# The Secret of Not Getting Cheated On Or Dumped = Date a Less Attractive Man.



## ForsakenMe (Aug 30, 2010)

I've read articles online about why women should get with a man who, based on outer appearances, look worse than her in comparison because then he'll be able to be more faithful to her more so than if she were to be with a man on par or better looking than her.

Someone once wrote, _"A man who dates a very attractive woman is going to be very worried about losing her, because he knows that he will never get anybody better. He's more focused on the relationship as a result. He'll worship her and never want to even LOOK at another woman again. A man who is just as, or more so, attractive than the woman he's dating doesn't give a crap about her, because he knows that he can get just as good or an even better offer from another prettier woman."_

What says you on this topic?


----------



## redmanXNTP (May 17, 2011)

Someone else said, "No matter how hot she is, somebody somewhere is completely fed up with her bullshit." 

There's far more to cheating than looks. 

If you're worried about keeping your man faithful, then find someone trustworthy to begin with and then put your effort into the relationship. That's your winning combination right there.


----------



## ForsakenMe (Aug 30, 2010)

redmanXNTP said:


> Someone else said, "No matter how hot she is, somebody somewhere is completely fed up with her bullshit."
> 
> There's far more to cheating than looks.
> 
> If you're worried about keeping your man faithful, then find someone trustworthy to begin with and then put your effort into the relationship. That's your winning combination right there.


I am not saying all men are cheaters. That would be just silly. But it does make sense that women should be cautious of so called attractive men wanting to be with her because, hey, there might just be 50 other women out there that he's catering to, too!


----------



## Cover3 (Feb 2, 2011)

redmanXNTP said:


> Someone else said, "No matter how hot she is, somebody somewhere is completely fed up with her bullshit."
> 
> There's far more to cheating than looks.
> 
> If you're worried about keeping your man faithful, then find someone trustworthy to begin with and then put your effort into the relationship. That's your winning combination right there.


Precisely.. I consider myself fairly attractive and I kind of take offense that people would assume that all good looking guys are scums, lol...


----------



## emerald sea (Jun 4, 2011)

not getting cheated on ~ the secret is the person's integrity, self-control and loyalty. date someone who can say no to themself (doesn't have a habit of giving in to do whatever they feel like doing or whatever comes naturally), can't stand to hurt or lie to anyone they care about, and is loyal to their friends. it's important to figure out the person's true character...not the front they put on to impress you. determine if they have the kind of character that you'd be able to trust them fully. 

not getting dumped ~ there are no guarantees for that, sadly


----------



## redmanXNTP (May 17, 2011)

ForsakenMe said:


> I am not saying all men are cheaters. That would be just silly. But it does make sense that women should be cautious of so called attractive men wanting to be with her because, hey, there might just be 50 other women out there that he's catering to, too!


I didn't take it that way. I actually believe that relationships have some "economics" involved in them, in that people will act based upon their perceived bargaining power. Part of that could be the perceived ability of their partner to have alternatives out in the dating marketplace, so to speak. 

Still, there are a HUGE number of factors at work, and moreover they evolve over time. I just think isolating this one as supposedly being central is off base.


----------



## Luke (Oct 17, 2010)

It seems sexist to me. It makes it seem like women must always settle for less because attractive men will always be able to do better than them. Which is not exactly an attitude designed to build females self esteem.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Bullshit. I was with an attractive man for six years who never cheated on me, and I've seen some fugly people cheat on their significant others. 

I'm pretty sure I've replied to this ridiculous article on another forum.

Dude, if someone cheated on and dumped Heidi Klum while she was pregnant, I'm afraid cheating has relatively little to do with looks.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Luke said:


> It seems sexist to me. It makes it seem like women must always settle for less because attractive men will always be able to do better than them.



The advice has also gone the other way in the past...


----------



## Luke (Oct 17, 2010)

fourtines said:


> The advice has also gone the other way in the past...


People should aim to have a healthy self esteem, rather than thinking they are not good enough for the opposite sex.


----------



## Duck_of_Death (Jan 21, 2011)

This may backfire. With a beautiful woman in tow, the ugly guy may begin to get offers from women he wouldn't be able to get otherwise. This is where that "character" garbage comes into the fray.


----------



## redmanXNTP (May 17, 2011)

There have been studies that have shown that people tend to gravitate toward mates that are about as good looking as they are, i.e. if you rate about a 7 on the proverbial 10 scale, then typically so does your partner. Just walking down the street you see the general accuracy of this statement.


----------



## jay_argh (May 27, 2011)

Duck_of_Death said:


> This may backfire. With a beautiful woman in tow, the ugly guy may begin to get offers from women he wouldn't be able to get otherwise. This is where that "character" garbage comes into the fray.


Was thinking something similar myself-what if the guy gets some sort of "confidence boost" and figures he's not one to be tied down?

Not trying to make any correlations here, but heck I can see it working the other way.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Oh, believe me, as a person who has always dated people who are conventionally unattractive -- they can cheat too. And I got cheated on with a girl who was waaaaaaaayyyyyyy less conventionally attractive than I am. The guy I was dating was just awkward looking. 

Also, cheaters are often looking for something different, not better. And most do it opportunistically, not premeditated. 

Another thing.. apparently seeing a guy with a conventionally attractive woman makes him seem more desirable to women. So, by dating him, you just upped his ratings.

A cheater is a cheater, fugly, average looking, or very handsome.. and a person with integrity and a healthy ability to bond can look any of those ways too. 

Also, look at all of the female celebrities who got cheated on by total barneys. I think guys like that think, well, if I could get her, i can get someone else whos 'hot.' Next! Pigs.



redmanXNTP said:


> There have been studies that have shown that people tend to gravitate toward mates that are about as good looking as they are, i.e. if you rate about a 7 on the proverbial 10 scale, then typically so does your partner. Just walking down the street you see the general accuracy of this statement.


I saw something like that on TLC, in some experiment where people stood in a row and walked toward the person they found most attractive.

The guys I am drawn to are way lower on the scale than I am typically, but I like odd looking people. It has more character, gets my attention. I was repeatedly told in most of my relationships 'you're way out of his league.'


----------



## pinkrasputin (Apr 13, 2009)

I want a guy _who knows_ how wonderful he is and is confident in his looks. I want my guy to know he can have plenty of women with all kinds of looks and financial status. I don't want a man to be with me out of desperation because that's nonsense. There are many fish in the sea who will appreciate him for who he is. And if this fact hasn't been revealed to him yet, someday it will be. I want to be with a man after he knows that.

I'd want a man to be with me because he has _chosen _ me. I am special and unique to him in his life. Being with me is a daily choice, and I value that choice.

I'm pretty upset right now because I just read an Eharmony article that told women how to spot cheaters. They basically said that if the men were extroverted, approached a lot by opposite sex, or travelled, they are most likely to cheat. This is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!! If they ever wrote this article for men where they said the same about women cheaters and if my boyfriend read it, it might have made him too fearful to date me!!! It's an outrage! Just because a person has other _opportunities_, does not mean they are not loyal to you. And obviously an extrovert can choose to be with a person because they love them very much and wouldn't dream of being with any other.

Not everyone functions out of desperation. Some function out of self awareness, confidence, and commitment.


----------



## SuperfineConcubine (Aug 8, 2011)

redmanXNTP said:


> There have been studies that have shown that people tend to gravitate toward mates that are about as good looking as they are, i.e. if you rate about a 7 on the proverbial 10 scale, then typically so does your partner. Just walking down the street you see the general accuracy of this statement.


 There's a new dating website that actually matches you with people who have similar facial features, based on the premise that couples that look alike have more chemistry and have lasting power. 

Couples who look alike find perfect love? - Hindustan Times

I think it's somewhat true, I'm generally attracted to people who are taller, slender, have squintier eyes, have a larger head, skinnier nose. etc.


----------



## pinkrasputin (Apr 13, 2009)

Promethea said:


> Another thing.. apparently seeing a guy with a conventionally attractive woman makes him seem more desirable to women. So, by dating him, you just upped his ratings.


 This is going to make me paranoid and now makes me question every guy who ever brought me around other women. 

Good looking people- STOP dating ugly people!! Look what you're doing!!

I find this behavior so odd, especially since I thought looks we're subjective. Sigh...


----------



## ForsakenMe (Aug 30, 2010)

SuperfineConcubine said:


> There's a new dating website that actually matches you with people who have similar facial features, based on the premise that couples that look alike have more chemistry and have lasting power.


I don't think so. My parents don't look alike, but they love each other and they're still together for over 2 decades going strong.

Chemistry and compatibility is something that's inside, not due to appearances. Of course, if you mean you have a certain preferences of your ideal mate, then that's common.


----------



## GoodOldDreamer (Sep 8, 2011)

I think the word "Shallow" is missing from the title of the OP... P


----------



## Everyday Ghoul (Aug 4, 2009)

Cheaters gonna cheat. That's about all there is to it. There's usually some sort of emotional/mental health reason behind it.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Promethea said:


> Yeah, well I will tell all the younger women I know who have been with older chubby or bald men that it simply does not happen. heh. And if he has money, then of course its happening.


You know if you're younger you can find an older man who at least works out, has hair, is tan....something. 

I've seen them, met them, I regularly am around a 55-60 year old man who is fit, tan, and has hair on his head, he's my INFP friend's uncle. 

I don't think you should sell yourself short as a woman, even if you realize you appeal more to older men than to men your own age or younger, you still hold the currency to get an older man who takes care of himself, like Vladimir Putin, Hugh Hefner, or my INFP friend's uncle.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Obsidean said:


> You maybe right but anecdotal evidence is anecdotal evidence.


