# ''Looks Don't Matter'' - As much as personality.



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Catwalk said:


> I implied none of this. Your arguments, are _usually_ terrible. I usually disregard. (i.e., previous thread) as they lead nowhere.


lol? Because that changes anything you think. I think your arguments are terrible too, mostly because of how it's so devoid of considering the human factor when it comes to understanding things pertaining to people.

Also, if you were to imply otherwise, you should have phrased your OP to be clearer. There's a reason several people including myself, read it that you were implying that people who claim to not experience physical attraction to be liars. Hell, it's a part of your very premise:


> Below, I display the common statements most utilized (via) *possible sugarcoaters / coaxers + liars.*


Then you set out to prove how this premise is correct without first even providing a context for it. You later in a more recent post clarified where you were asking the question whether you think that some people may play up the lack of physical attraction outside of identifying as demisexual/asexual because you find it dubious that such a great amount of people could identify as this, thinking that it has to be a a low amount of people. The problem is that there are no real studies done that would suggest the statistical occurrence of demisexuality/asexuality in the general population, and obviously, sexuality comes in a spectrum. It's not like someone is 100% sexual or 100% asexual, but people have tendencies. 

Your argument is circular because you cherrypick the examples that support your premise as you are unwilling to question the legitimacy of your premise. 

I mean, you could have been much simpler about it by saying that you think that people may play up their lack of sexual/physical attraction even though they actually do find it important as a way to come across as pseudo-intellectual and you wonder how true that is. That way people wouldn't have been offended by the fact that you seem to suggest that people who do not experience or claim to experience physical attraction as important to be liars.

Lastly, suggesting that @Nightmaker81 is implicitly a liar because he does, according to you, find looks to be a factor, is really reading between the lines in a way that's offensive and is missing the bigger picture of what he was trying to say which again shows the circular nature of your rhetoric. You set the tone to be focused on physical attraction which means that he naturally has to include vocabulary that may pertain to physical attraction in order to explain his stance on the subject; by focusing on the fact that he used it as an example and it proves you right does not prove you right, because he did not imply such a thing at all. Rhetorically speaking, what you did is extremely manipulative.


----------



## Morpheus83 (Oct 17, 2008)

Some people might be ashamed of 'nice looks' as a dating criterion, so they might try to play it down to avoid looking 'superficial'. I can't speak for others, though, and I still think it's possible that some people don't care about 'looks' at all--their loyalty is either unconditional or based on something else other than physical appearances. Yeah--some people probably want to come across as 'morally superior' when they claim their attraction isn't based on looks, and they might even be hypocritical when they don't consider possible angles or contexts in which 'looks' influence attraction and loyalty.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Entropic said:


> lol? Because that changes anything you think. I think your arguments are terrible too, mostly because of how it's so devoid of considering the human factor when it comes to understanding things pertaining to people.
> 
> Also, if you were to imply otherwise, you should have phrased your OP to be clearer. There's a reason several people including myself, read it that you were implying that people who claim to not experience physical attraction to be liars. Hell, it's a part of your very premise:


The OP was rather clear - I understand responses here are _reactive_; rather than inferring mostly from indulgent introspection. 



> read it that you were implying that people who claim to not experience physical attraction to be liars.


*headshake; *

None of this was implied; it more so a ''misinterpertation'' than anything else. I 'excluded' Demi / (A) sexuals - for this very reason. (i.e., that they are not eligible to be dishonest / sugarcoaters /) _et al_.

I will note ''*possible*'' sugarcoaters / liars et al - is not the same. (re: another nonsensical misread).



> Then you set out to prove how this premise is correct without first even providing a context for it. You later in a more recent post clarified where you were asking the question whether you think that some people may play up the lack of physical attraction outside of identifying as demisexual/asexual


I tried to *prove* nothing. ;facepalm




> *because you find it dubious that such a great amount of people could identify as this*, thinking that it has to be a a low amount of people.


None of this was asserted. ;facepalm (⊙‿⊙✿) !!!!! (goodness).




> The problem is that there are no real studies done that would suggest the statistical occurrence of demisexuality/asexuality in the general population, and obviously, sexuality comes in a spectrum. It's not like someone is 100% sexual or 100% asexual, but people have tendencies.


This has nothing to do with anything.



> I mean, you could have been much simpler about it by saying that you think that people may play up their lack of sexual/physical attraction even though they actually do find it important as a way to come across as pseudo-intellectual and you wonder how true that is.


OP was simplistic (i.e., your *reactive* + emotional rant; as usual, _disregarded _everything / drowned out) - why so many _baseless_ attacks ... (?) This is constant reinforcement why I avoid any quarrel with you. ;headshake




> Lastly, suggesting that @Nightmaker81 is implicitly a liar because he does, according to you, find looks to be a factor, is really reading between the lines in a way that's offensive and is missing the bigger picture of what he was trying to say which again shows the circular nature of your rhetoric. You set the tone to be focused on physical attraction which means that he naturally has to include vocabulary that may pertain to physical attraction in order to explain his stance on the subject; by focusing on the fact that he used it as an example and it proves you right does not prove you right, because he did not imply such a thing at all. Rhetorically speaking, what you did is extremely manipulative.


..... What is your point? o__O The thread is ''based'' on 'looks'. Thus, it will be ''applied'' as such (i.e., tone is set) If you are not ''eligible'' for this thread, then disregard. There is nothing ''circular'' here - you haven't a clue what you are even rambling about. 

He implied, ''physical attraction'' was not a factor - yet implied it as a 'factor'. His stance is incoherent; as demonstrated. 

No ''proofs'' are needed here for anything. (post #1) implies 'levels' / variations of physical attraction (via) importance - and also, ''looks not playing a factor'' at all.


----------



## Blessed Frozen Cells (Apr 3, 2013)

Looks do matter to a lot of people regardless of sexual orientation from what I've noticed.



Graveyard said:


> Goodness, people who say that looks don't matter are being dishonest. Clearly, the personality is the most importan and influencial factor when looking for a partner.* But if the person doesn't attract you physically, then the relationship will never get sexual - and unless you're asexual, that's a key point in romance*.
> 
> You may have low standards, but you'll always want to be attracted to the person you're going to have sex with.
> 
> Liars.


If you visited asexual forums, you'd be surprised that a majority often mention how looks do matter to them. It's because most people experience aesthetic attraction. Sometimes it's connected sexual attraction. Other times it's not.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

I can think of one situation when personality is all that matters.

Two identical twins.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Catwalk said:


> The OP was rather clear - I understand responses here are _reactive_; rather than inferring mostly from indulgent introspection.


Perhaps they are "reactive" because you set up your rhetorical tone in a way that is potentially offensive and rude? Did you consider that? It is a strong character offense to suggest that a certain group of people are liars. 



> *headshake; *
> 
> None of this was implied; it more so a ''misinterpertation'' than anything else. I 'excluded' Demi / (A) sexuals - for this very reason. (i.e., that they are not eligible to be dishonest / sugarcoaters /) _et al_.


Not mentioned in the OP so yes, your OP is still unclear. 



> I tried to *prove* nothing. ;facepalm



Your "cases" do "prove" your premise. If they didn't, you wouldn't keep referring to them to indeed, prove your point and how they disqualify any other ways of understanding the subject because you think they undermine any potential argument. 



> None of this was asserted. ;facepalm (⊙‿⊙✿) !!!!! (goodness).


Yes, you did assert that you think asexuals/demisexuals constitute a small part of the population. 




> This has nothing to do with anything.


It's pretty relevant to the context that you claim that asexuality/demisexuality is statistically uncommon. 




