# I Want A Hot Chick To Love Me For My Personality



## Joseph (Jun 20, 2012)

I have no issues with men/women wanting to date up some imaginary attractiveness ladder. I think it's biological. They usually fail though, then either settle or work on themselves to become more attractive. Either works for me.


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

lek373 said:


> It's not about being on a moral high ground. Maybe you guys just feel defensive and shallow because you can't see past physical looks to sleep with someone. Believe it or not there are people in this world that are sexually attracted to others who are physically ugly because they like how the other person makes them feel. I know from personal experience and from other women that sexual attraction has very little to do with physical appearance. As long as the guy is hygeinic and doesn't look like death (e.g. morbidly obese, 80 years old, etc.) Of course there are women that do require good looks in a partner as I can see from reading this thread, but not everyone finds it necessary. Just because you cannot wrap your head around this idea, does not mean it isn't true. Men do value looks more, it must be hardwired into your brains or something. It is frustrating and unfair but true.
> All I care about is whether my man is intelligent, funny, kind, and confident. A lot of times guys that aren't good looking can even fool you into being sexually attracted to them based on sheer persistence and their own self delusion. It is bullshit that men are more likely to get women based on their character, whereas women are discriminated against based more on looks. this is reality.


First of all, I am a grey-asexual, and I have to have some sort of attraction to the person's personality and/or have a mental and emotional connection, so I really do understand the sentiment exactly. But that's what _I_ am attracted to. Those are _my_ values. They obviously are not the values of the collective whole. Physical attraction is still important to me, but without the aforementioned criteria, it's no dice for me. However, I see no reason, morally nor logically to project those values on others. I cannot know what their brain is wired like. I cannot know what their life experience is.

Second, answer this one question: what is physically attractive? Is there an objective definition? There is none. I remember a conversation I was having with some of my guy friends trying to decide whether or not Angelina Jolie or Jennifer Aniston was hotter. We couldn't agree on it. Some of us thought one was hot while the other wasn't and some of us thought they were both hot but couldn't decide on who was hotter. And they are both regarded as "sexy" by pop culture. It really depends on the person.

So really, you don't know what you're talking about. Projecting your values onto another person without knowing a single thing about the person other than physical attraction being important to them and then saying they are shallow is just that: shallow. I agree that relationships cannot be sustained based on physical attraction alone, but initially it can be important.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

gingertonic said:


> The irony in this thread's title is overwhelming.


How so?


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

I've had a lot of issues with attractiveness. I have had serious body-image issues, and also a strong will to rebel against any kind of submission to gender expectations, but also a desire to find intimacy, so these questions are directed at myself as much as anyone else. And unfortunately this post is just not in any logical order--so sorry.

What is so threatening about assuming that physical attraction is an important component of dating choice?

Is it because of what that will reflect on you? Since you cannot control how physically attracted others are to you, is this why the idea is threatening? Because in order to work on one's own attractiveness, we also have to surrender to the lack of control over other people's perception of us?

Or is it because you fear you CAN have some control over how attractive you are--and then you will be responsible for changing your appearance JUST for someone else's pleasure? --Thus surrendering some power to them.

And then, does that make you feel like you are subordinating yourself to them? Or does it make you feel like you're cheapening your choices--doing real work on your appearance just for the short, sweet pleasure of sexual attraction? Does it make you feel like a lusty whore?

It's very had for me to admit that I work out so I can be sexy. It took me a long time to accept that. But that's it--it's not because I want to be healthier and fit and all that. It's not because I enjoy exercise. I always hear people say they work out for all these other reasons that make no sense to me. It's because I want to be able to fuck whoever I want and please them, because it's so rare to find someone I actually do want to fuck.

And doesn't that seem pathetic? I think that there are some messages in society that say so--you shouldn't alter your appearance because you know someone else will like it--but really, isn't that what sex is about? Isn't it about pleasing someone who is simultaneously pleasing you? 

So what is the problem then, with changing yourself so that someone will be able to enjoy having sex with you more? Then, since sex is really about pleasuring another person as well as yourself (and getting pleasure from that exchange)--changing your appearance will just be enriching your own sexual experience. 

And deep down, it's because I know that I am not a piece of meat like some men have insinuated in my past. However, just because some men have reduced me, in their own minds, to a piece of meat, does not mean I have to reject a more emotionally and intellectually appreciative partner's taste for meat. I mean, the reality is that even if I desire to please someone by being more attractive to them, it doesn't mean I will consider satiating most men who are interested in me. 

