For me, I have observed that romantic attraction to someone takes three ingredients[1]:
The qualities I find admirable, I generally list as: intelligence, beauty, kindness, competence, ethicality, etc. (Mostly the same as the list of qualities I find admirable in a human.) Possibly there are more that I didn't think of, or haven't seen vary independently from the above.
There is room for some of these traits to compensate for others: e.g. I've met several girls whose physical attractiveness is "meh", but, after I gained a better appreciation for their intelligence and other qualities, I developed romantic feelings for them. However, some traits can be dealbreakers: e.g. a few times I liked someone who was really smart and pretty, but then I saw evidence that they were mean (that they deliberately did something to hurt someone else, or treated someone callously and disrespectfully), and my feelings evaporated (that doesn't mean I formed a final judgment of them, and in one case I changed my mind later; but "holding judgment in abeyance due to serious concerns" does dissipate feelings). Some traits might be "able to be compensated for, if within some range, but if extreme enough could be dealbreakers"; actually that might be the case for most traits.
"That she likes/appreciates me" is a thing possibly deserving special attention. It feeds into #2, of course, and possibly into #1—it's extremely self-serving, but I do think I'm admirable by my own standards, and that it reflects well on someone if they manage to notice the right things and value them.[2] However, I've certainly formed lots of crushes where I had little data on whether they liked me back. Which, I suppose, is stronger evidence about the underlying qualities (as I perceived them) of the last group; one could imagine girls who are at the borderline, such that if they like me then I like them, but if they don't then I don't.
One could imagine being tempted to be strategic: hiding whether you like me, so you can find out whether you're in the borderline group. (I've heard of fictional characters doing this, and real people doing at least somewhat similar things.) I'll mention reasons not to do this: (a) in context, depending on what "hiding" consists of, it might be weird or register as an inconsistency; (b) given that at least one of us has scored 30+ on the Autism Spectrum Quotient, it seems likely that what you believe I've seen about you and the signals you're sending doesn't match what I've received; (c) for a long-term committed relationship, both of us want much better than borderline, so we should be able to cooperate on finding that out anyway; (d) I value honesty and straightforwardness, and good decisionmaking—and if you truly saw a likelihood of a great long-term relationship with me, but decided to risk it on signaling games that could run afoul of (a) and (b), that strikes me as a bad decision.
You ask specifically about age. I do intend to have kids, which makes the age of my wife-to-be relevant—though if she's fine with IVF and stuff (which has other advantages), that makes age less relevant. I have found women in their forties and fifties sexually attractive (speaking as a 30-year-old), and had romantic feelings for one of the latter—she's extremely smart, reasonably pretty, very competent, very kind, has similar opinions about raising kids, etc. Not all guys like older women, but the popularity of MILF porn indicates that plenty do (there is even a GILF category).
I think the underlying causality is like this:
- If I admire her, then my brain generally endorses the idea of spending time with her, growing to trust her, building a relationship.
- If the first two conditions apply, then, when I imagine interacting with her, I will generally find it enjoyable, and want to do more of it. This can become a self-reinforcing loop. Romantic fantasy can be a lovely pastime.
- The third condition lets the loop begin.
For the record, I have sometimes observed someone form a positive opinion of me based on something shallow or incorrect, and my reaction has been bemused / raising an eyebrow / somewhat lowering my opinion of them.
To be very blunt about this:
Among other things, I'm interested to understand how age factors into the equation (I'm middle-aged).
It is unfortunately the case that male-to-female attraction usually drops strongly with age. This factor is perhaps even more strong than body weight. And unlike weight, it can't really be influenced by you.
But I think there is an important thing you can do: Signalling much more strongly when you are interested in someone. "Do you want to grab a coffee later?" Trying to be active, not passive, even if this goes against the normal female instinct. Of course this is easier said than done. But just "dropping hints" is unfortunately no longer sufficient at a certain age. This is especially true for the ... "nerd cluster" you are interested in: Since those men are often on the autism spectrum to some degree, they may rarely notice those hints. But they may well be interested in you once they fully realize you are interested in them. Older age just prevents them from automatically (subconsciously) noticing you as a potential mate. Moreover, them being often socially awkward will prevent them from being sufficiently active (due to shyness), so they may well be very glad to be "asked out" by you, even if this is a reversal of the normal male/female roles.
(I just realize I could also have written "we" instead of "they".)
As far as age goes, I've never dated someone more than my own age +/- 3 years, althouogh I've occasionally been faintly attracted to significantly older women and often been attracted to significantly younger women.