> OP was simplistic (i.e., your *reactive* + emotional rant; as usual, _disregarded _everything / drowned out) - why so many _baseless_ attacks ... (?) This is constant reinforcement why I avoid any quarrel with you. ;headshake


I wouldn't equal "simplistic" with "unclear". The suggestion I offered you is "simple", because it says what you were trying to say in far fewer words and with far greater clarity and would carry exactly the same essence but would a) not be read as offensive and b) actually inquire into the thing you wish to inquire without people misunderstanding you. That is not an attack, idk why you think it is an attack. It was simply a suggestion of how you could have done and imo, should have done it better. It is simply a more effective way to communicate the same thing in a way that is actually understandable by people without making it come across as so charged by suggesting a certain group to be liars which you actually do. 



> ..... What is your point? o__O The thread is ''based'' on 'looks'. Thus, it will be ''applied'' as such (i.e., tone is set) If you are not ''eligible'' for this thread, then disregard. There is nothing ''circular'' here - you haven't a clue what you are even rambling about.
> 
> He implied, ''physical attraction'' was not a factor - yet implied it as a 'factor'. His stance is incoherent; as demonstrated.
> 
> No ''proofs'' are needed here for anything. (post #1) implies 'levels' / variations of physical attraction (via) importance - and also, ''looks not playing a factor'' at all.


Cherrypicking to prove your point and disregarding the entire context in which something was uttered is offensive. The bigger picture of what was being suggested was that he was saying that "ugly" does not matter; that is exactly what he is saying, but instead you read the fact that he mentioned it at all to be mean that he does at some level care. That's intellectually dishonest of you, since the thread context already biases the discussion towards such an angle.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Morpheus83 said:


> I can't speak for others, though, and I still think it's possible that some people don't care about 'looks' at all--their loyalty is either unconditional or based on something else other than physical appearances.


I understand this; however, my stance is not derived from any such notions. ---> Factoring ''emotional bonding / non-physical properties + stimulus''.



> they might even be hypocritical when they don't consider possible angles or contexts in which 'looks' influence attraction and loyalty.


Yes.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Entropic said:


> Perhaps they are *"reactive"* because you set up your rhetorical tone in a way that is potentially offensive and rude? Did you consider that? It is a strong character offense to suggest that a certain group of people are liars.


Yes - which, is clouding proper addressing of (Post #1). There is nothing ''offensive / rude'' et al - about exposing individuals that escalate + increase harm (via) falsity / ''lead-ons'' + using other individual(s). 

If it bothers you, _report it_. And, other users are welcomed to as well - however, I suspect it is nothing but an exaggeration (via) incorrect introspection clouded by reactive-baseless judo. 




> Not mentioned in the OP so yes, your OP is still unclear.


Op is clear as day - should you read it _properly_. (i.e., not clouded by irrelevant gibberish).




> Your "cases" do "prove" your premise.


They do not - and if they do, *oh goodie.*



> If they didn't, you wouldn't keep referring to them to indeed, prove your point and how they disqualify any other ways of understanding the subject because you think they undermine any potential argument.


Thus, if they are ''proven'' you are wasting your ''time'' squabbling with me - because ... (?) Eh? o__O




> Yes, you did assert that you think asexuals/demisexuals constitute a small part of the population.


Fair enough - thus, this does not apply to (a)sexuals / demisexuals - those outside of this circle, may answer - as the ''statement'' can only be applied to them. (re: dishonesty). However, I posit ''sexual'' interest isn't needn't to 'factor' in looks. (i.e., physical properties). (Post #1). It ''clouds'' the *bigger* picture. 




> I wouldn't equal "simplistic" with "unclear". The suggestion I offered you is "simple", because it says what you were trying to say in far fewer words and with far greater clarity and would carry exactly the same essence but would a) not be read as offensive and b) actually inquire into the thing you wish to inquire without people misunderstanding you. That is not an attack, idk why you think it is an attack. It was simply a suggestion of how you could have done and imo, should have done it better. It is simply a more effective way to communicate the same thing in a way that is actually understandable by people without making it come across as so charged by suggesting a certain group to be liars which you actually do.


Post #1 point (C) top / bottom - implies coherent & simplistic understanding - as I said, ''reactive'' responses will not ponder much. Fair enough, however, _My suggestion_ - ''cutting'' your rants short; as many inside accusations, are at best, false.





> Cherrypicking to prove your point and disregarding the entire context in which something was uttered is offensive. The bigger picture of what was being suggested was that he was saying that "ugly" does not matter; that is exactly what he is saying, but instead you read the fact that he mentioned it at all to be mean that he does at some level care. That's intellectually dishonest of you, since the thread context already biases the discussion towards such an angle.


There was no ''cherrypicking'' here son - take the tears, elsewhere - or report it. The ''examples'' are subjective, and may be alternated as such. Stated in previous posts. ;*headshake*

However, we may agree to disagree.


----------



## mikki104 (Apr 7, 2012)

It is hard for me to address this question because it requires separating out looks from personality, which to me are always intertwined.

I think it's important to define what exactly we mean when we're talking about "looks" - does this refer to the purely aesthetic qualities of a person's physical features, or does it also encompass the expressions that a person wears - for example, kind eyes, a mischievous smile, intense gaze, an easy-going bearing, or an energetic stance can really make me physically attracted to someone who might not have conventional good looks. I am attracted to the _look_ of their personality, if you know what I mean. So it's not that looks don't matter... but "looks" don't matter.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Blessed Frozen Cells said:


> Looks do matter to a lot of people regardless of sexual orientation from what I've noticed.
> 
> 
> 
> If you visited asexual forums, you'd be surprised that a majority often mention how looks do matter to them. It's because most people experience aesthetic attraction. Sometimes it's connected sexual attraction. Other times it's not.


_Surprise, surprise_? 

I appreciate your answer.


----------



## Blessed Frozen Cells (Apr 3, 2013)

Catwalk said:


> _Surprise, surprise_?
> 
> I appreciate your answer.


Well, I was surprised lol because I suffer from mild prosopagnosia. I can't even remember my own face most of the time.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

mikki104 said:


> It is hard for me to address this question because it requires separating out looks from personality, which to me are always intertwined.
> 
> I think it's important to define what exactly we mean when we're talking about "looks" - does this refer to the purely aesthetic qualities of a person's physical features, or does it also encompass the expressions that a person wears - for example, kind eyes, a mischievous smile, intense gaze, an easy-going bearing, or an energetic stance can really make me physically attracted to someone who might not have conventional good looks. I am attracted to the _look_ of their personality, if you know what I mean. So it's not that looks don't matter... but "looks" don't matter.


It is fairly easy to address - one mustn't think *too* hard. It will cloud.  
_
look
lo͝ok/Submit
verb
3rd person present: looks
1.
direct one's gaze toward someone or something or in a specified direction.
"people were looking at him"
synonyms:	glance at, gaze at, stare at, gape at, peer at; More
2.
*have the appearance or give the impression of being.*_

_Implies_ all physical _attributes / properties_ able to be perceived by the eye (re: exclusion of the blind / mental impediments - that renders them _ineligible_).

However, I will _agree_ - ''*good*'' looks (i.e., pertaining subjectively through individuals) varies - but that needn't apply, and was never stated.

The ''examples'' display radical 'guidelines' - but can be completely disregarded or altered to preferred stance.

I appreciate your answer.


