# Men, you can only pick two qualities.



## Das Brechen (Nov 26, 2011)

You can only pick two qualities in the opposite sex. Which do you choose?


----------



## Cephalonimbus (Dec 6, 2010)

If any of those attributes are missing entirely, i'd rather just jack off -- even in a hypothetical scenario.


----------



## DemonD (Jun 12, 2012)

Good looking, emotionally stable. I don't _need_ them to be intelligent.


----------



## Arjan (Jul 31, 2013)

1. Left breast
2. Right breast

Done. Where's my cookie?


----------



## Das Brechen (Nov 26, 2011)

@Arjan


----------



## Aqualung (Nov 21, 2009)

1. Emotionally Stable 2. Intelligent I married a beautiful woman once who was not emotionally stable enough to keep. Nothing wrong with good looks but a few years down the road it doesn't matter much.


----------



## 626Stitch (Oct 22, 2010)

She can be emotionaly unstable if she is kind to me, doesnt take her frustrations out by lashing out at me. 

She doesnt have to be good looking if I find her attractive, but I assume the quetion means good looking from my perspective. Lots of guys want someone their guy friends will be impressed with (at least subconsiosly this is what they want).


----------



## 626Stitch (Oct 22, 2010)

. oops


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

Intelligent and good looking.


----------



## infinitewisdom (Jan 23, 2011)

I've had my share of good looking, crazy, and dumb. I'd be more than happy trying out emotionally stable and intelligent.


----------



## SharpestNiFe (Dec 16, 2012)

Emotionally stable and intelligent.

But I agree, if she isn't at least a LITTLE physically attractive, then meh. No woman for me.

Emotional instability is the biggest turnoff to me, and I'd like to be able to take to a woman about something more meaningful than the hottest trends and parties she has gone to.


----------



## qingdom (Apr 5, 2011)

I choose Emotionally Stable and Pick Two.


----------



## JayHill108 (Sep 20, 2013)

(You know, I was going to go with the 'correct' answer, but I'm feeling in a contrary mood today) I'm going to pick intelligent and good looking-- I figure that if I bring emotional stability to the relationship, then that can make up for any imbalance in the other person. (Assuming, this isn't some kind of pathological emotional instability at least) I think that such a person would have a sort of emotional eccentricity to match my own quirkiness.


----------



## Das Brechen (Nov 26, 2011)

qingdom said:


> I choose Emotionally Stable and Pick Two.


I got the quota right here.


----------



## Akbar2k7 (Oct 23, 2011)

Good looking and emotionally stable. I like enriching the lives of dumb people.


----------



## Uncouth Angel (Nov 26, 2011)

Intelligent and Emotionally stable. She'll feel the same as a "good looking" woman in the dark.


----------



## Hypaspist (Feb 11, 2012)

Depends on what "good looking" means. If it means supermodel-esque at a minimum, then I'll go with intelligent and good looking. Otherwise I'd pick intelligent and good looking. I've dealt with a couple of emotionally unstable ladies in the past and I can work with (or fix) that.


----------



## jonnyjonjonjrshabadoo (Oct 5, 2013)

Good looking and intelligent. Talking with your friends about your crazy girlfriend is half of the reason why I get into relationships.


----------



## chaoticbrain (May 5, 2012)

I think it'd be better if you gave actual examples. I'm fine with an average looking woman, but that's mostly because I think the average woman is good looking if that makes sense.


----------



## Das Brechen (Nov 26, 2011)

@chaoticbrain

Every man has what he calls "good looking". So I don't ask what that means to the poster, but I invite you or whoever else to share what "good looking" means to you. I'll even share too if you're game.


----------



## Rift (Mar 12, 2012)

good looking... so we can skip the lines and get free drinks

intelligence... for plotting revenge, plotting to take over the world and remembering where we parked the car

batshit crazy... because it's more fun and I don't want to be the only one


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Ignoring the gross oversimplification and borderline misogyny, intelligent is the most important, and then emotionally stable. Besides, I think intelligence makes a woman look more attractive.


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

Can't I have all three? O.O

Emotional stability is definitely the most important of the choices for long term relationships, and my first choice at any rate. Good looks is the least important, and intelligence is preferred. Let's say that's my rule of thumb.

If the choices mean above average intelligence/stability/looks verses below average intelligence/stability/looks, then I wonder if the equation changes? Let's take a look...

Above average:
Stability - always good
Intelligence - don't need, but would be interesting
Looks - can't say no to that 


Average:
Stability - yes!
Intelligence - yes!
Looks - yes!
:S

Far below average:
Stability - nope!
Intelligence - really rather not
Looks - feeling guilty about caring..


...Conclusion: I want all three.


----------



## Emerald Legend (Jul 13, 2010)

Wtf! This is probably the hardest dilemma I've come across. 

I'm going to go with Intelligent <----> emotional stability. 

Looks fade, and I find intelligence and emotional stability beautiful than faces/body type. 




