![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 16 of 16. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by pinkeye on July 29, 2005, at 20:40:54
Dear Ms. Lott,
I have one more question to you, more on your personal experience than anything else - why is that women always intensely like and long for little older, authoritative, and supposedly wiser men? Like teachers, therapists, doctors etc? And when such a man is unavailable, it increases the attraction. Why is that way? My therapist says, it is because I am somewhat attracted to my father, and that I perceive other authoritative men who are unavailable as such, and my deep attraction comes out with such force. Is that so?
What is it that draws a woman so much to these kind of men, and at the same time dislike them for the power they have over our relationships? I hate when someone controls me. But yet, I long for the same relationship with a man.
You have said so yourself that you were always attracted to such men. And I have the same problem. I have experienced the same exact thing you described above - "With men I tend to be more flirty and to treat them as wise authority figures while at the same time,half-expecting them to be idiots"
And the problem with such men is that, they automatically assume that they know everything and especially they think that they know more than us. And they won't listen, or change, or grasp a better thing when I say it. But yet, I like them. And simulateneously resent them for being so adamant and stupid and authoritative. But I get attracted to such adamant behavior also.
And I believe it is the same problem with many many women. What is it in your opinion that makes us behave like this? And how would you suggest, that we start appreciating men who are more emotionally empathetic, wise, caring and affectionate, and who will listen to us and will give us respect and who will change when we point out their mistakes? Typically, me and some women I know, tend to dismiss very good guys like that as "not attractive" or "feminine" or "too soft" and repeatedly get attracted to "authoritative, adamant, and inevitably little stupid, and dogmatic guys". Why is it that we think of the later as more attractive, and not real good characteristic?
Posted by pinkeye on July 29, 2005, at 21:19:16
In reply to Lott: Q on getting attracted to older, wiser men, posted by pinkeye on July 29, 2005, at 20:40:54
Your words in a thread above..
"Having had a very charismatic and dynamic father who had a psychotic break when I was 15 and never fully recovered, the situation of a male authority figure lecturing was already ripe with emotional and erotic possibility to me, and the acceptance of an authority figure seemed to promise something very symbolic. At the same time, I was ready to hate them and take them on for everything they said that didn't seem exactly right to me. And I always half-expected them to go crazy and turn on me.
How did you ever recover from this?? I have the same problem. I simulateneously like and simulateneously hate men like that.I have been trying so very hard to break away from that.
How did you get yourself cleared of this?? Would you be willing to share? It would help me so immensely.
Thanks.
Pinkeye.
Posted by Jakeman on July 30, 2005, at 1:53:43
In reply to Lott: Q on getting attracted to older, wiser men, posted by pinkeye on July 29, 2005, at 20:40:54
>I know, tend to dismiss very good guys like that as "not attractive" or "feminine" or "too soft" and repeatedly get attracted to "authoritative, adamant, and inevitably little stupid, and dogmatic guys". Why is it that we think of the later as more attractive, and not real good characteristic?
Pardon me for interjecting something here.
Does't the new age nice guy have a place?
Posted by Tamar on July 31, 2005, at 16:57:22
In reply to Re: Lott: Q on getting attracted to older, wiser men, posted by Jakeman on July 30, 2005, at 1:53:43
> Pardon me for interjecting something here.
>
> Does't the new age nice guy have a place?Now there’s a good question!
A few months ago I was reading some stuff in evolutionary psychology journals. I was quite interested in what people find attractive about other people. Apparently, men are particularly attracted to women with a certain hip-waist ratio. Women seem to think men prefer very slim women, whereas in fact men seem to prefer more rounded women. But there hasn’t been much research into women’s attraction to men. What little I could find seemed to indicate that women like men who are taller, older and richer. This seems to fit with the idea of women often being attracted to ‘authority figures’.
However, despite the trends researchers find, it’s almost impossible to take account of individual preferences. We have our own particular reasons for finding certain people attractive.
It’s a cliché that women prefer b*stards, but to be honest I’d rather have a decent man any day of the week (and in my youth I often did!).
So yes, nice guys definitely have a place. But sometimes we women kiss a lot of frogs before we notice the prince.