----------



## Doktorin Zylinder (May 10, 2015)

I have no preference for physical features other than weight and things of that nature because they usually indicate an emotional problem if one is over or underweight. I can't tell you if someone is good looking or not. If someone asks me, I'll say I don't know. If I take into account mathematical symmetry and whatnot as has been derived by scientific means as to whether or not someone is good looking, I can say they fit a standard based on those predefined attributes, but otherwise I couldn't tell you.

I also don't consider myself good looking but I don't consider anyone good looking. An ex of mine was considered average at best, I was told. I had two exes tell me they were "hotties." I guess? I'm not sure. My last ex looked familiar. I can usually recognize faces unless I'm depressed. She showed me a picture of Lupita Nyong'o and they looked remarkably alike when compared. I don't consider either of them good looking, though. My best friend asked me not too long ago if I could define physical beauty or pretty or attractiveness and other than the math and emotional attachment, I could not. 

I've never been physically attracted to another person. I don't care for sex nor physical contact. It is about their mind. I can't deal with people who aren't particularly intelligent. They grate on me. It's aggravating. Mental and emotional engagement with people is what I look for. Compatibility of mind.


----------



## Watchtower (Aug 20, 2015)

What's the question again? Very confusing. From personal experience, nobody bothers to find out the personality if looks aren't appealing. Ain't nobody got time for that.


----------



## Graveyard (Oct 23, 2015)

Blessed Frozen Cells said:


> If you visited asexual forums, you'd be surprised that a majority often mention how looks do matter to them. It's because most people experience aesthetic attraction. Sometimes it's connected sexual attraction. Other times it's not.


Never had much experiences with asexuals. I know a very few, but they're also aromantic, so they don't really count.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

I don't think it's possible to dismiss physical attraction, unless there's a mental impairment that allows it.

It is a biological imperative.


----------



## bruh (Oct 27, 2015)

Good looks is just a bonus, to me.


----------



## Enxu (Dec 14, 2012)

I have hit on guys with charisma but without attractive physicality. So yes, personality matters more. Guys seem to get attracted to me based on my physicality first, but I think my personality is much more attractive..

Guys definitely get attracted by looks much more than girls do. But attraction is only at the infatuation level, so after that personality weighs heavier. However, I think there are a small group of guys who will go all the way just to get a gorgeous chick and don't care at all the whole personality of a person. Just saying.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Watchtower said:


> What's the question again? Very confusing. From personal experience, nobody bothers to find out the personality if looks aren't appealing. Ain't nobody got time for that.


That's what I thought. These people who say looks don't matter, if someone looked like the elephant man, but had a great personality would they still recognise this?


----------



## Sonny (Oct 14, 2008)

Catwalk said:


> _Nothing _of this nature was implied. However, I understand most are ''sugarcoating'' to combat 'conventional' standards (i.e., Hollywood / Media) et al - nothing of ''media'' standards was applied, and even if so, this does not demonstrate that ''looks do not matter'' is _honest._


There are two different things here;
-Those who do care about looks but either consider themselves unattractive so say they don't care because they don't expect to have someone they are attracted to find them attractive (aim low, you won't be disappointed), or who think saying looks matter is a superficial thing so to appear more altruistic claim they don't care.

-Those who don't care about looks.

I understand the former occurs, however, the latter is what I am focused on.



> It is fairly _simplistic_ for me to feel ''lack-of'' physical attraction towards someone - just as easy as the reverse.
> 
> E.g., X individual is demonstrably ''less'' attractive than Y individual, thus is only eligible for 'platonic' interaction and/or invokes enough '_disgust_' in which I take no further interest).


It's easy for me to experience an expressed lack of attraction, only it's not caused by someone's physical appearance, it's how their personality shows through which is somewhat difficult to articulate. At the least everyone should acknowledge that people show their moods physically, a foul mood is unattractive no matter how pretty the face, I believe much more shows through, how someone holds themselves, their manner of speaking, eye contact with those around them, how easy they smile, their general demeanour, this can give you an idea of their personality and they are the things that cause someone to be attractive or unattractive to me. Before speaking to someone most people sit in a 'neutral no-opinion' place, I don't note/rate their attractiveness, and without reason to suspect compatibility, I don't view them as a potential date.



> They were not meat to _convey_ a ''great'' meaning; but rather be ''applied'' (i.e., useful) in a more detailed interpretation.
> 
> Thus,
> 
> ...


I comprehend what you were aiming at, and I'm telling you from the perspective of someone who is not concerned about looks, you're not hitting on points that have distinctions for someone who doesn't care about looks.



> I understand Demisexuals™ are the _only_ one's exempt. However, I question if many are ''_faux_''.


Blegh, I hate the term, most people I see claiming it are teens who I expect for the most part are too inexperienced to be locked into such a vague category that many people mistake with being a "nicer kind of person cause they're not judging". That said, I would probably fit the criteria. My partner would continually point out attractive guys around us, and I simply don't get it. Me, I notice all the fluffy animals. So now he points out all the guys he finds hot when they have dogs, so I can at least "daww" the dog.



> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Point A, when it has come up, has not been influenced by looks, so point B holds true. This does not mean I do not have any preferences.



> This only seems coherent with (A)sexuals / Demisexuals (i.e., rare few) - I find this to be dishonest.


Cute, calls me a liar. 

If you want to understand, that is how not to do it.



> _Thus, if you are ''*heterosexual*'' - are you also attracted to males (?)
> 
> Thus, if you are ''*homosexual*'' - are you also attracted to females (?) _
> 
> ...


You're still missing the focus in order to comprehend it from the opposite pov.

I have preferences, everyone does, my lack of concern with looks doesn't mean I'm potentially attracted to everyone, if anything it's the opposite, there are very few people I'm attracted to because I'm basing it on personality, compatibility, chemistry and their general ability to intrigue me, these things can not be glossed over because they're attractive. The fact that looks aren't an issue may widen the initial pool, however, I find myself incompatible with most people I interact with and, therefore, unattracted to them.


----------



## marblecloud95 (Aug 12, 2015)

@Catwalk how would you feel about dating a *big beautiful man* with dj kahled's pear shaped physique?


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

marblecloud95 said:


> @Catwalk how would you feel about dating a *big beautiful man* with dj kahled's pear shaped physique?


I am not attracted to this male - why waste his time (via) faux / dating + building his ''hope'' that this would change (via) personality .. (?) (i.e., escalating his chances of emotional + mental damage / hurt) ... (?)

What's he going to wait, for *5* years? He could be _screwing_ a Chubby Chaser™ than sitting around waiting for MY ''*lagging*'' arse to ''develop'' personality-judo; that will _probably _never even come.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

Hibiscus said:


> Love based on looks only is more lust-driven rather than actual love itself. Perhaps your friend is one of those people who feels something when she gets to know someone. Your looks may be average, but if your personality is great, it does bump your overall score up by a few points.
> 
> For example, a 10/10 hot guy/girl is great to look at, but if they open their mouth and sound super dumb, any self-respecting person would be like, "No bueno..." because after all, you'll be dealing with that personality once their looks fade away as they age.
> 
> Plus, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Cliched saying, but it's true.


Please see Catwalk's response below. 

She could very well be one of those people, but we had already known each other for like a year and a half at the time. So did she think she'd logically talk herself into converting me into a 9-10? "oh, we're dating now, so suddenly he's hotter". Plus her actions don't really line up with being that type of person, because she sexualizes other people more than I do (strangers mostly), yet I am the one to acknowledge looks being important. :dry:



Catwalk said:


> Absolute _nonsense_. I would not tolerate it. (i.e., waste of my time). There is no certainty or even ''half'' guarantee ''personality'' compatiability will develop, thus, ''wasted'' time (via) _self-defeating_ *false* hope.
> 
> 
> Liars / coaxers / users / manipulators + sugarcoaters use that ''*garbage*'' line to prevent ''hurting'' of feelings --> (i.e., _leading on / wasted time _/ or ''using'' you as a *crutch* until someone else _comes into the picture._ I feel sorry for any individual that falls for that simplistic nonsense .. :laughing:
> ...