Ahhh..it feels good to resolve this :mellow:


----------



## StElmosDream (May 26, 2012)

What if you find intelligence and emotional stability equally attractive as looks though?


----------



## Sparkling (Jul 12, 2013)

He's a Superhero! said:


> ...Conclusion: I want all three.


When she has all 3 qualities, then most probably she's a butch ...


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

boogie said:


> When she has all 3 qualities, then most probably she's a butch ...


What brings you to that conclusion, lol?


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Good question, but pretty easy answer for me. I can't be with a woman who I am not physically attracted to. She doesn't have to be a 10, but I have to at least be attracted to her. And I can't be with someone who isn't intelligent. So I choose good looking and intelligent. Everyone is unstable to a degree. It's better than being totally cold and unemotional.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

I want my cake and eat it too....but if I absolutely HAVE TO skip out on one, then it would be emotional stability. I can deal with crazy in fact is a bit of a turn on :\...I'm sick.

Ideally she would have to be only above averige in looks, which means fit and cute. I don't really care beyound that. Intelligence is very important, probably the most important from the 3. While she can be emotionally unstable I'd prefer it to be on a managable level. If these criteria are met then ^^ awesome.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

Das Brechen said:


> False Dilemma


In your example I admit I would choose Emotionally Stable and Good Looking. My friends can satisfy my needs for Intelligent conversation. From a woman I need 2 things I cannot get from male friends, sexual attraction leading to sex, and children, if desired. I can't or won't get those from a man. 

Still, it is a false dilemma. I would trade some looks for intelligence and in general I just dont bother trying to deal with unintelligent people. They can't understand me. 

Also, it is a false dilemma for another reason. There are no emotionally stable women.


----------



## adrenaline1 (Apr 15, 2013)

Can't pick two... they have to be all 3. I know I'm hard to get and am very selective. But, they have to at least good looking and stable to catch my interest. Shit wont last long if they aren't at least somewhat intelligent.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

In case no one else did it yet :mellow:










:tongue:

EDIT:



series0 said:


> In your example I admit I would choose Emotionally Stable and Good Looking. My friends can satisfy my needs for Intelligent conversation. From a woman I need 2 things I cannot get from male friends, sexual attraction leading to sex, and children, if desired. I can't or won't get those from a man.
> 
> Still, it is a false dilemma. I would trade some looks for intelligence and in general I just dont bother trying to deal with unintelligent people. They can't understand me.
> 
> Also, it is a false dilemma for another reason. There are no emotionally stable women.


Curse you  I shoulda read, I guess.


----------



## JayHill108 (Sep 20, 2013)

I wouldn't say this is a false dilemma-- it's a hypothetical dilemma (maybe an artificial dilemma). It's meant to make you think harder about which two qualities you would pick, and not trying set up an argument that one is objectively less important than the others.


----------



## Sparkling (Jul 12, 2013)

He's a Superhero! said:


> What brings you to that conclusion, lol?


vicious fate.. 
I was kidding..


----------



## Das Brechen (Nov 26, 2011)

JayHill108 said:


> I wouldn't say this is a false dilemma-- it's a hypothetical dilemma (maybe an artificial dilemma). It's meant to make you think harder about which two qualities you would pick, and not trying set up an argument that one is objectively less important than the others.


If I could thank your post again, I would.


----------



## Villainous (Dec 31, 2012)

stable and good looking


----------



## Playful Proxy (Feb 6, 2012)

I'd stay single. My first thought would be emotionally stable and intelligent, but if she's incredibly unattractive, she would be unable to meet my sexual needs and therefore, the relationship would collapse. In fact, if all three were not met on at least SOME level, there's no way I could have a useful relationship to begin with. If I had to only pick two, staying single would be more productive.


----------



## Penguin (Sep 25, 2012)

intelligent and good looking.


----------



## Blazy (Oct 30, 2010)

adrenaline1 said:


> Can't pick two... they have to be all 3. I know I'm hard to get and am very selective. But, they have to at least good looking and stable to catch my interest. Shit wont last long if they aren't at least somewhat intelligent.


Well no shit it's all 3 then this thread would be pointless. Out there in the real world, most women have only 2 of these precious qualities. Trust me.

Of course my women need to have a sexy body and cute face without emotional issues. Intelligence is a general term but as long as she has completed HS and is loyal then I'm sold. 

Ask me anything you want.

Where's the topic for the women to answer about us men?


----------



## Blazy (Oct 30, 2010)

Signify said:


> I'd stay single. My first thought would be emotionally stable and intelligent, but if she's incredibly unattractive, she would be unable to meet my sexual needs and therefore, the relationship would collapse. In fact, if all three were not met on at least SOME level, there's no way I could have a useful relationship to begin with. If I had to only pick two, staying single would be more productive.


Incredibly unattractive... I'd say cover her face with a pillow or a brown paper bag to save your sanity while your Ne does what it's supposed to do.


