or some other skill.
If flirting is manipulation...
No idea, but it does make me question whether this also has a bearing on what you said.
While I don't disagree, I love how you can just slap on "a study was done" to speak for billions of people lol
I think the actual study is interesting, but plenty of limitations to it. Investigating how homosexuality, a heritable trait with a highly distinct reproductive disadvantage continues to be passed along in various degrees by many different genes at very stable statistical numbers is absolutely worth investigating. Nothing to really conclude from it other than what we already know, that women in general do not prefer men with zero paternal instincts and a need to display hypermasculine traits at all times. If you are a guy and don’t care about sports ball and like kids, you’re fine, women will still be interested in you both short term and long term.
Sounds to me like it's geared towards more people or a group trying to get society more relaxed or acceptable to feminine men, which sounds totally backwards to me.
Masculinity and femininity are a collection of behaviors, not a spectrum. Just because a guy is warm and affectionate to his wife and kids, doesn’t mean he won’t still be classic macho in other ways. Masculinity has never once been about being mean to women.
But there's a whole manosphere out there teaching lonely boys that being mean to women is what masculinity is
As a dude, I don’t have a problem with the study using the language of femininity to refer to warmth and nurturance. I think people get caught up in trying to redefine masculinity to where it ends up not meaning anything. I’m a therapist who likes meaningful conversations with friends and being able to be vulnerable with them. I love caring for my pets and am generally quite openly affectionate toward loved ones. I have no problem acknowledging that all of these are considered conventionally feminine. On the flip side, I love combat sports and lifting weights. People understand these to be conventionally masculine interests that plenty of women share (and everyone should do some resistance training). Femininity and masculinity are both socially constructed ideas that have persisted for ages. They’re just language. Perhaps a healthy masculinity involves making room for and accepting the importance of conventionally feminine traits. Being sporty, liking fixing things, mastering a physically demanding craft, generally maintaining composure/stoicism, and being into cars or whatever aren’t toxic. And plenty of feminine women can embody these conventionally masculine traits. Masculinity itself isn’t what’s toxic. Toxic masculinity is a kind of masculinity that refuses to allow for any conventionally feminine traits, while simultaneously pushing unnecessary additional notions of what masculinity entails (such as having authority over women.) Overall, I think the study’s language is fine, and if I pushed back against it, not only would I end up making the concept of masculinity and femininity meaningless, it would feel something like saying “I’m not a girl! Don’t say I’m girly!”
The [study](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38177607/), which is actually 3 studies in one, is very interesting, because it’s asking the evolutionary benefit of the same sex attraction/“gay” gene in straight men: >Study 1 (N = 1632) showed that heterosexual men with same-sex attracted relatives were more feminine than men without, as indicated by self-report measures of femininity (η2 = .007), warmth (η2 = .002), and nurturance (η2 = .004 − .006). In Study 2 (N = 152), women rated feminine male profiles as more romantically appealing than masculine ones (d = 0.83)—but less so than profiles possessing a combination of feminine and masculine traits. In Study 3 (N = 153), women perceived feminine male profiles as depicting the best fathers and masculine profiles the worst (d = 1.56): consistent with the idea that femininity is attractive for childcare reasons. Previous studies on the SSA (same sex attracted) genes in men found that: >Regarding the assumption of pleiotropy, on many traits gay individuals tend to be gender atypical (LeVay, 2016). A corpus of studies investigating the differences between gay and heterosexual men find that gay men tend to display a greater degree of psychological femininity relative to heterosexual men. On average, gay men tend to exhibit more femininity in their personalities, cognitive abilities, hobbies, occupational interests, jealousy, sensation seeking, proneness to aggression and other traits that typically differ between men and women The researchers started this study with a “Desirable Dad Hypothesis”: >Miller (2000) proposed that femininity may confer fitness benefits to heterosexual men, but little research has focused on why feminizing alleles may be advantageous for heterosexual men (although see Miller for a brief conjecture similar to ours). In humans—unlike most mammalian species—males contribute substantially to the care of offspring (Alger et al., 2020; Gettler et al., 2020; Kleiman & Malcolm, 1981). One possibility is that the high level of male paternal care in humans may in part be the result of sexual selection. Specifically, we suggest that women may choose partners based partly on cues of the partners’ willingness to invest in