I've considered that that's really true for her. But even if it were, it just shows that our values are completely misaligned. I expect _mutual_ physical attraction; if someone isn't attracted to me, they shouldn't be dating me. Clearly she does not share my expectations. 

I don't think she was trying to prevent hurting my feelings, given that she was the one trying to convince _me_ to date _her_, but I was the one not interested. She was more trying to manipulate me into dating her. I guess she didn't realize that saying my looks are average worked against her. Lol. 

You might be right about the crutch part... she's been with a guy twice our age for awhile now, and I think she's finally given up trying to seduce me. :laughing:


----------



## OutOfThisWorld (Nov 4, 2013)

ninjahitsawall said:


> Please see Catwalk's response below.
> 
> She could very well be one of those people, but we had already known each other for like a year and a half at the time. So did she think she'd logically talk herself into converting me into a 9-10? "oh, we're dating now, so suddenly he's hotter". Plus her actions don't really line up with being that type of person, because she sexualizes other people more than I do (strangers mostly), yet I am the one to acknowledge looks being important. :dry:
> 
> ...


Dating is messy to begin with. If your gut feeling says she's sympathy-dating or have a foot out of the door, ready to bounce, the best course of action is to quit it before it gets real.

As for Catwalk's assertion, I believe she's correct partially, as there are quite a number of people who force themselves to try and "like a person" when they were simply lonely or have some other shady things going on when they enter a relationship with another person half-heartedly. Those are the dishonest ones. What I meant in my post is that while a person may not be magazine cover attractive, it's very possible to fall in love naturally with someone based on their personality unexpectedly, despite not being super physically attractive. These relationships occur through long periods of interaction like friendships or something. If you were going in blind, then my point would not be applicable. 

I would say go with your gut. Unless you have IBS. Then you should probably go to the doctor.


----------



## Vanitas (Dec 13, 2009)

ninjahitsawall said:


> Would you find it equally problematic if someone seemed to like your personality more than your looks, and said your looks would grow on them over time? I had a friend who used to claim to be "in love" with me and she sometimes says she can become interested in physical traits later, if she can bond emotionally with someone. I'm skeptical of this. There was one time where, later in this_ same conversation_, she described my looks as average ("like a 5 or 6" to quote directly) and I was thinking "this is a load of crap, you can't be in love with someone and think their looks are average. She's being a drama queen." :bored:


I've tried being in the girl's position. It was-- a chance I took. Actually said to a friend "The other 95% fits, I can live with the 5%", to which my friend replied "Never tell him that." -- he was also a guy. I never did. He was not ugly, just not the type I find attractive. The relationship didn't work, but not because of his looks. 

..I suppose you never know what concessions your partner might make in the beginning of a relationship, what aspects of you they're thinking 'I don't really like x, but maybe I'll change my mind/ can learn to live with it'. Maybe they'll get over it, maybe they won't.

I've dated/been in love with people I considered 5-6, I was aware they're not 'hot' but so what. But if being thought as 9-10 by your partner is a requirement for you, then do you.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

ninjahitsawall said:


> Please see Catwalk's response below.
> 
> She could very well be one of those people, but we had already known each other for like a year and a half at the time. So did she think she'd logically talk herself into converting me into a 9-10? "oh, we're dating now, so suddenly he's hotter". Plus her actions don't really line up with being that type of person, because she sexualizes other people more than I do (strangers mostly), yet I am the one to acknowledge looks being important. :dry:
> 
> ...


I think you need to get out. However, thank goodness us INTJ™ have an _irrational _''blocking'' mechanism to prevent ''falling to hard''.

I steal this from another thread;


* *







Catwalk said:


> [Ex; (1)] -->
> 
> Does ''not'' telling partner you are 'unfaithful' and/or ''remaining'' with partner, say, for years - harm them (?) - (re: extending suffering + reducing partners ''chance'' of freedom (via) truth-telling to be with someone that will benefit them, that is, optimizing well-being .. (?)
> 
> ...





Her behavior aligns with my points made here - thus, I render these individuals ''harmful'' as they elevate suffering / unwarranted / unjust ''pain'' of agents for 0 gains.

This is also a base for this thread.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Hibiscus said:


> As for Catwalk's assertion, I believe she's correct partially, as there are quite a number of people who force themselves to try and "like a person" when they were simply lonely or have some other shady things going on when they enter a relationship with another person half-heartedly. Those are the dishonest ones. What I meant in my post is that while a person may not be magazine cover attractive, it's very possible to fall in love naturally with someone based on their personality unexpectedly, despite not being super physically attractive. These relationships occur through long periods of interaction like friendships or something. If you were going in blind, then my point would not be applicable.



I am aware the latter is possible + exists, however, I am very ''justice'' oriented - I think if you are strong enough to take such ''risks'' that is a honest + *admirable* trait. I do not care about ''personal'' inquiries - so long as they are _honest_ with participants involved + honest with oneself.

I do not have in me to take such ''risks''.

However - and am _highly_ geared toward ''justice'' (i.e., doing the right thing) - by all means necessary, I enjoy putting away ''Falsifiers™ / Bad Guys™'' that exploit + take advantage of the weak; I am tired of hearing ''complaints'' of defenseless individuals being *exploited.* I am aware many of my posting may be ''dismissive'' + '_closed-off_'.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

Catwalk said:


> I think you need to get out. However, thank goodness us INTJ™ have an _irrational _''blocking'' mechanism to prevent ''falling to hard''.
> 
> I steal this from another thread;
> 
> ...


? "Get out"? I never got involved with her. I actually never had feelings for her. Hence why she was trying to convince me that I can develop feelings over time like she did, if we took the friendship to relationship level. 

If it helps at all, she tested as an ENTP, and is really awkward with emotional stuff. :laughing: I've also criticized/critiqued some of her past relationship choices/behaviors, because I was trying to be a "good friend" or whatever (i.e. honest), and she'd always ask me what I thought. But the fact she had this idea in her head that we had some kind of "connection", my providing insights into that aspect of her life may have made it worse. She read into everything as some kind of demonstration of intimacy, so I started to distance myself once she said she liked me.



Hibiscus said:


> As for Catwalk's assertion, I believe she's correct partially, as there are quite a number of people who force themselves to try and "like a person" when they were simply lonely or have some other shady things going on when they enter a relationship with another person half-heartedly.


Something like that, she seems a bit insecure in relationships, and a bit paranoid that she's being manipulated (or at least, will be easily manipulated if she gets her emotions involved). Fear of showing emotional vulnerability thing. She also gets bored/restless easily, and when she's single, I've noticed she ends up finding people to date in the most random ways lol. Not that she's necessarily happy in a relationship. IMHO, she is going to have to address the internal restlessness before she can feel more fulfilled either way.


----------



## Sonny (Oct 14, 2008)

Catwalk said:


> Thus, you are able to ''distinguish'' (i.e., recognize) a pretty face, in spite of ''unattractive'' persona - which, implies looks.
> 
> What makes a face ''pretty'' ..... (?)


