# Is it actually shallow to value potential mates for their looks?



## NipNip (Apr 16, 2015)

No because I think there is more to looks than just looks (there is a great deal of personality in there).

Plus, some sort of physical attraction is probably necessary for the full 'love package'.


----------



## BenevolentBitterBleeding (Mar 16, 2015)

At first I was wanting to write that if after waking up from a nightmare, I wouldn't immediately want to have a jump scare...

But reading through this thread gave me this thought of no. actually, I don't think I think wanting someone based primarily on looks is shallow at all.

Cause their looks most likely played a large role in the person that they are have become.

Liek, people may immediately assume that all good looking people have it easy, and all uggos have it hard, but I think there are a lot of good looking people whom get bullied because the uggos are jealous, and maybe that statistically there are more of them to gang up on attractive peoples, so it's actually really unfair to us. 👀 vice versa too i guess... 



in some way or anothers​


----------



## Lonewaer (Jul 14, 2014)

*If* valuing potential mates for their looks is shallow, *then* valuing potential mates for their financial stability is shallow.

That's the premise. I'll let everyone come to their own conclusions.


----------



## mug_cake (Jul 18, 2021)

I honestly doubt it's something people have much control of. I don't think people can make themselves attracted to someone it just happens. Thankfully we all have a variety of physical and personality traits we like so not many of us are forever lonely. When I look for a partner I seek out what I feel like is a "fair exchange" of traits. I would not pick someone I considered ugly, stupid, or low-income. Because I am not ugly, stupid, or low-income. However I am not a genius, billionaire, or a super model therefore it's unreasonable to expect my partner to be such.


----------



## BenevolentBitterBleeding (Mar 16, 2015)

Ever wonder when deep people get together with unattractive mates because they fell in love with their personalities or whatever, and then one day the mate is like yo, do you think I'm beautiful? Or they ask if they thought they were beautiful when they first got together with them?

Do you think deep people(because they're more deep) like, do they be honest with their partners and say no, sorry I thought you were pretty ugly, but your personality and sense of humour won me over? I was thinking about this last night, like how does that conversation really go? You love a person, so honesty is good right? But even if you try to sugarcoat it how does it actually go...

I told a partner once I didn't think they were that attractive when we first got together, and I think that actually was a starting point of it to slowly die. Like, maybe they realized I was in it for something else, even though by that point I was in it for more.

Anyways the thought that brought that up I think had something to do with like a parallel to liking someone for their beauty. Like, it's not okay to like a person solely for their beauty, but would it be okay to like someone solely for being unattractive? I was finding it hard to argue why that'd not be okay. So is there some kind of double standard?

If I saw a disabled person, and felt a sudden pang of sentimentality, and wanted to know more about them, that's okay right? So like, if we replace disability with facial disfigurement it's still okay right? Now if I see a beautiful person, and feel a pang of x, y, z, is that not okay?

Man I really need like, a non shallow person to explain to me what's right and wrong here and what's okay or not...


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

edited to try to remove as much snark as possible...or at least air-deep snark:

Just as looks might be compared to an iceberg, sticking out from the depths--the only "visible" part...

And some might even call that "shallow" or "superficial"...

That is "depth-shaming." And instead, we should consider that the tip of an iceberg, even if it's not "deep" in the ocean, it is deep in air.

I mean, just because you can see through air doesn't mean it's not a substance. Calling the tip of the iceberg the superficial part of the iceberg is ignoring the tremendous depth of air and other invisible substances, or even nothing.

One should not depth-shame the tip of the iceberg and the air that it is soooo deep in, but rather use terms like "air-deep" or "nothing-deep" to reflect that everything is deep.


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

WickerDeer said:


> Just as looks might be compared to an iceberg, sticking out from the depths--the only "visible" part...
> 
> And some might even call that "shallow" or "superficial"...
> 
> ...


My vote goes to air-deep! Also, the epidermis can be 1.5mm thick on the soles of feet so that's deep too.