And also, what is so degrading about wanting to please another person? It does seem almost feminine to admit you want to please someone--it's putting yourself into a compromising position which might entail failure. Women have long been working on their bodies to seem more pleasing, so maybe that's why some people (men and women) have issues with physical attraction--because they don't want to be put into that seemingly subordinate, feminine role. 

As for whether or not I choose people based on their physical appearance--it's hard to say. My most recent attraction was to someone who absolutely didn't seem like my type, but who I couldn't read his body language very well. Also, I had a hard time fitting him into a category, which I unfortunately do with people--if they remind me of something, I put them in the same box with the others, till they do something that makes me question the box I put them in. I couldn't fit him into a box, and so I found I became increasingly attracted to him.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

lek373 said:


> It's not about being on a moral high ground. Maybe you guys just feel defensive and shallow because you can't see past physical looks to sleep with someone.
> All I care about is whether my man is intelligent, funny, kind, and confident.


I hear statements like this a lot, but to me it seems just as shallow as somebody wanting someone they think is "hot". Intelligent, funny, kind, and confident men don't deserve to be with someone any more than men who lack these qualities (except for perhaps kindness, which is the most subjective trait of all), just as beautiful women don't deserve to be with someone more than those who aren't. These traits are just as subjective as being good looking, but for some reason we all like to act like one is more noble than the other. If you like somebody, you will convince yourself that the desired person has all of those qualities; even if they don't. Women who sleep with men because of how they make them feel are no different than men who sleep with women for how they make them feel.
I'm sure you're a nice person, and a lot of people make the case that there is nothing wrong with responding to these shallow urges, but don't act like you are morally superior just because our society is hypocritically inconsistent.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

lek373 said:


> All I care about is whether my man is intelligent, funny, kind, and confident. A lot of times guys that aren't good looking can even fool you into being sexually attracted to them based on sheer persistence and their own self delusion. It is bullshit that men are more likely to get women based on their character, whereas women are discriminated against based more on looks. this is reality.


 Sure. I'm sure you'd _love_ to sleep with Elephant Man because he makes you giggle over spaghetti and Cabernet Sauvignon. Whether or not you'd think that he was 'attractive' is a different matter. Don't let's confuse the difference between 'finds physically attractive' and 'wants to have sex with.' They're completely different.

I'm not applying any moral standard to my behaviour. I understand well that its going to be a long time until I find my first real 'relationship.' Until then I'm fine with carnal relations based on physical attraction. I don't see a problem with that. I don't agree that it's shallow that I'd only pick someone I find attractive to sleep with. That's just nature. If I like their personality, that's only a plus.


----------



## lek373 (May 25, 2012)

marked174 said:


> I hear statements like this a lot, but to me it seems just as shallow as somebody wanting someone they think is "hot". Intelligent, funny, kind, and confident men don't deserve to be with someone any more than men who lack these qualities (except for perhaps kindness, which is the most subjective trait of all), just as beautiful women don't deserve to be with someone more than those who aren't. These traits are just as subjective as being good looking, but for some reason we all like to act like one is more noble than the other. If you like somebody, you will convince yourself that the desired person has all of those qualities; even if they don't. Women who sleep with men because of how they make them feel are no different than men who sleep with women for how they make them feel.
> I'm sure you're a nice person, and a lot of people make the case that there is nothing wrong with responding to these shallow urges, but don't act like you are morally superior just because our society is hypocritically inconsistent.


I just know what I like, and someone who is physically attractive doesn't mean anything unless he elicits some sort of feelings/connection. Maybe it's because subconsciously I trust that he is more likely to stick around if I get pregnant(that's the reason we all have sex anyways). Maybe it is just as shallow to judge someone based on there character and personality? Maybe I like men who have strong character and personality because I think they are more likely to be attentive, please me better, and care for my babies? These are all very important qualitites to a woman biologically speaking. From a biological standpoint, I guess I can see why men focus more on looks. 
Maybe Im a fucking wackadoodle and no one understands what I am saying, hell I don't even know what I am saying anymore?