Of course I am. I am fully capable of recognising what is aesthetic beauty in terms of symmetry and societies standards. You're making an erroneous leap from 'recognises beauty in another' to 'is attracted to beauty in others', that's where you're failing to comprehend. I can look at an image of some Hollywood star and see they are attractive, I however, am not attracted _too_ them.



> I disagree. (i.e., subconscious filtration / 1st person). There is no ''neutral'' criterion in this regard, unless you are impaired not do register it .. (i.e., blindness, et al).


It's not for you to disagree, it is my experience. I've analysed it enough to be aware of it. Your insistence on calling those who say something that does not align with your expectations a liar says you are not prepared to hear anything that does not match your already reached conclusion, so meh. Continue believing your subjective perspective is the only authentic one.


----------



## LandOfTheSnakes (Sep 7, 2013)

Catwalk said:


> All the self-proclaimed ''individuals'' (i.e., that do not care about looks), filter + factor in ... Looks, (i.e., physical attributes / properties) via relational selection. (i.e., weight / smiles / ''personality showing on the outside'').
> 
> My OP, was not meant to ''prove'' anything but ''demonstrate'' or *question* the _authenticity _of those (i.e., _excluding sexual stances_ - as it needn't be implied, necessary, to ''dismiss'' looks) - can _coherently_ ''claim'' _looks do not matter._
> 
> ...


Then what the hell are you trying to accomplish with this thread and your incredibly awkward way of writing? You basically just said you are challenging people who are, by definition, not honest/authentic with themselves. Learn to be more clear and succinct in your writing (P.S. your poor grammar does not make you look smarter) and make arguments that actually have an opposing point of view.


----------



## Sygma (Dec 19, 2014)

Catwalk said:


> Thus, ''_all_ individuals'' can _grow_ on you, in time? (i.e., _given the chance_).
> 
> Thus, ''everyone'' can be 10 - or _equally_ eligible? (i.e., _given the chance_).
> 
> Do you think this should be of *concern*? (re: cheating).


It's only of concern if you re insecure about being in the same league. And that's precisely where some couples fall short even if the persons are getting along incredibly well : it's all about being a support and wanting the same things. Level of success / social status are just there for the said person to feel good about him/herself and the partner should never be scared about it.

Otherwise I think look does matter, same as body language when you meet a person, at least for the sexual aspect of it if you re looking to copulate and develop affinity with both kind of intimacy (emotional - physical). How are you getting attracted to somebody if your curiosity in whatever form you can think about is not triggered ? I believe it always begin visually, then it fade away in favor of behavior, to something more profound where you proceed to actually care in a truer form of.

I believe that "looks don't matter" is a sentence to conceal "Look don't matter as much as all the rest over time" and that's definitely the case when it's more than just attraction. It's just that people use that very sentence because it's implicit to the seasonned lovers, so to speak


----------



## Luck (Nov 19, 2015)

I fell in love with my SO without having seen him. It was an odd situation where we met online and decided to be friends for a few reasons, long distance being one of them, despite getting along well right from the start. He had seen photos of me, I had not. We became close 'friends' (he made it clear that he wanted more without pushing the point) and we got to know each other very well over time as we dated other people. Over the years the mild sexual attraction I had for his personality grew heavier and eventually I realized I was in love. The only information I had about his looks was that he is slightly shorter than (tall) me, struggles with an extra 20 pounds that comes and goes and wears nice clothing.

I just want to emphasize that my attraction to him was sexual, despite not knowing what he looked like. I am sexually attracted to his personality. I imagined he'd be average looking and that would be fine. His looks were irrelevant. His personality is everything (when you also factor in the r/ship that comes from that). I realize that an argument can be made that if he was 400 pounds then perhaps I wouldn't feel the same way but I believe personality plays a factor in weight/hygeine/clothing.

I don't think this is the way for most people (including my SO who is very looks dependent in his attraction) but to those who think it isn't possible to choose and be sexually attracted on personality alone, I assure you, it can happen. When I see him, I truly see 'him' and am far more attracted than I am to someone who is good looking.


----------



## Macrosapien (Apr 4, 2010)

Luck said:


> I fell in love with my SO without having seen him. It was an odd situation where we met online and decided to be friends for a few reasons, long distance being one of them, despite getting along well right from the start. He had seen photos of me, I had not. We became close 'friends' (he made it clear that he wanted more without pushing the point) and we got to know each other very well over time as we dated other people. Over the years the mild sexual attraction I had for his personality grew heavier and eventually I realized I was in love. The only information I had about his looks was that he is slightly shorter than (tall) me, struggles with an extra 20 pounds that comes and goes and wears nice clothing.
> 
> I just want to emphasize that my attraction to him was sexual, despite not knowing what he looked like. I am sexually attracted to his personality. I imagined he'd be average looking and that would be fine. His looks were irrelevant. His personality is everything (when you also factor in the r/ship that comes from that). I realize that an argument can be made that if he was 400 pounds then perhaps I wouldn't feel the same way but I believe personality plays a factor in weight/hygeine/clothing.
> 
> I don't think this is the way for most people (including my SO who is very looks dependent in his attraction) but to those who think it isn't possible to choose and be sexually attracted on personality alone, I assure you, it can happen. When I see him, I truly see 'him' and am far more attracted than I am to someone who is good looking.


good for you. I'm not sure how it will translate to life, but if you are really into him mentally, and there is an emotional bond there, perhaps it can be good. So it sounds like you are just about one of the most awesome girls around. And this is not to be mean or anything, just speaking from my own experience, I find that people who would not show me their picture, or come on something like skype, to me, is just really suspect. I mean if you really like me, and you are really that into the prospect of this relationship, then we should be able to share a great deal with each other and keep nothing hidden, especially physicality -- not just descriptions. I just dont like the idea of being deceived, you can be below average looking, whatever that means, I don't care but I need to see you.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Sygma said:


> It's only of concern if you re insecure about being in the same league. And that's precisely where some couples fall short even if the persons are getting along incredibly well : it's all about being a support and wanting the same things. Level of success / social status are just there for the said person to feel good about him/herself and the partner should never be scared about it.


Most couples are lying to themselves - (via) falsity.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Luck said:


> I fell in love with my SO without having seen him. It was an odd situation where we met online and decided to be friends for a few reasons, long distance being one of them, despite getting along well right from the start. He had seen photos of me, I had not. We became close 'friends' (he made it clear that he wanted more without pushing the point) and we got to know each other very well over time as we dated other people. Over the years the mild sexual attraction I had for his personality grew heavier and eventually I realized I was in love. The only information I had about his looks was that he is slightly shorter than (tall) me, struggles with an extra 20 pounds that comes and goes and wears nice clothing.
> 
> I just want to emphasize that my attraction to him was sexual, despite not knowing what he looked like. I am sexually attracted to his personality. I imagined he'd be average looking and that would be fine. His looks were irrelevant. His personality is everything (when you also factor in the r/ship that comes from that). I realize that an argument can be made that if he was 400 pounds then perhaps I wouldn't feel the same way but I believe personality plays a factor in weight/hygeine/clothing.
> 
> I don't think this is the way for most people (including my SO who is very looks dependent in his attraction) but to those who think it isn't possible to choose and be sexually attracted on personality alone, I assure you, it can happen. When I see him, I truly see 'him' and am far more attracted than I am to someone who is good looking.


Once you are ''hooked'' (via) mental stimulus / emotional-judo (i.e., psychologically), there is no turning back. Especially for a woman. This is best accomplished through internet means. What happens to you, is fairy common, indeed.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

LandOfTheSnakes said:


> Then what the hell are you trying to accomplish with this thread and your incredibly awkward way of writing? You basically just said you are challenging people who are, by definition, not honest/authentic with themselves. Learn to be more clear and succinct in your writing (P.S. your poor grammar does not make you look smarter) and make arguments that actually have an opposing point of view.


