Tips on how to create a strong romantic male lead?

I agree, especially when it comes off as controlling. For example, the leading female goes to a party with her friends and the male lead is mad because she might see another man there. Or if he decides she doesn't need to work anymore because he doesn't like her male boss.

Some jealousy before they become a couple can work, if it stays to feelings only or maybe a declaration of love. But, the minute he's angry at her, it's a turn off.

 

It's an issue of attraction. You can't 'make' someone be attracted to you; they either are or they aren't. It's nature at work.

With humans, women want men who are strong (protection), good-looking (good genes for procreating), smart (can fix and build things), successful (can provide shelter and security) and who are leaders (captain of the 'tribe'). Bonus points if they are funny/sarcastic, edgy/dangerous and can project indifference toward females in general (this adds an air of challenge to the female and heightens desirability). James Bond has many of those qualities. I think Han Solo is a far better example. If you study PUA (Pick Up Artist) skills, you'll probably be appalled...but what they preach actually works to attract women. Again, at our base we are animals, and we respond to those things that make a mate desirable. Emotions simply cloud it/get in the way. Only humans, out of all the animals in the world, ascribe so much emotional unnecessary baggage to choosing a mate.

This is an area I've recently taken to studying and found it incredibly fascinating.

 

I think success and leadership are like many gender roles: only important because a certain culture says they are. And they come from society, rather than from within (people pay you money which enables you to buy security in the form of food, a house, etc.; people follow you when you lead them). Strength, looks, and handiness, on the other hand, purely come from within. Which is not to say that extrinsic traits have no effect on a woman (they certainly do), but that intrinsic traits are more interesting to write about.

It is a worthwhile endeavor for a writer of fiction to dig below those traits that make a man seem like an effective womanizer on the surface and to identify what makes a man attractive on a primal (almost synonymous with "genuine") level. To design a man who is not merely good at persuading a woman that he is what she wants, but a man who is what she wants if she takes the time alone to think about what she wants. A fictional romance is not supposed to be a guide on how to pick up generic women.

And I hold that an author cannot put too much emphasis on guile. That is, of course, after focusing on the obvious traits like being a good listener who cares about whom he is listening to (without always trying to fix the problem).

 

This is true.

Yes my fatal attraction to highly androgynous bisexual men on the fringe of society, and working in artistic fields earning half my wage is a clear indicator of all of the above. I wondered how long it would take before the classic biology claptrap of PUAs kicked in on this thread. Not very long at all.

I have a theory, the above may be a comfort line some people feed to themselves in order to justify their own limited outlook on human relationships. None of my sexual partners have fed into the standard biology argument stated above. Maybe it's because I'm a free-thinking hominid with preferences and desires of my own rather than a slave to chromosomes. Radical thought I know....

And I hope your studies don't conveniently leave out the sample set that doesn't fit the preferred notion.

 

Maybe some women. I'm going to give my vote on these.

> strong (protection)

Eh. I reluctantly admit that I would have trouble with a man who was physically smaller than me, though I see that as wrong on my part. Strong doesn't matter as much.

> good-looking

In my teens, I had a crush on Jack Klugman. Actually, I still do; it's just harder to maintain a crush on someone who's dead. Does he count?

> smart

Yep. Though that's because I'm smart. I don't think I'd want someone who was drastically different from me in intellect.

> successful

Eh. In a less twisty-turny society, one that didn't reflect the current situation where anything short of serious wealth makes you vulnerable to sudden ruin, I wouldn't care about success beyond making a decent living.

> and who are leaders (captain of the 'tribe').

No. Leadership comes with control and ego issues. I don't want that. Someone who can live independently without a lot of guidance, yes, but not someone who needs to boss others around.

> funny

Yes.

> sarcastic

Iffy. Sarcastic can be nasty.

> edgy/dangerous

No.

> and can project indifference toward females in general

Eew.

The above sounds like what women are stereotypically supposed to want. The emotional characteristics sound like what some men who cling to male stereotypes would like women to want--they allow the men to avoid any sort of vulnerability and to get out of the work of being in an emotional relationship.

Now you may argue that we women don't understand what we think or want, but keep in mind that a book is not reality, so even if you say that we'll be the victim of the non-thoughts clanging around in our pretty little heads... OK, I'll try to be less sarcastic here. (It's not attractive in women, right, only men?)...even if you say that we'll fall for this stuff in real life, remember that in a novel, the female reader has more distance and is therefore extra likely to be able to recognize a jerk.