----------



## kindaconfused (Apr 30, 2010)

I would choose emotionally stable and intelligent, because if we grow old together, that is all she will keep. That said, she can't be butt ugly. Luckily, I scored all three w/ my wife.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

intelligent, emotional stability and good looks are the trend. I'm SO curious which types were apt to discard the good looks and which ones had the tendency to discard emotional stability, lol! because so far it appears most discarded either / or, opposed to the intelligent(for them)factor.

SUPER interesting. SUPER interesting. ... please. Do continue. :kitteh:

(this was more or less my 'lurker' disclaimer)


----------



## Paradox1987 (Oct 9, 2010)

Intelligent and emotionally stable.


----------



## Das Brechen (Nov 26, 2011)

I'd like to think men would want an intelligent(you make your own view) woman because she would be useful outside of a domestic capacity. Of course, in these times it's helpful to have a partner who can pull her own weight. Men want a companion, not a trophy. Just my two cents.


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

"good looking" is really subjective and so can mean almost anything. it's not always about how the person actually looks--the contours of their face, or the contrasts in their own natural color--sometimes it's just a "social vibe" (for lack of a better word), or the way they dress themselves/present themselves that causes them to fall into a group or segment that is more familiar or comfortable (see: most popular vision of attractiveness). that's just what pops into my head when i hear people talk about what is attractive/unattractive. 

i'd rather have emotionally stable and intelligent. those two things on their own look pretty good.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Ningsta Kitty said:


> intelligent, emotional stability and good looks are the trend. I'm SO curious which types were apt to discard the good looks and which ones had the tendency to discard emotional stability, lol! because so far it appears most discarded either / or, opposed to the intelligent(for them)factor.
> 
> SUPER interesting. SUPER interesting. ... please. Do continue. :kitteh:
> 
> (this was more or less my 'lurker' disclaimer)


There's a reason for that: emotional stability is such a mood killer. It's important to understand that emotional instability is not the same as being mentally unwell or damaging to those around you. In my experience, the people who have been the most interesting to know or even just talk to have been people with some kind of "issue." A person that's too well balanced comes off as mechanical to me--why I don't care for ST's--as if they don't know what it's like to a be a person. A "crazy" person, woman or not, would be better equipped to keep my interest and attention. Someone who's too straight laced is going to bore me to tears.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

android654 said:


> There's a reason for that: emotional stability is such a mood killer. It's important to understand that emotional instability is not the same as being mentally unwell or damaging to those around you. In my experience, the people who have been the most interesting to know or even just talk to have been people with some kind of "issue." A person that's too well balanced comes off as mechanical to me--why I don't care for ST's--as if they don't know what it's like to a be a person. A "crazy" person, woman or not, would be better equipped to keep my interest and attention. Someone who's too straight laced is going to bore me to tears.


:sad: but I think I'm emotionally stable. 

I think I'm intelligent too and as far as I can tell, I haven't been beaten with an ugly stick or anything. So by your logic ... when I get old and I'm no longer pretty, that's it. I'm out. YOU SUCK! LOL!!!


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Ningsta Kitty said:


> :sad: but I think I'm emotionally stable.
> 
> I think I'm intelligent too and as far as I can tell, I haven't been beaten with an ugly stick or anything. So by your logic ... when I get old and I'm no longer pretty, that's it. I'm out. YOU SUCK! LOL!!!


HAHA!

Well, it should be taken into account that I thrive off of instability. The only girls I really remember were the crazy ones. Actually, now that I think about it the same is true for all of my friends, and they're mostly ENTPs, and ISTPs, with one INTP. The last one's most like me and I can see why we both work with crazy, but the rest of my guy friends all want the "stable" ones but they never end up with that kind. I wonder why that is.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

android654 said:


> HAHA!
> 
> Well, it should be taken into account that I thrive off of instability. The only girls I really remember were the crazy ones. Actually, now that I think about it the same is true for all of my friends, and they're mostly ENTPs, and ISTPs, with one INTP. The last one's most like me and I can see why we both work with crazy, but the rest of my guy friends all want the "stable" ones but they never end up with that kind. I wonder why that is.


you know exactly why that is. crazy people are sexy. what I'm wondering is why everyone thinks I'm crazy if I'm emotionally stable. I haven't had anyone accuse me otherwise, and yet, I'm still considered crazy. 

wtf is that about?


----------



## Bad Dog (Oct 6, 2013)

I either need to be alone or with a woman who who is more intelligent than I am, and more emotionally stable than I am. She also has to smell good and not look crazy ungood. I think it's also relevant to say that I don't buy into traditional gender roles, and that I would need someone who was willing to be the primary earner, while I stayed home and cooked, cleaned, took care of any children-types, and took the role of nurturer/supporter.

"A woman's place is in the kitchen...sitting in a comfortable chair, with her feet up, drinking a glass of wine and watching her husband cook dinner.”


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Ningsta Kitty said:


> you know exactly why that is. crazy people are sexy. what I'm wondering is why everyone thinks I'm crazy if I'm emotionally stable. I haven't had anyone accuse me otherwise, and yet, I'm still considered crazy.
> 
> wtf is that about?