Well your statistics may be right based sheerly upon women who aren't terribly into sex, and who are more into security, who marry passive, insecure, less attractive men so that they have security.

Lots of women are like that. According to Keirsey, they're called SJs (though I'm not saying that's true). I'm not one of those women. I'm not the sort who would spend my life with a man who I didn't like to kiss. 

Those sorts of women use their looks as a sort of bartering chip to win the security, the biggest house and bank account possible, they don't care as much about sex or mental intimacy, just security.


----------



## pinkrasputin (Apr 13, 2009)

snail said:


> Some consider bald or gray sexy, because they are seen as signs of maturity, which is associated with being financially stable.


I see bald as incredibly sexy because I see it as a sign of POWER. I don't know why either but it makes me think there is just so much man hormones coursing through him, that his hair couldn't stand it. 

And I don't think Rogaine was saying this was unattractive:










I think they were more talking about this, partial baldness:









Most balding guys I know don't like that either. They usually know when it's time to go ahead and shave the whole head. To me, that's hot and much better than Rogaine. :wink:


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Lest anyone think I'm horribly shallow, it's simply not true. I've been hit on by a male exotic dancer who I turned down, and even one of the BEST looking guys from my high school who has continually tried to hit on me on facebook over a period of six months now that we're 30, even though he's married. 

Looks aren't enough for me. I would never be with a guy who was just a pretty face. And I've noticed that some people don't think my boyfriends are as good looking as I do, it's just that I know they're attractive to me, and that they're attractive enough to have obvious options other than myself. 

Some of the guys I've dated might even be a little on the skinny side though they're usually in shape, etc. 

I think my point here is that you can have someone who is well-groomed, dresses himself in clean clothes, has fresh breath, and is healthy enough to stay reasonably in shape by working out. Those are actually personality traits.

It may be that I'm just attracted to the personality traits of flaming self-respect, which in my book includes having strong opinions, fighting back against me, and taking reasonable pride in one's appearance.

I just realized how bad some of my posts sounded, and I'm really not a shallow person, I swear. 

I just have Se...???


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

pinkrasputin said:


> I see bald as incredibly sexy because I see it as a sign of POWER. I don't know why either but it makes me think there is just so much man hormones coursing through him, that his hair couldn't stand it.
> 
> And I don't think Rogaine was saying this was unattractive:
> 
> ...



Agreed. Shaved head is much hotter than comb over or donut ring head.


----------



## Everyday Ghoul (Aug 4, 2009)

Shame of all this is the underlying tone, that being "pretty" makes you worth more than someone else. That weird, fat, deformed, retarded, loser should get on his knees and thank the almighty gods someone deems him tolerable, not lovable, because he's fucking disgusting, pssshhh who would love that monstrosity? She'll settle for him. This is what's wrong with humanity. I wish this species would burn in a fucking fire.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Big bad wolf said:


> Shame of all this is the underlying tone, that being "pretty" makes you worth more than someone else. That weird, fat, deformed, retarded, loser should get on his knees and thank the almighty gods someone deems him tolerable, not lovable, because he's fucking disgusting, pssshhh who would love that monstrosity? She'll settle for him. This is what's wrong with humanity. I wish this species would burn in a fucking fire.


Nonsense. Being pretty doesn't make you worth more than someone else. Having two pairs of 300 hundred dollar jeans does.


----------



## dagnytaggart (Jun 6, 2010)

redmanXNTP said:


> There have been studies that have shown that people tend to gravitate toward mates that are about as good looking as they are, i.e. if you rate about a 7 on the proverbial 10 scale, then typically so does your partner. Just walking down the street you see the general accuracy of this statement.


This is why I can never attract chubby guys. I'm not chubby, so conventionally I'm seen as more attractive, all else equal.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

redmanXNTP said:


> There have been studies that have shown that people tend to gravitate toward mates that are about as good looking as they are, i.e. if you rate about a 7 on the proverbial 10 scale, then typically so does your partner. Just walking down the street you see the general accuracy of this statement.


I'm not into rating people that way, but if I were, I suspect that all but maybe one of my boyfriends would rate higher on the scale than I would, which isn't all that hard to do, since a fat, freckled, gap-toothed, big-footed, clumsy girl with asymmetrical facial features is not a high-value sex object to anyone who is materialistic enough to care about such trivial things. Because of my "low status," the number of more aesthetically pleasing partners I have had is as one would expect if the selection were completely random. 

Despite having mostly partners who were more visually appealing than I am, I have never felt like my appearance made me unequal to my partners, or any less worthy as a mate. I am just as deserving of love as any other person, and believe that I shouldn't have to limit my options based on irrelevant considerations such as whether my partner is on the same aesthetic level as I am. I respect myself, I respect my relationships, and so should my partner. Having any dignity at all would make the visual rating system completely abhorrent to him, regardless of where he happened to randomly fit into it. 


Along with the studies about people generally mating with their aesthetic equals, I have seen the studies that show marital satisfaction as something dependent on the woman being prettier than the man, and one study showing specifically that the wife had to have proportionately less body fat than the man in order for the relationship to be satisfying for either of them. I call bullshit. 

It may be true, but only because people are flawed in ways that should be dealbreakers for any self-respecting individual. The problem was never that one partner was better looking than the other, or that one was fatter. The problem was that either partner would care about such things. A relationship with someone who is spiritually immature is doomed regardless of the surface details. 


I wonder if there were any demisexuals at all in those studies, or if we were entirely unrepresented. I suspect we weren't included.


----------



## kiwigrl (Apr 27, 2010)

tissa said:


> A friend of mine tome me a story about his other friend - a model looking hot as hell woman. She could have anyone she wanted and was not happy. Somehow all those cute guys she dated would in fact cheat on her and treat her wrong. Well she decided to date a very average in all aspects guy who treated her good. They got married and couple years later she found out that he too was cheating on her.
> She divorced him and her new moto is that she would rather be cheated on by a hot guy than by some guy who is an average.
> 
> What i think about it personally i do not know. I think it is all screwed up
> My boyfriend is VERY attractive. Even though i too am not bad looking and guys hit on me a lot, I still feel quite insecure about all those woman who look at the man i am dating. Not to mention women no matter how attractive they are are raised to doubt themselves and feel insecure about one thing about their body or another. Guys are not like that and usually they are well aware about their looks and it sure gives them confidence. Some of them actually feel much better about themselves than they really should  lol


I've seen women like this before. They don't actually see any value in themselves, they're very insecure. Maybe their father didn't validate them like he should have or something, so they end up going for the same guy over and over again and never find someone decent. I was lucky that my dad and I had a great relationship and he always made me feel validated and important to him. Of course this lead me to believe that I was worth something and that I should not settle for second best. Some of my friends thought I set my sights too high but I have definitely reaped the rewards now.


----------



## Bago (Aug 30, 2011)

I think isn't it a case of women not necessarily know what they are looking for ? That kind of self awareness attitude. 

I remember a mom of a friend adviced me to "marry someone who loves you more than you love him". I can see where she is going with this. I now realised that she meant, in order to save your heartache, you should marry someone who is stable and is always there for you too. Recently, from talking to friends and family again, I get what they are saying to me, which is the same. Marry someone reliable, steady and that you can depend on. For me, I thought for a moment that it is a case of "either/or", but.. it should not be that way. Why should a woman not have it all ? To find a partner whom adores them, and that they love them too ? 

I can resonate with the "being with someone who is absolutely besotted with you". Everybody deserves to find somebody like this to be with them. Not for just sex. Not just for company. But totally, wholly compatible emotionally, mentally and physically as well. Some of you mentioned spiritually. I think that is true too.  I mean, that is, presuming you are looking for someone in the very very long-term and not to find out what you like and do not like and think that you are just lonely and need somebody cos you wanted to depend on someone emotionally. 

It is definitely so so so different when you date someone whom you like whole-heartedly. I also remembered my ex too. He was definitely an NT person. He blurbed asap that he cheated on his ex before and it was not a proud moment for him. I always knew that something was so wrong, but my empathetic gut instinct told me that he actually dated me to make amends of his feelings. Cos he thought that I was a safe bet. I eventually figured it out. I also knew that I rejected him on some levels when he was quite cautious with his actions so that he won't come out of his shell. I just knew something was pretty wrong. It now makes absolute sense. 

For guys, if you genuinely like a her, do not let her go... truly. Always be there for her. That is all I can say. If the love is not coming out of the right place in your heart to begin with, and that you can draw your sword and your ego comes out so easily, it does mean that you just want possession and ownership and not really wanting to let her go and be free and be herself. Everybody deserves to love freely.


----------



## redmanXNTP (May 17, 2011)

snail said:


> I'm not into rating people that way, but if I were, I suspect that all but maybe one of my boyfriends would rate higher on the scale than I would, which isn't all that hard to do, since a fat, freckled, gap-toothed, big-footed, clumsy girl with asymmetrical facial features is not a high-value sex object to anyone who is materialistic enough to care about such trivial things. Because of my "low status," the number of more aesthetically pleasing partners I have had is as one would expect if the selection were completely random.
> 
> Despite having mostly partners who were more visually appealing than I am, I have never felt like my appearance made me unequal to my partners, or any less worthy as a mate. I am just as deserving of love as any other person, and believe that I shouldn't have to limit my options based on irrelevant considerations such as whether my partner is on the same aesthetic level as I am. I respect myself, I respect my relationships, and so should my partner. Having any dignity at all would make the visual rating system completely abhorrent to him, regardless of where he happened to randomly fit into it.
> 
> ...



I would suspect that demisexuals were roughly proportionally represented as I'm sure they weren't screened out. 

