# Why are looks so important!



## Hexigoon (Mar 12, 2018)

They don't matter in the grand scheme of things. But if you are gonna hang a picture on your wall, it ought to be one you actually enjoy looking at for whatever reason that might be.


----------



## Swivelinglight (Jun 12, 2020)

Tripwire_Desire said:


> Most of the girls on these dating sites are IG girls promoting their platforms.


eh there's some that have been really interesting, in my opinion. It's basically like direct messaging people on various forums or discord or whatever, but yeah there are some that it's difficult to start a conversation with. But the really good conversations are worth it, I think. TBH theres a lot of people on dating sites that arent looking to date, but just trying to speak with others with similar interests. For example I talked with someone who was really heavy into math, and she was even teaching me stuff I didn't really know about differential equations and stuff


----------



## JennahHaeley/Sanstread (Jul 25, 2020)

@Catwalk 

A poppy and sam related profile picture?

Castle on a hill. Ideal partner. And so forth.

What Id like to ask you, is what is there about you that would entitle you to merit more than a casual, decent nice guy. Meaning, how come you dont see you are youreself a casual, decent nice girl. And that is absolutely nothing wrong with that. As. It can result into a good life. Why isnt a good life cool?

And that, that is all just perfectly fine. Your status is your status. Why be ashamed of what you level of socioeconomical integration or achievement is that you have already clicked in with. Why aim for the elite, when they all so clearly incest. Marrying up will improve your status, undoubtfully, but dear Cat, it wont make you happier. The guy will be always scanning for more and you will be always the wife who has a vacancy for a set of mistresses. That is not a good plan at all. Better match with compatibility. Its no insult by any means at all, its just an advice that will literally save you time. Because, unfortunately, with women, time is not on your side on the dating markets, while as mens value is more related to status and money it usually increases from 30s on. So normally, a guy at 30-39 will match with girls age 18-21max. So if we are talking status and money here, a woman at age 30 will be looking at 57-59 yo guys with that status. Over 35 is already linked to Ecclesteins. So exchanging youth for status is VERY hazardous as it antifaves the renter of the youthfull experience.

If we are allowed to take a look at what is more, then I would argue sosx are fairly well off swimming in their own pool. The other pools can be a bit boring, or antisocial or just way too deep. Pick from your own kind, and be happy.

No kidding, that is what I would go for.


----------



## JR_the_Extraordinary (Jul 30, 2020)

Posie_girl90 said:


> So it has come to my attention that a LOT of people base relationships on looks. And that kinda makes me a little sad.
> I mean I love taking in the beauty of a good-looking person just as much as anyone else! But why does it seem like everyone only cares about how good-looking you are?
> People scour the internet looking for these people, just to shoot their shot. I don't understand why everything is about what people look like, and hooking up.
> And while I agree that attraction is an important part of a relationship, it's a stepping stone. I don't think it's the main point of a relationship.
> ...


I’ve been thinking about this, and similar ideas a lot lately. I also just don’t understand the importance people put on looks in dating. At all.

Finding someone who has a compatible personality should absolutely take precedence over looks!

Here’s why i think so:
For every 1,000 women in my age range there are probably 800 who look good enough for me.
8/10

But for every 1,000 women, there are probably only 8 who I am compatible with.
8/1000

The point is, of those 800 women who look good enough for me, I would not be attracted to the vast majority of them personality-wise. Like 792 of them would be off the table.

But, of the 8 women whose personalities I am attracted too, I’d probably think 7 of them look good enough.
(Although, actually I’m not even sure if I would mind looks at all if the personality was perfect)

So, it makes way more sense to find someone whose personality you are attracted to. Then, when you form a relationship, you know it will work. You know you’re compatible, because that’s what you looked for to begin with.

On the other hand, imagine you find someone you are really physically attracted to. The most beautiful person you’ve ever seen. You form a relationship with them... and then later discover that your personalities really aren’t so compatible.

And then what? Now you’re stuck!
This person might look good but they don’t make you happy. You don’t really enjoy their company. Or, at least, there are MANY other people you would enjoy more.

That’s why it makes more sense to be attracted to personality first and foremost.

Also, here’s an interesting thought I had which really shows how much looks prioritiezed in romantic relationships over personality in our society.

Why is it unnoteworthy to compliment someone’s creativity, intelligence, sense of humor, or any other great personality trait...

But

Complimenting someone’s appearance indicates attraction and sends a possible message.

What? Um, creativity, intelligence, and sense of humor should indicate attraction far more than appearance in my opinion. And as I said, appearance-based compliments are not unique. They can apply to countless other people. But personality compliments... are one of a kind.


