Do you like men with High-Pitched Voices {Ladies Only!}

Post Reply New Topic

The 'sheesh' wasn't directed towards you I just dislike being misunderstood.

Interesting... I am a deep bass, to the point of often getting comments from others, even some mocking as a result. At the same time, I get some compliments/questions why I do not do radio - odd combination. Personal thought is that it is the result of the training and mimicry... perhaps someday I will understand. Interesting to get female perspective... has been good and bad thus far.


M.

I like listening to tenors singing, but baritones and lighter bases have the sexiest speaking voices.

regarding 'shallow and superficial,' study after study has shown that, where females choose males over some 'superficial' factor (which rooster has the reddest comb, which peacock shakes its tail the most, which blackbird sings the longest, which frog has the deepest croak, etc), those females which were able to mate with higher-status males tended to have healthier offspring. In other words, females tend to focus on a trait that reflects the general fitness and health of a mate.

Humans may be a little more complex, but don't call it superficial just because you don't understand it.

I am seriously attracted to a man with a deep voice, but I know if I were in a relationship with a man with a higher voice, it would become endearing to me.

I prefer deep voices, which is partly a sensory thing- they are easier on my ears, and I process them better- but I wouldn't mind if a guy I liked had a high-pitched voice. About the only one of my preferred physical traits for partners that is non-negotiable is that they must be male.

Hi,

I think you've accidentally contradicted yourself a bit there - i.e. women are shallow/stakes are higher in choice of mate - but I think I know what you mean...which is that women can afford to be choosier rather than that they waste time that should be used for discerning important male attributes in favour of making selections from superficial criteria when judging a potential mate:

Absolutely. Women are far fussier than men, but they have no more 'choice' when it comes to those vital attributes than they do about whether or not to sneeze. They just THINK they do. As you imply, they have to be choosy - the future of our species depends on it (pick an unhealthy male, be it physically or mentally, and your offspring have little chance at long-term survival and/or successful gene continuance). So, in fact, rarely are those choices based upon shallow/superficial whims (apart from those, as already stated, that ARE made under greater conscious influence AFTER the male has passed the more important 'tests').

Whilst timbre of voice hasn't actually been proven to indicate reproductive quality in the male, it possibly once did initially. Deep voices do have other benefits, however - eg. children take more notice of deeper voices - especially useful for 'final say' disciplining by the male. This possibly is why we women are affected by it and see a higher pitched voice as slightly feminine (thus not an optimum pair-bonding quality). The happier news, however, is that since the rise of feminism, women are demanding more feminine qualities in their potential mates on both fully- and sub-conscious levels (which is to ensure success of the relationship itself within a societal era when relationship break-ups are rife), so I would imagine that the man's higher-than-usual timbre would be more appealing on a conscious level to such women who have experienced problems with highly macho men who cannot or refuse to meet their important relationship needs.

In fact ....hey! - "ping!! !" - thinking about it: my new boyfriend's voice is slightly higher than my ex-husband's. Well...there you go then (?).

So, in actual fact, it's men who can afford to be superficial, hence their No. 1 need in a female mate is that she be attractive physically and his No. 2 need is that she admire him. But then you could always boil this down too and say that facial attractiveness is or once was also indicative of good genes.

But - stuff all of that! More telling and 'juicy' from my POV is the fact you sound a tad bitter ("...loike t' Murphy's"). Have you by any chance just finished a relationship with a shallow type after having found the previous ex likewise shallow?????? xoxo

I dont like too deep voice but I dont really like high pitch eithier but in my experience its only gay men that have voice high pitched. Real men only have h pitch voice in bed.. if you know what I mean.

Don't we all! But the question is always, Who should take responsibility for the fact that a message fails to be conveyed effectively? Is it the communicator or the recipient?

Since effective communication is highly pertinent to male/female relationships when it comes to its potential co-created problems (Men Mars, Women Venus), I think you should start a new thread or sub-thread (...or have I just done that for you anyway??).