I've schooled myself to stop evaluating women in terms of "attractiveness," and to start instead evaluating them in terms of being in my league. I start by assuming that the dating market is pretty efficient, then modify that by assuming that women who present as attractive immediately on meeting them tend to be less available and women who take a while to show their attractive qualities are underappreciated. I'm pretty average, and my experience is that dating more attractive women has meant I have to make a lot of tradeoffs in the ethics/brains/stability department, while dating less attractive women means that the opposite holds true. I interpret this as Simpson's Paradox in action.
Because of that, if you are having trouble finding a high-quality stable relationship, I would suggest you consider aiming for somewhat less attractive men with better personalities, while also working to improve whatever aspects of your superficial presentation are under your control. You might try aiming for men who are older than you. I realize this is a little more information than you're asking for, but I actually do think that there's a difference between "noticing that someone has a hot body" and "appreciating that they are attractive." The former feels like kind of a raw perceptive fact, the latter is something that depends on my own behavior. To make men find you attractive, you need to elicit the act of appreciating your attractiveness from them, not just "be attractive." And eliciting the that action from them starts by selecting appropriate targets - the kind of men who will be predisposed to find you attractive often because you're younger and perhaps somewhat more accomplished than them, at least on certain dimensions.
I'm sure answers will vary here, but maybe my datapoint can help you cobble together a fuller picture.
First, the unpleasant reality is that I care about looks way more than is fair or even helpful to me. If I could lower my own weight on that or especially lower my standards and actually find more women attractive, I would pay a decent sum for that. Looks unfortunately subtly influence perception of other qualities. I've had to contend with the fact that my revealed preferences for who I was helping/showing compassion to suggested that being a small female was the largest predictor, despite my own perception that I was doing it out of purely platonic altruism. Any time that looks are being experienced, like a smell in the air, it is a constant + or - to other experiences. For some, unexplained reason, attractive people's jokes feel funnier and their quirks are less annoying. Not fair, but it is what it is.
So that's the bad news. The good news? Personality/relationship actually influences looks! Women often know this about themselves, but it was a surprise for me to realize that my perception of physical attractiveness was changed by my emotions toward a person. It took me literally not recognizing my ex in a photo due to the sharp change in attractiveness to realize that this was happening and changing my perceptions of reality on a subconscious level. I've never had it make someone skinny look obese or vice versa, but all the less quantifiable features of attractiveness are subject to this effect for me.
So, what are the traits that attract me? Well, I don't have the ability to inspect my subconscious directly, but from my revealed preferences and stimulus-response patterns I have some ideas:
1. Gentleness. This could be kindness, softness, compassion, but it all translates into the same thing for me - psychological safety. As a man I'm not supposed to need safety in a relationship, but I guess I do. It doesn't just affect how much I want to open up to a woman but also how much I want to sleep with her. Despite my idea that I only care about the physical for sex, I am much more interested in sex where I expect that whatever I do will be great than where I expect criticism.
2. Positivity - The previous point started to bleed into this one because this also gives psychological safety, but it deserves its own mention. Being happy, easily pleased, easily impressed, friendly, excited, etc are all important, while complaining, nitpicking, nagging, and criticizing are all turn-offs. In general, if I associate her with positive, I feel positively toward her.
3. Rationality - Genpop may not care, but I imagine many LW readers do. Especially in context of a committed relationship, the most important question on my mind is "will this person poke holes in their own boat?". I need someone who I can have a win-win relationship with and who will not persist in behavior that is producing harmful results. Of the features I evaluate consciously/analytically, this may be the top.
4. Moral - This one covers the same types of things as rational, and prohibits harmful behaviors. It's not full overlap though - a rational amoral person may harm me if it will benefit them, and a moral irrational person may harm me when it benefits no one. Especially important moral traits are: trustworthy (relationships are based on trust) and cares about me (aka my wellbeing has weight in their utility function).
5. Enjoying me - After one relationship I found myself dissatisfied in the next in a particular area. I said I wanted "appreciation" and I got thanks for acts of service, which wasn't quite it. So I said I wanted "admiration" and I got analysis of my strengths, which also didn't scratch the itch. I finally landed on "enjoying me being me". Closely related is "seeing the best in me". I want someone who is delighted when I do the things that are most me. Who loves that I make a spreadsheet for restaurants or automate grocery orders. Who loves to hear tales of me doing what I do or sit and watch me the way you watch cool videos of people doing impressive things on youtube - not to grade them, but because it is enjoyable to see. And I want someone who sees the best in me. I am not a fixed quantity, but a range, and I live up or down to what someone sees. I have two brothers. One told me I was great at giving compliments. That brother gets a lot more compliments now. Not intentionally, it just feels like a "me" thing to do around him.
6. Can communicate easily - Communication should feel like an enjoyable flow of ideas, not pulling teeth. Reaching a consensus should be easy too. Whether I convince her or she convinces me doesn't matter so long as we're actually convinced and on the same page.