The cardinal rule states that any attractive woman is automatically crazy. So, yes, crazy people are sexy. Actually now that I think about it they have better sex too. I may be projecting my own bad experiences with "good" girls/women, but it was generally cold and short-lived. But the "crazy" ones... it was like everything was on fire, all the time. More often than not it ends in tragedy but its way more alive than a "normal" relationship.

I guess what I'm saying is that unless you're actually sick, a guy calling you crazy is an automatic compliment.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

android654 said:


> I guess what I'm saying is that unless you're actually sick, a guy calling you crazy is an automatic compliment.


yeah well, all the "good" girls get all the mushy forehead kisses and cuddly stuff. 
I want both reactions from my partner. Because I'm crazy. :crazy: 

that emoti is sick.


----------



## Whippit (Jun 15, 2012)

When I read the op, I see your sig as part of it: Pick only two! : False Dilemma, Logical Fallacy

Umm.. I feel like I should try to answer the OP, but the question makes no sense. I wouldn't be with anyone who wasn't: Intelligent (enough to be interesting in conversation and capable in mutual goals), Emotionally.. eh supportable, synergically stable(?), Good Looking (to me). 

In general, Intelligence doesn't even seem to be a universally valued quality, especially with guys who may feel threatened, or prefer to have a guiding role (no judgment... for now). Emotional stability seems to have a similar dynamic involved. Meh.


----------



## Carry Cola (Oct 10, 2013)

This would have been more interesting if each quality had a maximum value of 100 but ya only had to 200 pts to spend.

100 Intelligence
70 Emotionally Stable (Gotta keep things interesting after all)
30 Good Looking (so long as the significant other doesn't look like a significantly messed up victim off a traffic accident it's all good)


----------



## Das Brechen (Nov 26, 2011)

Whippit said:


> When I read the op, I see your sig as part of it: Pick only two! : False Dilemma, Logical Fallacy
> 
> Umm.. I feel like I should try to answer the OP, but the question makes no sense. I wouldn't be with anyone who wasn't: Intelligent (enough to be interesting in conversation and capable in mutual goals), Emotionally.. eh supportable, synergically stable(?), Good Looking (to me).
> 
> In general, Intelligence doesn't even seem to be a universally valued quality, especially with guys who may feel threatened, or prefer to have a guiding role (no judgment... for now). Emotional stability seems to have a similar dynamic involved. Meh.


What's confusing about it? I laid down a hypothetical, a completely subjective one at that. There isn't a right or wrong answer. Sacrifice one side of the triangle. You choose or don't choose at all or better yet take a third option like some people and choose them all. Still, I appreciate your input. Thanks.


----------



## Bad Dog (Oct 6, 2013)

I don't sacrifice any point of the triangle, I'm saving myself for marriage (even though I'm not a virgin, it's a more recent decision) and I don't date. For now, I'm fine with porn for the sex needs and my babyladydog for the being sweet to. Settling is just like, eh, why bother? I see my dude friends with girlfriends they admit to not really liking, I can't understand. Being alone isn't the worst thing. For realy tho, smart, mature ladies are the hottest. That big brain makes my heart be all like boom boom.


----------



## Das Brechen (Nov 26, 2011)

@Bad Dog

I think we all can agree that all the sides are important. Good luck to you in your pursuit of marriage.


----------



## Whippit (Jun 15, 2012)

Das Brechen said:


> What's confusing about it? I laid down a hypothetical, a completely subjective one at that. There isn't a right or wrong answer. Sacrifice one side of the triangle. You choose or don't choose at all or better yet take a third option like some people and choose them all. Still, I appreciate your input. Thanks.


It's not confusing, it's just amusing that you're proposing a False Dilemma.

I also thought it'd be a good venue to evaluate something proposed as some sort of holy trifecta of mate worthiness.


----------



## Jwing24 (Aug 2, 2010)

What could this possibly look like?

If you can only pick two, that means this hypothetical person is a ZERO in the 3rd category, right?

So lets see:

NO intelligence at all, cannot add 1 + 1, can barely talk to you? Nahh

NOT attractive in ANY way....hmmm noo

not emotionally stable = ....insane? noo

..
.
.
.
.
hellooooo hand!


----------



## Inari Marie (Oct 11, 2013)

Uncouth Angel said:


> Intelligent and Emotionally stable. She'll feel the same as a "good looking" woman in the dark.





qingdom said:


> I choose Emotionally Stable and Pick Two.





Arjan said:


> 1. Left breast
> 2. Right breast
> 
> Done. Where's my cookie?


I find the above to be hilarious

I found below to be hawt




Bad Dog said:


> I either need to be alone or with a woman who who is more intelligent than I am, and more emotionally stable than I am. She also has to smell good and not look crazy ungood. I think it's also relevant to say that I don't buy into traditional gender roles, and that I would need someone who was willing to be the primary earner, while I stayed home and cooked, cleaned, took care of any children-types, and took the role of nurturer/supporter.
> 
> "A woman's place is in the kitchen...sitting in a comfortable chair, with her feet up, drinking a glass of wine and watching her husband cook dinner.”