As for you, nothing you said was meant to be negated by my statement, and your reaction seems somewhat oversensitive as I read it, as if my post was meant to advocate for something or someone you disagreed with rather than just provide information. 

I didn't post it here, but I've always said that a big part of a woman's attractiveness to me is her confidence, both with herself and with others. To use that crude 1-10 scale, personality and charisma are worth a couple of points on that scale to me, and I've found a relatively wide (appearance) range of women to be sexually/romantically appealing to me. Consistent with this, many physically beautiful women get points knocked off due to their personalities. 

The fundamental point remains valid, however. Dating is both consciously and unconsciously a marketplace, and people try to maximize the return on their bargaining power. People tend to choose mates/SO's who are as good looking as they can get, which is to say that they gravitate towards mates/SO's who are similar to them in appearance as that will, on average so to speak, tend to be the maximum return for them. Appearance is of course just one marketplace metric, albeit an important one.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

redmanXNTP said:


> I would suspect that demisexuals were roughly proportionally represented as I'm sure they weren't screened out.
> 
> As for you, nothing you said was meant to be negated by my statement, and your reaction seems somewhat oversensitive as I read it, as if my post was meant to advocate for something or someone you disagreed with rather than just provide information.
> 
> ...


I never said you were advocating it. I was against the message, and made no reference to the messenger, although having read this post, it seems like you aren't opposed to people objectifying each other. If you are not opposed to the things you are mentioning, then you are failing to fight something culturally destructive that promotes unfairness. Your neutrality is disturbing to me. Also, calling a person "oversensitive" is a personal attack, and violates forum rules. 

Naturally in any study, because of the world being so alien to me, I usually tend to identify with the minority, who are considered the exception to the norm and are therefore treated as though their experiences were irrelevant. Most studies do not apply to people like me, which means that whatever is proven about people is useless when determining anything personally meaningful. I wasn't saying that demisexuals were intentionally screened out of the study, but that there was no study to show how demisexuality affects the process, or how a sane, rational individual would be affected by the same situations that cause the insane majority to have unhappy relationships.


----------



## redmanXNTP (May 17, 2011)

pinkrasputin said:


> I think a guy who has less confidence in his looks is more apt to cheat. He takes whatever comes his way and when an actual girlfriend/wife comes his way he thinks she is the best that he can do. Then later on, when another woman finds him attractive (like so often happens when these men get older), it is a shock to him and a boost to his ego. He NEVER knew he was attractive to others or could get others, so just based on that alone he decides to "go for it". It's a shot in the arm for his insecurity. He can't validate himself so he uses others to validate him.


Looks are only any sort of guide to cheating insofar as they relate to the way a man (or woman) values themselves. If the person is insecure, they're looking for validation and they will gravitate to their best attribute as the tool they use to get that validation. "Hot" men/women will be hot; witty men/women will be witty; etc. 

The funny thing about your cheating insecure man scenario is that insecurity also tends to appear as a lack of confidence, which is of course not attractive. 

The general rule of thumb to me is that your SO should be your best friend of his/her gender. My girlfriend needs to be my best female friend. If I've got closer relationships to other women, that's going to be a problem. 

If you're observing a good looking guy who loves to be in the company of and interacting with "attractive" women, my suggestion would be that there's some danger there as he seems to need validation from women that his girlfriend is not giving him.


----------



## Perpetual Iridescence (Apr 13, 2011)

I dated a less attractive person and the relationship was great. However, my looks couldn't keep us from drifting apart when he went to college, and it never stopped him from looking at other attractive women(I didn't expect him not to). I think there are a lot more factors that can make or break a couple and looks don't really mean much in the long run.


----------



## Vexilla Regis (May 4, 2011)

I haven't read any of your opinions. Why? Because I know the answer to all of this without reading. If you don't want your partner to cheat, fulfill their needs by listening to them and being a friend... its as simple as that. Also, marry someone who is resolute to not cheating.

I know these things for a fact. I married young, never looked at other men in the wrong way, had the right attitude-- even when I was lonely. And then I was cheated on by a man who had the wrong attitude and bad morals. Now if I had been a friend to him and had been listening to him-- he never would have cheated. Feel free to tell me otherwise or prove me wrong. I love good advice.

Another theory, maybe marry a good Catholic man. Haha. I was a good Catholic at the time and thought I would go to hell if I cheated. I was dedicated to my religion and promise to God, as well as my husband.


----------



## Pachacutie (Aug 27, 2010)

I hate the attitude that some people have that you have to _prevent_ your partner from cheating. 

Or that people need to have this inordinate amount of self control or morals to prevent themselves. 

It really shouldn't be that hard if you care about someone, or want to actually be in the committed relationship you're in. And you really just can't stop those kind of deep seeded problems, in my opinion. 

/end cynical rant.


----------



## redmanXNTP (May 17, 2011)

snail said:


> I never said you were advocating it. I was against the message, and made no reference to the messenger, although having read this post, it seems like you aren't opposed to people objectifying each other. If you are not opposed to the things you are mentioning, then you are failing to fight something culturally destructive that promotes unfairness. Your neutrality is disturbing to me.


Why should I be opposed to objectifying? It's what I'm wired to do. I make no apologies for it either. The wonderful thing is that there are a lot of women who like to be objectified . . . as long as it's by a man they love and who they feel loves them and makes them feel secure enough to be a little vulnerable. Good luck ridding the world of that - it's an inherent part of human nature and sexuality and it's not going anywhere (which is also to say that it's not ultimately some sort of social construct, although certainly media and culture can increase or decrease its importance). 

If by "objectifying" you mean it as an absolute, meaning the physical attractiveness of women to me is the first and only criteria I and most men use to determine a woman's attractiveness, you're sadly misinformed, and would seem to be relying upon a small subset of people. 



snail said:


> Also, calling a person "oversensitive" is a personal attack, and violates forum rules.


Is it ok to point out irony, or are you going to warn me about that too? 



snail said:


> Naturally in any study, because of the world being so alien to me, I usually tend to identify with the minority, who are considered the exception to the norm and are therefore treated as though their experiences were irrelevant. Most studies do not apply to people like me, which means that whatever is proven about people is useless when determining anything personally meaningful. I wasn't saying that demisexuals were intentionally screened out of the study, but that there was no study to show how demisexuality affects the process, or how a sane, rational individual would be affected by the same situations that cause the insane majority to have unhappy relationships.


Actually, what you wrote was, "I wonder if there were any demisexuals at all in those studies, or if we were entirely unrepresented. I suspect we weren't included." That sounds to me like you were suspecting that they were somehow excluded from the study. 

This board is the first experience I have with self-identified demi-sexuals. Though it certainly doesn't apply to me, I understand the meaning of the term. To be honest, however, I am skeptical about the value of the term. It has always seemed a tad self-righteous: "_I_ only feel sexual attraction for someone after I've fallen in love with who they are!" 

As most people tend to agree that solid relationships need to be founded on far more than just physical/sexual attraction, self-identified demisexuality on this board has tended to be presented as some form of sexual enlightenment, which puts one above the mere peons who might first notice a man's or woman's attractiveness in a more physical way. 

I also don't see a good dividing line between being demisexual and being a very conservative heterosexual or bisexual. My sister (who is heterosexual), for example, was extremely socially conservative, and didn't do much dating. From her it came from a combination of strong religious belief and also some body image issues (she was very athletic but had a bigger frame and was taller than the proverbial "ideal"), which took her a while to accept about herself. knowing her, however, she was never going to be some sort of vampire on the dating scene - it's just not her personality. For all of these reasons, she never had sex before she got married. 

Where's the bright line between her (who I'd certainly identify as heterosexual), and someone who is demisexual?


----------



## donkeybals (Jan 13, 2011)

Logically it makes sense. They are less desirable, so less opportunities to cheat. However, take for example if every woman adopted this plan. It would make the ugly the new sexy and hence the more desirable hence more opportunities to cheat. Ponders. 

I thought girls were somewhat experts at reading a guys intentions? However, the problem arises where they get so smitten they refuse to believe that someone they love so much would ever cheat. 

One flag, if the person has a track record of cheating, and they show no signs of changing or improving, it's probably a safe bet they will cheat again. If it looks like a pig, smells like a pig, tastes like a pig, runs like a pig it's not a pig. Wait, strike that, it's a pig it's a pig.


----------



## Bago (Aug 30, 2011)

RabbitHeart said:


> I hate the attitude that some people have that you have to _prevent_ your partner from cheating.
> 
> Or that people need to have this inordinate amount of self control or morals to prevent themselves.
> 
> ...


No no, do not look at it so cynically. Nor should you let other people's experiences brain wash you.
Look at the other bright side too, is that, if your guy is a tad lonely and wants to be with you, and you cannot be there, but say you were working away, if you loved him, wouldn't you try and find a win-win solution any way ? Cos the attachment between you two, should indeed make you want to be there for each other too. When you are in love, this is what happens. It won't be an obligation. 

If you felt that this is an obligation, then it means that you do not have such a strong love for this person anyhow, or that there is something missing in the relationship and is not that kind of steady yet. 

Even my INTJ brother once said that to me too. He secretly told me that I should advice my sister indirectly and discreetly that she should pull him back. However, what it means is that, he was projecting a little bit. As well as him seeing his friends and thinking that is how a relationship should be. But if two people are dedicated towards each other, then they won't stray. I genuinely believes in my sister's relationship. Yes, I think she needs to up her game a little bit in the sexy department, but still, I genuinely believes in my brother in law as well. 