There are other things I look for, but this feels like a natural significance threshold to stop at. To recap:
Unconscious: Looks, positive and kind, enjoys me and sees the best in me
Conscious: Rational and moral, communicates well.
I put these in rough order of importance. I would assign weights to each, except that the weighting system isn't linear, being acceptable in every category is better than extraordinary in one, and I suspect there are difficult-to-quantify interaction terms.
Like (most?) other answers I can provide my own preferences as a mid-20 heterosexual man. So at least you get many datapoints.
The things most important to being someone I would want to have a long term relationship with are
Physical attraction is not exactly the same thing as looks because looks also on an impact on the other factors and on how I estimate them. For example the way you dress might look good in my eyes but be a bad thing overall because it would be low status for me to introduce you to friends/family/colleagues.
I would say physical attraction is overall overhyped. You need to be above a certain level and if I don't find you physically attractive at all there is little you can do to make up for it. But once a certain threshold is met you reach sharp diminishing returns.
Many things go in being a positive influence on my life. This includes having strength that go well with my profile and goals, for some characteristics this means sharing the same strengths as mine (if you and I both communicate well in the same fashion it can be great), for others this means having strengths that that help with my weaknesses (for example being good at handling situations I struggle with). Also we need to have compatible ideas regarding our life paths (children, where to live, ...)
Being of enjoyable company is mostly about how we vibe. In this what matters is very much the end results: am I happy when we are together. Sex is a big part of it but not the majority.
Overall the best way to convince me you will have these positive influences on me in the future is to have them in the present (if you already help with some problems I have, I am likely to think you will help with other problems in the future). Likewise for being good for my status and especially being enjoyable to spend time with.
Lastly, I wrote above about the kind of profile I would likely want to be with, plenty into your framing of "market value". But another big aspect of what relationships do end up happening is who we flirt with/date. A woman could be perfect for me and I for her but we won't end up together if we don't learn about eachother at some point and decide to try building a relationship. In this I believe the important things are:
If I have to turn all this into advice about how to behave to make men like me seriously consider a relationship with you
[Epistemic status: not really an expert, but I can tell you what I think I know. Also, as a heterosexual male human person with some skill at introspection, I'm sure I have some insights about how men think, but I may have trouble separating that from my own idiosyncrasies.]
Evolutionary psychology tells us that human instincts are optimized for the Stone Age. The period of written history is too short to have contributed much (although there have been some small effects noted in other areas) and the modern era (however you define that) is even shorter.
Those with the appropriate drives who more successfully survived and reproduced contributed to our shared genetic heritage, while those who failed to do that were not your ancestors. Keep that in mind, and the rest will make more sense.
Humans are adaptation executors, not fitness maximizers; the instincts only had to make sense in the Stone Age and may have lost their purpose now.
Beyond instincts, culture and shared experience have a powerful influence on human minds, and this can bend some of the rules. (And, of course, individual human beings can vary a lot.) Culture evolves significantly faster than human genes but still has some inertia. Sexual mores many still cling to evolved in a time before paternity tests, when syphilis ran rampant in the cities, and contraception was unreliable. Under those circumstances, virginity and fidelity were highly valued, and this was perfectly sensible. Even absent social pressures, ignoring the traditional advice may well ruin one's life.
There are important differences in reproductive strategy, between men and women. Men need only pass on a little sperm for their genes to make it to the next generation. Their chances improve if they can contribute resources to their children, but there was a very real risk of supporting the wrong kid in the age before paternity tests. Men instinctively value fidelity and get insanely jealous when they don't have it, and (of course) are very much motivated to cheat. (A woman, on the other hand, knows if the kid is hers, and doesn't instinctively care as much about where the resources come from.) Having kids in tow already lowers a woman's value for similar reasons, because they'll take resources, and they're not his, although a his/hers/ours arrangement can still work if he's got some already. Not totally a dealbreaker for everyone. Sex is not simply for fertilization in humans. It also tends to keep the man around for long enough to help raise the kids.
Women are mainly attracted to (the appearance of) social status, as this translates to resources. Men are mainly attracted to (the appearance of) fertility. A slender waist means she's not already pregnant. Clear skin and long, shiny hair are signs of health. A healthy amount of body fat is not unattractive. Scars aren't genetic, so they're usually not a turn-off, even if it's on your face (provided the other signs are still recognizable), although pock marks are a sign of disease, and therefore a different story. Age can be a dealbreaker, because women have a fertility expiration date (menopause). There are probably many other subtle signs. Older men, on the other hand, remain fertile and may have more resources/status. So older women are competing with younger women even for the older men.