----------



## Joe Black (Apr 1, 2015)

HAL said:


> I'm pretty sure ideals around looks are somewhat ingrained at an evolutionary level. There will obviously be cultural factors at play, but if Mr and Mrs Stone-Age decided to make babies because they liked the way each other looked, then those babies are going to inherit the underling genetic trait that makes a person pick a mate based on a particular look or physique.
> 
> There is obviously _massive_ variation to this, and some of it is definitely cultural rather than natural, but I don't think we can simply teach people to find unattractive things attractive.
> 
> ...


Good point! Actual healthy people don't look like those airbrushed hollow husks do they? You're not as shallow as the movie! 😂 Can't believe that actor has the same last name as me. The shame.

I also find it funny how lighter skin people find beauty in being tanned and darker to signify that they're not so pale and sickly, bedridden indoors, but somehow healthy by spending time in the sun doing some physical activity. And how some darker skinned ethnicities find beauty in being lighter to signify that they're not the poorer-socio-economic class of people who slave away in the sun.

Then you got the cultures where food is more scarce, that being slightly rounded looks "healthy" and "rich" to signify that you're well nourished have plenty of money. So cultures where food is abundant "healthy" could look like you're not fat to signify that you've got self control (which may signify willpower and productivity) and don't have massive amounts of cholesterol and fat and that you may have an active lifestyle.


----------



## CountZero (Sep 28, 2012)

I used to be of the opinion that valuing someone's looks was very shallow. But over time my position has become more...nuanced. Looks can play an important part in initial attraction. How well a partner presents themselves can also be interpreted as a statement on how much they value the other in their relationship. If you show up to a date disheveled and sloppy, that doesn't send a great message. 

And some more recent readings have pointed out that a healthy sexual attraction can actually keep a relationship exciting and healthy. But attraction is just part of the equation; I really doubt that it can carry a long term relationship very far by itself. Now for a casual relationship that may be all that it's about, but I don't have much experience with those.


----------



## Joe Black (Apr 1, 2015)

CountZero said:


> I used to be of the opinion that valuing someone's looks was very shallow. But over time my position has become more...nuanced. Looks can play an important part in initial attraction. How well a partner presents themselves can also be interpreted as a statement on how much they value the other in their relationship. If you show up to a date disheveled and sloppy, that doesn't send a great message.
> 
> And some more recent readings have pointed out that a healthy sexual attraction can actually keep a relationship exciting and healthy. But attraction is just part of the equation; I really doubt that it can carry a long term relationship very far by itself. Now for a casual relationship that may be all that it's about, but I don't have much experience with those.


Yeah, and also I think the baseline for guys should be: "Your partner should also be able to give a hard on." (whatever the appearances are). But if you want a mutually sexless, celibate relationship then that's up to you. Being turned on is also in the mind too. How she acts, her words, association with things, your expectations. Even a personal and emotional bond can transcend appearances - "Demisexual" attraction.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

To me it’s shallow to put a value on a mate just for their looks.

I don’t think it’s shallow to consider it a bonus if they are extra ‘hot’ to the beholder. But to simply hunt people out just for their looks? I really can’t relate. I’m being serious. I’ve dated probably
2-9s. 🤷🏻‍♀️.

I’d feel really slimey if that were my emphasis. And Ive felt really shitty when that’s been an emphasis of others.

Usually whether I find someone physically attractive has everything to do with how attractive I find them on the inside too tho. I’m guessing I’m somewhat demisexual. Can’t say fully. But enough so that I’ve kissed some frogs along the way willing to see if they’re my royal mate 🤣.

I think there’s something to people being mismatched. And it can be naive to not acknowledge sometimes these things will matter in social politics of life. Acknowledging it exists and is a factor and can contribute to influencing dynamics I think is just realistic. But basing all of life’s choices on how everything looks, well to me that’s insane.

I work with alotta old people tho. So it’s easy to see how aged everyone gets etc. sorta see what most people usually desire later in life when they’re all stripped of property, good health, titles, etc. Which is connecting with people they have a kindred spirit with. 🤷🏻‍♀️.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

Oh and to answer you. 