Tamar
Posted by alexandra_k on July 31, 2005, at 17:09:39
In reply to Re: Lott: Q on getting attracted to older, wiser men » Jakeman, posted by Tamar on July 31, 2005, at 16:57:22
LOL! I'm remembering back to psychology too...
>Apparently, men are particularly attracted to women with a certain hip-waist ratio.
Yeah. Good child bearing hips ;-)
(and many child bearing years ahead of them hence trophy wives...)
>Women seem to think men prefer very slim women, whereas in fact men seem to prefer more rounded women.
There is a quote I read from somewhere... But I can't remember it so I'll just have to make it up... 'it is funny that what is pleasing on the eye can be so different from what we find pleasing to touch'
> women like men who are taller, older and richer. This seems to fit with the idea of women often being attracted to ‘authority figures’.
Yup. Status, wealth, power...
Its odd to look at is this way...
From this perspective...
But I agree that different people are different. There is a lot of personal idiosyncracy in the world (thank god).
Posted by Tamar on July 31, 2005, at 22:08:13
In reply to Re: Lott: Q on getting attracted to older, wiser men » Tamar, posted by alexandra_k on July 31, 2005, at 17:09:39
> Its odd to look at is this way...
> From this perspective...
> But I agree that different people are different. There is a lot of personal idiosyncracy in the world (thank god).Too right! My hip-waist ratio was better when I was eight months pregnant than it is now. Fortunately I can distract older, wealthier men from my waist by emphasising other bits...
Posted by alexandra_k on July 31, 2005, at 22:26:55
In reply to Re: Lott: Q on getting attracted to older, wiser men » alexandra_k, posted by Tamar on July 31, 2005, at 22:08:13
> Fortunately I can distract older, wealthier men from my waist by emphasising other bits...
LOL! You are talking about your personality here, right???
Posted by Jakeman on August 2, 2005, at 19:51:11
In reply to Re: Lott: Q on getting attracted to older, wiser men » Jakeman, posted by Tamar on July 31, 2005, at 16:57:22
I find the evolutionary psychology material quite interesting. There are some very old innate drives deep within us about attraction and mating. It seems though that everyone feels it but no one talks about it.
Many of us in the US have learned to downplay or even repress aspects of our inborn masculinity or femininity in response to conforming to outside notions of social or political correctness.
warm regards ~Jake
Posted by Tamar on August 2, 2005, at 21:57:23
In reply to Re: Lott: Q on getting attracted to older, wiser men » Tamar, posted by Jakeman on August 2, 2005, at 19:51:11
> I find the evolutionary psychology material quite interesting. There are some very old innate drives deep within us about attraction and mating. It seems though that everyone feels it but no one talks about it.
When I hear women talk about Brad Pitt I think there might be something innate going on. He doesn't do it for me, but maybe I'm not a proper woman.
I find evolutionary psychology very interesting to read, but ultimately I’m not thoroughly convinced. It doesn’t always adequately reflect reality. An example might be the suggestion that men are more likely to play the field because they need to pass on their genes as often as possible, while women are more likely to be faithful because they need to protect their genetic progeny by standing by their man. That’s all very interesting, but sadly doesn’t reflect the reality about women and affairs! Women seem to be just as likely to play away as men are. Well, most statistics show women a few percentage points behind men, but then most researchers will admit that women are a little less likely to admit to infidelity. And who do people think all the unfaithful men are doing it with?
> Many of us in the US have learned to downplay or even repress aspects of our inborn masculinity or femininity in response to conforming to outside notions of social or political correctness.
Possibly. On the other hand, it may be that our masculinity and femininity aren't actually inborn or innate. Unfortunately we don't know for sure: does biology precede social behaviour? Or can social categories influence biology?
The main difficulty, I think, is that many people cannot be easily categorised as male or female. Some people are born with ambiguous genitalia, and others are born with chromosonal arrangements that are not simply XX or XY. In social situations we can never be sure just by looking whether someone is a man or a woman. There’s always a possibility that the categorisation isn’t straightforward.
Since biology is fickle, I'm not sure we can trust it entirely to provide the answers... But it poses some intriguing questions!