----------



## sinshred (Dec 1, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> Intelligent and emotionally stable. Who the fuck cares about looks. I could be the with the world's most pretty girl but if I don't like her personality it won't matter. I don't care much for sex. Also, if you are in love with someone you tend to think of them as beautiful anyway even if they objectively aren't. So again, looks are a non-issue.


Are you trying to be a hypocrite?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

sinshred said:


> Are you trying to be a hypocrite?


Please explain how I'm trying to be a hypocrite. Subjective appreciation of someone else doesn't necessitate to external beauty.


----------



## Ben8 (Jul 5, 2013)

Good-looking and not bitch


----------



## sinshred (Dec 1, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> Please explain how I'm trying to be a hypocrite. Subjective appreciation of someone else doesn't necessitate to external beauty.





ephemereality said:


> Intelligent and emotionally stable. Who the fuck cares about looks. I could be the with the world's most pretty girl but if I don't like her personality it won't matter. I don't care much for sex. Also, if you are in love with someone you tend to think of them as beautiful anyway even if they objectively aren't. So again, looks are a non-issue.


You said looks are a non-issue, it sound to be hypocrite statement for me.
Look, what if there woman who have perfect personality whatever you like, but unfortunately she got car accident which eventually take her ability to walk, she aint no more beauty like she used to be, and barely cant doing anything even just for clean herself. 
Still you love her? Please dont make hypocritical statement no more.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

sinshred said:


> You said looks are a non-issue, it sound to be hypocrite statement for me.
> Look, what if there woman who have perfect personality whatever you like, but unfortunately she got car accident which eventually take her ability to walk, she aint no more beauty like she used to be, and barely cant doing anything even just for clean herself.
> Still you love her? Please dont make hypocritical statement no more.


Why not? I loved her before, why should I not love her afterwards? As a person she didn't change and I fell in love with her because of her personality, not looks. If her personality also altered as a result of the accident which can happen since it is a traumatic event, then it is something that needs to be worked through and either it works or it doesn't work but it's not suddenly just because she didn't look like how she used to look. Stop inject yourself onto me. You're not making factual statements. There's no contradiction what I've expressed.


----------



## sinshred (Dec 1, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> Why not? I loved her before, why should I not love her afterwards? As a person she didn't change and I fell in love with her because of her personality, not looks. If her personality also altered as a result of the accident which can happen since it is a traumatic event, then it is something that needs to be worked through and either it works or it doesn't work but it's not suddenly just because she didn't look like how she used to look. Stop inject yourself onto me. You're not making factual statements. There's no contradiction what I've expressed.


Oh i almost forgot you are doing with your hands. In your case, you win.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

sinshred said:


> Oh i almost forgot you are doing with your hands. In your case, you win.


lol... I hope you do realize I'm mostly what others would consider asexual? I think therein lies your issue. You desire sex. I really don't.


----------



## sinshred (Dec 1, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> lol... I hope you do realize I'm mostly what others would consider asexual? I think therein lies your issue. You desire sex. I really don't.


For me, external beauty not just for sex usage man. Didnt you feel honored and proud if there is a woman, who have perfect beauty *inside* and *outside*, as your partner live in this life?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

sinshred said:


> For me, external beauty not just for sex usage man. Didnt you feel honored and proud if there is a woman, who have perfect beauty *inside* and *outside*, as your partner live in this life?


Uh... Perfect external beauty? What does that even mean? A person is as beautiful as your attachment to them in my opinion. When I love a person which is the highest form of attachment I can have to another human being, they naturally become the most beautiful person in the universe regardless of their actual objective qualities.


----------



## sinshred (Dec 1, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> Uh... Perfect external beauty? What does that even mean? A person is as beautiful as your attachment to them in my opinion. When I love a person which is the highest form of attachment I can have to another human being, they naturally become the most beautiful person in the universe regardless of their actual objective qualities.


External beauty is subjective, i agree. But if there a person who claim he love crippled woman, i would say sorry for him.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

sinshred said:


> External beauty is subjective, i agree. But if there a person who claim he love crippled woman, i would say sorry for him.


So ultimately you have no ability to love another person if they suffer a physical defect? I have to say I feel sorry for you having such a narrow idea of love and giving love.


----------



## sinshred (Dec 1, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> So ultimately you have no ability to love another person if they suffer a physical defect? I have to say I feel sorry for you having such a narrow idea of love and giving love.


Yes you absolutely right, cause i ain't a hypocrite.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

sinshred said:


> Yes you absolutely right, cause i ain't a hypocrite.


You do realize it's only hypocritical according to your own narrow worldview because you have decided in your mind that you are only capable of loving people based on their physical appearance? If one does not operate with such a view there is no hypocrisy because there is no ethical line that can be contradicted in the first place. It's a non-issue.