I’m more likely to screw a hot person if it’s just for sex. Because if I’m going to screw a stranger it’s to get my rocks off not for connection.

If I’m looking for a mate than I’m basing my attraction on the level of mutual chemistry, intimacy, etc felt. That sorta thing isn’t something that comes from looks it comes from connecting


----------



## Electra (Oct 24, 2014)

When I looked at the headline I thought it said "is it superficial to value potential mates for their books"


----------



## odinthor (Mar 22, 2017)

Electra said:


> When I looked at the headline I thought it said "is it superficial to value potential mates for their books"


Only if you judge them by their covers.


----------



## Electra (Oct 24, 2014)

odinthor said:


> Only if you judge them by their covers.


Never judge a book by its cover 😆


----------



## eeo (Aug 25, 2020)

Sensational said:


> If I’m looking for a mate than I’m basing my attraction on the level of mutual chemistry, intimacy, etc felt. That sorta thing isn’t something that comes from looks it comes from connecting


In my experience people only approach those they find physically attractive. Only then the connection, the chemistry, intimacy, etc has a chance to develop. It doesn't just happen on its own, does it?

That's why I also don't think basing things on looks is more shallow than any other way to weed out people you don't want to be around. If it's the only criterion when you'd rather have something more substantial as well, then this approach wouldn't make you happy anyway, in the end. But some people can also be happy living only in shallow moments, so to each their own.


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

I don't think so, unless you're leading them on. 

So, if that's the only thing someone liked about a partner, but they were pretending to actually like that person for sex or something, but didn't actually like them at all then I'd say the person is a jerk.

*___*

With that being said, I've dated people who weren't super physically attractive, because I like their personality more or whatever, and it turns out, I much prefer being into how a partner looks. Like, if you're my friend, I don't need to find you hot.... But if I'm supposed to want to go to bed with you? It's fairly important lol


----------



## attic (May 20, 2012)

I think I agree what I think many have written in some form, that is shallow or perhaps moreso just problematic in some way, when it is only about looks. You don't like the person but start a relationship for the looks only. Because who wants to be that person? it feels like using someone.

But it is also a bit of a problem if starting a relationship with someone and not liking the looks/feeling attracted, and then it shows as the relationship progresses and just lead to people hurting, either by staying and feeling unattractive to one's loved one, or leaving a loved one, perhaps it is better not to start that in the first place. (of course depending on people and how important they find the physical aspect). Most people has some sort boundary I guess, even if not going for the bestlooking person at all times, that there needs to be a basic attraction to grow from, and no repulsion. I don't think anyone is happy in a relationship where one would say "I love your personality and mind to bits, but I am repulsed by your body!", better to just be best friends or something then...

I am sure it also differs between people, but there's also different kind of ways to appreciate looks. There is the general attractiveness, personal taste, but then there is also the kind that can grow, more of an attachment, that you like a person and grow fond of their looks. It has happened to me quite a bit. Like in my teens when I had a crush on a guy who started to get lots of pimples, and then for years after I found people with cheeks with pimples or scars from them looking oddly endearing. So it can be things like that even, that I would before see as a minus. But also just liking things about their looks, especially if somehow connecting to how they are. Like I like the shapes around my spouses eyes, and the little wrinkles, as they are his and I associate them to how he is.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

eeo said:


> In my experience people only approach those they find physically attractive. Only then the connection, the chemistry, intimacy, etc has a chance to develop. It doesn't just happen on its own, does it?
> 
> That's why I also don't think basing things on looks is more shallow than any other way to weed out people you don't want to be around. If it's the only criterion when you'd rather have something more substantial as well, then this approach wouldn't make you happy anyway, in the end. But some people can also be happy living only in shallow moments, so to each their own.


I mean yeah if you’re cold calling and just walking up to people.

But often times people don’t just see someone and magically walk up to them. Sometimes people meet organically in mutual settings which are not based on mating. I.e. Through Family, Friends, Work etc. I’d say when people meet in social settings and are platonic it’s easy to possibly become attracted to someone one maybe wouldn’t have picked up off the street. Sometimes seeing someone in their element of thru other contacts, shared interest settings, etc would impact a connection.