----------



## Roslyn (Aug 2, 2018)

Looks matter. Obviously there are some guys that are just so great to be around, that looks are besides the point. But I'd say they're the exception to the rule. Studies show that most people are in relationships with someone of a similar attractive level as they are. Matching hypothesis - Wikipedia. Yes, other things are equally important, like personality and interests and goals, similar socio-economic backgrounds etc... But I don't think looks are any less important than other factors when it comes to attraction. Or maybe it depends on how important sex is to you and it's important to me. So yeah, looks matter to me. For some people, money is more important. For others intellect is most important. I don't think it's my place or yours to judge people for what they find attractive in a partner. 

My two favorite attractive features in a guy are looks and social skills. They aren't easy to find together in the same guy.


----------



## Roslyn (Aug 2, 2018)

JennahHaeley said:


> And that, that is all just perfectly fine. Your status is your status. Why be ashamed of what you level of socioeconomical integration or achievement is that you have already clicked in with. Why aim for the elite, when they all so clearly incest. Marrying up will improve your status, undoubtfully, but dear Cat, it wont make you happier. The guy will be always scanning for more and you will be always the wife who has a vacancy for a set of mistresses. That is not a good plan at all. Better match with compatibility. Its no insult by any means at all, its just an advice that will literally save you time. Because, unfortunately, with women, time is not on your side on the dating markets, while as mens value is more related to status and money it usually increases from 30s on. So normally, a guy at 30-39 will match with girls age 18-21max. So if we are talking status and money here, a woman at age 30 will be looking at 57-59 yo guys with that status. Over 35 is already linked to Ecclesteins. So exchanging youth for status is VERY hazardous as it antifaves the renter of the youthfull experience.


Your point would work better if you used realistic numbers. Statistics don't back that. 18-21 none of the girls I knew were looking at men 30-39 years old. I can't speak for women 30 looking at 57-59, but as a 24 year old, I'm generally not looking at 30+ year old men. They message a lot, but closing in on thirty is upper limit. LOL! 

Your point stands, but maybe watch a little less porn.


----------



## JR_the_Extraordinary (Jul 30, 2020)

Roslyn said:


> Looks matter. Obviously there are some guys that are just so great to be around, that looks are besides the point. But I'd say they're the exception to the rule. Studies show that most people are in relationships with someone of a similar attractive level as they are. Matching hypothesis - Wikipedia. Yes, other things are equally important, like personality and interests and goals, similar socio-economic backgrounds etc... But I don't think looks are any less important than other factors when it comes to attraction. Or maybe it depends on how important sex is to you and it's important to me. So yeah, looks matter to me. For some people, money is more important. For others intellect is most important. I don't think it's my place or yours to judge people for what they find attractive in a partner.
> 
> My two favorite attractive features in a guy are looks and social skills. They aren't easy to find together in the same guy.


I definitely agree with with the matching hypothesis. Ideally, I would want someone who is similarly attractive. Also, you're right that looks aren't less important than other factors when it comes to attraction... Actually, I'd say looks are probably the biggest source of attraction for most people. BUT. Looks are not the most important factor for compatibility. Personality traits determine long lasting compatibility that lasts until old age. But yes, looks attract people to each other, however, they say nothing about how they'll raise kids together, or take care of a household, or support each other, or enjoy life together, etc. Still, there is nothing wrong with being attracted primarily to looks and people can do what they want.
But I personally would rather lower my standards for looks to find someone with an ideal personality.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

Posie_girl90 said:


> So it has come to my attention that a LOT of people base relationships on looks. And that kinda makes me a little sad.


It doesn't make me sad at all, so maybe I can shed some light on the situation.



Posie_girl90 said:


> I mean I love taking in the beauty of a good-looking person just as much as anyone else!


Ah, so you answered your own question properly, and now you are about to confuse yourself. Let's continue, but it really is that simple, and delving further into it can hardly help. 



Posie_girl90 said:


> But why does it seem like everyone only cares about how good-looking you are?


OK, so you just pulled a deception there. Maybe it was self-deception as well and so less bad, but you did it. So what did you do? 

You did bait and switch and burned a strawman to the ground.

Your first question was about beauty as a basis for a relationship.
Your switch was to ONLY caring about beauty.

So that is a disingenuous setup.

Beauty IS a virtue. It speaks to mystery within the world. The embodiment of beauty has value. It's just a moral fact. 

Making a virtue the BASIS for anything is wise. So, your question is already answered. Beauty SIMPLY IS a valid basis for a relationship. It is a contributing factor to all truth.

But your disingenuous continuation, your bait and switch suggests that this is related in some way to over-stressing beauty, as if beauty was the ONLY virtue. That is incorrect, and it is equivocation, a lie. And YOU were the purveyor of that lie. Why is that?