:'(


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

*Thread Update:*

For the _sensitives_ - Make sure to ''*Feeling*'' Masturbate _before_ answering.

I am tired of _''holding-hands'' + wiping tears._

You will feel _better,_ and your judgment will be less ''clouded / impulsive & ranty'' (via) thread.

(i.e., _proper_ understanding).​


----------



## aef8234 (Feb 18, 2012)

Catwalk said:


> :'(


Still have no idea what you'r saying, even now.


This should probably be a hint at what you're doing and how it'll ostracize you.
But you apparently don't care, so...
You know, gotta make sure it isn't a bluff.
I'm guessing it is.



Catwalk said:


> *Thread Update:*
> 
> For the _sensitives_ - Make sure to ''*Feeling*'' Masturbate _before_ answering.
> 
> ...


That's adorable.
You thnk you're in control.
Yeah, have fun with the eventual fall into mediocrity.
Mediocre.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

aef8234 said:


> Still have no idea what you'r saying, even now.
> 
> 
> This should probably be a hint at what you're doing and how it'll ostracize you.
> ...




I disregarded, *90*% of _quotes_ you have made of me (i.e., constantly trying to get me to respond to your ''comments'' of my persona), within this site. _Very well_, then, I will respond this one time.










I dunno if its your _style_ - however, it locks rather *tight*. I do not mind if you persist to follow + quote me, however, I cannot promise a response.


----------



## Frenetic Tranquility (Aug 5, 2011)

Catwalk said:


> Below, I display the common statements most utilized (via) possible sugarcoaters / coaxers + liars.
> ______________
> 
> 
> ...


I tend to think that many people claim to be what matches their idealism, rather than what matches reality. Much of our carnal attraction for the opposite sex is generated at a subconscious level, below any sophisticated thought process, and therefore can influence a person unbeknownst to them. At least, unless they have the introspection to understand themselves based on objective evidence.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

Catwalk said:


> Once you are ''hooked'' (via) mental stimulus / emotional-judo (i.e., psychologically), there is no turning back. Especially for a woman. This is best accomplished through internet means. What happens to you, is fairy common, indeed.


This sounds like a decent opportunity to introduce a couple of other factors into consideration.

1) What kind of relationship is desired ? That is, a person looking solely for a one night stand would likely have higher requirements on looks, than someone interested in a conventional "relationship". Or, a person looking for "friends with benefits" might be more forgiving about looks, and more demanding about intellect or common interests. Someone seeking an LTR might emphasize shared values, but still have a "floor" on the lowest level of attractiveness for someone they'd pursue.

2) Similarly, it can happen that incompatibilities develop, or are discovered: the initial phases of "getting to know you" or "courtship" are where one alternative reveals, hides, exaggerates, peacocks, adapts, and so on, trying to find the other person's good and bad traits -- not only habits and personality, but goals and lifestyle and beliefs. @Catwalk had mentioned contempt for those who hesitate to inform a romantic partner "for fear of hurting that partner's feelings", saying that such is the mark of someone using someone until someone better comes along. That might be: but there might be another cause -- a person might be inexperienced enough, or have let some aspect of the other person dazzle or blind them enough, that they are in a relationship before discovering things that are "deal breakers" which they didn't foresee going in: and they don't DISLIKE their partner, they just realize that the relationship cannot be permanent. Different personality types have different ways of handing this. INTJs cut to the point ruthlessly to minimize losses; others might take far longer, waiting to see if some other personal growth or accommodation might develop (after all, they say, the deal breaker itself wasn't obvious immediately, maybe its cure won't be either)...or wish to find a way to minimize the pain of the breakup to the other person.

Related to this, there might be different requirements for talking / flirting with / considering asking out or saying "Yes" to a date with someone; but the boundaries or thresholds might be flexible if one has gotten to know them online (see your remark about women becoming hooked psychologically) and you already see they are a good fit in some other areas. This might be analogous to the Monty Hall door-choosing problem, as getting to know someone reduces some of the risks of unknowns in a relationship, and so one needn't worry as much if they are only a 7/10 instead of an 8/10 on looks, now that you know how high they score in other areas.

Additionally, once a relationship *has* developed (say, it has gone sexual) either the excitement of sex, or the bonding/oxytocin, may make up for some level of looks.

3) Perhaps some mention of "necessary, but not sufficient" might be in order: subject to tradeoffs. Not all of these will necessarily revolve around "looks" : some might be personality or wealth or intelligence or height (I do not count height as synonymous with looks, since some men love curvaceous woman whereas I prefer beanpoles.) One might think of a linear combination of several attributes, or a "balanced scorecard" approach: total of all contributing factors must be > 40 out of a possible 60, with no factor to fall below the 40% gentile, or something...


----------



## Macrosapien (Apr 4, 2010)

Catwalk said:


> Once you are ''hooked'' (via) mental stimulus / emotional-judo (i.e., psychologically), there is no turning back. Especially for a woman. This is best accomplished through internet means. What happens to you, is fairy common, indeed.


It happened to me. I was talking to a girl and I asked for her picture early on and she said I'll show you later. I thought it was weird, but I figured, maybe its too early. So time goes on and she shows me a picture, but it looked like it was kinda away, lol all i could tell from it was she was slim and asian. Meanwhile I was sending her pictures and even little cute/friendly videos of me and my yorkie. But month and months of dialog, like 6 months or more man, i invested in her, being a sensitive guy, and then she showed me real pictures she had just taken. but she took them without the light being on, like you could see her face clear, her features very strongly, but you couldnt really see the texture of her skin much because of the shade. Either they were shaded or taken in bright rooms. Her bone structure was great, cute. Then she took another picture later on, and she took it in regular lighting, and she had some acne scares, and some random acne. And I thought, OOO i see, thats why. 

Then I met her, and I can remember going to pick her up and thinking, where is see. It was at a crowded place, I was just looking for the petite asian girl, and when I saw her, I was sort of shocked. The pimples and scares weren't too bad, but she had a pretty pronounced overbite, and some how had positioned her face in the pictures by pushing her jaw forward to make it look different, thus her face was shaped differently. I was shocked and felt deceived about it. But it's like, she actually came from another country to see me, and I did really like her. But then we got back to my house, and in clear light, she smiled and looked at me, and her smile was so beautiful and just lit up the room. And I had invested so much emotion into her, I didnt care. I only cared when her insecurities started to get the best of her and she kept bringing it to my attention over and over again.

Needless to say it didnt ultimately work out, but being a good person goes a long way. I really liked her, but I would never put myself in a situation like that ever again, if I ever get with anyone from online, pictures are a must and if they don't show me their picture, like are hesitant, im going to walk away. because deception isnt cool, insecurities that strong become a big problem in the relationship -- this girl was very jealous. she wasnt even unattractive, but she acted like she wanted to tie me up up and keep me in a box.

Sorry for the long incoherent judo-story.


----------



## aef8234 (Feb 18, 2012)

Catwalk said:


> I iz speshiul look at my mooooops.


See.
The thing about positions of power is that it requires forms of power, there are different forms.
You have none.
Unless you go full GOTIS on everyone, in which case that's hilariously sad.