It has definitely happened to me in those settings most where I have become more attracted to people when I wasn’t seeking anything specific because the setting wasn’t set for that.

So yes you’re right if someone is just going to walk up to a stranger and approach odds are it’s more likely based on looks. Agreed. Hence why I even said if I was just going to have a one night stand or something etc. But I disagree with you in misc organic settings that are platonic initially, that a connection is always formed on looks.

Fondness often grows in shared occupancy settings.


----------



## eeo (Aug 25, 2020)

Sensational said:


> I mean yeah if you’re cold calling and just walking up to people.
> 
> But often times people don’t just see someone and magically walk up to them. Sometimes people meet organically in mutual settings which are not based on mating. I.e. Through Family, Friends, Work etc. I’d say when people meet in social settings and are platonic it’s easy to possibly become attracted to someone one maybe wouldn’t have picked up off the street. Sometimes seeing someone in their element of thru other contacts, shared interest settings, etc would impact a connection.
> 
> ...


Well, I can understand how people can connect in such settings. But people simply don't pay attention to people they don't like, even in casual settings. That decision is made instantaneously, it's subconscious, they don't want to deal with anything negative impacting them. So there must have been something positive there to begin with. To get them interested in paying attention, thinking about the person, observing them to find out who they're like as people, start liking their personality, their vibe - all that might make their looks more appealing. That's all understandable. Because there's absolutely no way people are willing to spend time focusing on somebody they really don't like to begin with. Maybe it can happen with friendships when people are forced to spend time together, school or work or a group of different friends, so over time their impressions can change and they become friends with people they initially didn't like. But with romantic relationships? Doubtful. Unless it's a movie plot to appeal to wide audiences.  But I suppose there are always some exceptions in real life as well.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

I'm probably wrong, because I don't seem to have the same approach to sexuality as is commonly depicted? So I'm not sure if I'm just reflecting on my own ignorance.

But I think sometimes people walk up to the people they associate more with sex/romance/romantic availability. Rather than it really be sooo much about only being attracted to looks.

I just think there's a big difference between situations in which people know everyone around them is single or they know that people are interested in romance, and everyday situations.

Like at a bar people might approach more often, or "be attracted" to a wider range of people--not just because of alcohol, but also because they think the people at the bar are interested in sex or romance, so they think of them sexually, whereas perhaps they wouldn't have otherwise.

Or online dating, when they know someone is single they may approach them, whereas if they just saw that person on a bus, they might not have really been compelled because it just looks like another person in a sea of other people, many in relationships, many married etc.

I'm sure there is some aspect that is physical attraction, but I also think sometimes it's just associations we make with romance/sex and a person who looks more like a porn model or looks more like a hollywood actor that we associate with romantic scenes.

It's probably both. I sometimes wonder though, if it was normal in our cultures (I live in the US and it's not here) for there to be a really obvious indication if one is single or not, if people would act differently in public--like there is the wedding ring, but perhaps something as obvious as a type of hairstyle for married/unmarried. Then people would likely, to a degree, fetishize the non-married style of dress and it might pique the interest of a single person in a similar way that we attribute to sexual attraction.

Just also thinking of how clothing works--you know, some men will see things like a low-cut top or whatever as "indications" of a woman's sexual availability (even if they are wrong and should not act on it), not just because it's the sight of the physical body, but the cultural associations with that style of dress. But idk.

But first impressions--in many cultures there are clear indications of a person's relationship status in their head coverings or their hair or dress. But we don't have that--so now people sort of guess, and are wrong most of the time...usually they assume women who attract their attention (maybe the woman has bigger breasts or is wearing something they associate with sex). But we don't have a "single person" outfit--we just have what people would consider "slutty" (which is stupid and can depend on aspects that aren't in one's control, such as breast size or hair color (blond or red)...just about first-appearances, and how people try to gain info from them.