----------



## lek373 (May 25, 2012)

Diphenhydramine said:


> Sure. I'm sure you'd _love_ to sleep with Elephant Man because he makes you giggle over spaghetti and Cabernet Sauvignon. Whether or not you'd think that he was 'attractive' is a different matter. Don't let's confuse the difference between 'finds physically attractive' and 'wants to have sex with.' They're completely different.
> 
> I'm not applying any moral standard to my behaviour. I understand well that its going to be a long time until I find my first real 'relationship.' Until then I'm fine with carnal relations based on physical attraction. I don't see a problem with that. I don't agree that it's shallow that I'd only pick someone I find attractive to sleep with. That's just nature. If I like their personality, that's only a plus.


Are you Se dominant? If so I wouldn't expect you to understand why I'd make whoopie with elephant man as long as he's funny and makes me feel good. Maybe this is function related as well?


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

lek373 said:


> Are you Se dominant? If so I wouldn't expect you to understand why I'd make whoopie with elephant man as long as he's funny and makes me feel good. Maybe this is function related as well?


I'm Ni dominant and I still don't quite get it.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

Re type and sex, I don't know. I feel this is more related to other aspects of my personality than type.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

lek373 said:


> Are you Se dominant? If so I wouldn't expect you to understand why I'd make whoopie with elephant man as long as he's funny and makes me feel good. Maybe this is function related as well?


I once tried to see if there was any correlation between certain types or functions, and tendency toward conventional attraction, and came up empty-handed. I'd thought in the past that xstp were most likely and infx were least likely, then I'd seen too many cases to prove me wrong. I thought for a while maybe it was something between Fi and Fe, but that was wrong too. 

It seems that there are many factors that play into tendency toward conventional attraction. Exposure to culture, how able it is to seep in, whether or not personal experiences create more of an impact on associations, and whether or not that person is a body fetishist in the first place. As far as I can tell, the cognitive functions don't play a huge role in the way this happens somehow. Non-body fetishists, or those with individualized attractions can be of any type.


----------



## Antipseudonym (Mar 3, 2012)

Well, I believe that it's all so human and normal. You are trying to find as good partner as you can, people are looking for both- having a beautiful and intelligent partner, but it doesn't matter now. As I've said- it's all logical and normal. 

But I was amazed when my best male friend (who is not shallow at all) told me that, if he has to choose like- a dumb hot girl or and intelligent ugly one, he would choose the dumb girl! There are many beautiful and intelligent girls around me who are in relationship with hmm, ugly guys, but they're fine with it. But I don't know any hot guy in a relationship with an ugly girl.

The point is obvious- guy, hot or not, however, are visualists and for a good relationship and sex they will always look for a hot chick.

I don't know why I have a feeling right now that I've missed the pint of the topic. :x


----------



## lek373 (May 25, 2012)

I think it has a lot to do with short term vs. long term mating strategies as well. You can search the internet and youtube for more information, but I think people who are primary concerned with looks have a more short termed mating strategy(this is typically men). They want to spread as much of their genes as possible in the quickest amount of time and then DIE. Whereas people with a long term mating strategies (typically women) want to ensure that they have a few children with all of their time and resources going into those few offspring. Quantity vs. Quality.


----------



## pinkrasputin (Apr 13, 2009)

lek373 said:


> I think it has a lot to do with short term vs. long term mating strategies as well. You can search the internet and youtube for more information, but I think people who are primary concerned with looks have a more short termed mating strategy(this is typically men). They want to spread as much of their genes as possible in the quickest amount of time and then DIE. Whereas people with a long term mating strategies (typically women) want to ensure that they have a few children with all of their time and resources going into those few offspring. Quantity vs. Quality.


Well I use physical attraction to find a long-term partner. It's worked to keep the species alive for hundreds of years. And I'm not looking for a baby daddy, but I am looking for a life partner.

Here, this is an excellent video on love, attachment, and sex drive:

Helen Fisher: Why we love, why we cheat | Video on TED.com


----------



## Emerson (Mar 13, 2011)

fourtines said:


> I am very tired of this. There are men who keep crying that their girlfriend is nothing but a gold digger, or their exes ALWAYS dump them...and there are really times where it becomes glaringly apparent to me it's because these men aren't *really* choosing the best women for them. They're choosing their girlfriends (or the girls they wish would be their girlfriend) based almost entirely on physical standards. This makes about zero sense to me.
> 
> First of all, what is attractive is largely subjective. When I first met my ESFJ I thought he was cute but I wasn't sure I was attracted to him at first and we were friends, and then when we finally hooked up it was like "omgz he rocked my world." Later I found out that MANY women found him to be exceptionally handsome, including my own mother who looked at a photograph of him and was like "Wow your boyfriend is freaking gorgeous. I bet he's full of himself." There was also another incident where a girl walked into a display at Wal-Mart because she was staring at him.
> 
> ...