In the end you aren't worth my time, which is adorable because apparently you imply you're worth my time after I've only quoted you three times during your utterly atteniony attempts here for the past almost-year. I guess you can call this senpai finally noticed you and decided to try to read your utterly depressing attempt at robotic diction. Reminds me of this 12 year old who tried to pretend to be british.
Didn't get him laid, didn't get him any friends, just made him an outcast.
12 year old was me by the way, granted the whole getting laid thing wasn't my plan.

It was attention.


It's almost getting attentionwhory by the way, I'd suggest you stop, but I've already learned it isn't that you won't.

It's because you can't.






But + do _*have fun and* smile once in a while though.
_It's all a show and you're the main clown.
The main. Sad. clown.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

g_w said:


> This sounds like a decent opportunity to introduce a couple of other factors into consideration.
> 
> 1) What kind of relationship is desired ? That is, a person looking solely for a one night stand would likely have higher requirements on looks, than someone interested in a conventional "relationship". Or, a person looking for "friends with benefits" might be more forgiving about looks, and more demanding about intellect or common interests. Someone seeking an LTR might emphasize shared values, but still have a "floor" on the lowest level of attractiveness for someone they'd pursue.


_Interesting_. I am aware of the variations of 'look' requirements (via) differential / subjective 'perference' and lenience. For myself, it is reverse - should it be ''conventional'' I understand that ''looks'' (i.e., outer) _et al_ .. would be heavily emphasize as ''important''.


Ex; (1) --> X relationship will last 10+ years. 

Thus, I filter + factor them, as _deciding_ + important factor. My reasoning is that *One Nighters*, are _usually_, purely for coitus + physical / genital stimulus, (re: _getting rocks off_), thus, I needn't any ''deep connection'' in the look nor emotional sector to '_climax_'. Thus, they ''needn't'' fit my ideal relationship standard. I am there to 'orgasm', not _connect_. ''Good looks'' (via) *One Nighters*_ increases _/ elevates ''connection'' risks. (Ex (1) --> Constant FWB failures. They rarely last.


However, for ''relationship'' (i.e., longer lasting / pyschological / emotional stimulus) - if I am going to be around them 10+ years, they might as well look like _*something*_.


Does this mean my ''look'' standards / preferences are 'high' (re: Media / Hollywood) or ''unrealistic / unattainable'' - *not so*. However, ''looks'' are filtered + factored to _critique'd_ to my needs / _desires_.


By ''needs'' - DNA / Health + genetic 'standard' of outer display. (i.e., *Advanced* cripples / Genetic disorders / Biological 'sex' if offspring wanted) _et al_ .. or anything, that may impact future offspring / or my well-being - _or_ initiate ''disgust'' or undesire - that will hinder or 'limit' physical needs / intimacy. (elevating harm).


By ''desires'' - anything outside 'needs' I have lenience to or preference towards, (i.e., Height / Hygiene / Weight) and ''aesthestic'' requirement (looks). _et al_.




> 2) Similarly, it can happen that incompatibilities develop, or are discovered: the initial phases of "getting to know you" or "courtship" are where one alternative reveals, hides, exaggerates, peacocks, adapts, and so on, trying to find the other person's good and bad traits -- not only habits and personality, but goals and lifestyle and beliefs. @Catwalk had mentioned contempt for those who hesitate to inform a romantic partner "for fear of hurting that partner's feelings", saying that such is the mark of someone using someone until someone better comes along. That might be: but there might be another cause -- a person might be inexperienced enough, or have let some aspect of the other person dazzle or blind them enough, that they are in a relationship before discovering things that are "deal breakers" which they didn't foresee going in: and they don't DISLIKE their partner, they just realize that the relationship cannot be permanent. Different personality types have different ways of handing this. INTJs cut to the point ruthlessly to minimize losses; others might take far longer, waiting to see if some other personal growth or accommodation might develop (after all, they say, the deal breaker itself wasn't obvious immediately, maybe its cure won't be either)...or wish to find a way to minimize the pain of the breakup to the other person.


*Good points.* I have not considered ''personality'' differences + problem-solving method(s) that _differentiate _beyond them.

I know ''not-truth-telling / withholding'' _escalates_ + increases harm. Whether ''experienced'' or no, thus I always take the option that _reduces_ any 'harm' of agents.



> Related to this, there might be different requirements for talking / flirting with / considering asking out or saying "Yes" to a date with someone; but the boundaries or thresholds might be flexible if one has gotten to know them online (see your remark about women becoming hooked psychologically) and you already see they are a good fit in some other areas. This might be analogous to the Monty Hall door-choosing problem, as getting to know someone reduces some of the risks of unknowns in a relationship, and so one needn't worry as much if they are only a 7/10 instead of an 8/10 on looks, now that you know how high they score in other areas.
> 
> Additionally, once a relationship *has* developed (say, it has gone sexual) either the excitement of sex, or the bonding/oxytocin, may make up for some level of looks.
> 
> 3) Perhaps some mention of "necessary, but not sufficient" might be in order: subject to tradeoffs. Not all of these will necessarily revolve around "looks" : some might be personality or wealth or intelligence or height (I do not count height as synonymous with looks, since some men love curvaceous woman whereas I prefer beanpoles.) One might think of a linear combination of several attributes, or a "balanced scorecard" approach: total of all contributing factors must be > 40 out of a possible 60, with no factor to fall below the 40% gentile, or something...


Your post is highly informative / makes sufficient amounts of sense - I appreciate it. I will admit to be wrong in not considering differienting ''relationship'' seeking / personalities & compromising factors.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Macrosapien said:


> Needless to say it didnt ultimately work out, but being a good person goes a long way. I really liked her, but I would never put myself in a situation like that ever again, if I ever get with anyone from online, pictures are a must and if they don't show me their picture, like are hesitant, im going to walk away. because deception isnt cool, insecurities that strong become a big problem in the relationship -- this girl was very jealous. she wasnt even unattractive, but she acted like she wanted to tie me up up and keep me in a box.


You are wise in your skepticism - as this will _reduce_ / tighten ''chances'' of failure + pain & reduce harm of your well-being & other agents. (i.e., *raising* standards + requirements).


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

Catwalk said:


> _Interesting_. I am aware of the variations of 'look' requirements (via) differential / subjective 'perference' and lenience. For myself, it is reverse - should it be ''conventional'' I understand that ''looks'' (i.e., outer) _et al_ .. would be heavily emphasize as ''important''.
> 
> 
> Ex; (1) --> X relationship will last 10+ years.
> ...


Duly noted; but I do not consider this 'right' or 'wrong' -- merely whether the cases being considered were a small subset, or whether the models could be generalized. 
For the honor of the INTJ regiment. (sage nod)


----------



## Luck (Nov 19, 2015)

Macrosapien said:


> good for you. I'm not sure how it will translate to life, but if you are really into him mentally, and there is an emotional bond there, perhaps it can be good. So it sounds like you are just about one of the most awesome girls around. And this is not to be mean or anything, just speaking from my own experience, I find that people who would not show me their picture, or come on something like skype, to me, is just really suspect. I mean if you really like me, and you are really that into the prospect of this relationship, then we should be able to share a great deal with each other and keep nothing hidden, especially physicality -- not just descriptions. I just dont like the idea of being deceived, you can be below average looking, whatever that means, I don't care but I need to see you.


Thank you. I agree that people who are withholding what they look like online are suspect. I am sorry to hear that you had a bad experience. In my case it was kind of the opposite of him withholding. I had only intended on being friends so refused pics even though he offered (I didn't want to be attracted). Over the years as I developed feelings I figured he'd randomly send me a pic of him somewhere but funny enough the scenes would just have his arm or something. 

