The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

I'm 21 and still find 30 something women attractive.

Reply 2

Hate to say it but it is mostly true. I haven't seen all the men and women of this world and yet I can quite confidently say a man/ woman will have little trouble finding a woman they find attractive in the age range of 18-35. There isn't a big amount of women over this age (Celebrities) that people consider universally attractive - of course there are many many women who look great at 35+ but after that age looks tend to begin to decline.

For men I'd say it is mostly correct for celebrities and 'successful' guys. Many men let go of themselves after University or after getting married.

If only we were all immortal and could keep our youthful looks for ever... :frown:

Reply 3

I generally agree, but was disappointed to see I'm already over the metaphorical hill (can't get up a literal hill, jeez).

Reply 4

Yup agreed. 16-20 year old girls are best.

Reply 5

Personally think women in late 20s early 30s.

Reply 6

Yep. There are some men in their fifties that even I, as a straight male, find charming and sexy (Guy Self from Holby City, for example), whereas I don't think I ever really find women attractive pass the magical age of 35.

Reply 7

Women age like milk, sadly really

Reply 8

Where on Earth did you get that graph?

Reply 9

tell me - do you think this graph has any objective basis, or is it more about men and women's relative status in society and what purpose each serves?

Reply 10

I guess it depends on the person and how they look after themselves. I would agree though that men do tend to age better than women (unfortunately :tongue:)

Reply 11

It does depend on each individual but I'm not that surprised my mums always telling me men age better than women (except in her case because she reckons she's the only exception :rolleyes:)

Reply 12

Original post by andiewithanie
tell me - do you think this graph has any objective basis, or is it more about men and women's relative status in society and what purpose each serves?

It's founded on biological reality.

Men evolved to be attracted to fertility in women, i.e. youth and beauty.

Women evolved to be attracted to success, achievement, status, wealth, confidence, etc in men - which tends to increase as men get older if they work hard and are ambitious. Of course, if the man doesn't work to improve himself then he will never become desirable.

Among the young people on TSR, on average the girls are much more desirable than the guys. The girls complain about getting too much sexual attention while the guys are sexually frustrated.

However, when our cohort gets 10-15 years older, the women will be complaining about "where are all the good men?" and in 15-25 years time the women will be complaining about being invisible to men. The men will get far more sexual attention from women as they become increasingly successful - many of the current TSR virgins will turn into womanisers as they reach their 30s.

Here's a graph taken from OK Cupid. It suggests that the crossover point - at which men finally become more desirable than women - is about 26.

Reply 13

Original post by ILovePancakes
Where on Earth did you get that graph?


Perhaps it's from the Royal Society for Attractives.

Reply 14

Original post by Fullofsurprises
Perhaps it's from the Royal Society for Attractives.


I see.. So it is scientifically viable.. My mistake.

Let's interpolate all of our ideas about attractiveness from here.

Reply 15

Original post by ILovePancakes
I see.. So it is scientifically viable.. My mistake.

Let's interpolate all of our ideas about attractiveness from here.


Either way, the good lookers win.

Reply 16

that's far from objective. afaik there's no biological basis for sexuality of any kind (gay, straight, wev). so the idea that there's a bio basis for a more refined sexuality - one that desires financial security or pouty lips - seems hard to imagine.

Reply 17

Original post by Fullofsurprises
Either way, the good lookers win.


I suppose I'll have no problems then :wink: .

Reply 18

Original post by andiewithanie
that's far from objective. afaik there's no biological basis for sexuality of any kind (gay, straight, wev). so the idea that there's a bio basis for a more refined sexuality - one that desires financial security or pouty lips - seems hard to imagine.




Have you heard of evolution?

Reply 19

entirely, i can assure you. despite the ongoing search for the gay gene (or it's straight cousin) they've yet to find one. my position - until such time as one is found - is that sexuality is culturally constructed. evolution gave us bodies that are not only capable of reproduction but made it pleasurable to do so, i don't see why there needs to be ay more than that. i certainly don't get what advantage there is to genes in transmitting extra unnecessary information that can just as easily be learned.