Included in interpersonal communication is that about Who You Are. So we could say that Crackedpleasures' 'message' (i.e. his attempts to outwardly express who he is via his image) isn't being communicated effectively, i.e. in the way he wants...assuming he actually IS 'bovvered' by people misassuming he's gay? (I imagine so, though, when it must affect his Stranger-Attracting power). People simply don't have time to dedicate any significant processing effort when deciphering the specific message contained in strangers' outward images, and will almost instantly plonk the individual into one of a limited number of mental pigeonholes available, according to past experience of various 'types'. If he wishes to come across as totally unique on that score then he has to appreciate that this particular pigeonhole probably doesn't pre-exist in most people's minds and therefore his message will have to be 'explained' more comprehensively, either verbally or via finetuning his visual message (that or move to Brighton!).

In fact, Cracked, I rather think that your wish for instant understanding like that IS a very "feminine" quality itself (hence why historically it's usually women who care about their image to that high degree).

In my experience, women tend to want to be understood far more desperately than men on every level (possibly because they are necessarily more complicated thus have trouble or doubt in understanding themselves and so seek help in doing so?). So they tend to not only get more upset when misunderstood by the male ("Sheesh") but also very impatient/intolerant.

When misinterpretation occurs in a treasured relationship, meaning that being understood by their beloved male is considered vital by them, they then start to pressure the man by supplying even MORE (and faster paced) information in order to qualify and clarify where they're coming from, rather than give the guy time to process after calming down by backing off a little. He then starts to withdraw from this pressure due to his brain 'flooding', which, in turn, upsets the woman even more because she misconstrues his behaviour as Rejection. ....and there you have a typical relationship argument that grows to 'sticking point' proportions - which then demands calm and logical dissection of the issues concerned in order to understand what happened to cause the argument and why, and how to avoid that misunderstanding from recurring in the future (...which isn't easy when you feel like you want to slap their faces or bash them over the head with a heavy-based saucepan!).

Men are far slower than women, IMO, in processing emotional information - especially when failure to do so might harm their own welfare (i.e. result in breaking up with their romantic partner), and research now shows that males are FAR more emotionally sensitive than women. But I find in my own relationship that, given 24hrs or so, he'll come to the correct and inevitable conclusion(s). I just have to give him greater time than myself to digest it all. He is, to be fair, far faster than the avg male, due to having a more feminine mind in terms of emotional expressability. This, combined with him being non-chauvenistic in his attitude towards women, is why our arguments are highly constructive and serve to bring us closer after each 'debriefing' (unlike the ex who would refuse to even admit we had an issue that needed discussing).

So, in conclusion, my opinion is that the onus lies with the communicator, not the listener.

...Discuss xoxo

Do you have a source for that research? I'm interested in reading it.

Research indicates (generally) that women have more connections to the other side of their brain than men do. Thus making it more difficulty for men to use thier emotional
art side of thier brain but better at using logic, like maths and tings and vice versa for women.
Our brains are actually 'physically' wired different. There is evidential research that support this.

Yeah males have bigger brains but females have better connections. That's my theory on why more males have AS than females, females because of their better connections can handle it better.

Classic Autism is one to one between females and males.

Well they say bigger heads can indicate: problems
& are you a woman Mr Bogan

Yes shallow superficial etc are instincts to pick better genes. I'm attacted to an beautiful woman rather than an ugly woman for a reason, younger healthy women are the most attractive because they will be better child bearers. Evolution explains it all.

I'm just finding it hard to like and trust women for the reason that they are more interested in my attributes than me as a person.
You can't really have a proper relationship with a person like that.
Say if I find out that a woman only likes me because of my attributes, I'll just use her because she in a way is just using me. I'm still thinking on this one..

I guess I'm very picky myself on women that are very picky.

Sadly I can no longer remember the exact journal or book I read it in; I only remember it because being pertinent to my own situation at the time it impacted onto my memory, but here's an article along the same lines that alludes to the fact that boys are at least as equally emotionally sensitive:

(From the US News & World Report, 2001; Science & Ideas cover story by Anna Mulrine)

"Today, scientists are discovering very real biological differences that can make boys more impulsive, more vulnerable to benign neglect, less efficient classroom learners--in sum, the weaker sex. "The notion of male vulnerability is so novel, but the biological facts support it," says Sebastian Kraemer, a child psychiatrist in London and author of a recent British Medical Journal article on male fragility. "We're only just now beginning to understand the underlying weakness of men, for so many centuries almost universally projected onto women."