This. This is right. Bravo.


----------



## lek373 (May 25, 2012)

If you are INFP as your profile indicates aren't you actually Fi dominant and auxillary Ne?


android654 said:


> I'm Ni dominant and I still don't quite get it.


----------



## lek373 (May 25, 2012)

pinkrasputin said:


> Well I use physical attraction to find a long-term partner. It's worked to keep the species alive for hundreds of years. And I'm not looking for a baby daddy, but I am looking for a life partner.
> 
> Here, this is an excellent video on love, attachment, and sex drive:
> 
> Helen Fisher: Why we love, why we cheat | Video on TED.com


cool video


----------



## lek373 (May 25, 2012)

pinkrasputin said:


> Well I use physical attraction to find a long-term partner. It's worked to keep the species alive for hundreds of years. And I'm not looking for a baby daddy, but I am looking for a life partner.
> 
> Here, this is an excellent video on love, attachment, and sex drive:
> 
> Helen Fisher: Why we love, why we cheat | Video on TED.com


I don't think it is only physical attraction that has kept the species alive for hundreds of years (more like millions, but who's counting?) Isn't it more like the evolution of human intelligence?


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

pinkrasputin said:


> Well I use physical attraction to find a long-term partner. It's worked to keep the species alive for hundreds of years. And I'm not looking for a baby daddy, but I am looking for a life partner.
> 
> Here, this is an excellent video on love, attachment, and sex drive:
> 
> Helen Fisher: Why we love, why we cheat | Video on TED.com


Evolutionary biology has pretty much proven that we are not monogamous apes. Hell, our closest cousins are almost all bi-sexual. Monogamy doesn't come naturally to us, which is why relationships require so much more work than just finding a fuck buddy. 

I've seen the lecture before, it's a good one.


----------



## lek373 (May 25, 2012)

android654 said:


> Evolutionary biology has pretty much proven that we are not monogamous apes. Hell, our closest cousins are almost all bi-sexual. Monogamy doesn't come naturally to us, which is why relationships require so much more work than just finding a fuck buddy.
> 
> I've seen the lecture before, it's a good one.


gibbons are monogamous


----------



## bellisaurius (Jan 18, 2012)

fourtines said:


> WHAT?
> 
> I was in a six year relationship with someone I found attractive who found me attractive. I don't think either of us felt we were the less attractive person in the relationship.
> 
> ...


I think I wasn't as clear as I wanted to be. I'll try to expand my thoughts. 

To some extent, we all have flaws concerning our self image (in terms of appearance, personality, et al), and that flaw tends to be in the direction of being kind to ourselves. I don't think I had realized the error of my own ways in this regard until I met my current spouse, and then, one day, after a discussion we had about the early relationship, concerning the topic of when we would become fully sexual (before or after marriage), the idea of the advantages of simultaneously feeling the other person was more desirable (desireable in the sense of more than just looks) dawned onto me. 

Basically, a relationship on some level functions as a series of negotiations. In a given negotiation, both sides have a certain position, which is a combination of multiple factors, of which the other party's desirability is one. The more desirable the other person, the more likely we are to compromise because finding a new partner isn't easy; finding one at least as good may seem even harder. In a situation where both parties feel they are the ones lacking in position, they are most likely to reach solutions that benefit the other person, and since the other person is trying to do the exact same thing, both view the other person as being magnanimous. I couldn't picture a better way to end up subconsciously in a virtuous circle.


----------



## wisdom (Dec 31, 2008)

First of all, I don't think people are much more superficial than they were before television, the Enlightenment, whatever. Merely, there are more options and less pressure to marry. (Read the Canterbury Tales.)

Also, I don't think many men expect to be loved for their personality. They just figure they ought to be able to trade success and/or willingness to commit for beauty.

And now I can again stand on my soapbox and point out that, until recently, in Western cultures most single young women (except for the sick or very poor, perhaps) made darn sure to look close to their best in public. That really shortcircuited the obsession with hotness, for men with quality to offer had many decent choices to pick from. Now there's too much feast or famine out there.