----------



## StElmosDream (May 26, 2012)

Gore Motel said:


> I'll bet you don't. Try dating a giant disembodied brain.
> 
> looks like a floating ballsack in a slightly different shape
> 
> good luck hiding your porn history then, jerk!


Seeking to abuse me is uncalled for...


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

I'd rather be single then.


----------



## sinshred (Dec 1, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> You do realize it's only hypocritical according to your own narrow worldview because you have decided in your mind that you are only capable of loving people based on their physical appearance? If one does not operate with such a view there is no hypocrisy because there is no ethical line that can be contradicted in the first place. It's a non-issue.


It sound much better than person who trying to be a godlike-angel by sacrificing his own idealism.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

ephemereality said:


> You do realize it's only hypocritical according to your own narrow worldview because you have decided in your mind that you are only capable of loving people based on their physical appearance? If one does not operate with such a view there is no hypocrisy because there is no ethical line that can be contradicted in the first place. It's a non-issue.


Have you made a conscious effort to love people because they have disabilities?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

android654 said:


> Have you made a conscious effort to love people because they have disabilities?


How is that relevant? I can't answer your question in relation to the example provided because I haven't fully been in that position in such a sense, but there are several people in my environment who suffer different kinds of disabilities, some of them physical, some of them not. I certainly don't love them less because they weren't born with such perfect bodies. 

I was myself born with a disability. I can't say my family seems to struggle to love me by any means.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

ephemereality said:


> How is that relevant? I can't answer your question in relation to the example provided because I haven't fully been in that position in such a sense, but there are several people in my environment who suffer different kinds of disabilities, some of them physical, some of them not. I certainly don't love them less because they weren't born with such perfect bodies.
> 
> I was myself born with a disability. I can't say my family seems to struggle to love me by any means.


Well it was pretty clear that the person--as well as the intent of the thread--revolves around sexual relationships. And in sexual relationships, it's rather unfair to say to someone that they have to adhere to a code of some sort when determining who they are and aren't attracted to. Attraction, for the most part, is inherent and subconscious. We are attracted to what we're attracted to and no amount of altruism can really alter what we'll find sexually appealing and what we don't. It's no more fair to say someone is bigoted because they can't find someone outside of some physical frames to be attractive than to say that someone is beyond love because they have disabilities of some kind.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

android654 said:


> Well it was pretty clear that the person--as well as the intent of the thread--revolves around sexual relationships. And in sexual relationships, it's rather unfair to say to someone that they have to adhere to a code of some sort when determining who they are and aren't attracted to. Attraction, for the most part, is inherent and subconscious. We are attracted to what we're attracted to and no amount of altruism can really alter what we'll find sexually appealing and what we don't. It's no more fair to say someone is bigoted because they can't find someone outside of some physical frames to be attractive than to say that someone is beyond love because they have disabilities of some kind.


But I wasn't the one who told him to agree with _my_ standards. He was the one who superimposed his standards on me by claiming I'm a hypocrite, at which point I explained that based on my own ethics I am not. So how does that make me the bad guy? I never claimed his view is wrong or incorrect. I simply disagree with that is how I experience it.

This post here is extremely clear on my position:


ephemereality said:


> You do realize it's only hypocritical according to your own narrow worldview because you have decided in your mind that you are only capable of loving people based on their physical appearance? If one does not operate with such a view there is no hypocrisy because there is no ethical line that can be contradicted in the first place. It's a non-issue.


----------



## Ben8 (Jul 5, 2013)

Jesus Christ. First of all, @sinshred , you do not know @ephemereality 's physical actions, but only what he says. Thus, you can only account for his words in terms of hypocrisy. Now I may have overlooked something, but I cannot find _anything _about how he contradicts his words. Do you know what hypocrisy means?


----------



## sinshred (Dec 1, 2013)

Ben8 said:


> Jesus Christ. First of all, @sinshred , you do not know @ephemereality 's physical actions, but only what he says. Thus, you can only account for his words in terms of hypocrisy. Now I may have overlooked something, but I cannot find _anything _about how he contradicts his words. Do you know what hypocrisy means?


Yeah and i even didnt bother to know who is he. Look man, i wasnt trying to judge his point of view whatsoever, i just want to know what the reason of statement _"Who the fuck cares about looks" _ which he claim. Because for me, it seem like priest make his sermon.


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

sinshred said:


> Yeah and i even didnt bother to know who is he. Look man, i wasnt trying to judge his point of view whatsoever, i just want to know what the reason of statement _"Who the fuck cares about looks" _ which he claim. Because for me, it seem like priest make his sermon.


Even if you think he's being arrogant, doesn't mean he's necessarily a hypocrite though.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

sinshred said:


> Are you trying to be a hypocrite?


Why is he a hypocrite? 


> hy·poc·ri·sy
> _noun_
> 
> 
> ...