I dunno how, but with regards to my INTJ brother, he was telling me of a story of his colleague where the guy cheated whilst working abroad and away from home. That was hard for the couple, and it ended up in divorce. So he was telling me that she should have pulled him back, cos he was not that strong-willed. Maybe she should have flown and visited him, as a lot of consultants that I know who works in IT do the same too. They will hire a place where the whole family can join them too ? Afterall, it is about the whole family, and a reminder of the guy's efforts and not to be just seen as a money making machine as well. I met one Irish guy who did that for his whole family, and we used to go out for drinks too with his wife and the rest of the team. That is how things should be. I personally respected this guy so much more cos he did what was best for himself and his life.


----------



## Bago (Aug 30, 2011)

donkeybals said:


> Logically it makes sense. They are less desirable, so less opportunities to cheat. However, take for example if every woman adopted this plan. It would make the ugly the new sexy and hence the more desirable hence more opportunities to cheat. Ponders.
> 
> *I thought girls were somewhat experts at reading a guys intentions? However, the problem arises where they get so smitten they refuse to believe that someone they love so much would ever cheat. *
> 
> One flag, if the person has a track record of cheating, and they show no signs of changing or improving, it's probably a safe bet they will cheat again. If it looks like a pig, smells like a pig, tastes like a pig, runs like a pig it's not a pig. Wait, strike that, it's a pig it's a pig.


No.. girls can indeed read guy's intentions. However, what a lot of really mature people won't do, is to "force" something to happen. i.e. if this person cheated, then it means that they do not have you in their heart at all. So they kind of let them go and let them cheat... cos the seed is sown, and it is growing, when it grows, you cannot stop it. The seed should not be sown at all to begin with. Cos why would you expect someone else to dig it up for you and to stop it growing? You are the seed sowing. You threw the seed out.

Self altruism is like a honor thing for a girl. Cos it means so much more, if you decidedly to stop yourself doing something or you chose to not do something. This is a gift in my book. Nobody should need to pat you on your back for doing something which you wanted to do. If you place a lot of expectations on someone else in order to please them, then this is not likely to also grow into something wonderful, cos if that balance is shifted too wrongly, then it means that you will lose yourself and you will resent the other person too. 

This is something I resonate with, and I find it in my book to classify as true equality. If a guy kept on doing something to please me and not to please himself too, and he seems always keen to do this. I too would lose respect for him. It is an co-dependence thing. Not an inter-dependent thing. If I knew my guy well and that he did something and it was in accordance to himself, I would be happy for him. He does not need my approval and have me pat pat him on the back to say "well done". Does that make sense ?


----------



## Vexilla Regis (May 4, 2011)

Oh hell. I told myself not to read this. Grrrr. 

I am not a cheater. But, I have been cheated on, a few times. :/ 
So, I'm a bit sensitive.
Um, this really has nothing to do with looks.
I'm a military wife and know a lot of cheaters. I have been made offers. I have some experience in this department.

This is an emotional thing. Some people. No matter what they look like, need to have emotional crap affirmed to them. I know one female who is physically unattractive. She has a hand-full of children... she has a handsome man... men visit her during the day when her husband is at work... back when she was a manager at an office equipment store-- she had sex in the bathroom with "friends" Doh...


----------



## donkeybals (Jan 13, 2011)

Bago said:


> No.. girls can indeed read guy's intentions. However, what a lot of really mature people won't do, is to "force" something to happen. i.e. if this person cheated, then it means that they do not have you in their heart at all. So they kind of let them go and let them cheat... cos the seed is sown, and it is growing, when it grows, you cannot stop it. The seed should not be sown at all to begin with. Cos why would you expect someone else to dig it up for you and to stop it growing? You are the seed sowing. You threw the seed out.
> 
> Self altruism is like a honor thing for a girl. Cos it means so much more, if you decidedly to stop yourself doing something or you chose to not do something. This is a gift in my book. Nobody should need to pat you on your back for doing something which you wanted to do. If you place a lot of expectations on someone else in order to please them, then this is not likely to also grow into something wonderful, cos if that balance is shifted too wrongly, then it means that you will lose yourself and you will resent the other person too.
> 
> This is something I resonate with, and I find it in my book to classify as true equality. If a guy kept on doing something to please me and not to please himself too, and he seems always keen to do this. I too would lose respect for him. It is an co-dependence thing. Not an inter-dependent thing. If I knew my guy well and that he did something and it was in accordance to himself, I would be happy for him. He does not need my approval and have me pat pat him on the back to say "well done". Does that make sense ?


Ya it does. However, if you are with a person who isn't accepting and supporting of what you love to do you are in the relationship with the wrong person.


----------



## ForsakenMe (Aug 30, 2010)

fourtines said:


> Well your statistics may be right based sheerly upon women who aren't terribly into sex, and who are more into security, who marry passive, insecure, less attractive men so that they have security.
> 
> Lots of women are like that. According to Keirsey, they're called SJs (though I'm not saying that's true). I'm not one of those women. I'm not the sort who would spend my life with a man who I didn't like to kiss.
> 
> Those sorts of women use their looks as a sort of bartering chip to win the security, the biggest house and bank account possible, they don't care as much about sex or mental intimacy, just security.


Is there a website or a book that backs up your post? (Not attacking you, I just find what you wrote to be extremely interesting!)

What hurts me the most is when people generalize an entire gender based on certain types of men/women. I am so happy that the MBTI has been found, because now I realize that some types are more apt to be very selfish than others. (Though that is not to say that an SJ type can never be unselfish... they're probably just more apt to, I guess.)


----------



## Bago (Aug 30, 2011)

Mountain Climber said:


> Oh hell. I told myself not to read this. Grrrr.
> 
> I am not a cheater. But, I have been cheated on, a few times. :/
> So, I'm a bit sensitive.
> ...


*Hugs* I really feel for you. 

I wonder if there is some kind of occupational hazard thing going on, just like those who works in the medical fields. 
Being an empath, I know that I too need emotional affirmation too, but the danger is always not to have a balanced lifestyle. We all choose our own bed and we lie in it, but I think one should indeed be adult and admit to the mistakes than to make the mistakes though. That is the thing. Cheating should not happen at all.... it really should not. If you don't even know what is going wrong or admit to what is going on in your own life, who can help you ?


----------



## Bago (Aug 30, 2011)

ForsakenMe said:


> Is there a website or a book that backs up your post? (Not attacking you, I just find what you wrote to be extremely interesting!)
> 
> What hurts me the most is when people generalize an entire gender based on certain types of men/women. I am so happy that the MBTI has been found, because now I realize that some types are more apt to be very selfish than others. (Though that is not to say that an SJ type can never be unselfish... they're probably just more apt to, I guess.)


I think there is something to be said about knowing yourself. My 2 SJ friends are like this. In fact, one cheated on the other by kissing the other's BF. Yet she still thinks that this is okay, and that she has forgiven her. How ridiculous. I think what is true is that, they may not admit to it. They do want security. They do want stabilities. Repetitive routines, stay in one city or country etc. It is not necessarily a case of being with someone for the status reason, but more a case of financial security etc. 

It is like telling me as an empath not to be emotional, when I know that my core self needs emotional affirmation so much more. Yet it does not mean that I have to find and place all my emotional needs on a partner. It should be probably split between home life, as well as career to many level. 

Actually, you guys raised some good questions. I think I will remind my SJ friend of this and ask her what she truly wants, cos I have no idea and she keeps bouncing round in a circle. I think stability is really what works best for her.


----------



## redmanXNTP (May 17, 2011)

Bago said:


> No.. girls can indeed read guy's intentions.


No, girls _think_ they can read a guy's intentions. If you were correct generally, women would never be shocked by affairs. 

Some people have better insight into other people, including their mates, than do others. The stereotype is that women are better at it - perhaps this is true, but some women suck at it while some men are very good at it. 

The arrogance that might be suggested by declaring that women "can read a guy's intentions", however, is going to lead the women who believe that vulnerable to missing something.


----------



## Pachacutie (Aug 27, 2010)

Bago said:


> No no, do not look at it so cynically. Nor should you let other people's experiences brain wash you.
> Look at the other bright side too, is that, if your guy is a tad lonely and wants to be with you, and you cannot be there, but say you were working away, if you loved him, wouldn't you try and find a win-win solution any way ? Cos the attachment between you two, should indeed make you want to be there for each other too. When you are in love, this is what happens. It won't be an obligation.
> 
> If you felt that this is an obligation, then it means that you do not have such a strong love for this person anyhow, or that there is something missing in the relationship and is not that kind of steady yet.
> ...


I don't know that you're entirely misunderstanding me or just extrapolating a little too far. 

I'm specifically talking about cheating. Obviously you wouldn't want to attempt to deprive your partner. Relationships aren't always easy and you do have to work for them, but you shouldn't be expected to do ludicrous things to keep them from cheating. Or making up silly rules in order to make sure that someone won't cheat on you, because they are X, Y and Z.


----------



## ForsakenMe (Aug 30, 2010)

Bago said:


> I think there is something to be said about knowing yourself. My 2 SJ friends are like this. In fact, one cheated on the other by kissing the other's BF. Yet she still thinks that this is okay, and that she has forgiven her. How ridiculous. I think what is true is that, they may not admit to it. They do want security. They do want stabilities. Repetitive routines, stay in one city or country etc. It is not necessarily a case of being with someone for the status reason, but more a case of financial security etc.
> 
> It is like telling me as an empath not to be emotional, when I know that my core self needs emotional affirmation so much more. Yet it does not mean that I have to find and place all my emotional needs on a partner. It should be probably split between home life, as well as career to many level.
> 
> Actually, you guys raised some good questions. I think I will remind my SJ friend of this and ask her what she truly wants, cos I have no idea and she keeps bouncing round in a circle. I think stability is really what works best for her.


