Chubby Older Dads Are More Attractive To Women, Study Finds

[Kyle M]

Oh also something to note is that a woman doesn't necessarily need to find a "beta" male to help raise her kids. Male hormones can be altered from just being around pregnancy and newborns, this has been shown in studies. I haven't researched it in a while, but I think an infants crying causes prolactin to rise in males, and possibly T to go down. I'm not sure a woman would want a super beta male though when she is raising children. Someone needs to defend the family.

Testosterone and prolactin are associated with emotional responses to infant cries in new fathers. - PubMed - NCBI

One point I would make about interpreting this experiment is that in many societies (perhaps most) during more relevant evolutionary times, men were around crying babies much less than now. Certain hunter/gatherer tribes, even today, have men spending days or even weeks away from the tribal headquarters hunting or collecting honey. At any rate, the modern system of men sleeping at home every night and being awakened by the baby's cries whenever the woman is, and being encouraged or guilted into taking part of soothing a crying baby, is very new in humans. This data man be more of an indication of how new and disruptive it is, rather than a confirmation that fatherhood per se pushes men towards more beta behavior.

It makes sense that in both sexes, being around a baby that needs cares would alter the physiology of the adult present to give care, right?

 

[noordinary]

One point I would make about interpreting this experiment is that in many societies (perhaps most) during more relevant evolutionary times, men were around crying babies much less than now. Certain hunter/gatherer tribes, even today, have men spending days or even weeks away from the tribal headquarters hunting or collecting honey. At any rate, the modern system of men sleeping at home every night and being awakened by the baby's cries whenever the woman is, and being encouraged or guilted into taking part of soothing a crying baby, is very new in humans. This data man be more of an indication of how new and disruptive it is, rather than a confirmation that fatherhood per se pushes men towards more beta behavior.

It makes sense that in both sexes, being around a baby that needs cares would alter the physiology of the adult present to give care, right?

Crying babies maybe a modern thing.
Jean Liedloff in her interviews and her book The Continuum Concept said that babies she observed in South America never cried.
She also describes how babies participated in everyday activities of the adults from day one. As well as spending lots of time with dads and other men of the tribe learning different kills skills.

My guess that any stressed out person (especially someone close, family member) will cause increase in stress hormones in observing person, crying baby is a stressed out person. Giggly and laughing baby will probably cause an increase in dopamine and other happy hormones, as will any other person displaying happy healthy behavior, maybe degree depends on how much you are attached to that person.

 

[Kyle M]

Crying babies maybe a modern thing.
Jean Liedloff in her interviews and her book The Continuum Concept said that babies she observed in South America never cried.
She also describes how babies participated in everyday activities of the adults from day one. As well as spending lots of time with dads and other men of the tribe learning different kills skills.

Is that accurate? I've actually read a bit on this, from Africa mostly but also South America, and "babies" are around mothers and women, it isn't until child can walk on their own and can actually begin to learn skills that they spend any significant time with men while men work.

 

[noordinary]

I meant cads. Cads don't have to be chads they can be thugs, bikers, singers, artists, actors, drummers, swagfags, whatever the latin lover stereotype is. There's a number of ways to display high short-term mating value outside of sports and athletics.

We (women) are attracted to men who genuinely enjoy what they are doing and are good at that, be it a drummer or a plumber. LOL

I was referring specifically to her claims that women start looking for men who have bellys and are less exciting.
Yes once women hit mid 20s they start looking for husband material. Dads as opposed to cads. At least the smart ones.

But disregard my opinion because
Looks like I'm not that smart after all

What I've noticed: men and women are often times looking for smth they lack but would want to have (idk for themselves or future babies):
only guys with dark eyes ever complimented me on my light blue ones, only guys loosing hair ever complimented me on my long hair and so on
I myself am on a skinnier side and a skinny or even fit ripped guy is such a turn off, from the pic @DaveFoster posted in this thread: my type is 20% body fat
and definitely not cause I prefer less good looking men to feel better about myself. I often joke with my girlfriends that i prefer guys with some fat cause if Waking Deads Day will come I will have something to chew on lol

But seriously though, women like different men for different reasons.
IF only most women weren't so badly screwed by oral contraceptives or even worse depo shots for years, I think they would make better choices.