Tamar
Posted by Jakeman on August 2, 2005, at 22:37:11
In reply to Re: Lott: Q on getting attracted to older, wiser men » Jakeman, posted by Tamar on August 2, 2005, at 21:57:23
> > I find the evolutionary psychology material quite interesting. There are some very old innate drives deep within us about attraction and mating. It seems though that everyone feels it but no one talks about it.
>
> When I hear women talk about Brad Pitt I think there might be something innate going on. He doesn't do it for me, but maybe I'm not a proper woman.
>
> I find evolutionary psychology very interesting to read, but ultimately I’m not thoroughly convinced. It doesn’t always adequately reflect reality. An example might be the suggestion that men are more likely to play the field because they need to pass on their genes as often as possible, while women are more likely to be faithful because they need to protect their genetic progeny by standing by their man. That’s all very interesting, but sadly doesn’t reflect the reality about women and affairs! Women seem to be just as likely to play away as men are. Well, most statistics show women a few percentage points behind men, but then most researchers will admit that women are a little less likely to admit to infidelity. And who do people think all the unfaithful men are doing it with?
>
> > Many of us in the US have learned to downplay or even repress aspects of our inborn masculinity or femininity in response to conforming to outside notions of social or political correctness.
>
> Possibly. On the other hand, it may be that our masculinity and femininity aren't actually inborn or innate. Unfortunately we don't know for sure: does biology precede social behaviour? Or can social categories influence biology?
>
> The main difficulty, I think, is that many people cannot be easily categorised as male or female. Some people are born with ambiguous genitalia, and others are born with chromosonal arrangements that are not simply XX or XY. In social situations we can never be sure just by looking whether someone is a man or a woman. There’s always a possibility that the categorisation isn’t straightforward.
>
> Since biology is fickle, I'm not sure we can trust it entirely to provide the answers... But it poses some intriguing questions!Do you prefer men to approach you or do you want to do that? Say at a public dance, or in a club.
I find women want men to take some intitiative. But the soft male may hang back and see what happens. He is usualy left out.~Jake
Posted by alexandra_k on August 3, 2005, at 14:36:25
In reply to Re: Lott: Q on getting attracted to older, wiser men » Jakeman, posted by Tamar on August 2, 2005, at 21:57:23
> When I hear women talk about Brad Pitt I think there might be something innate going on. He doesn't do it for me, but maybe I'm not a proper woman.
LOL! Me neither...
>the suggestion that men are more likely to play the field because they need to pass on their genes as often as possible, while women are more likely to be faithful because they need to protect their genetic progeny by standing by their man.
Hmm... I think there is a bit more to it. Apparantly... It is in the females interests to have her partner believe she is faithful... they went and discovered such things as 'fighting sperm' and some other stuff... I was hearing about this a couple summers back... I can't really remember but I think that the upshot was that females were just as likely to have an affair but they were much more likely to be very discrete...
> > Many of us in the US have learned to downplay or even repress aspects of our inborn masculinity or femininity in response to conforming to outside notions of social or political correctness.
Many of us all around the world I dare say..
> it may be that our masculinity and femininity aren't actually inborn or innate. Unfortunately we don't know for sure: does biology precede social behaviour? Or can social categories influence biology?
Biology influences social behaviour by restricting the options. I mean... I can't fly because of my biology. My biology allows me to walk (there is that 'innate' potential - if you like) but if I don't get food then I probably won't grow so I probably won't end up walking either.. Sorry that was a useless example... How about language acquisition. If Chomsky is to be believed (about linguistics at any rate ;-)) then we have this innate ability to 'hook into' the structure of any natural language. But then... There has been some talk around whether you are ever able to hook into the structure of a natural language if you don't have adequate exposure to it by age 7 I think it was. But then we don't really know. I just mean that biology and social factors are a complex interaction. I think biology is primary though - which isn't to say that it can't be modified quite significantly by our social environment
> The main difficulty, I think, is that many people cannot be easily categorised as male or female.depends what you mean by male and female...