Posie_girl90 said:


> People scour the internet looking for these people, just to shoot their shot. I don't understand why everything is about what people look like, and hooking up.


That is because you are deluding yourself. Again here above you use loaded phrasing. You say, 'everything'. Stop it! Stop lying to yourself and others reading this thread. 

Beauty is properly and morally a basis for successful relationships. That is fine and dandy. People are searching for THAT basis. They like it. They prefer it. Preferences are acceptable, especially virtuous ones. Otherwise, intelligence and humor and health are not valid preferences either, BUT, ... THEY ARE, so you are wrong.

And here is another curve ball for you, all virtues coalesce, integrate into wisdom itself, what is the GOOD. That means that greater beauty DOES in fact partially suggest other virtue. It also draws vices. Vices are only over-expressions of virtue, or under-expressions. But you can see how desire, which controls many virtues, is the source of beauty and drawn to beauty, both.

So, yes, people take a shot at having beauty in their lives. And they should.



Posie_girl90 said:


> And while I agree that attraction is an important part of a relationship, it's a stepping stone. I don't think it's the main point of a relationship.


This is mostly a wrong sentiment.

The reason it is wrong is because it assumes that there are some virtues more worthy than others. That is a dangerous lie. All virtues amid love are equal. This truth is not yet well understood. It is part of the book I am writing. If people stopped to consider and understand this truth, so many confusions of this sort would be better healed. 

Beauty IS the main part of a relationship, along with intelligence, strength, judgment, fairness, etc. All virtues are equal in this matter. No one can be blamed for seeking virtue.

Physical beauty is still beauty and you would have done better to speak about inner beauties like mental and 'spiritual' beauties. Still, they are far more rare than their physical counterpart, and far less commonly used as a stimulus for early life attraction.

---

So this brings up another issue. Many desire types especially believe this nonsense: 'I cannot help how I feel'. That is a delusional lie. You can indeed help it. You can literally choose how you feel, and the wise know this and always take the responsibility to do so, to choose how they feel. They DO NOT let external stimulus overwhelm truth, even if that stimulus is itself a part of truth (and all stimuli are). 

This means that many immature people who believe that nonsense, that they cannot help how they feel, over value physical beauty because they ALLOW themselves the self-indulgence of surrendering to physical beauty. Surrendering to mystery is quite tempting. 

In fact surrendering to mystery is what many religious people do when they are supposedly in the throes of spiritual ecstasy. That is another delusion, exactly the same as heroin addiction. This surrender is over-expressed desire, giddy foolishness, and not a part of proper balanced wisdom. In fact wisdom, seeing clearly, is possessed of MORE, not less desire, and yet still that is balanced and not giddy. The giddy high is ALWAYS an immoral error, although all of us indulge occasionally. So surrendering to beauty is common and a very common giddy immorality. That is really what your thread is about. 

But beauty remains a virtue. All immorality is sourced in morality.



Posie_girl90 said:


> I kinda just wanna know why everything is based around this.


It is not. This is another loaded and immoral formulation of the question. As I have shown, 'everything' is an improper term here. ONE OF the bases for a solid and virtuous relationship is the virtue of beauty. 

That DOES NOT mean that in seeking beauty people are inherently wrong, far from it. So, your prejudicial approach to beauty seekers is incorrect. You seek the virtues you want, including beauty by your own admission. You should also have faith that most people want far more than just physical beauty. Watch the show 'Married at First Sight', seasons 1 and 2. Learn the truth that contradicts your statements and sentiments here. 



Posie_girl90 said:


> One of my guy friends said he didn't really care what his future girlfriend looked like. And it was soo refreshing to see he didn't care he just wanted someone to have a good time with and enjoy spending time with.


That is a lie and therefore NOT refreshing. Even if he believes that lie, and he doesn't, beauty is a virtue. Caring is moral duty. So one is not morally allowed not to care about it. Be afraid of that attitude. It is NOT refreshing at all. It is delusional. And rest assured that other delusions accompany such a warped impression of the world.



Posie_girl90 said:


> So brings me to the question (which I believe I saw another discussion like this but for women) would you date a girl if she was ugly?


Ugly is a horrible word. It can be appropriate. But true ugliness is more than just physical. So you are again unclear at best. Do you mean only physical beauty? Assuming you do, the answer is yes. I have. And many times. But I never found it to work out. I actually so far have needed physical beauty as a basis for a relationship. And there are many women I have dated whose inner beauty literally changed them physically. Laziness and unhealthy amounts of fat are not moral. Fat apology is in general not moral. That is lacking in inner beauty as well as outer. It is unhealthy. But as I said, many women change their outer selves by their beliefs and actions. It is very doable. Desire is BECOMING.