 

What one woman finds physically attractive is not the same for the next woman. Same thing with what is considered successful. Some are happy if he has a job or if he's happy doing his art.

I hate indifference - I assume he just doesn't like me so I move on. The same thing with men not smiling. I read somewhere that women preferred men who didn't smile. It's the opposite for me.

 

There is not a one size fits all with this. For me personally, I'm usually drawn to male characters who are nonchalant about their own appeal and attributes. Not oblivious, just casual in their recognition...like it's not a big deal if they're above average looking or successful. Confident without arrogance and an air of vulnerability. Smart but curious about things he doesn't know or understand. It's more about attitude and respect. Flaws and fears. You know, humanized.

 

Well, at least I got you gals thinking. I'll elaborate on a few points that some of you may have taken in a way other than I intended.

Strength: this is sort of linked to appearance, but let's be honest...if you're looking for a mate, are you really going to settle for a flabby couch potato or will you lean more toward a physically fit guy who can carry you across the threshold? There's a reason those guys depicted on the covers of romance novels are drawn the way they are.

Good-looking: everyone finds something different attractive, but ultimately the primal drive is about passing on good genes. A decent looking guy with horribly crooked teeth is probably going to turn you off. Some women won't date men who are bald. Many would turn down a guy with a club foot. Oh, we like to think we are above simplistic physical appearances, but if we're honest, we're not.

Intelligence: well, yeah. Who wants to be with someone noticeably dumber than they are?

Successful: what defines success will vary to the individual, but we also call this 'relationship comfort'. Which is better to marry, the guy with a good job and little debt or the perpetually unemployed slacker with ten thousand of credit card debt? The latter is not attractive; that some women choose to overlook such things is indicative of deeper problems (but can make for good fiction!).

Leadership: this doesn't mean bossy; this means able to make decisions. Prime example: you are going out to eat on a date. He asks where you would like to go. "I don't know" is a common response. "I don't know" is not a restaurant. A leader will decide where you are going. A weak man will begin an endless loop argument of "I don't care either; where do YOU want to go?". This is a very simple thing, but think about how frustrating it can be to be with a guy who never, ever makes a decision. It doesn't mean you don't have a say and he will TELL you where you are going; it just means if you honestly don't have an opinion or preference he's capable of handling it.

Funny and sarcastic: everyone loves humor. Not everyone appreciates sarcasm (or 'negs') but it's surprising how many people do. A guy who is not afraid to tease a woman every now and then is confident. A guy who goes through life worrying about pissing off his Special Snowflake winds up being miserable, and the female often is the same way having to tolerate such a guy.

Edgy/dangerous: this doesn't mean he robs banks, but it does mean that if a guy cops a feel of your tush he's not opposed to defending your honor. C'mon girls, you know you'd like it if that happened. If you have no confidence a guy would stand up and protect you...well, I don't know what nice thing I could say about that.

Indifference: probably not the best word to use. What I mean by this is the guy may love you, and think you're the best woman he's ever met, but his normal existence doesn't cease just because you've entered it. A man who loses his independence to the extent he is afraid to do something you may not much care for (say, riding motorcycle) is a) going to be miserable over time and b) probably going to be a pretty dull companion for you.

Okay, so I've spouted my mildly chauvinistic views...what does this have to do with writing a strong romantic lead? The entire point is you need to create a character that the bulk (you'll never get them all) of your readers will want to vicariously place themselves with. The character will probably need to have qualities that are frequently lacking in their own love interest (or, no love interest--in which case you are creating their vision of How It Should Be). A reader may be married to a wonderful man who is a nice guy and a great father, but if he's not beating up bad guys to save her or making a six figure income that desire may be what has her reading your book...and you can give the customer what they want.

I do not believe every element that I discuss above should be a part of your character. But you should examine each facet as something you may wish to include in your male lead's personality profile. Fiction is all about entertaining the reader. It's not that hard to think about what characteristics would excite YOU if you were looking for Mr Right (or Mr Right Now) and create that character, but be honest with yourself and admit 'practical' traits aren't all there is to attraction.

 

Yes, our little pink spangled brains are whirring. Isn't it cute?