>Some people are born with ambiguous genitalia, and others are born with chromosonal arrangements that are not simply XX or XY.
yes, but not very many that we know of...
>In social situations we can never be sure just by looking whether someone is a man or a woman. There’s always a possibility that the categorisation isn’t straightforward.
??? You don't think we might have something like a 99.9% chance of getting it right???
Posted by alexandra_k on August 3, 2005, at 14:57:41
In reply to Re: Lott: Q on getting attracted to older, wiser men » Tamar, posted by alexandra_k on August 3, 2005, at 14:36:25
I've been meaning to read this for a while...
"Sex and Death: An Introduction to Philosophy of Biology"
Its meant to be very good...
Posted by Tamar on August 4, 2005, at 5:16:10
In reply to Re: Lott: Q on getting attracted to older, wiser men » Tamar, posted by Jakeman on August 2, 2005, at 22:37:11
> Do you prefer men to approach you or do you want to do that? Say at a public dance, or in a club.
There isn’t much of that kind of approaching in my life these days – I’ve been married for years! But when I was single I really didn’t care who did the approaching. If I saw a man I liked I’d go over and start a conversation. If men are put off by a woman saying hello, then they’re not the kind of men I want to get to know anyway! The only thing I dislike is when men who approach me don’t take the hint if I’m not interested. I hate having to say, “F*** off, I’m married!”
> I find women want men to take some intitiative. But the soft male may hang back and see what happens. He is usualy left out.
I find the opposite can also be true: some men like women to take the initiative. A man can be pleased if a woman finds him attractive enough to put herself on the line.
I’m not sure what you mean by ‘the soft male’… some men are a bit shy. And some men don’t really enjoy the club scene. I think there are men who find it difficult to approach women they don’t know, but they can get to know women through mutual friends or at work. So I don’t think men are necessarily left out; there are lots of ways to start a relationship. It’s more difficult to have a one night stand if a man isn’t prepared to approach women, but some men aren’t very interested in one night stands…
Tamar
Posted by Tamar on August 4, 2005, at 5:59:46
In reply to Re: Lott: Q on getting attracted to older, wiser men » Tamar, posted by alexandra_k on August 3, 2005, at 14:36:25
> Hmm... I think there is a bit more to it. Apparantly... It is in the females interests to have her partner believe she is faithful... they went and discovered such things as 'fighting sperm' and some other stuff... I was hearing about this a couple summers back... I can't really remember but I think that the upshot was that females were just as likely to have an affair but they were much more likely to be very discrete...
And apparently women are more likely to be unfaithful at times in their cycle when they’re more likely to get pregnant… Now there’s a piece of research that seems likely to strike fear into the hearts of men…
> Biology influences social behaviour by restricting the options. I mean... I can't fly because of my biology. My biology allows me to walk (there is that 'innate' potential - if you like) but if I don't get food then I probably won't grow so I probably won't end up walking either.. Sorry that was a useless example... How about language acquisition. If Chomsky is to be believed (about linguistics at any rate ;-)) then we have this innate ability to 'hook into' the structure of any natural language. But then... There has been some talk around whether you are ever able to hook into the structure of a natural language if you don't have adequate exposure to it by age 7 I think it was. But then we don't really know. I just mean that biology and social factors are a complex interaction. I think biology is primary though - which isn't to say that it can't be modified quite significantly by our social environment
I wonder if the idea of biology as primary will become increasingly problematic as we challenge the limits of humanity through technology. For example, I think transgender people could challenge notions of the primacy of biology (though having said that, I think transgender people tend to argue that there is a biological basis for transgender identity). But if it is possible to change fundamental aspects of our identities by modifying our bodies (through surgery or other technologies), then perhaps biology becomes less of a determining factor in human identity.
> > The main difficulty, I think, is that many people cannot be easily categorised as male or female.
>
> depends what you mean by male and female...If the terms are open to interpretation, then I think it’s true that it’s hard to categorize people…
> >Some people are born with ambiguous genitalia, and others are born with chromosonal arrangements that are not simply XX or XY.
>
> yes, but not very many that we know of...Even if there aren’t many, the existence of gender ‘anomalies’ undermines the system of binary opposites on which we often depend in social interaction.