As far as I can see from what he has said, there is no indication that his behavior contradicts what he said. He would be a hypocrite if he said that he didn't care about looks but actually went and dated (or didn't date) someone only on the basis of looks. Since his behavior isn't talked about in this conversation, there are no grounds on which to call him a hypocrite.

Anyway, I understand if you don't think his standards are very normal because they don't fit with how you see the world. However, there's absolutely nothing wrong in not caring too much about looks (I don't either, for example), because in any case, how is someone else's preference going to affect you? (Heck, if he ends up with someone not objectively attractive, it even leaves out the objectively attractive women for you ) It's not right to say he's "sacrificing" his "idealism" or whatever, because this is normal for him even if it isn't normal for you. You wouldn't like to be called bigoted for considering physical attractiveness an important quality, would you? Just as it's not your fault for thinking that way, it isn't his fault for thinking his way either, and he technically isn't obligated to explain this to you either.

Besides, saying something like it's akin to a "priest giving a sermon" kinda makes other people like us feel weird; we don't really need or want to be lumped in with priests for our preferences in partners, you know.


----------



## sinshred (Dec 1, 2013)

Nonsense said:


> Even if you think he's being arrogant, doesn't mean he's necessarily a hypocrite though.


I was wrong when accuse him for being a hypocrite, sorry.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

sinshred said:


> I was wrong when accuse him for being a hypocrite, sorry.


Thank you. Now that you also know the reason behind why he said he doesn't care about looks, I assume this misunderstanding has been cleared up.


----------



## WildImagineer (Jan 25, 2013)

I feel like the definition of emotionally unstable in unclear here, I mean there are plenty of alternate forms of emotional instability. So do we get to pick in what way she is emotionally unstable, is it the luck of the draw, or is she just bat shit crazy.


----------



## Das Brechen (Nov 26, 2011)

@WildImagineer 

I get this question often. I answered it in an earlier post. You're free to use your own interpretation or you can use what I call "easily vacillating between moods" but not insane.


----------



## Playful Proxy (Feb 6, 2012)

Wh1zkey said:


> Well no shit it's all 3 then this thread would be pointless. Out there in the real world, most women have only 2 of these precious qualities. Trust me.
> 
> Of course my women need to have a sexy body and cute face without emotional issues. Intelligence is a general term but as long as she has completed HS and is loyal then I'm sold.
> 
> ...


I know you're just joking, but that's a bit derogatory. If that were done in a real-life scenario, you'd not only manage to make someone feel horrible about themselves, you'd also probably not keep her for long, and I'd argue such a result would be well deserved.


----------



## Psithurism (Jun 19, 2013)

Intelligent and emotionally stable. Not even close.


----------



## Kwestin (Nov 3, 2013)

I understand intelligence as measuring two variables: Mental and emotional logic/reasonableness/stability. So, Intelligent and Good Looking


----------



## Rafiki (Mar 11, 2012)

intelligent and good looking
maybe we'll find a way for her to be water when im fire and weekay wersa 
kinda cancel each other out..


i need a girl to crest my trough
and she can expect it reciprocated



she prolly wont get it, but she'd be right to expect it


----------



## webnek (Oct 20, 2013)

The flaw in so many of these responses is that we're only dealing with our expectations of what our partner brings to the table. What are _we_ bringing to the table? 

Practically speaking, I'm Super Man. I own my own successful business, I am not hard on the eyes, I'm charismatic, thoughtful, loving, emotive, self deprecating, and funny or squishy or stem depending on the situation. But to say I'm a cakewalk is ridiculous because like anyone I've got my own baggage. I can be a royal pain in the arse just as much as anyone. 

When you love someone, so many of their objective flaws fall by the wayside. And when someone loves you, so many of your own objective flaws do the same. 

If you meet your person, that's awesome! And eventually, if you're a dude, decades on you're going to get you some epic old man arse, just as your lady gets her some epic old lady boobs. But you know what, your love will blind you just as their love blinds them. 

Ergo, don't get hung up on a static idea of beauty. Beauty is fleeting. Find someone who you love looking at, and also love being with. It takes at least those two things to last a lifetime.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

Intelligent and Good Looking.

The mentally unstable aren't broken people okay? I don't think it's a good idea to dump someone if they are crazy. That would just make the situation worse in a world that is harsh on those with unstable minds who can't get along with the world.

Besides most people are fundamentally broken in some form or fashion anyways. Even those who have well to do lives might never have the mercy of knowing their own inner-evils.

I don't think I'll be able to handle a relationship though. A woman who is more intelligent than me will likely just make me feel insecure, like wise with a good looking one. Though I don't really tolerate extremely ugly people and stupid people well either. I get bored with the later, and avoid the former. I unno about mentally unstable tho. It depends on the mental instability, as far as they are sympathetic I guess.


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

sean.pecor said:


> The flaw in so many of these responses is that we're only dealing with our expectations of what our partner brings to the table. What are _we_ bringing to the table?
> 
> Practically speaking, I'm Super Man. I own my own successful business, I am not hard on the eyes, I'm charismatic, thoughtful, loving, emotive, self deprecating, and funny or squishy or stem depending on the situation. But to say I'm a cakewalk is ridiculous because like anyone I've got my own baggage. I can be a royal pain in the arse just as much as anyone.
> 
> ...