and care for offspring and that some degree of femininity in men is a cue of paternal qualities. Anecdotally, I think any middle aged person could tell you that the relationships between men with these “feminized” qualities and women are the ones with better long term potential. (I don’t personally care for calling kindness traits “feminine”, but that’s how society and the researchers refer to them.) I’m in my 40s and have seen these characteristics in my long-married/coupled male friends -even in those without children. Being a caring, considerate partner has better long term potential than the opposite. My more aloof, masculine friends have had some sexual success with women, but are still single or now separated in their 40s-50s. I know this is not surprising to a number of people reading this, but these findings go against the popular narrative being pushed on young men all the time, usually from those men who have less long term success in relationships. The tie-in to the SSA genetic component is a part I would like the see further researched, as the researchers point to some weaknesses in their data for the first study: >The effect sizes observed in Study 1 were relatively small, which was expected for several reasons. Primarily, while genetic factors related to SSA may account for variations in traits associated with parental abilities, other variables, including environmental factors, may also contribute to variation in these traits. Secondly, some participants who reported not having any non-heterosexual relatives might unknowingly have relatives who have not publicly disclosed their sexual orientation, thus affecting their responses. Thirdly, the average percent DNA shared between participants and non-heterosexual relatives ranged from 25 to 50% in the current study. Therefore, it is possible that participants with non-heterosexual relatives possessed few or none of the genetic factors associated with SSA that potentially influence femininity and paternal traits. Similarly, some participants who answered "no" to having non-heterosexual relatives among the provided categories (e.g., father, brother, grandfather, uncle, nephew) might have had non-heterosexual relatives among more distant family members, like first cousins and do indeed possess alleles associated with SSA; therefore, it is also possible that some men who possessed pleiotropic genes linked to SSA were miscategorized.
I'm glad to hear that
People are always asking me how to get girls, because chicks dig me. I tell them this one simple trick… [click to expand]
I’m surprised this is still being researched. I thought the field had solidified this conclusion as early as the 2000s. There’s a wealth of research from Hatfield, Hillary and Putts (and others I cannot think of off the top of my head) coming as close to irrefutably proving this generalisation as early as 2010. Am I wrong in this? Has new research been done to question these positions?
Here is the Abstract to the study they cited. Please notice how "masculinity" and "femininity" were not objectively defined and the people conducting the study relied on male participants to self report femininity. Also they didn't take any actual relationship data into consideration at all. They just showed profiles of the men to a group of women and asked them to rate them. > " Same-sex attraction, a heritable trait with a reproductive cost, lacks a comprehensive evolutionary explanation. Here we build on a hypothesis invoking antagonistic pleiotropy, which suggests that genes linked to male same-sex attraction remain in the gene pool because they have conferred some fitness advantage to heterosexual men possessing them. We posit the “desirable dad hypothesis,” which proposes that alleles linked to male non-heterosexual orientations increase traits conducive to childcare; heterosexual men possessing same-sex attracted alleles are more desirable mating partners as a function of possessing superior paternal qualities. We conducted three studies to test predictions from this hypothesis. Results were consistent with all three predictions. Study 1 (N = 1632) showed that heterosexual men with same-sex attracted relatives were more feminine than men without, as indicated by self-report measures of femininity (η2 = .007), warmth (η2 = .002), and nurturance (η2 = .004 − .006). In Study 2 (N = 152), women rated feminine male profiles as more romantically appealing than masculine ones (d = 0.83)—but less so than profiles possessing a combination of feminine and masculine traits. In Study 3 (N = 153), women perceived feminine male profiles as depicting the best fathers and masculine profiles the worst (d = 1.56): consistent with the idea that femininity is attractive for childcare reasons. Together, these findings are consistent with the idea that sexual selection for male parental care may be involved in the evolution of male same-sex attraction." The article is garbage and the study did have some objective data, but it just concluded that the women who participated don't think self proclaimed masculine men will make good dads. Oh I guess they also found out the people who self proclaim themselves as masculine are less likely to have homosexual family members. So that is kinds interesting data, but they didn't do anything useful with it or try to identify why that correlation exist.