 

[noordinary]

Is that accurate? I've actually read a bit on this, from Africa mostly but also South America, and "babies" are around mothers and women, it isn't until child can walk on their own and can actually begin to learn skills that they spend any significant time with men while men work.

Yes, you're right, but it doesn't depend on walking but on weaning time maybe?
Anyways my point was that crying babies dumping dads T is not normal, or wasn't normal at least.

 

[Kyle M]

Yes, you're right, but it doesn't depend on walking but on weaning time maybe?
Anyways my point was that crying babies dumping dads T is not normal, or wasn't normal at least.

Depends on whether it's considered the responsibility of men to limit what they can do in the tribe in order to include toddlers, or whether it's up to the toddlers to get to the point where they don't get in the way of tribal work first. I would assume in a true survival situation, evolution would select for the latter.

One thing these reports don't look at it babies crying at night, no matter how happy you make them during the day a baby's liver can only hold so much glucose and until reaching a certain age they will have to be fed throughout the night.

 

[noordinary]

Depends on whether it's considered the responsibility of men to limit what they can do in the tribe in order to include toddlers, or whether it's up to the toddlers to get to the point where they don't get in the way of tribal work first. I would assume in a true survival situation, evolution would select for the latter.

One thing these reports don't look at it babies crying at night, no matter how happy you make them during the day a baby's liver can only hold so much glucose and until reaching a certain age they will have to be fed throughout the night.

The thing is that what you seen and see around you (and used to be me as well) consider normal.
But just because it's common it is not optimal or norm.

To the first one: Listen to Jean Liedloff interview when you'll have time if you not interested in reading her book. She talks bout her experience living and observing a tribe in south America, it's fascinating really. It's not a complete "caveman" tribe, they already have some agriculture going on - they grow sugar cane. So she talked how toddlers are allowed next to open fire and knifes without supervision even and she talks how babies have innate self safety mechanism. I don't have kids so easy for me to say, but her observations are insetting at the least: so they did not "baby proof" anything in their village and had almost zero kids injuries occurrence.

To the second: You are right about crying babies and their livers inability to store glycogen that would last them through the night. And yet again Jean Liedloff describes cosleeping with babies (as well as baby carrying) and breast availability at all time. Babies did not cry because they could eat before they get stressed enough to express their distress by crying. Maybe they get stern less also by knowing that food is always available, idk.

It's a little book worth reading.
I have nothing to relate to, all my friends who already have kids have separate bedrooms for them and cribs and ... crying babies.

 

[Kyle M]

The thing is that what you seen and see around you (and used to be me as well) consider normal.
But just because it's common it is not optimal or norm.

How do you get that from what I wrote? I specifically and clearly wrote that the norm today is not the norm from evolutionary times.

And about young children being allowed fires etc., that does not address my point of them being around men often while men were working BEFORE they could walk and not be in the way. There's a bit of a difference between being around a camp fire or a sharp object used to carve wood, and going on a hunt with the men or building a structure. A baby could safely be brought to work today if you work at a bank (although it would likely be annoying to others) but a baby could NOT be safely brought to work if you are one of those crab fisherman or a logger or a county lineman etc.

 

[noordinary]

How do you get that from what I wrote? I specifically and clearly wrote that the norm today is not the norm from evolutionary times.

And about young children being allowed fires etc., that does not address my point of them being around men often while men were working BEFORE they could walk and not be in the way. There's a bit of a difference between being around a camp fire or a sharp object used to carve wood, and going on a hunt with the men or building a structure. A baby could safely be brought to work today if you work at a bank (although it would likely be annoying to others) but a baby could NOT be safely brought to work if you are one of those crab fisherman or a logger or a county lineman etc.

Oh, im sorry i got your post wrong! English is not my first language, sometimes its the language barrier.
I thought you ment that a baby is a kinda useless until old anough to be taken by fathers to work.
Of couse in todays world with long hours far away long commute jobs is not possible.

Anyways, the point was that crying babies dumping dads T is not norm. And that for that matter anyone distressed enough around a man will dump his T.

 

[Kyle M]

Anyways, the point was that crying babies dumping dads T is not norm. And that for that matter anyone distressed enough around a man will dump his T.

Interesting idea, maybe that's why I feel like crap at work.