So yes, looks matter. A lot. And men probably care about it more than women do, because their instinct is to look for (the appearance of) fertility. But looks are not the whole story. Once you've met the man's threshold--you look to be fertile, in reasonably good health and appear to have reasonably good genes (usually, if the man estimates you're at least as pretty as he is), then the man is at least a little bit interested, on an instinctive level. Looks beyond that level are bonus points, sure, but other traits start to matter more. You may have competition, ultimately decided on other factors, but you have a chance. If you don't meet the threshold, then sorry, no matter how nice your personality, you'll probably never be more than friends.
There are details and subtleties, and probably signs of fertility that aren't purely visual. You can't look too much like his sister, for example. Visual signs are easier to judge in person than from a photograph; it's totally possible that a man who would skip your profile photo would be attracted to you in person, and vice versa. There's some evidence that natural body odors can convey information about immune system genes.
Either "opposites attract" or "birds of a feather" are too simplistic. Men tend to be attracted to women who share their strengths and may be more forgiving of weaknesses they don't share. They don't want more of their own problems. Again, this makes sense when you consider genes.
I feel like that's just basic background and this comment is already getting long. If you have more specific questions, I might have more to say.
You mentioned a "market value", implying a marketplace. Supply and demand matter, and different markets have different characteristics. You may be more competitive if you find the right one. E.g. women tend to be more submissive, sexually, so a more dominant woman is more valued by submissive men, because they're even more of rarity than submissive men are. (Not my kink.) Find your niche.
If you've met his threshold, a man will be much more interested in you if he thinks you're interested in him. The move obvious you can make it, the better. You can probably exaggerate this to an obsessive/unhealthy degree and he'll be that much more into you, at least at the level of instinct. (If you haven't met his threshold, he'll find this pretty annoying, and/or scary.) Remember, fidelity matters a lot to male instinct, so this would need to be exclusive interest. If you're like that with everyone, it would leave a very different impression.
It's very complicated (really!) and you're not going to get good answers here because there are few LessWrong users for whom this is a pressing concern. Finding which women and scenarios men find most sexually attractive or arousing is easy. Getting a good model of why men-who-have-lots-of-options choose to date or marry particular women is difficult. I don't think I've seen any convincing unifying explanation for all of the interesting features (e.g. men's tendency to do assortative mating by class & intellectual ability, even if they're exposed to attractive women outside their class regularly).
I think red lines are more important for males. They are less picky than females.
Most males are wired to procreate with in proximity, so any female with proximity is most likely to end up having sex with males.
When you introduce more females males have the ability to pick, but then you have more males and males have a hierarchy too.
But male hierarchy is governed by females too in terms of picking partners.
Redlines are things that disqualify a lady from the pick, but other way around most women for this reason seem to be more normative than males.
That is also why most females even less attractive has lot less work to do to eventually have sex and become fertile.
I think fat is important factor.
I believe there are some unconscious phenotypical archetypes males and females have eched into their brains prior to being born.
So for example slender slim males and slender slim females have a typical advantage, but more robust males with more fat, much like females have certain types that pick each other.
This is probably decided prior to being born, much like most things.
Survival strategies mean you need to either care for the few children and be high status or have many kids and hope some of them make it.
Conversely high status males can feed more females and children.
High testosterone means more aggression, but necessarily higher status as intellect had to be selected for even in stone age. Its also obvious that intellect had to be selected for even in females.
Females however lack competitive behaviors and tend towards more subversive tactics.
For female to score here main approach is looking for best fit, which means she just needs to be noticed in group males by the greatest amount of males, where males need to notice attractiveness. It is important that attractiveness is something primed in humans, but developed over time. Attractiveness is therefore not a stable factor.
Another variable is compatibility in world view etc. which also correlates with status.
Status is archetypal thing. Females are relatively selection free they can go up and down the hierarchy, but males have more rigid hierarchy. This probably obvious from military perspective where males shifting hierarchy constantly would cause in fighting and defeating incoherent groups is easier so males have strict hierarchy where archetypal approach to women is more obvious.
Younger males or males that have less sex will probably be less picky.
More sex active males will be more picky and likely also more averse to picking someone less attractive to them and with ideas of procreation where the male intends to stay they will probably have a very specific idea of what they are looking for, whereas females are looking for a variety of males that gives females more flexibility as they are in high pressure, because once they mate they have to stick to child rearing, this means females have to be a lot more flexible in male selection, plus a lot of males are assholes and those don't have a chance if females lacked flexibility.
Females have natural blind spots for psycho guys and abusive types mainly as this is the only way our species can be perpetuated.
There had been multiple conversations on this website about what makes men attractive to women, how can men improve along those axes, et cetera (example). However, AFAICT there were few discussions of what makes women attractive to men. (It can't be just about looks, right? Right??) The men reading this website are probably not representative of the overall population, but this bias is positively correlated with the kind of men I'm interested in, so as far as I'm concerned it's not a problem. Among other things, I'm interested to understand how age factors into the equation (I'm middle-aged).