Estás usando un navegador desactualizado. Es posible que no muestre este u otros sitios web correctamente. Deberías actualizar o usar un navegador alternativo.
How do you design a character that mostly attracts women?
For visuals: it's mostly about what kind of clothes the characters wear. I'm sorry to say that, but most male authors don't know how to dress their characters probably. The women wear revealing clothes, but they don't look good on them while the men wear the most basic fit you have ever seen.
For visuals: it's mostly about what kind of clothes the characters wear. I'm sorry to say that, but most male authors don't know how to dress their characters probably. The women wear revealing clothes, but they don't look good on them while the men wear the most basic fit you have ever seen.
All of this reminds me when Raiden was introduced in MGS2 as a way to get women into the games. Men really didn't liked the change from Snake but still, Raiden became kind of a meme in the MGS community.
He has many of the stated characteristics stated in this thread: Kind of broody, pretty soft face, long hair... The hair part is funny because of the hidden Codec call he has with Emma by the end of the game.
Bald is fine IMO (like a few of my fave video game husbandos, and of course Jason Statham is thirsted over by tons of women), but balding is absolutely haram. No Cyraxx lookalikes and no stupid Skrillex cuts please. If they're going to have hair, go nice and thick or don't bother.
For a while i've been doing character design and damn, this thread is interesting. Some of the male characters i've been doing have been mainly athletic twinks or beefy mountains of muscle that can crush your skull with their bare hands. Dunno why the dichotomy but i just like it.
A personal fav is one of my oldest characters: old, battle scarred, bald, long beard, intense but with a good sense of humor if you break through his no nonsense personality. And so far one of my twinks is a broody loner. Dunno if they would hit a sweet spot or two.
Well...look at every character that women like that men would go..."Really?" to.
For instance: the Phantom of the Opera. Why sure, he's disfigured, but apparently, having a really nice singing voice and a flair for danger is something that made Andrew Lloyd Webber retcon the character and destroy the original love interest.
Or how about Christian Grey. Objectively speaking, that dude is not only an emotionally unavailable asshole whose kink is beating women, but he's rich and has nice abs, so naturally women are going to believe they can tame him.
Basically: take something that your average man would question a woman for being attracted to, and add an overwhelming or supernatural talent, ability or asset, and there you go.
Basically: take something that your average man would question a woman for being attracted to, and add an overwhelming or supernatural talent, ability or asset, and there you go.
This isn't a definition or a tip, it's a corollary, and not a particularly helpful one.
The average man is a cowardly, entitled, retarded, jealous coomer:
he doesn't think he should do anything to attract women (improve her life, wash his ass, etc),
he is jealous of men who do attract women (he doesn't understand how he's different from them)
he is particularly angered by fictional characters, which he equates to single women, and he doesn't understand why a woman would rather stay single or have a sexual relationship withotu sticking duck in china, even as he and his dudebros goon to porn
All IRL-attractive men or fictional characters are going to elicit this reaction from the standard-issue scrote, and it says absolutely nothing about what kind of character would attract women. If you start with "someone who'd be weird to be attracted to" as a character-building prompt, you're going to end up with fail and AIDS. Not "a dwarf skeleton in flipflops" or "a masonic triangle in a top hat" but "a gross fat lazy cheating slob" .
The most basic and reliable criterion of an attractive character is a character who's interested in the woman, every female fantasy has that in the text or tacked on by the fantasist ("I can fix him") or the fandom, and this is the #1 criterion that IRL scrotes fail every damn time.
Both these assholes are 1. autistically focused on a specific woman, and 2. won't force her into a life of drudgery and domesticity.
inb4 "controlling men are bad": the "controlling" romantic lead "forces" the woman to wear a $23M dress and heritage diamonds for a royal ball in her honor, and generally takes on all the domestic responsibility (possibly by offloading it onto CTOs and personal assistants). The average non-criminal male offloads these responsibilities onto the woman -- if you want to have an anniversary party, better save up and arrange it yourself and hope the scrote is sober and hasn't "planned" anything with "the boys" at the last minute -- the fantasy is the extreme opposite of that. The controlling IRL scrote invites his "bro" to rape the woman in exchange for meth, beats her for cheating, and then beats her again for not having food in the home.
This isn't relevant to the post but -- what? From wikipedia, the endings of the novel, the musical, and the movie are the same, the girl kisses the Phantom out of compassion and he lets her and her fiance go, only the epilogue is different (Phantom eventually dies / no one dies / the girl dies of old age and both her husband and the Phantom mourns her).