Oh dear.  I THINK my first boyfriend is an SJ type, then. ESFJ, I think... Because not only did he cheated on me (both physically and emotionally with other females), but he doesn't even bat an eyelash when he finds out his friends cheated on their partners. To him, cheating is "whatever, it happens, get over it". He goes from one relationship straight into another one with little-to-no-resting period in between.


----------



## Bago (Aug 30, 2011)

redmanXNTP said:


> No, girls _think_ they can read a guy's intentions. If you were correct generally, women would never be shocked by affairs.
> 
> Some people have better insight into other people, including their mates, than do others. The stereotype is that women are better at it - perhaps this is true, but some women suck at it while some men are very good at it.
> 
> The arrogance that might be suggested by declaring that women "can read a guy's intentions", however, is going to lead the women who believe that vulnerable to missing something.


No actually, I do not agree with that. These men who do cheat, is also themselves in a vulnerable shadow state and just "does it". Cos if they have the willpower, and wanted what they genuinely wanted from their own heart, then why would they cheat ? I do not believe that some people do not want a great relationship with someone whom they adore and esteem. 

You can never really know what that person thinks, cos there could be a part of themselves which do not want to own up to the situation either, but you just do not know. Not expressing it, does not mean they do not know. Some people know. 

To be honest, men and women can be vulnerable too. Just like those who said that women who cheated with the men, and the men thinks that the women whom they cheated will be perfect and wanted everything that he thinks she is willing to offer, even when she stated that she does not. So.. is it vulnerability, or naivity ? It is basically a form of escapism, isn't it? I mean, cheating. It is less hurtful to your own ego by owning up to it and said "yes, this was what I wanted".


----------



## Bago (Aug 30, 2011)

RabbitHeart said:


> I don't know that you're entirely misunderstanding me or just extrapolating a little too far.
> 
> I'm specifically talking about cheating. Obviously you wouldn't want to attempt to deprive your partner. Relationships aren't always easy and you do have to work for them, but you shouldn't be expected to do ludicrous things to keep them from cheating. Or making up silly rules in order to make sure that someone won't cheat on you, because they are X, Y and Z.


I think we are more or less on the same page if you read what I wrote and understood the sentiments behind it.


----------



## Bago (Aug 30, 2011)

ForsakenMe said:


> Oh dear.  I THINK my first boyfriend is an SJ type, then. ESFJ, I think... Because not only did he cheated on me (both physically and emotionally with other females), but he doesn't even bat an eyelash when he finds out his friends cheated on their partners. To him, cheating is "whatever, it happens, get over it". He goes from one relationship straight into another one with little-to-no-resting period in between.


It just means that he has not decided on what is best for himself. My ESFJ sister is the same too. I know that she went through some heartaches when she dated in INTJ brother in law, but I am proud of my INTJ in law for towing her inline a little bit and let her self growth happens too. She has changed and it could be many reasons why it worked out. So I am happy for them. She stuck to her guns and worked at it. 

Whereas both my other 2 SJ friend did not accept it. One also married an INTJ Doctor, but she detested moving where his job takes him. Yet, because of the lack of her lateral thinking on how best to get her career on track, she often resented him too, to support his career ? I knew they married cos both were Asians. I just hope that they could bury their hurts, cos they did hurt each other so much during our uni years too. Now it is even more worst cos they still have not found a winning working combination which both is happy with. 


It sounded like your ex is kind of like my SJ friend too who had no remorse what-so-ever when being cheated on, and she too was saying that "fair game". Recently I found out that she tried to date a guy whom I liked, and flirted with him so much cos she was so desperate at that time! I knew it. I knew something was so wrong and I did not know why it happened ? I now know why... it makes sense now. Her words were "he is NOT into you, give it up" ! What the hell ?! I have no idea why I am friends with her.. but I believe in her loyalty and have given her a lot of chances. She finally told me the truths after x number of years, and she finally saw me as a person for ME. She often calls me a doormat, and she keeps saying that she is a Christian. Heck, no proper Christian would do this. She has not reconciled her differences and the things she has done in her lifetime, or when she is in her shadow period of anxiety and anxiousness. 

When somebody does not have love in their hearts, they cannot give it out. That is so simple I guess.


----------



## ForsakenMe (Aug 30, 2010)

@Bago

I am disturbed by the SJ types that you are around with. I hope you are okay despite them. :sad: I think, to SJ types, they strongly believe in advancing themselves, often to the point of trampling on top of others to get what they want. They want the best finances, best houses, best social circle, best husband/wife, best everything. My ISTJ father, while hopefully he doesn't cheat, he tries to be the best both academically and financially. He wants the best house out of everyone, the best marriage out of his own immediate family, etc. My ESTJ (could be ENTJ, though) mother wants the best children, best marriage, best home. And their dreams came true. Good for them.

So yeah, I just think SJ types are all about having the highest quality lifestyle... even if it means breaking a few hearts to get there.


----------



## Empecinado (May 4, 2010)

Bago said:


> No actually, I do not agree with that. These men who do cheat, is also themselves in a vulnerable shadow state and just "does it". Cos if they have the willpower, and wanted what they genuinely wanted from their own heart, then why would they cheat ? I do not believe that some people do not want a great relationship with someone whom they adore and esteem.
> 
> You can never really know what that person thinks, cos there could be a part of themselves which do not want to own up to the situation either, but you just do not know. Not expressing it, does not mean they do not know. Some people know.
> 
> To be honest, men and women can be vulnerable too. Just like those who said that women who cheated with the men, and the men thinks that the women whom they cheated will be perfect and wanted everything that he thinks she is willing to offer, even when she stated that she does not. So.. is it vulnerability, or naivity ? It is basically a form of escapism, isn't it? I mean, cheating. It is less hurtful to your own ego by owning up to it and said "yes, this was what I wanted".


This concept of loyalty in relationships is interesting. I was recently reading an article on the Guardian newspaper website. I think people should read this.

It mentioned how the luxury of love and attraction was not a cheap commodity, and often relationships or marriages were merely economic units - being co-dependent but as woman have been emancipated from a 'sexist' hierarchical order and the fact that we're generally better off there's less demand for marriages. Marriage is what kept the economy operating in the past. 

I think these 'cheaters' are purely submitting to their innate (lustful) human nature. They have found it hard, or even impossible to comply (due to willpower or perhaps complete denial) to doctrine set by the moral institution.

I have always tended to avoid relationships. I have been called a 'commitment-phobe'. I'm not sure I always see the benefit, especially when I would openly admit that I would find it hard resist. I have seen already this in that I have 'seduced' women into cheating. I haven't figured out why I do it. _*arms flame shield*_ You have to ask two questions:


What is the mutual benefit?
What am I looking for?

I think in the past it was easy to answer these questions, at least in a 'generalised' sense. I am not sure I could answer these questions as an absolute but I have still found out my answers are very different from others. 

I think it is important for INFPs to 'feel', and so I can understand why the OP started this thread. However, I don't believe it to be beneficial unless the relationship was completely (or largely) sexualised. I think there's a more fundamental issue at play.


----------



## strawberryLola (Sep 19, 2010)

> Someone once wrote, _"A man who dates a very attractive woman is going to be very worried about losing her, because he knows that he will never get anybody better. He's more focused on the relationship as a result. He'll worship her and never want to even LOOK at another woman again. A man who is just as, or more so, attractive than the woman he's dating doesn't give a crap about her, because he knows that he can get just as good or an even better offer from another prettier woman."_
> 
> What says you on this topic?


 So a myth!!

I've seen some of the fugliest guys cheat on the most attractive girls. I'm talking about dirty casino guys sleeping with prostitutes, and not even just prostitutes- cheat, period. It's as though they want to prove something.

Look at what's hisface? The guy who dated Liz Hurley? Whatever his name is- he's not even cute at all. ugh


----------



## Bago (Aug 30, 2011)

ForsakenMe said:


> @Bago
> 
> I am disturbed by the SJ types that you are around with. I hope you are okay despite them. :sad: I think, to SJ types, they strongly believe in advancing themselves, often to the point of trampling on top of others to get what they want. They want the best finances, best houses, best social circle, best husband/wife, best everything. My ISTJ father, while hopefully he doesn't cheat, he tries to be the best both academically and financially. He wants the best house out of everyone, the best marriage out of his own immediate family, etc. My ESTJ (could be ENTJ, though) mother wants the best children, best marriage, best home. And their dreams came true. Good for them.
> 
> So yeah, I just think SJ types are all about having the highest quality lifestyle... even if it means breaking a few hearts to get there.


Thank you very much for your concerns actually. Though I think, these ESFJs, are indeed people whom I have slowly grown to know, and to accept as a part of my own life. (Loosely. Our friendship goes back at least 10 years. I know now already not to let her take advantage of me. For example, I no longer let her manipulate me in going abroad with her to holidays when she moans to my face. Or that she uses me in some ways. Words are cheap. I normally just talk and advice her. That is all.) It is possibly what caused me to be continually an ESTJ, I admit, but I also have to take responsibilities for choosing these friends. I am thankful for having mbti in my life, and I eventually figured them out, even though I was maybe too weakminded. Well, not entirely weakminded as such, because if I think about it, I kind of "gentrified" them. I just used to pretend and overlook their own personal lives and decisions as long as it does not affect me, but only one ESFJ is still in my life, and she is anxious and I know it. I know she knows that I am more moralistic than she is. I have done my passive aggressiveness part, and I will distant myself from her in the future too. I know it now. However, I did influence her too much such that, I am kind of breaking her too. Cos she made a decision to be with an N type guy, and this has broken her. She was really trying to live and be with an S guy. 