I was ready to side eye this post but there's some great points in here which I really agree with. Beauty fades.



> I know you're just joking, but that's a bit derogatory. If that were done in a real-life scenario, you'd not only manage to make someone feel horrible about themselves, you'd also probably not keep her for long, and I'd argue such a result would be well deserved.


What did you really expect with a topic like this aimed at men?


----------



## Elies (Dec 24, 2013)

Damn you. This is so mean. It's like asking which I would prefer to be without, the engine, the wheels or the SI letters on the back.


----------



## Elies (Dec 24, 2013)

As my rabbi says, beauty doesn't last forever... but ugliness does... quoting a popular comedian.


----------



## Elies (Dec 24, 2013)

Elies said:


> As my rabbi says, beauty doesn't last forever... but ugliness does... quoting a popular comedian.


I should add that the comedian is also a rabbi...


----------



## Nightchill (Oct 19, 2013)

Actually I pick all 3 because:
1. I have it all myself, I think, so I am entitled to demand it.
2. Without all 3 the point is lost for me. I'm better off forever alone.
3. There are people who are normal, good looking and intelligent at the same time.

It's all or nothing.

P.s. not a male,just butting in.


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

If one considers the definition of intelligent, one realizes that all conscious animals are intelligent.

As it would probably be impossible to date an unconscious person, I think it is safe to rule out the necessity of intelligence, as unintelligent isn't an option (thus making intelligent the default state for animals).


So, good-looking and emotionally-stable.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

The posts about not minding crazy women made me LOL.

*Virtual hug to PerC dudes*

Sexual healing


----------



## VinnieBob (Mar 24, 2014)

intelligent and stable, I have dated many a beautiful women in the past and a majority of them are damaged goods


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

well, I found one who was all three, so....


----------



## Kingdom Crusader (Jan 4, 2012)

I guess I'd go with intelligent and good looking.


----------



## xisnotx (Mar 20, 2014)

that's dumb...plenty of women are all three. just have keep a look out for them. 
hell, my last gf was all three. she was intelligent, she was beautiful, and she was extremely emotionally stable.
without all three...it just wouldn't work. 

i'm ok dying alone. it's not an absolute must that it needs to happen.


----------



## webnek (Oct 20, 2013)

I think everyone has their own blend of all three to offer and their own priority in preference of these three qualities. You could find someone you find extremely attractive and intelligent but lacking in depth of life experience and baggage. 

Also, these three components, with respect to how they're valued, have less to do with their qualities, and more to do with how those qualities enrich or alienate their partner.

A physically beautiful man/woman can become ugly if they're physically superficial.

An intellectually gifted man/woman can appear idiotic if they view their intellect as evidence of superiority and make less intelligent people feel stupid.

A person "with emotional issues" can be judged poorly if they act as though their problems are a justification for lashing out at others, or by observing your behavior toward them and continually casting aspersions regarding your intent in a negative manner.

So in my opinion desirability has less to do with how they rate on this three tier scale and more to do with how the person is able to harness and utilize their uniqueness into something truly worth loving, and loving unconditionally.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk


----------



## DualGnosis (Apr 6, 2013)

I've learned to appreciate other aspects of women who were particularly known for not being super smart. They were by no means complete airheads or idiots (though some were), instead they were usually at least charming, graceful, and had good emotionally stability.

So if I had to pick only two, I would say emotionally stable and good-looking. An intelligent woman who is either emotionally stable or good-looking would also be nice but I have less experience with them though I'm open to try.


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

vinniebob said:


> intelligent and stable, I have dated many a beautiful women in the past and a majority of them are damaged goods


Damaged how?


----------



## eydimork (Mar 19, 2014)

I need a little crazy in my life to make up for my own.


----------



## Das Brechen (Nov 26, 2011)

I guess I'm alone in wanting a "sensible shoe" type of woman. I've been waiting a long while to unleash my crazy.


----------



## webnek (Oct 20, 2013)

Das Brechen said:


> I guess I'm alone in wanting a "sensible shoe" type of woman. I've been waiting a long while to unleash my crazy.


LOL. I like balance from day to day but more of a complementary balance. I guess if a woman is even keeled and a man is a drama queen, then that's a kind of balance. Just not the kind I like! I've got a couple friends who have good jobs and such but emotionally they're like children and their women are almost like "mommies" and that weirds me out. But I assume it works for them. My ex wife was completely uptight, and controlling, we'd be at parties and I would be my normal funny and entertaining self and she'd be disapproving of my behavior. She'd be stone faced most of the time, but omg when we got into a argument she'd get angry like a rabid animal. Not my cup of tea, but hey, I'm an ENFJ, so that marriage lasted about ten years longer than it needed to 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

Good looking and intelligence for sure.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Good looking and emotionally stable


----------