 

[schultz]

One point I would make about interpreting this experiment is that in many societies (perhaps most) during more relevant evolutionary times, men were around crying babies much less than now. Certain hunter/gatherer tribes, even today, have men spending days or even weeks away from the tribal headquarters hunting or collecting honey. At any rate, the modern system of men sleeping at home every night and being awakened by the baby's cries whenever the woman is, and being encouraged or guilted into taking part of soothing a crying baby, is very new in humans. This data man be more of an indication of how new and disruptive it is, rather than a confirmation that fatherhood per se pushes men towards more beta behavior.

It makes sense that in both sexes, being around a baby that needs cares would alter the physiology of the adult present to give care, right?

That's a good point!

 

[pimpnamedraypeat]

The thing we see in commercials where the infant sleeps in a crib or another room and one of the parents has to go get him when he starts crying is a sinister form of social engineering.

Babies dont just suddenly srart crying like an alarm clock. They wake up, look around, reach for mom, realize they're alone, and then start crying.

You should be sleeping with the baby between you

 

[Broken man]

"There is the lover and there is the provider, and women find it difficult to see you as both."

Begs the question, explaining little. Put a little crudely, as stated by an anonymous writer, "Beta bux, alpha fux." Women are attracted to a**holes - alpha men - because bad boys are much more of a thrill and exciting. not boring. But unreliable, often are bad providers and unfaithful. Life is certainly exciting with such guys, but they are unsuitable as husbands and fathers, and home life with them is not exactly tranquil. Beta men - who are in the majority - make good providers and fathers, are reliable, and much less likely to cheat. The world would fall apart without them. Life and home are stable with them. Main negative: they are boring and unexciting and sexually flat, as compared to alpha jerks.

The smarter or psychologically mature women are well aware of this distinction between men and realistic enough to realize they have to make their choices based on what is most important to them: stable, tranquil home and marriage, children with a stable, dependable but dull and sexually boring man, or thrills and regular sexual highs (plus the lows) and constant romance/intrigue/drama - which often will not last too long in many cases- with a charming but unreliable jerkman?

Feminism urges young women FIRST to go after a career and chase jerkmen - fun, fun, fun - then settle down later. Trouble is, by the time they settle down and look to get married, they find the best quality men have been scooped up by their less liberated sisters, and these careerist sluts have gotten old enough in the looks department to be unable to compete with other women for decent men to marry. Especially later on (in their 30s), many such women cannot get the alphas (who want younger flesh) to marry them and they are left with 2nd-rate, desperate betas (who often have a lot of problems - addictions to drugs, alcohol, porn, job instability, psychological problems etc., etc.) to choose from. Plus any quality men still available are not going to be interested in marrying a woman who has dedicated the prime years of her life to sluttery. Also, due to the merciless clock, by that time, even if they can get married at all, they may be too old to give birth to children.

From what I have observed, such women were not expecting such outcomes before choosing to immerse themselves early-on in careers and so-called sexual freedom resulting later in a very single and later still, very lonely life. It used to be their mothers - and especially grandmothers - would convey cautions and wise advice to their daughters to help them avoid such outcomes. Alas, it seems they either are not advising them anymore or if they are trying to advise them, they are unable to penetrate the conditioning their daughters have accumulated in schools and other societal conditioning agents.

+1

 

[whodathunkit]

The way you engage only some of my points, and taking two weeks to respond, is making this unrewarding for me. You also keep making it personal whereas I have not called you any names or questioned your motives etc.

Dude, I have a life and a job that doesn't allow me to jack around on internet forums more than about once per week anymore. Sometimes not even that. So sorry if that's unrewarding for you.

Ditto the fact that I don't have time to pick apart the entirety of your ideologies. Which, as I've repeatedly stated, we're on the same page about a lot of things (if not most things) so I don't *want* to pick apart everything you say. But we're definitely NOT on the same page about your apparent lack of self-awareness in conflating what I (and others) suspect are your personal issues with with women with your purportedly "objective" outlook on the "masculine v. feminine". Can't say it enough: your issues with women come through as clearly in your ideology as envy and avarice come through in the ideology of the Marxists. Really. Take a look at that.

You cannot, in good faith, deny that those calling for communism almost always call capitalism "patriarchal." This is a huge meme of communists in the 20th and 21st centuries, if you aren't aware of it then you haven't done your homework.

I don't care what "they" call capitalism.

ALL the leaders and top thinkers in every communist/collectivist society are swinging dicks. Show me the communist Margaret Thatcher or Ayn Rand, please.