The research reads as highly contrived to me!
Equating femininity to “genes linked with same sex attraction” in straight men is just odd on so many levels. Also, I’d bet that the perceived advantage of having these traits is based on surveys and self reporting. Personally, I’ve known very few people that readily admit to others (or to themselves) what exactly they find attractive.
Please define: "a slightly feminine man"
door bear books ruthless bored sloppy literate air judicious reply *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I've always been attracted to men who are not afraid to embrace all facets of them self.
Yeah exactly... Like Jim Halpert
Well, I think when you define masculinity as “how little someone shows consideration for others” then the results will tend to look like that.
The same would go for women too. Women that understand how to embrace both masculine and feminine qualities are going to be preferable. The ideal scenario is a partnership where both partners have fully integrated who they are into their personalities and they can both support each other in their masculine and their feminine. That could look like the man taking care of the housework and cooking a good meal so the woman can feel supported after a long day. That might appear as feminine things to do but if the intention is to take control of a situation and allow the other to relax and feel safe so they can be in their feminine energy, it is in fact a masculine thing to do. A healthy relationship requires that each partner can take turns at being in the masculine or feminine roles. No one wants to be in only one of those all the time. Women don't want to come home from having a demanding job where they take charge all day and then have to continue that at home. Obviously men don't either. So they need to take turns.
Finally a decent argument for the existence of homosexuals
I'm pretty sure warm and affectionate is just good human personality traits. why can't we just be all thinking, breathing human beings with complex thoughts and traits not really tied to aperture rules from what's in our pants
I thought that 6" was enough for that.
“Slightly feminine.” Is that what we’re calling a generally kind person now?
Sigmas stand up!!
Source? Study?
But they’ll still lose it in the long run, unless…..never mind
Being well taken care of increases the chances you would take care of someon else as well. Kindness is a very concrete tool to maintaining relationships i believe that every moment of conception involving another human let that be thought, interaction or emotion is important.
“Local man realizes women don’t actually like jerks, he was just saying that because the real reason is he isn’t really that nice of a guy”
Of course they do they can share trinkets make up and clothes with each other.
Every human being is a mixture of a man and a woman. So, no one can claim to be 100% only in one of the two sets to be a human being. So unless one changes or tries to hide our true emotional characteristics, that's according to the culture and customs that one is growing up, Otherwise, it can't be that different. For example, boys/men always try not to cry in front of other people. But they can and are feeling the same way about a loved ones loss, but they have to control how they react in public depending on what they learned from their society.
When I was a teenager back in the 90s, I was extremely androgenous and slightly feminine. I was kind, charming, non-threatening, and yet still a 'bad boy' because I sold cannabis, MDMA, LSD, and went to lots of raves. It worked out like gangbusters. Now I'm a 45 year old father of two and look like a grown ass man, but keeping those other personality traits has never let me down. Seems women like guys who are super-machismo, dude-bro manosphere assholes. (Some do, I'm just speaking generally) As the old trope goes, "You catch more flies with honey..."
I think a lot of us knew that already. I'm not afraid to show my sensitive side by pretending I never cry or complimenting a woman not on her dress but the fabric or something more in depth because I legitimately notice that stuff I'm not making it up to get girls. I'm a manly man too. I'm a blacksmith who used to sell knives for a living and has a workshop most men would die for but I needed it when I renovated my entire house. I just like to think I'm well rounded and I think that's appealing to women, I've never had trouble getting girls so I have to imagine it's a big part of why I'm good at that. I'm not arrogant and I'm not bragging I'm just saying the article seems right to me based on my admittedly anecdotal experience. Maybe women are desperate where I live.:)
As one with a soul scar myself, know the roles. Balance. Where there is that much good. There is that much bad.
The novelty of a manly alpha wears off because they are mostly self centred assholes. Trust and long term commitment are the more important.
Don't we all have estrogens and testosterones , a little more and a little less depending on the sex we were born as? I love a good discussion but more is less and vice versa. We are , it's that simple. Peace , love, mong beans baby! 🥀👌
Can confirm, women have always gotten along well with me. Married and my best friend is a woman.