Tbh--most of the people who claim to be able to gain huge insights into people's psyche by just looking at them seem like they are full of BS and have a bit too active of imaginations and esteem in their ability to read people.

This is sort of off topic though--it was in response to the discussion between @eeo and @Sensational


----------



## tarmonk (Nov 21, 2017)

I wouldn't deny that looks are important up to some point - they need to be at least acceptable for your own personal tastes, otherwise you'd probably crave for something else at some point, no matter how good the personality match is. For example, I do have preference towards particular styles and shapes of ladies (but nope, these aren't necessarily classical beauties and are pretty far from nowadays supermodels). I can't help it as this preference somehow developed at young age where my sexuality started to evolve first. And this preference hasn't changed since then, prob never will.

But of course it's not the only thing, other aspects need to match as well, personality wise, interests, philosophy and such - couldn't even think of it otherwise  Luckily enough my current long term partner matches all these aspects for me and pretty much vice versa too.

But what the particular preferences are for anyone, it's up to them - for some it's pretty clear, for some not so.


----------



## lat288 (Sep 21, 2021)

No not at all.
In fact you can even deny a guy just because he has a box beard.
EVERYONE has the right to reject someone for a romantic relationship. There shouldnt be a “valid reason” to back it up, it can seemly be because you “werent feeling them”.


----------



## recycled_lube_oil (Sep 30, 2021)

Who cares, dating is not government controlled and does not have equality and diversity targets that must be met.

Are you actually bothered about being shallow or being thought of by other people as being shallow?


----------



## Just Think (Apr 24, 2021)

I think physical attractiveness can also indicate someone’s character. Focusing too much on looks, makes people seem shallow. On the other hand, looking overweight and dirty, screams lazy, not a good character trait to have when looking for a long-term partner or even short-term. Good hygiene and doing your best to work with what you have been give speaks a lot too. Unless you have serious facial or bodily deformity, you can increase your attractiveness with some natural makeup or, dudes, gaining some muscle. Just to reiterate, most of us can make ourselves look better.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Saiyed Handsome **** said:


> Or is it just another way to value people, not inherently better or worse than any other?
> 
> Does it matter if someone is looking for short-term or uncommitted relationships only?
> 
> ...



I think there has to be some initial mutual attraction to get the ball rolling and then it's all about getting to know one another and seeing what happens from there.


----------



## HypernovaGirl (May 9, 2016)

Only read the title. I think beauty ultimately comes from within. When you feel good about yourself and take good care of yourself you end up «looking good» because you exude how you feel. 
On the other hand, aperson might have some specific traits, like bilateral facial symmetry for instance, but if they feel ugly for whatever reason they will end up giving that vibe.


----------



## ENFPathetic (Apr 3, 2018)

No it's not. As long as you are also paying attention to their character, their values, their culture, etc. You have to look at the whole package because looks are not all you're going to get. Depending on the culture, you will have to take her family and friends into account too because like it or not, they are also a part of the package.

The thing is, it's a bit like reading the details of a contract before you make a purchase. If you only read about the things you value, whether it be looks, personality or whatever, you risk having a rude awakening when the fine print bites you in the ass. Oh you didn't know she was freaky like that? Should have read the whole contract, prude.


----------



## recycled_lube_oil (Sep 30, 2021)

To add to what I previously said. I don't necessarily think its how hot your partner is that will decide if people think you are shallow.

Its how you describe and talk about your partner. If you are just talking about their looks only, you are communicating all you care about are their looks. Where as if you talk about their personality/interests, it will communicate you are more interested in their personality/interests.

If you are seeing someone who is hot. Why do you need to even mention it, unless you are talking to blind people, they will probably be well aware. And if you use the fact that they are hot, to make yourself sound superior, put other people down, well it will just make you look super insecure.


----------



## BenevolentBitterBleeding (Mar 16, 2015)

circle_of_power said:


> And if you use the fact that they are hot, to make yourself sound superior, put other people down, well it will just make you look super insecure.


who cars though, they're hot, and they're with u...


----------