Though, I have to applaud her for making personal decisions which sits well by her too. S can be loyal to a fault. Structured, but loyal, that is all. It is interesting how people motivate each other. To have the best, it does mean trampling over others to get there. Cos they do not have a strong moral compass. My ESTJ brother is the same too. When I removed myself away from his own business. He now appreciates them so much more. Sometimes if only they express it out loud. Words are cheap. They do think that their actions speaks volume though. Which they do. If only they express their own inner self openly and honestly. I genuinely believe this now. I have seen my ESFJ sister cry. I have seen this ESFJ friend gets mad at me. Called me names in order to revenge on our differences. 

I mean, I am still here. Alive. They do have their good sides too. Like the repetitiveness of my ESTJ friend. If he is not an organiser and kept on organising our social activities, then our social group would not be so close either. He has told me privately that he was grateful I was in his life. Cos I remember that he did not know what to do about his family. He had such anger within himself. He did not realise that he pushed his daughter out into the big world unequipped, and she was angry cos he did not give her emotional support. We went to Anne Frank's museum one year as part of our social group, and it was then that he abstracted and clicked that he does not know his own daughter at all. I often ask him to invite his daughters to come out with us, so that he can see her own dad in a different kind of context. Sometimes, we just live in an odd way. To those who are closest to us, we kind of push them away. Cos we do not want to face up to it, or that we do not want to break it further. 

Anyway, we are just different. We just deserve to have our best sides appreciated I suppose. I think for the SJs in my life, as long as they do not batter my character any more, I do not mind so much. So...


----------



## Bago (Aug 30, 2011)

Empecinado said:


> This concept of loyalty in relationships is interesting. I was recently reading an article on the Guardian newspaper website. I think people should read this.
> 
> It mentioned how the luxury of love and attraction was not a cheap commodity, and often relationships or marriages were merely economic units - being co-dependent but as woman have been emancipated from a 'sexist' hierarchical order and the fact that we're generally better off there's less demand for marriages. Marriage is what kept the economy operating in the past.
> 
> ...


This is how I see it. It is so simple. Each individual can have an strength of their own. Some will try to utilise this strength onto a job, career, themselves as part of personal growth, and not necessarily to destruct. 

So for example, I can use my Fi in a good way to nurture those in a counselling environment. Or I can use it to nurture children in a family context. To use it in a bad way, is to manipulate emotionally from my partner. Or to emotionally manipulate, ad throw in the sexual element, say on an older man, to maybe let him think that I am weaker and needed looking after. Even though he seems me as an equal, I see him as purely monetary gain only. That is the difference between using your gift in a good way, to using it in a bad way. Fi can also be used in a bad way, in terms of marketing. Knowing people's desires and so forth and to sell them something that they cannot afford in order to use it to keep me in a my job, and therefore I am better out of it. But if they failed to miss the payment, then they lose out. 

Cheaters are also lateral thinkers, but if men see it as a challenge than to find someone who is equal as they are. Then they are really displacing their lateral skills in a different way. It is no wonder that I read so often on these forums from NTs that this is a case of "manipulation". No, it is not manipulation when it is mutual. When it is not mutual, then this is manipulation. The thing is that, if you do not have a focus or love in your life, you will feel very very odd actually. You just do, without knowing it or acknowledging it. Some then displace this onto something else to anchor them, but never the less that each person do need and require companionship and love in their lives. 

I wrote somewhere before that what a lot of people classify as true love is when two people are emotionally, mentally, and physically compatible. You would achieve a great sense of peacefulness and well being. A lot of people displace their mental stimulation in a job, and then physical stimulation in a partner, and then emotional stimulation onto friends. To me, this is fairly typical for guys. It is how and why divorces happen. A lot of younger guys in this generation that I know, tries to sync all 3 elements onto their partners. At least attempting to try and do this is better than splitting their life the old traditional way. Maybe because of this set of good examples and people do not know how to achieve it, then it is better to just have sex with someone and not to commit emotionally and mentally with them too. Women also choose now cos they too want all 3 elements in a relationship. It is why they would indeed give up and go ahead with a divorce.


----------



## Obsidean (Mar 24, 2010)

strawberryLola said:


> So a myth!!
> Look at what's hisface? The guy who dated Liz Hurley? Whatever his name is- he's not even cute at all. ugh


You don't know Shane Warne? He is only the best spin bowler the world has ever seen!

Edit: Sorry read the post wrong, disregard.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

ForsakenMe said:


> Is there a website or a book that backs up your post? (Not attacking you, I just find what you wrote to be extremely interesting!)
> 
> What hurts me the most is when people generalize an entire gender based on certain types of men/women. I am so happy that the MBTI has been found, because now I realize that some types are more apt to be very selfish than others. (Though that is not to say that an SJ type can never be unselfish... they're probably just more apt to, I guess.)


Where did you get that SJs are selfish out of my post? David Keirsey talks about SJ women being more interested in security in _Please Understand Me II. _That doesn't mean that they're "selfish" ...it means they place more priority on security, home, and social roles rather than types which may be more carnally sexual and playful (like SPs) or more convinced of "soul mates" (like an NF). I never said that all SJs are gold diggers...in fact, it's more likely that the average Keirsey-style SJ marries someone "safe" and stable from her hometown who is familiar and does the right thing and has a steady job, and that takes priority over other things.

I also pointed out that I'm not necessarily saying what Keirsey says is true, but that these women obviously exist (I saw a woman post one day on a forum that her mother had been married for 25 years and had never liked kissing her husband) and my therapist even reminded me of this one day when we were talking about male-female relationships. It's also obvious when you look on television of very young women marrying much older men for obvious financial gain. You know that those two people have nothing in common mentally, and she can't be hot for that guy physically. All women are not like this, and I too get irate when it's ascribed to *all* women just because *some* women are like this. It's the psychology behind mail-order brides, and things, and once upon a time revolved more around social necessity (because women didn't have rights and couldn't own property) rather than biology, in my opinion. 

Any type can be selfish. SJs are not more selfish, let's just start there. 



ForsakenMe said:


> Oh dear.  I THINK my first boyfriend is an SJ type, then. ESFJ, I think... Because not only did he cheated on me (both physically and emotionally with other females), but he doesn't even bat an eyelash when he finds out his friends cheated on their partners. To him, cheating is "whatever, it happens, get over it". He goes from one relationship straight into another one with little-to-no-resting period in between.


WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA....this has nothing to do with SJs. 

Nothing at all. If anything, in some cases they're *less* likely to be cheaters because of their sense of loyalty. 

Eeep.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

ForsakenMe said:


> @_Bago_
> 
> I am disturbed by the SJ types that you are around with. I hope you are okay despite them. :sad: I* think, to SJ types, they strongly believe in advancing themselves, often to the point of trampling on top of others to get what they want. They want the best finances, best houses, best social circle, best husband/wife, best everything.* My ISTJ father, while hopefully he doesn't cheat, he tries to be the best both academically and financially. He wants the best house out of everyone, the best marriage out of his own immediate family, etc. My ESTJ (could be ENTJ, though) mother wants the best children, best marriage, best home. And their dreams came true. Good for them.
> 
> So yeah, I just think SJ types are all about having the highest quality lifestyle... even if it means breaking a few hearts to get there.


I think the bolded has more to do with TJs than SJs. 

That's Te competitiveness right there...I've seen it a lot in ENTJs, not just STJs. They want the biggest house, the nicest car, the trophy wife..

An ESFJ, though, is more likely to want to climb socially or at least "fit in" very well socially. However, it depends on what the real underlying motive is. I always thought that Becky Sharp from _Vanity Fair _was an ESTP. I thought ESFP at first, possibly (I really like her as a character LOL ...but her concern with the actual social acknowledgement, not just the adventure, freedom, attention, and wealth...seems like it's probably tertiary Fe).


----------



## Bago (Aug 30, 2011)

strawberryLola said:


> So a myth!!
> 
> I've seen some of the fugliest guys cheat on the most attractive girls. I'm talking about dirty casino guys sleeping with prostitutes, and not even just prostitutes- cheat, period. It's as though they want to prove something.
> 
> Look at what's hisface? The guy who dated Liz Hurley? Whatever his name is- he's not even cute at all. ugh


The guy's name is called Hugh Grant. He is really quite a stunning looking guy. However, whether it was rebound or not, he was the more famous one first as an actor before Liz became famous too in her own right as a model. If you look at the dynamic of the couple, they were really well suited ? It looked like at one point, the emotional or the physical aspect is not there, as she is modelling, and he is acting. The distance could be pretty harsh. If you read the celebrity tabloids. What has happened is that both people are still emotionally bonded. In fact, Liz asks Hugh Grant for advice before marrying into royalty or something of that nature. They do have a very split relationship which itself is such a shame. Huge Grant has never married I do not think. He is still obviously into Liz!


----------



## strawberryLola (Sep 19, 2010)

I don't find him attractive. I don't care to follow up on tabloid details. 

Dating a less attractive person does not guarantee that they will be loyal.

Heck, even ladies who are unattractive in hetero relationships cheat on their handsome guys for various reasons.


----------



## redmanXNTP (May 17, 2011)

MuChApArAdOx said:


> I think i just got wet reading that  Nothing like a man who knows what the hell hes' talking about to turn a lady on. That was hot Mr. RedmanXNTP.


Um . . . sorry? You're welcome?


----------



## ForsakenMe (Aug 30, 2010)

redmanXNTP said:


> Um . . . sorry? You're welcome?