Did you miss the Jack Klugman bit? And if I mentally walk through my crushes, across a lifetime....

Yeah. An intelligent, humorous face and an ordinary-man build have remained a theme. John Barrowman/Jack Harkness is a sometimes exception. But I Google Jack Klugman and I can't imagine how any woman could fail to be smitten; he's far, far more attractive than Captain Jack.

And across the threshold? That's a fifties movie fantasy. I'm not mocking any woman who happens to enjoy some fifties movie fantasies, but are you seriously trying to insist that it's universal?

Yes; because that's what marketers think that women want. Me, I find them creepy. They're like... like cats, but without the intelligence. Glurgh.

But why are you assuming that good genes are about "good looking"?

I doubt that a woman trying to raise children in a cave, or a tent, or a peasant cottage, is going to benefit all that much from a man with beautiful hair and bulging biceps. She's going to need someone intelligent, loyal, empathetic, optimistic, smart enough to earn or hunt or gather a living...a lot of social and personality characteristics.

I suspect that even fifty years ago, crooked teeth wouldn't matter that much. In these everybody-has-braces days, I suspect that it's a class differentiator. I think that fear of other classes is a societally taught tendency, not anything innate.

And some women prefer them. In evolutionary terms, baldness happens too late in life to be relevant.

This is the only example that you've given that may have anything to do with survival.

I'm waiting for the peer-reviewed studies.

Intellectual compatibility with a partner is important, yes.

Yes, I would like my partner to be an adult. That includes financial competence, along with many other characteristics that you seem to see as unattractive. Financial competence doesn't mean wealth, it means competence.

That's how you define it. I wouldn't define the ability to make decisions as being about leadership, but about competence. I would, again, like my partner to be an adult.

This sounds like a line of logic designed to justify showing a lack of courtesy and empathy. It's convenient to claim that those things are unattractive--it eliminates the need to try to develop them.

But I demand those things. I want my partner to be an adult.

Oh, of course, I'd be delighted to have my guy get into a fist fight. The injuries, the police, bailing him out of jail, going to court with him, driving him to his weekends in prison, nursing him through the dental procedures to restore his teeth--I can't begin to think of anything more romantic. And, ooh! A man who can't keep his temper in a bar might beat ME up! Or the kids! What a dreamy demonstration of love...

Did I mention that I want my partner to be an adult? Getting into fist fights disqualifies him.

Did I mention that I want my partner to be an adult? Of course anyone, man or woman, should retain their own identity rather than throwing it away for a relationship.

I'm sure that some women long to be with an arrogant child-man overflowing with hair and biceps and perpetually on the verge of being sentenced to Anger Management. I just don't think that it's universal.

Edited to add: Ooh. In 2010 the New York Times named "mansplain" one of its words of the year.

 

I think you misspelled "extremely."

 

@ddavidv, I get the impression you'd enjoy a nice romantic holiday in the Victorian Era. So have I got it right your fictional character hypothesis is that the majority of female readers still look for a cliche in novels?

 

I forgot an important third element: No inclination to tell a woman what she thinks and feels.

 

Personal charisma and mutual recognition. It varies from individual to individual, but somebody who has it ...no matter what they look like or act like ...will attract the opposite sex.

You know ...that person you keep looking at, even when you don't know why. That person who cuts through the crap to say exactly the right thing, something that makes sense, or provides insight you'd not thought of before. That person who notices how you are feeling and takes action to make you feel better. That person who always has your back in a tough situation—THAT'S what makes you feel safe, not a person's physique or ability to fight off predators. That's the person you instinctively trust. That person who makes you forget about everybody else in the room, even if you don't let on. The person who brings out your best side, your most honest persona, who doesn't expect or want you to be different from your core self. That person who makes you want to touch them, and to do whatever you can to protect THEM from harm or insult.

I think it's important, as writers, to recognise that an attractive character (male OR female) will be best portrayed by how other characters react to him, or her. Just listing physical characteristics won't do the trick, because everybody has different standards of beauty and desirability (as per discussion above! .) Instead, your other characters need to feel what you want your readers to feel, when your 'strong romantic lead' appears.