@snail for lulz


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

wisdom said:


> (Read the Canterbury Tales.)


 you amuse me.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

bellisaurius said:


> I think the ideal relationship is where both parties _think_ they're the less attractive one. That way, it minimizes the desire to do anything bad since it might ruin "a good thing". A shame that it's hard to program oneself to think that way.


If you don't love yourself, you can't truly love others.

The ideal relationship is where you both think the other is attractive in multi-dimensional ways. That way, you'll want to latch onto them, because you really, truly enjoy being together. You really care about each other, and you stay together because you don't want to hurt the other person. You're not going to be overwhelmingly passionate about them every day, but you wouldn't trade them for anyone else, because you find them to be an amazing person, and want to spend the rest of your natural born life with them.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

Torai said:


> If you don't love yourself, you can't truly love others.
> 
> The ideal relationship is where you both think the other is attractive in multi-dimensional ways. That way, you'll want to latch onto them, because you really, truly enjoy being together.


I don't think that is what he was implying (not loving oneself). I can't speak on his behalf but I liked the sentiments. I think if a man were to look to me as more attractive as he and I looked to him as more attractive as I ... it's like you said, attractive in multidimensional ways. the physical is a part of that. 

Personally I want to be with a man I'm attracted to, I wouldn't personally say "more" attractive than me because I don't have hairy armpits ... you see what I'm saying. Maybe people forget that physical attractiveness of men and women can't necessarily be compared. Apples and Oranges. And the ole "in my league" non sense is rubbish too. How a woman sees physical attractiveness is based on different things than how a man might evaluate attractiveness.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

*Note To OP: *
Every time I see the title of this thread I SO want to say, "I want a really rich man to support me for my good nature". This thread is seriously SILLY!

Also ... I don't want a rich man. I want a good man. I mean let's be real, if he's loaded I'm not gonna cry about it, LOL!!! BUT whatever, if you find a good woman and she so happens to be hot, awesome. _
"hot" is just the gravy on top ya know ..._

Now I know I'm not a "Thinker" type but let's think about this shall we ". <-- that's my thinking face.

Hair falling from the top of your heads and coming out your nose and ears, baldness and bruised egos. decent jobs. That's your(man) baby-clock. with women it's always luuuuuv, marriage, babies, saggy boobies, that's our ticking clock. and yet, some men it's paychecks and mercedes' and emotional emptiness with lots of filler. some women its tats and beneficial friends without breaking a bone. but bones always break as much as our hearts and in the end when we are all old and decrepit nasty - shocking the young folk while we sport our body suits in locker rooms (not sure about the men but WHY do old ladies do that! It's gross! Get a towel!) in that end, we realize that luuuuuuuuuv is not really LOVE. 

did you sing the word luuuuuuuuuuv. you were supposed to! now you ruined the whole dang silly post! 
thanks alot!


----------



## Mr. Meepers (May 31, 2012)

Ningsta Kitty said:


> I don't think that is what he was implying (not loving oneself). I can't speak on his behalf but I liked the sentiments. I think if a man were to look to me as more attractive as he and I looked to him as more attractive as I ... it's like you said, attractive in multidimensional ways. the physical is a part of that.
> 
> Personally I want to be with a man I'm attracted to, I wouldn't personally say "more" attractive than me because I don't have hairy armpits ... you see what I'm saying. Maybe people forget that physical attractiveness of men and women can't necessarily be compared. Apples and Oranges. And the ole "in my league" non sense is rubbish too. How a woman sees physical attractiveness is based on different things than how a man might evaluate attractiveness.



Oh, by attractiveness I thought he meant the whole package, not just physical attractiveness ....... And I agree (I'm not initially physically attracted to women who look like me .... What am I saying - I am hot   )

Edit: Apparently I can't read lol ... Ooops


----------



## Mr. Meepers (May 31, 2012)

I know how to get hot chicks easily ... They serve them with honey mustard at most fast food restaurants (I assume that chick must refer to baby chickens ... restaurants serve baby chickens :shocked::crying

I'm had hot women love my personality (anyone can be hot when you are head over heals for them lol)


I'm pretty sure some hot women like my personality now ^__^


Did I win at the thread yet????