Ha ha, why are you apologizing? You just made a woman horny. XD


----------



## redmanXNTP (May 17, 2011)

ForsakenMe said:


> Ha ha, why are you apologizing? You just made a woman horny. XD


I hate when I do that.


----------



## Duck_of_Death (Jan 21, 2011)

It's the Lee Van Cleef.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

redmanXNTP said:


> Why should I be opposed to objectifying? It's what I'm wired to do. I make no apologies for it either. The wonderful thing is that there are a lot of women who like to be objectified . . . as long as it's by a man they love and who they feel loves them and makes them feel secure enough to be a little vulnerable. Good luck ridding the world of that - it's an inherent part of human nature and sexuality and it's not going anywhere (which is also to say that it's not ultimately some sort of social construct, although certainly media and culture can increase or decrease its importance).


How is this any different from saying that it is okay to be a racist simply because some black people like calling each other the N word, and because we have some supposed genetic predisposition to form xenophobic tribal bonds, or some such nonsense? 

Doing something wrong is not remedied by the fact that some of the victims have adapted to tolerate it, or by the fact that people have a natural inclination to commit a certain form of evil against others.




redmanXNTP said:


> If by "objectifying" you mean it as an absolute, meaning the physical attractiveness of women to me is the first and only criteria I and most men use to determine a woman's attractiveness, you're sadly misinformed, and would seem to be relying upon a small subset of people.


It doesn't have to be absolute to be objectification. Whether it is the only thing you care about, or one of many things, it is still wrong. Just a little poison mixed into an otherwise nourishing meal can make the entire thing inedible.




redmanXNTP said:


> Is it ok to point out irony, or are you going to warn me about that too?


You are being intentionally invalidating, which is, once again, an attempt to shame me for having feelings when I have been insulted. Such behavior is a form of abuse, which I do not take lightly. I refuse to shut up and take it. I have a right to my feelings and values. You do not, on this forum, have a right to resort to personal attacks. 





redmanXNTP said:


> Actually, what you wrote was, "I wonder if there were any demisexuals at all in those studies, or if we were entirely unrepresented. I suspect we weren't included." That sounds to me like you were suspecting that they were somehow excluded from the study.


Yes, that is what I wrote, but as I explained, I didn't mean it to say that I thought we were intentionally screened out. Rather, I believe that we are rare enough that if the group being studied were small enough, exclusion might have been a natural result. if there were any of us present, any information gathered from us was probably treated as irrelevant. It is likely we were not given any serious consideration, and were treated as random anomalies. 



redmanXNTP said:


> This board is the first experience I have with self-identified demi-sexuals. Though it certainly doesn't apply to me, I understand the meaning of the term. To be honest, however, I am skeptical about the value of the term. It has always seemed a tad self-righteous: "_I_ only feel sexual attraction for someone after I've fallen in love with who they are!"


Not all demisexuals are idealists who believe in trying to change the world, so not all of us would seem "self-righteous." I probably seem that way to you, because I refuse to tolerate objectification, and I am unapologetically outspoken when I fight for a fair world. I want to create a society where nobody is accepted or rejected for how they look, where people are not included or excluded for their shape, size, height, weight, texture, hair color, eye color, skin color, or any other physical feature, but are judged instead solely on the content of their character. It is the sort of world that past generations could only dream about, but for us now, there is no reason we can't make it a reality, taking that dream to the next level, so that instead of just eliminating racism, as those who went before us have attempted, we will willingly eliminate _*all*_ of the unfair prejudices, and extend the most important freedoms to all people, so that instead of just altering how we are treated legally, everyone will be treated fairly on a personal level. I want to live in a world where everyone is allowed to love and be loved deeply and truly, according to actual compatibility, without fear of being discriminated against for things that have no meaning. I will not rest until that world exists. I believe, with all of my heart, that anyone who fights against such progress is contributing to the existing inequality.





redmanXNTP said:


> As most people tend to agree that solid relationships need to be founded on far more than just physical/sexual attraction, self-identified demisexuality on this board has tended to be presented as some form of sexual enlightenment, which puts one above the mere peons who might first notice a man's or woman's attractiveness in a more physical way.


Again, a little poison can taint the entire meal. I definitely think demisexuality is ideal, but it isn't something that comes naturally to everyone. I acknowledge that some people have harmful urges, and I don't condemn anyone who is making a sincere effort to overcome the tendency to objectify people. 

A person who has natural racist thoughts, who acknowledges their wrongness and tries to curb them, who makes a conscious effort to live according to higher ideals, is noble to fight his corrupt nature. He deserves respect for the effort, and for the courage to live according to his values instead of doing what is easiest for him. A pedophile who makes a conscious decision never to harm a child is noble for doing what is right even when it is difficult. Doing so involves making personal sacrifices, and the greater the inclination, the greater a person's convictions must be to act in a way that is inconsistent with his destructive inner drive.




redmanXNTP said:


> I also don't see a good dividing line between being demisexual and being a very conservative heterosexual or bisexual. My sister (who is heterosexual), for example, was extremely socially conservative, and didn't do much dating. From her it came from a combination of strong religious belief and also some body image issues (she was very athletic but had a bigger frame and was taller than the proverbial "ideal"), which took her a while to accept about herself. knowing her, however, she was never going to be some sort of vampire on the dating scene - it's just not her personality. For all of these reasons, she never had sex before she got married.
> 
> Where's the bright line between her (who I'd certainly identify as heterosexual), and someone who is demisexual?


Being chaste for religions reasons, or hesitant to form relationships because of insecurity, are not the same as having no inclination to lust after bodies. There is a huge difference. Even people who are socially conservative but non-demisexual will usually have preferences about what they want their future husband or wife to look like, even if they plan to preserve their virginity until marriage. I remember knowing someone in high school who was determined to remain "sexually pure" until marriage, who talked about men as though their appearances mattered, and who formed attractions exclusively to guys who had a certain body type.

Even a person who feels unworthy and insecure will usually form secret crushes on unattainable objects of desire. I have known plenty of non-demisexual insecure people whose fear of rejection kept them from dating, but they still looked at people's bodies and would whisper things like, "Check out that new guy. Doesn't he have the sexiest ass you've ever seen? It's too bad someone like that would never go for me." A demisexual wouldn't attach any value to the shape of his ass, and probably wouldn't even think to look at it. 

As I understand it, if your sister has never lusted after a man in a way that caused her to value him at least partly for his aesthetic qualities, then it is possible that she really is a demisexual, which does not negate her heterosexuality, but rather, qualifies it, in the same way that a person could be entirely asexual and still have a non-sexual romantic preference for people of a certain gender.


----------



## WickedQueen (Jun 1, 2009)

pinkrasputin said:


> Love is about taking risks and* being vulnerable*. If you *try to protect yourself too much from being hurt *or try too early *to see a foreseeable outcome*, you may not be in the place to experience love.


Now I know why I had never felt genuinely happy when I fall in love with someone. There's always constant worry-ness below the radar. 

The idea of being vulnerable and exposing oneself without protection nor tangible expectations, are basically against my nature and basic instinct.


----------



## Bago (Aug 30, 2011)

ForsakenMe said:


> Ha ha, why are you apologizing? You just made a woman horny. XD


lol ! That was a nervous "sorry".


----------



## Mendi the ISFJ (Jul 28, 2011)

ugly dudes can cheat too. In fact if a woman is super attractive and the guy is worried about her cheating, he could justify his cheating by her not showing him the respect he thinks he deserves and also he could really believe shes cheating and justify_ his _cheating by equality. My thought is to get to know someone before entering into a relationship with them (this does *not *mean bang them til you feel you know them) then looks should mean less because you will know their personality.


----------



## Bago (Aug 30, 2011)

strawberryLola said:


> I don't find him attractive. I don't care to follow up on tabloid details.
> 
> Dating a less attractive person does not guarantee that they will be loyal.
> 
> Heck, even ladies who are unattractive in hetero relationships cheat on their handsome guys for various reasons.


I gave you those information because I do not see that either party was THAT bad looking. The reason from where I am sitting and seeing how their relationship unfolded and played out so publically is that, there was a period of time whereby there lacked physical intimacies for example. I also think that Hugh Grant during the phase where he was looking for prostitutes when he was abroad meant that he was going through his shadow phase too. He was "unhealthy" as some of you may associate the action as. He was not his individuated happy self. Therefore, what was good between these two individuals, ended up being split and both parties live in a half-hearted kind of existence. Liz still consult mentally AND emotionally with Hugh Grant. (I believe she seek emotional solice in his company when she went through one of her divorces.) I genuinely believe that this couple, did not happen or was the way it was because of him being "ugly" as you so say. 

My point being, for a true and happy relationship, these factors have to exist.

1 - Both parties are fully individuated and happy with their own sense of selves.
2 - Both parties connect emotionally, mentally, and physically. 
3 - Both parties commit to protecting their relationship and not split their intimacies into different parties. 
4 - Both parties commit their lives, (work, career, family, friends) such that it sustain their own personalities as well as their relationship too. 

The thread is about dating someone who is less physically attractive to you in order to keep them basically. The example you gave was not correct. Cos although YOU do not find Hugh Grant physically attractive, the point here was about Liz finding HIM physically attractive. Cos you should see some of their earlier photos which tells you of their body language together. It really did show that they have good physical intimacies.


----------



## ForsakenMe (Aug 30, 2010)

@Bago

Well said. Especially your list of what a couple must do and have in order to keep their relationship from falling apart. It's so true yet not too many couples out there take the advice, which is sad.