> >In social situations we can never be sure just by looking whether someone is a man or a woman. There’s always a possibility that the categorisation isn’t straightforward.
>
> ??? You don't think we might have something like a 99.9% chance of getting it right???Actually, I think that 99.9% might be a little over-confident. Estimates of incidence of a congenital intersex conditions depend on definitions of intersex, but some people put it as high as 1.7%. Some of these conditions might not be medically significant, but in a philosophical or sociological debate about gender identity they might be significant. After all, if 1 person in 60 doesn’t conform to the biological ‘standard’, that’s a lot of people we know.
And then there’s the issue of sexual orientation and gender identity (which is part of the queer theory debate)… Briefly: if we were to resist categories of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ on the grounds that they are heteronormative, then we can be even less certain of the gender identity of any person we happen to meet. (As I’ve said before, I know that some people might consider this kind of position to be postmodern w*nk, and that’s OK; I will respect other people’s opinions about it.)
So yes, I think if we take account of all the different possibilities, I think we might reasonably conclude that there is some degree of uncertainty. However, the significance of that uncertainty is downplayed by the cultural promotion of the idea of gender distinction, which leads to secrecy about gender ‘anomalies’ (and, even today, secrecy about sexual orientation), so I guess it’s another example of the complex interplay between biology and environment.
Just my two cents!
Tamar
Posted by Jakeman on August 6, 2005, at 1:15:20
In reply to Re: Lott: Q on getting attracted to older, wiser men » Jakeman, posted by Tamar on August 4, 2005, at 5:16:10
Ok to clarify a bit. Perhaps the soft male is the guy who is overly concerned about what he is expected to be, rather just being who he is. Often he has a lack of energy, decisiveness, holding to an ideal of politically correct sameness with females. I played that part for many years until I discovered I wasn't being me.
The sexual polarity, the ying and yang, does exist, in a very real and primal way. It exists I'm told in homosexual couples as well. One can argue that differences between men and women are learned. I don't know but I doubt that. Or some of it.
Sometimes the body is wiser than the mind and the ego. There's nothing wrong with being asexual, at the same time there's nothing wrong with letting your masculinity or femininity be fully expressed, and it fact celebrated.
(some day I'm going to learn the tango ;-)warm regards ~Jake
why am i the only man writing on this board?
Posted by Tamar on August 6, 2005, at 8:06:47
In reply to Re: Lott: Q on getting attracted to older, wiser men, posted by Jakeman on August 6, 2005, at 1:15:20
> Ok to clarify a bit. Perhaps the soft male is the guy who is overly concerned about what he is expected to be, rather just being who he is. Often he has a lack of energy, decisiveness, holding to an ideal of politically correct sameness with females. I played that part for many years until I discovered I wasn't being me.
Fair enough. I don’t think I know any men who could be described that way, but of course I don’t know all the men in the world! I’m not sure that the idea of the similarity between men and women is politically correct. It’s just a theory and people tend to respond to it on the basis of their own experience. Either way, I can imagine that you need to be who you are.
> The sexual polarity, the ying and yang, does exist, in a very real and primal way. It exists I'm told in homosexual couples as well. One can argue that differences between men and women are learned. I don't know but I doubt that. Or some of it.
Certainly many people say they experience a male/female polarity. Whether it’s learned or whether it’s innate is hard to prove. I haven’t experienced the sense that men and women are fundamentally different, so I suppose that’s why I’m inclined to think that most of the differences are learned (and perhaps I didn’t learn them very well). But there may be aspects of both biology and environment involved, and it’s hard to be sure how they interact.
> Sometimes the body is wiser than the mind and the ego. There's nothing wrong with being asexual, at the same time there's nothing wrong with letting your masculinity or femininity be fully expressed, and it fact celebrated.
Indeed; there’s nothing wrong with expressions of masculinity or femininity as long as people aren’t using them to oppress other people.
> (some day I'm going to learn the tango ;-)
Sounds like fun!
> why am i the only man writing on this board?
There are some other men here. They don’t write here as often as the women, but they’re here from time to time…
Tamar
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Psychology | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.