There's a sequel in which Webber reveals he's gone senile and the Phantom's success is powered not by his alleged genius but by a female prostitute. Maybe it's a weird dig at America (the original was set in Paris). Every character is retconned in the sequel for the worse, and everyone hated it, thus it's not a good example of female tastes.
This isn't relevant to the post but -- what? From wikipedia, the endings of the novel, the musical, and the movie are the same, the girl kisses the Phantom out of compassion and he lets her and her fiance go, only the epilogue is different (Phantom eventually dies / no one dies / the girl dies of old age and both her husband and the Phantom mourns her).
There's a sequel in which Webber reveals he's gone senile and the Phantom's success is powered not by his alleged genius but by a female prostitute. Maybe it's a weird dig at America (the original was set in Paris). Every character is retconned in the sequel for the worse, and everyone hated it, thus it's not a good example of female tastes.
I don't know if you and I are referring to the same thing here (Meg wasn't a prostitute, per se, but the whole story moved to America).
That said: regardless of whether or not you agree with it, it emerged as a sequel because Webber (and enough people to fund it) thought it would be a good idea to say "fuck the integrity of the original story which is an undisputed classic, and undercut it all by saying Christine really loved The Phantom and had his kid instead of Raul's".
And while you might think that the failing of the musical is a point to you, I'm saying that in the grander ether of human experience, the idea was believable enough to be supported by enough people to make the musical happen.
If the goal is to make female readers fans of a male character, a good rubric tends to be, “would he be fun to date but kind of a problem IRL?”
Let the fictional element satisfy the fantasy no sane person would literally want to invite into their own lives, to do real things like co-sign mortgages with you and attend Thanksgiving dinner with your parents etc. Those are the people you actually go after and marry. But they aren’t the ones you might have idly thought about hooking up with but thought better of. No different than how a man might admire a sexy bikini girl with a BPD personality, really.
So that’s the fantasy you’re providing.
Don’t get all extreme and think of it in terms of rape fantasy or some ridiculousness. Think to yourself: Han Solo is cute, fun, and irresponsible. Would a gal let Han Solo take her to a movie? Sure. Would she trust Han Solo to do the laundry when she’s sick with the flu? Less so. Would a gal like a no-commitment fantasy look at what a whirlwind romance with this dude could look like in a world with no laundry and no influenza? Fuck it, why not!
For instance: the Phantom of the Opera. Why sure, he's disfigured, but apparently, having a really nice singing voice and a flair for danger is something that made Andrew Lloyd Webber retcon the character and destroy the original love interest.
Andy didn't do this because of his female audience, he did this because the Phantom character was thinly based on himself and the role of Christine was written for his ex wife, Sarah Brightman, to show off her dancing and singing talents. His ex wife left him, so he made a new musical (which bombed) about how his self-insert totally CUCKED her new husband and she's still in love with the self-insert, then at the end she dies and everyone cries about how tragic their romance was. Oh, and the self-insert didn't die, neener neener, he's now a successful businessman and he's RICH. ALW literally paid a dude to write PTO fanfiction for him and then rewrote the lyrics to some finished songs to be about the fanfic. Then he cast the actors from the sequel musical in the 25th anniversary version of the original, which became the official film version (Ramin and Sierra are great in their roles, though, love them), despite the sequel being a dud that was critically panned. I like ALW's music, but he can be a petty bastard and a diva, and Love Never Dies is a prime example of this behavior.
If you're questioning why enough people thought this was a good idea and went along with it, it's because it was Andrew Fucking Lloyd Webber's idea. He's a legend, and if he says he has a new idea for a musical that's based on one of his greatest hits, you respond "how much will it cost to make?"
Edit: ALW is also (part of) the reason the 2004 movie sucked so hard, because he insisted on full creative control and he and the director made some highly questionable decisions. Despite being a pile of shit visually and plot-wise, it was a financial success, and Gerard Butler's Phantom was a hit with women for whatever reason. He's offensively bad at singing and isn't ugly, so go figure.
byronic heroes, noir characters... the blend of masculine stoic strength mixed with emotional sensibility is seriously at the core of many characters' charms.
Humphrey Bogart was a short guy with a lisp and he still captivated the female viewers that watched Casablanca. Looksmaxxers rip on Ryan Gosling for having a flat facial plane and short clavicles yet everybody loves him in Drive.
How you design your character visually is nowhere near as important as how he is framed in the narrative and his function within it IMO
.