----------



## Brian1 (May 7, 2011)

A lot of this just seems thought policeish. Why can't love be an angel disguised as lust, here in our bedrooms till the morning comes? Apologizes to Patti Smith. Some people are going to objectify and then have sex. Also, it helps taking Philosophy with an emphasis on Sartre. Sartre had te keyhole philosophy in which it is basically voyeurism, but the idea here is to go out on a date you need to look at your potential mate. Give them a hard look. You feel their body in your eyes, it's nice. Then as you're feeling good about yourself, your potential mate looks back at you. Now you are being inhaled into their eyes. One was a subject, viewing the other as object of their affection, then the roles got reversed. Ironically, that's how we know we exist. And no one should dictate how to play the game.
You don't condemn people for objectifying, but then you dedictate a whole paragraph to fighting like Mary Whitehouse. There's something that is oil and water here. 


Also it should be noted,now that you've opened the door to politics with racism, and such, in the presidential race of 2008, Democratic presidential primaries that the white MSM was looking at Barack Obama as he's more of a Martin Luther King Jr. he needs to move away from the angry black man if he's going to be elected. Whereas the African American population was more, he needs to be more Malcolm X, stand up for the Black community, and he's just a tad too white. So, I think the world is very fractured,we'd like it to be a certain way but everyone has a vision of what that certain way should look like, racism,objectifying and it's all different, and there's nothing wrong with that....I mean the radical right calls people communists all the time, but they don't know what a real one looks like. And why are we bringing up racism in a Sex forum? Other animals in the animal kingdom objectify-even to the point of wage war against possible other suitors for the same mate, why is it that bad in the human world, to do the same thing? 




snail said:


> How is this any different from saying that it is okay to be a racist simply because some black people like calling each other the N word, and because we have some supposed genetic predisposition to form xenophobic tribal bonds, or some such nonsense?
> 
> Doing something wrong is not remedied by the fact that some of the victims have adapted to tolerate it, or by the fact that people have a natural inclination to commit a certain form of evil against others.
> 
> ...


----------



## Duck_of_Death (Jan 21, 2011)

Big bad wolf said:


> Shame of all this is the underlying tone, that being "pretty" makes you worth more than someone else. That weird, fat, deformed, retarded, loser should get on his knees and thank the almighty gods someone deems him tolerable, not lovable, because he's fucking disgusting, pssshhh who would love that monstrosity? She'll settle for him. This is what's wrong with humanity. I wish this species would burn in a fucking fire.


Precisely.

I'll give you my thoughts on all of this:

I'm not exactly a "winner". I don't fit society's mold of what's attractive.
And as such, I've experienced this sort of thing with women who were "out-of-my-league."

The problem is: They didn't view me as a human being--I was a bargain-priced clearance item with an extended warranty. And I brushed them off because I could see the condescension, disdain and better-than-thou attitude from a mile away.

And there was a reason these women were constantly cheated on or could only maintain transient relationships--everything about them was hollow and they were absurdly egocentric. "Me, me, me!" was the motto. I'm not interested.

I'm looking for an "equal partner"--not a tyrannical Princess who wishes to drive me into petty subservience.
When someone approaches me like this, any respect I could have for them goes directly out of the window.
I don't give a damn how "hawt" she is.


----------



## redmanXNTP (May 17, 2011)

Duck_of_Death said:


> Precisely.
> 
> I'll give you my thoughts on all of this:
> 
> ...


Amen. 

One of the things I said at first to my girlfriend, who like me was coming out of a bitter divorce, was that I was looking for a partner in every sense of the word. I too used the words "equal partner". 

I didn't say it to be impactful, just to be honest, but it seemed to surprise her that I meant it as she'd never been with a guy with that mindset before. I'd go mad if I felt like I had to be someone's babysitter, and I'd be resentful if someone else felt that way about me. 

Anyway, a couple who are equally invested and participating in their relationship are going to inherently be "safer" from infidelity, and for that matter likely better able to recover from it if it happens.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

I still have to read the pages of posts



ForsakenMe said:


> I've read articles online about why women should get with a man who, based on outer appearances, look worse than her in comparison because then he'll be able to be more faithful to her more so than if she were to be with a man on par or better looking than her.
> 
> Someone once wrote, _"A man who dates a very attractive woman is going to be very worried about losing her, because he knows that he will never get anybody better. He's more focused on the relationship as a result. He'll worship her and never want to even LOOK at another woman again. A man who is just as, or more so, attractive than the woman he's dating doesn't give a crap about her, because he knows that he can get just as good or an even better offer from another prettier woman."_
> 
> What says you on this topic?


The diff kinds of relationships based on need, power, leverage etc are well documented. Still it depends on both, "_your power doesn't work on me_".

I've dated normal, regular, good looking girls and a few hotties. I tend to walk away from hotties because I don't seem to find enough reasons to stay!!!. Had a relationship with a hottie and shes the one that told me during an argument: "_instead of discussing this you should be thankful, lots of guys would give anything to be with me_". My initial answer to that was "_ok, let's give them a chance, they will bring you back in two weeks because nobody can stand you_". She was just too confident on her looks, she cut me off and she was the one pusuing me for 3 long years.

Mmmmmm....
I don't think the situation "dating uglier people" is the central point here. It's about *someone thinking he-shes got leverage on that what's wrong*. Besides, if an ugly guy could get a hottie, he could get some more.


----------



## Duck_of_Death (Jan 21, 2011)

changos said:


> I've dated normal, regular, good looking girls and a few hotties. I tend to walk away from hotties because I don't seem to find enough reasons to stay!!!. Had a relationship with a hottie and shes the one that told me during an argument: "_instead of discussing this you should be thankful, lots of guys would give anything to be with me_". My initial answer to that was "_ok, let's give them a chance, they will bring you back in two weeks because nobody can stand you_". She was just too confident on her looks, she cut me off and she was the one pusuing me for 3 long years.


You've got it. 

As I'm naturally aloof and distant, they often hone in on me and work their manipulative crap. These women have another thing coming. They're fooling no one but themselves and they're laughably terrible at all of this. I've encountered countless women that are like this and they honestly have nothing to offer other than being a trophy on my arm. They're straight-up unlikable and usually play childish head games. The only way they can function, it seems, is by making unavailable men "submit" to them. 

What a pitiable way of life that must be.

It's morbidly humorous to watch the frustration fester as they age and lose much of their looks. They don't have the allure anymore to play these games and get away with them. Any self-respecting man stays away from women like this so it leaves them with the oblivious morons and douchebags, who are, nonetheless, willing to put up with their garbage (for a little while) as long as they get to break off a piece.

Karma's a bitch.


----------



## Bago (Aug 30, 2011)

ForsakenMe said:


> @Bago
> 
> Well said. Especially your list of what a couple must do and have in order to keep their relationship from falling apart. It's so true yet not too many couples out there take the advice, which is sad.


I am learning so much here you know. As in, I am quantifying myself in relation to others. I am surprised that I was adviced by my friend's mom when I was younger about finding someone loving you more than yourself. I can see why. Maybe in her mind, having a secure and stable family with kids "is" love. It is for many women actually. 

I just like to write here too, that I can see the differences in communication and so forth. 



> *The language of Guardians is rooted in the past.* Their talk includes a lot of past tense. Their language is the most traditional of the four. A lot of what they say depends upon multiple social assumptions. For example, a Guardian might say, "Come visit any time you're in the area!" What the Guardian probably means is that they have enjoyed your company. They certainly wouldn't expect you drop in without warning. If they really mean that they want to see you again, they'll pull out their PDA and put you in.
> 
> *The language of Artisans lives in the present,* that infinitesimal moment which divides the future from the past. Their language is likely to include the latest slang and happenings in what is important to them. Much of their language is present tense. Even when they are retelling something that happened in the past, they are likely to use the present tense to make the story more immediate and real.
> 
> ...


Keirsey Temperament Website - Personality and Your Career 

I can now see even where I went wrong with my relationships too. What I classify as "future goal with hope" as an idea, some people classify this as "idealistic" cos they cannot know how it is possible. Even though I myself have the assumption that couples have to work towards this goal, and it is not our immediate current situation which summarises a relationship as a whole. Surely this is not fair, right? It is also no wonder that some people will indeed judge you either by your past too. This is really Self Awareness 101 workshop, isn't it ? How can anyone keep a relationship if they do not know themselves well, or to communicate their intent so effectively to their partners too ? Without breaking themselves in the process. 

With regards about attractiveness, each person can cosmetically upgrade themselves to look their best. I do not see that this is necessarily an end all and be all issue either. The real crux of the matter is, "how serious is that person in growing themselves as well as with their partner?"


----------



## VenusianMizu (Sep 9, 2011)

That quote makes 'less attractive' sound like 'insecure as hell' :/ Which makes more sense than just not being conventionally physically attractive or not. 

Instead of evaluating someone's trustworthiness by their looks, shouldn't you just try to find and get to know someone that's has a trustworthy personality in the first place?


----------



## redmanXNTP (May 17, 2011)

Duck_of_Death said:


> You've got it.
> 
> As I'm naturally aloof and distant, they often hone in on me and work their manipulative crap. These women have another thing coming. They're fooling no one but themselves and they're laughably terrible at all of this. I've encountered countless women that are like this and they honestly have nothing to offer other than being a trophy on my arm. They're straight-up unlikable and usually play childish head games. The only way they can function, it seems, is by making unavailable men "submit" to them.
> 
> ...


This is said a little too broadly for my taste, but there's definitely truth to the idea that beatiful women (and men for that matter) often use their appearance as a crutch to get what they want, and neglect other attributes that might also help them. It's only human to play to one's strengths, however, and we all do that with our own particular strengths.


----------