 

jannert I want to like your post about five hundred times. you've cut right to the heart of the original question--and once again, it comes back to show, don't tell. don't tell us how sexy-attractive Romantic Lead is; show it, in the reactions of other characters, in the actions they take and the decisions they make. I've noticed that a lot of excellent characters are barely fleshed out in appearance--they might have red hair, or wear glasses, but other than a few details, the rest is left to the reader's imagination. if your Romantic Lead behaves attractively, then the reader will fill them in as the most attractive person they can imagine, in ways you never could have imagined.

 

Sounds like you might just be be a hipster.

 

Sorry, dude, you're just wrong on most of these accounts. While these traits are probably desirable in fantasy , for most, they are not desirable in practice.

If you look around you'll see lots of girls with average looking, well tempered guys. Good looks and too much testosterone is too much to handle. Besides, then the girl has to worry about him being stolen.

Leadership? No thanks. Modern women got that one covered. Don't you remember Katniss?

Edgy, dangerous? Then who the hell is going to take care of the kids?

Indifference? Think about it. I'm a 20 something year old, insecure girl. I go to yoga three times a week and run twenty minutes every other day on the treadmill. I think I'm cute, but I still got a bit of a flab on the waist, and I just don't have Kate Uptons boobs or Alexandra Ambrosia abs. Oh, look at that gorgeous guy! I bet he'd never be interested in me. Maybe if I just smiled in his direction, or if I slow down in front of him at the door. Oh no, he looks annoyed, probably in a hurry to go meet his model girlfriend.... "Sorry!"

I don't think anything I'm saying is too out there. After all, how many people fantasize about skydiving, or starting a rock band, hiking across South America, or any other really awesome, but equally risky and difficult endeavor, without ever attempting to do them?

You'll find the same observations in academic studies, it just won't be worded half as artfully

 

This is one of the most frustrating threads I've read on here. The way the OP clings to female stereotypes is so depressing. People are people. We're all different and yet not that different at all. What women want and what men want are a lot simpler and closer together than anyone wants to admit, for some reason.

Just write your damn story and stop overthinking it. Surely you've lived with women in your life and observed them in relationships. Surely you've garnered experience of successful and unsuccessful relationships. Stop trying to pussyfoot around and create a realistic woman, you already know what that is, and it's not a list of biological or socially constructed desires.

 

Close but no cigar, wrong generation.

 

Beatnik?

 

Like James Bond but more respect for women?!

Sounds like your heading straight for the Gary Stu iceberg. Women are James Bond's kryptonite- his only real weakness- so that works.

When you create a character who is smooth, classy, always says the right thing, and treats women like goddesses, your going to end up with a boring flat romantic interest.

If you are going to create a romantic male figure, treat him like any other character and be sure to give him some serious flaws. Not small pointless flaws like "a small scar on the cheek" which you will never mention again, but series character flaws.

Romantic should not = Perfect person

Just remember that perfect characters are usually boring. More often than not, it is the flaws that really define the person and make them unique, so don't be afraid to throw a few into the mixing bowl of character traits.

 

I'm writing a romance where the lead male is a single father and a tax accountant. No great wealth or physical fights. Plus, he's shorter than most women. He's a good man, though.

 

It's difficult to say because it's a combination of things, and most of it lies in how the character reacts to things that really matter, in particular how he treats people. For myself, I always write what I'd personally find attractive. It's a good tip to follow cus it always works, actually - the drawback from that is of course to some extent your romantic males might come out all looking fairly similar, but then again - kindness looks pretty similar whoever shows it, so different characters possessing similar traits may not necessarily be an issue.

 

I've never actually quite understood people when they say, "Make sure you throw in a few character flaws!" Now I agree with you it's often the flaws that define people and make them dynamic, and perfect characters can be dull. However, the idea of "add character flaws" has never worked for me - I just forget about them.

I think far more important is - make sure your character is human. If he's truly human, trust me, flaws will crop up all by themselves! Make sure the character stays true to how he is unless there's a really good reason to behave out of character, and you're bound to find interesting things about the guy. I don't see that my characters have any major flaws - to me I always feel like I'm writing them as being perfect, but time and again I've been told they're not perfect at all, but they're nonetheless very, very likeable and sympathetic. Now, my characters are nothing very complex, at least not to me, but they seem to do the job fine lol

 

You have permission to base your character off of me if that helps.

 

Good job here.

I think it has to do with the fact that even if you think you're an awesome person, someone out there hates you. If you write from the soul, your characters are going to inherently have flaws.