I believe what my eyes tell me, not what *they* say. What they *say* is nothing more than propaganda, pure and simple. They've always used sympathy for "victim groups" as a shield for their real, avaricious agendas, and keeping the hoi polloi whipped to a frenzy with distractions that foment minor social unrest in their target societies is the goal.

Surprised you, in good faith, don't see the difference between what they say and the reality of what they're actually doing. If you think "they" are really interested in a matriarchal, equitable society then I'm re-disappointed all over again (again).

She's laying it on thick, even threw in a passive aggressive "sweetie."

Just for good measure. But while you got the passive-aggressive right, you were wrong on the ridicule. At most, "Sweetie" is mildly condescending. Kyle's too smart to ridicule, but a few points do, IMO, call for some degree of condescension. Annoying as hell, ain't it, Sweetie?

 

[Tarmander]

Just for good measure. But while you got the passive-aggressive right, you were wrong on the ridicule. At most, "Sweetie" is mildly condescending. Kyle's too smart to ridicule, but a few points do, IMO, call for some degree of condescension. Annoying as hell, ain't it, Sweetie?

I don't think the attitude you throw around to belly your points comes across that clearly on the net. Maybe it does in real life...? Do people give you attention for saying these kinds of things?

 

[alywest]

Just be confident. Hah!

No offense I'm sure youre a great lady and a great mom but you have as much right to tell men how to be men as a homeless junkie has to tell you how to raise your children

I'm pretty sure I'm qualified to express what a woman is attracted to in a man as I am a heterosexual female. I'm not telling men how to be men, but I'm saying that a lack of self-confidence can put a huge damper on a man's level of attraction. Insecure men tend to be taken advantage of by the opposite sex as well as the same sex. The same is true for females, actually. If "alpha" people sense that you have any insecurity about your self-worth, they will either take advantage of you if you have something to offer them, ignore you, or destroy you for fun.

 

[pimpnamedraypeat]

I'm pretty sure I'm qualified to express what a woman is attracted to in a man as I am a heterosexual female.

Really? How many women have you successfully bedded?

If women sense that you have any insecurity about your self-worth, they will either take advantage of you if you have something to offer them, ignore you, or destroy you for fun.

Fixed for truth

 

[evo21]

I'm pretty sure I'm qualified to express what a woman is attracted to in a man as I am a heterosexual female. I'm not telling men how to be men, but I'm saying that a lack of self-confidence can put a huge damper on a man's level of attraction.

The current generation of young women have tools that your generation didn't have access to. Smartphones and social media have made a huge impact on the sexual market. So while your advice to be confident is sound advice, it may not be enough in practice, because of the way technology enables women to find a new sexual partner almost instantly.

I noticed when asking girls advice on how to attract them, they are telling us how they want to feel, not what a man must be like. So when they tell us they want a man who is nice, sensitive and has a good sense of humor, what they actually mean is they want a man who makes them feel submissive (be nice to him), safe (emotionally open with him) and excited (makes them laugh). Once we realize that almost everything they tell us is about them and their feelings, it's easier to understand them.

 

[alywest]

Fixed for truth

Oh, so only women do that? Is that true?

 

[alywest]

The current generation of young women have tools that your generation didn't have access to. Smartphones and social media have made a huge impact on the sexual market. So while your advice to be confident is sound advice, it may not be enough in practice, because of the way technology enables women to find a new sexual partner almost instantly.

I noticed when asking girls advice on how to attract them, they are telling us how they want to feel, not what a man must be like. So when they tell us they want a man who is nice, sensitive and has a good sense of humor, what they actually mean is they want a man who makes them feel submissive (be nice to him), safe (emotionally open with him) and excited (makes them laugh). Once we realize that almost everything they tell us is about them and their feelings, it's easier to understand them.

I think the fact that men automatically have the "upper hand" when it comes to physical strength puts us at a disadvantage, however, most men would not actually take advantage of that. Unfortunately since it's impossible to know for sure sometimes until it's too late, we have to judge men on their personality traits and hope that there is no chance that they're a sociopath or just a total creep. A man who displays too much machismo is more likely to be aggressive in our subconscious minds, so therefore a lot of us shy away from that type of guy. It's a blend of genuine self-confidence and yet humility and kindness that we seek. I agree with you that we want to feel safe, yet excited. It's not an easy balance to achieve.