What's more, social pressure often compounds biological vulnerability. "Boys today are growing up with tremendous expectations but without adequate emotional fuel or the tools they need to succeed in school or sustain deep relationships," says Eli Newberger, a pediatrician at Boston Children's Hospital and author of The Men They Will Become. Girls now outnumber boys in student government, honor societies, school newspapers, and debating clubs. A recent study found girls ahead of boys in almost every measure of well-being: Girls feel closer to their families, have higher aspirations, and even boast better assertiveness skills. "I regularly see girls who are both valedictorian and captain of the soccer team, but I almost never see that in boys," says Leonard Sax, a family physician and psychologist in Poolesville, Md.

Schools are taking note, too--and they are beginning to act. Early childhood specialists, concerned with ever accelerating curriculum demands, are advocating delayed entrance of boys into kindergarten, to give them time to catch up with girls developmentally. Other districts are experimenting with single-sex classrooms within coed schools, in the hopes that all-boy classes will allow boys to improve standardized test scores in reading and writing, much the way girls have narrowed the gap in math and science. (Currently, the average 11th-grade boy writes with the proficiency of the average eighth-grade girl.) In response to charges of the "feminization" of the classroom--including, critics argue, female teachers with too little tolerance for the physicality of boys--schools are beginning to re-examine their attitudes toward male activity levels and even revamp disciplinary techniques. The measures aren't without skeptics. "Isn't it ironic that it's only been in the last two decades that we've really considered making schools equitable for girls," says David Sadker, an American University professor and pioneer in research on girls' treatment in the classroom. "And now people are already saying, `Whoa, too much time on girls. Let's get back to boys.' " Pole position.

Yet the latest research not only documents boys' unexpected vulnerabilities but indicates that they can be traced back to the womb. While more boys than girls are conceived (the speculation is that sperm carrying the male's Y chromosomes swim faster than those carrying the larger X), this biological pole position doesn't last long, says Kraemer. Perhaps to offset the speed advantage, when mothers experience stress, male embryos are more likely to perish. The male fetus is at greater risk of peril from almost all obstetric complications, including brain damage, cerebral palsy, and premature birth. By the time a baby boy enters the world, he is trailing the average girl, developmentally, by six weeks.

[NOTE:]
"Male newborns are also more emotionally demonstrative than females--a fact that has been shown experimentally despite the cultural stereotype to the contrary. When asked to rate photos for expressiveness, adults who had not been told the children's sex were far more likely to dub boys "more intensely expressive" than girls. And when researchers intentionally misidentified the boys as girls, adults gave the boys presumed to be girls the highest expressiveness marks. In other words, their actual perceptions trumped the stereotypes.

What's particularly interesting, says Thompson, is that while there is evidence that boys may feel more stress in emotional situations, they routinely show less.

[NOTE PARTICULARLY:]
When placed within earshot of a crying baby, boys have higher increases in heart rate and sweatier palms than girls. But their behavior belies their biological reaction: Their typical response is to turn off the speaker broadcasting the crying. "
[And if that isn't akin to the same psychological reasons for emotionally (even physically) withdrawing from a stressful, upsetting argument with someone who means the world to them, then I don't know what is!]

"Judy Chu, a researcher at Harvard University, has also noted how boys' behavior often masks emotional inclinations. "Boys are a lot more attuned and a lot more sensitive than people give them credit for," she says.

Chu spent two years having conversations with a group of boys in a preschool classroom outside Boston. At age 4, the boys candidly discussed their feelings about subjects that ranged from sharing toys to hurt feelings. "They were insightful in ways I hadn't expected--so articulate and attentive," says Chu. Over time, however, as the expectations of parents, teachers, and peers compounded, the boys' behavior changed. "They became inattentive, indirect, and inarticulate," says Chu, "and self-conscious about what other boys thought."