He had no idea I had become curious and I didn't want him to know that I'd become interested while I worked out how serious my feelings were and whether it was worth risking our friendship over. He would have jumped at the opportunity to skype but that wasn't our normal pattern and I didn't want him getting any more aggressive in his attraction towards me (he'd made it clear at the start that he finds me very attractive and once a year or so he'd express frustration that we aren't dating). 

By the time I was ready to indicate my interest, everything happened very quickly from there. He offered pics and I said since I've come this far, I'll see you when I see you since it was going to make no difference at that point and would make seeing him for the first time more intense. We met 10 days after I began flirting (the only reason it took this long was bc we live in neighboring cities). We've been seeing each other in person on weekends for 5 months now and it's going remarkably well. I'm dating my best friend and the best person I've ever met. I'm very lucky. 

And on a side note, he turned out to be above average looking and bc I adore him, over time, my feelings for him got projected on how he looks and so I respond very positively to seeing him. As I said before, this is a pretty odd situation that developed over years and probably doesn't speak to anything that can be generalized (even I factored in looks before this experience), it just shows it is possible for looks to be irrelevant.


----------



## SimplyRivers (Sep 5, 2015)

I'm not an expert on love, but I think it's a bit more complicated then, "They must be *X* and *Y *, for me to love them." 
I do believe that there needs to be some sort of physical attraction, but personality is a big part. However, some seek to find pure physical attraction. Some might not view that as love, some might. 

Just like humor; it's subjective.


----------



## Nightmaker81 (Aug 17, 2013)

I just want to expound on what I said earlier. 

I know I tend to operate differently than most people. I regularly pull off 80hr-90hr work weeks and during my last semester of college I held 3 jobs(two tutoring jobs, and a research assistant for condensed matter) and pulled off a good GPA while writing a thesis and graduating. Along with all that I was in my athletic prime and could run marathons. My whole life that semester was sleeping and studying/doing something productive.

This isn't supposed to be a "haha I'm better than you" thing, because I'm flawed too. I do have an addiction and for me that's the adrenaline rush. There has always been this deep almost animalistic urge in me to push myself and the pressure, the idea of conquering something fills my mind with an unbelievable and intense adrenaline rush. When I'm under those it feels like all my senses are completely heightened and I'm almost one with the world. I understand most people will get weary and tired from pulling off 60 hour workweeks, but doing something like an 80 hour work week is something I completely thrive under and makes me feeling mentally my best. 

I tried describing this to people and many people didn't really understand the deep desire I have. Likewise I don't really understand the sexual lust part because I don't experience that to a high level. People have described to me an intense orgasm before and it's similar to what I feel with adrenaline but I don't completely understand it because I don't really feel something like that on a sexual level. 

I haven't masturbated in several months and that's because after orgasming you feel tired and sleepy. I don't have time for that and I need as much energy as I can to push myself. 

For me physical attraction is analogous to lust and lust is something I feel very little of. Translation from that is that physical attraction doesn't mean much to me if at all. It's a factor that's so small I tend to ignore it completely when finding a partner.

So yeah, physical attraction really is not a factor for me because I don't really feel many emotions from it. I can tell when someone is hot, but I don't really get excited and wanting to jump in bed with her like other guys in my age group do.


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

It scares me when someone wants to have sex with me yet doesn't appreciate my body. I don't find any healthy reason to explain it. Why not being friend if they just like me? That person must have some serious emotional or sexual issues to want me, or some malevolent intentions. A weird fetish, emotional deprivation, fear of loneliness, an attempt to get something else from me, a child, my attention..

Anyways, I find it hilarious when people say that choosing the sex mate based on physique is "objectivation". I'm curious to know how they call choosing the sex mate based on something else than sexual attraction lol. I call it "narcissistic manipulative b$tch".


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

IDontThinkSo said:


> It scares me when someone wants to have sex with me yet doesn't appreciate my body. I don't find any healthy reason to explain it. Why not being friend if they just like me? That person must have some serious emotional or sexual issues to want me, or some malevolent intentions. A weird fetish, emotional deprivation, fear of loneliness, an attempt to get something else from me, a child, my attention..
> 
> Anyways, I find it hilarious when people say that choosing the sex mate based on physique is "objectivation". I'm curious to know how they call choosing the sex mate based on something else than sexual attraction lol. I call it "narcissistic manipulative b$tch".


Ditto, if a girl said she liked me but didn't think I looked attractive or thought I was ugly, I would be a bit freaked out.


----------



## Carpentet810 (Nov 17, 2013)

When someone says a girl has good personality as her best attribute that is code for Bow-wow! 

I know several models with really great personalities. They are are also fucking morons. The fact they are fucktards wins the day and rules them out as perspective mates


----------



## Vanitas (Dec 13, 2009)

@IDontThinkSo @cybersloth81 Why? Being freaked out, I mean.


----------



## Xanthus Primus (Jan 24, 2010)

Forget looks, let me smell your butt first.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

I have to really really like someone's personality and be able to at least "tolerate" their appearance at worst and be attracted to them at best. What I mean is that finding another person who I can totally really gel with would be so rare, that looks would play a distant second but I cannot actually dislike their looks; I have found in my experience that unfortunately, there is no getting around that.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Nightmaker81 said:


> I just want to expound on what I said earlier.
> 
> I know I tend to operate differently than most people. I regularly pull off 80hr-90hr work weeks and during my last semester of college I held 3 jobs(two tutoring jobs, and a research assistant for condensed matter) and pulled off a good GPA while writing a thesis and graduating. Along with all that I was in my athletic prime and could run marathons. My whole life that semester was sleeping and studying/doing something productive.
> 
> ...


Nice - I love reading and fucking.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Vanitas said:


> @IDontThinkSo @cybersloth81 Why? Being freaked out, I mean.


It is objectification (via) brain / personality.


----------



## BroNerd (Nov 27, 2010)

IDontThinkSo said:


> It scares me when someone wants to have sex with me yet doesn't appreciate my body. I don't find any healthy reason to explain it. Why not being friend if they just like me? That person must have some serious emotional or sexual issues to want me, or some malevolent intentions. A weird fetish, emotional deprivation, fear of loneliness, an attempt to get something else from me, a child, my attention..
> 
> Anyways, I find it hilarious when people say that choosing the sex mate based on physique is "objectivation". I'm curious to know how they call choosing the sex mate based on something else than sexual attraction lol. I call it "narcissistic manipulative b$tch".


Yeah it is weird. I guess though some people could really feel a strong intimacy though without physical attraction. I would find it hard to get my rocks off over somebody whose body I didn't appreciate at least somewhat.


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

Catwalk said:


> It is objectification (via) brain / personality.


Well, I really don't care about objectivi..fi..whatever, as long as it isn't a form of consequentialism.
@_Vanitas_ never said I freak out when I'm scared. But I'm scared yes, it's scary because I want to live a long peaceful life and those people have no moral control over themselves. I mean, they necessarily react to powerful urges that can potentially overwhelm a proper sense of morality. Which is dangerous. Therefore I should be scared. You should be scared too.


----------



## deviantcode (Mar 3, 2015)

I think for the most part looks don't END up mattering. Not as much as we think they will before hand. For most people anyway. There is some people that simply will not even indulge the idea of dating someone not matching some physical criteria. But most people are caught off guard and end up with someone they never pictured. 

However, appearance for the most part does matter. To me it does, It matters in who I will approach, but it doesn't have much impact in retaining my attention. That is left to the personality part. 

The other thing is, not everyone sees the same thing. I could be looking at the same person and see someone totally different than someone else looking at that same person. Further more, perfect or symmetrical is boring.


----------