Posie_girl90 said:


> What would it take for you to consider her? What do you look for in a girl? Looks or otherwise?


Looks are of course an EQUAL part of it. 

I find that I prefer women that approach my maturity as a match.

That means they are beautiful outside like me. That means they are beautiful inside like me. That means they are aiming at perfection of all, like me. 

No other virtue is less or more important.

Love is not a virtue. It's all of them combined. The GOOD is not a virtue. Its all virtue aimed at perfection.


----------



## Roslyn (Aug 2, 2018)

JR_the_Extraordinary said:


> I definitely agree with with the matching hypothesis. Ideally, I would want someone who is similarly attractive. Also, you're right that looks aren't less important than other factors when it comes to attraction... Actually, I'd say looks are probably the biggest source of attraction for most people. BUT. Looks are not the most important factor for compatibility. Personality traits determine long lasting compatibility that lasts until old age. But yes, looks attract people to each other, however, they say nothing about how they'll raise kids together, or take care of a household, or support each other, or enjoy life together, etc. Still, there is nothing wrong with being attracted primarily to looks and people can do what they want.
> But I personally would rather lower my standards for looks to find someone with an ideal personality.


I don't think I have like a "standard" or at least not consciously. Either I'm attracted or not. I'd hate to be the person who someone had to_ lower _their standards for just because they love my personality. In that case, they should probably move along if I'm not up to scratch. lol


----------



## Clare_Bare (Apr 6, 2015)

Posie_girl90 said:


> ..... would you date a girl if she was ugly? What would it take for you to consider her? What do you look for in a girl? Looks or otherwise?


I understand this question is aimed at the guys, but i'm Bisexual, so i'm going to respond!

I am Sapiosexual, so if she has intelligence and confidence, i'm instantly attracted.
She wouldn't have to be exceptionally beautiful in appearance, but since the face is what i'd spend most time looking at, she would need to have facial features that appeal to _me_. How to define that I have no idea - what i'd consider good looking could be thought of as quite plain by others.

I love this quote from Merrium-Webster:
_"Perhaps the most intriguing thing about sapiosexual, something that might strike us as modern and open-minded, is that it removes gender identity as well as looks from the equation of romantic attraction:"_
What Does 'Sapiosexual' Mean?


----------



## RainyMornings (Jul 24, 2018)

The real advantage is being (an extrovert + confidence). In other words, for happiness one first needs a "personality".


----------



## Tridentus (Dec 14, 2009)

The end goal of love is to develop unconditional love, in order to therefore develop companionship for life, to have an effective working partnership, and to have a safe haven within which to raise kids who ideally need 2 parents (the data on that last part is clear, if you're a single parent doing a great job then power to you, but it would still be better if you had an effective partner).

In order to forge truly unconditional love that will stand the test of time- you need to actually _TEST _it. Life will throw bricks your way, and if either you or your partner is laid low during a period of life which often happens for psychological/health/circumstantial reasons you need to know that your partner will have your back, because it's fairly likely that something will happen along the way, and even if nothing happens you can just develop problems among yourselves due to the human nature of having inadequacies in various ways.

THEREFORE- when I choose a partner I would prefer they weren't far more attractive than I am. Why? Because I know they'll get attention from many men, some of whom might be competitive selections with me, and even if I feel secure when I'm strong- if I'm laid low at some point it's inevitable that might be a tempting proposition for the majority of people. Likewise, I don't want someone who is too much less attractive than me so that they don't feel insecure (which women will deny they do, but it's human nature to feel that way) and that I am attracted enough to them that I can also weather any storms they may go through.

For people who don't follow this pattern and still arrive at unconditional love by passing the necessary tests, good for you, but most people and most unions aren't like that. Too much of an imbalance has a greater potential for rocky seas. I'm not talking about a non-existant "ideal" that many people like to talk about, I'm talking about reality.


----------



## Aarya (Mar 29, 2016)

> I for example don't like recessive hairlines, though I know how much of a bitch it is for men and how it is unfair to many. It's one of those things that can't be fixed cheaply but you're stuck with due to weird genes. But I just visually don't like it in general if I associate them with myself or think about them as partners, and I can't change my opinion. There probably are theoretical exceptions that I may end up liking, but it hasn't happened yet. I feel like everybody has "pet peeves" when it comes to visual aesthetics, and that it's more about finding your match, and avoiding shaming others when you yourself are not perfect


This post from July 2020 recently got a like and as I revisited it I saw this comment which is the only comment I have done on a specific physical appearance that i do not like in partners: receding hairlines/alopecia (we're talking about 20s-30s). 

That feeling when you've recently seen a picture of your ex and they've dropped close to a 0 in looks because of how shiny half of their head has become (at 23). Ho ho ho.


----------