Chu recalls one child who was friends with a preschool group of kids who had dubbed themselves "the mean team." "I'm friends with all of the girls," he told Chu. "But if Bill [the unofficial leader of the team] finds that out, he'll fire me from the team." As the result of these observations, Chu firmly believes that boys lose their voice, much as girls do in adolescence, and begin to camouflage feelings and behaviors that might put them in conflict with other boys. Their friendships also begin to change. "We associate girls with the sharing of secrets, the emotional intimacy, and boys with the sports and activity-oriented friendships," says Niobe Way, a professor of psychology at New York University. "But what's interesting is that these very tough boys talk about wanting friends to share their secrets with, to confide in...."

Hope that helps? xoxo

PS: Oy! - whaddamI? - your personal secretary???! !! That'll be £50 please...

PPS: Whilst I'm at it: my own theory is that males the Western world over are emotionally abused (non-deliberately) from the age of about 3/4 yrs of age. Nowhere will you hear parents say to a girl 'Right, Missie - time to turn you into a REAL woman' or 'Stop being such a big boy's blouse!' This patriarchal societal system feeds the misconception of what constitutes the masculine ideal, and people pounce onto any stereotype without questioning it, in order to save time (pigeonholing again). Boys are therefore blocked in terms of normal, healthy avenues of emotional expression and inevitably learn 'act out' their emotional upset and frustrations instead (which is vital for emotional release and relief).

Most men are, if you ask me, expert Machievelli. In fact, the more Macho they are, the more this is the case (- take my ex2b (someone, PLEASE!! !!)). The difference with women is that they will point out their acting out to you (for fear you might miss it otherwise) by behaving uncharacteristically cooly/formally until such point as you feel compelled to ask 'Have I done something to upset you?', at which point they say '(Sniff!)...Nope!... I'm fine, thanks' (when clearly they're not!). Men rarely give that warning signal and instead wait for you to demand that they tell you what you've done (based on the evidence of their protracted uncooperative behaviour), whereupon they still deny it and say something like 'Tsk! - don't start...!'...upon which we women become enraged because we're not acting but merely REACTING to a hidden action (i.e. undertow messaging)...and there commences the row (and out come the saucepans) (sorry, LucySix (not)...but I ain't stopping until you tell me what exactly he did to deserve that, you Tease, you! ) xoxo

Ah, yes, but, no, but... You do realise that it's you who is doing the choosing here (beyond the sub-conscious criteria of healthy reproductive system, healthy mind, value compatibility, nurturing capability, sensitivity, etc., I mean)? What are your issues, then, that you are choosing women whom you can sense are unable to look deeper into you? What are you hiding from being 'winkled' out (no pun or double-entendre intended!! !...for once!)?

If there are sides to you deeper within your psyche that you aren't comfortable with then it makes sense to choose a woman (from amongst your particular chemically-compatible 'tribe') who lacks the ability to pinpointedly identify and analyse those issues, lest she bring them to your attention when your whole point of hiding them is firstly and foremostly to do so from yourself (and trying saying all of THAT after 10 pints!).

Analogy: if you were a criminal who had recently committed one or a number of crimes in your district, you wouldn't then pursue a woman who happened to be a sh*t-hot detective in that same district, would you. So it's the same with your issues.

In order to 'choose' a woman who can connect on the deeper level that you so obviously desire, then you'll have to reveal yourself to yourself first, followed by accepting your 'warts' as well as your strengths (like everyone). Then, with nothing left to feel you have to hide from yourself directly and/or via anyone else noticing them and raising these issues, you'll feel safer in choosing a deeper and more analytical mate.

Clearly you like the 'superficial' strengths you possess, so I think, rather, it's YOU who uses these as a smoke-screen and Stop Sign where women are concerned.

So what happens is that you make your safe choice, THEN when you feel safer with her in terms of mental intimacy, you secretly begin to expect/demand that she become more meaningfully closer to you too, and then spit the dummy when she can't. And the reason she can't is that when growing up, her most obvious attribute (her good looks) will have been the one that got praised the most and thereby decreased her need to be noticed via her personality. (Not saying that ALL beautiful women are like this, but the majority).

I could help you identify your self-esteem anxieties, if you like? I'm sure they're not even a fraction as bad or shameful as you fear (they never are). RSVP. xoxo

As long as the high-pitched voice isn't
little-kid squeaky nor high enough to break a window,
guys with high voices are just fine.