----------



## Jwing24 (Aug 2, 2010)

Here's your hot chick:

Microwave

+

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/features_food_blog/files/2011/04/large_0308_yelo_peep.jpg




= hot chick


----------



## Twoshoe (Mar 2, 2011)

I want a hot chick to love me for my artistic and musical ability.

I don't think it's any better.

Though I do shamefully admit to making my mom buy me a guitar, because I thought it'd help me get girls. (That was awhile ago.)


----------



## InternalWonderous (Sep 1, 2012)

Such an amazing post. You nailed it!


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

wisdom said:


> First of all, I don't think people are much more superficial than they were before television, the Enlightenment, whatever. Merely, there are more options and less pressure to marry. (Read the Canterbury Tales.)
> 
> Also, I don't think many men expect to be loved for their personality. They just figure they ought to be able to trade success and/or willingness to commit for beauty.
> 
> ...





I'm sorry to see that you have been missing me lately, my old friend. I haven't been available for our usual debates because I have been too busy preparing to marry a man "with quality* to offer" who knows that having "decent choices to pick from," shouldn't have anything to do with whether women are making "darn sure to look close to their best in public." I'm glad my soulmate recognizes that objectifying women is wrong, and refuses to waste his time being superficial about such matters. We both frown on relationships that are based on aesthetic conformity to an irrelevant societal standard, or to any personal fantasy that dehumanizes the partner. 

*My definition of quality has nothing to do with looks, financial success, or the desire to buy a living trophy with his commitment. True quality is about compatibility and shared values. 



I'm too busy being happy with my life to spend much time posting responses anymore. I wish you the best of luck in finding exactly the kind of relationship you deserve and desire.


----------



## wisdom (Dec 31, 2008)

It's not an "irrelevant social standard," because physical attraction is based much more on evolved preferences than what society dictates.



> True quality is about compatibility and shared values.


Yes, but for most people, there will not be enough interest until physical attraction exists, and physical attraction (especially the physiological bonds from physical contact) helps keep couples together during inevitable rough periods.


----------



## Uviteru (Jul 30, 2012)

snail said:


> I'm sorry to see that you have been missing me lately, my old friend. I haven't been available for our usual debates because I have been too busy preparing to marry a man "with quality* to offer" who knows that having "decent choices to pick from," shouldn't have anything to do with whether women are making "darn sure to look close to their best in public." I'm glad my soulmate recognizes that objectifying women is wrong, and refuses to waste his time being superficial about such matters. We both frown on relationships that are based on aesthetic conformity to an irrelevant societal standard, or to any personal fantasy that dehumanizes the partner.
> 
> *My definition of quality has nothing to do with looks, financial success, or the desire to buy a living trophy with his commitment. True quality is about compatibility and shared values.
> 
> ...


I'm so glad that your definition of quality has nothing to do with looks, financial success, or desire to look like a trophy. If you desired me primarily for my "looks" or my financial success or any other meaningless societal construct I would not be marrying you (or having hours and hours of mind blowing wonderful sex with you)


When looking for a mate I specifically excluded anyone who was interested in vanity such as wealth, social status, adherence to gender stereotypes, or adherence to an impossible and arbitrary aesthetic standard that is used to persuade the gullible to buy more beauty products not realizing their true beauty is what's on the inside. 


Looks, wealth, and social status all change throughout ones lifetime, any relationship based on such things is shallow, temporary, and not worth a minute of ones time. 


I love you Snail! Thanks for caring about what matters and I'm glad that you are as happy as I am.


----------



## wisdom (Dec 31, 2008)

Am I the only one wondering what he looks like? I'll presume not "hot," but beyond that, I don't know.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

wisdom said:


> Am I the only one wondering what he looks like? I'll presume not "hot," but beyond that, I don't know.












Looks are irrelevant, but because I am in love with him, I find him adorable.


----------



## Uviteru (Jul 30, 2012)

wisdom said:


> Am I the only one wondering what he looks like? I'll presume not "hot," but beyond that, I don't know.


I can't imagine why anyone on here would care what I look like. I don't really like that word and am glad that Snail loves me because of who I am and would still love me even if I became physically deformed for some reason. 

As to if I am "hot" or not, well okcupid thinks I am. Or rather female visitors to my okcupid profile I assume rated me highly after reading more about me. Not that this matters, Snail and I would have picked eachother regardless of how either of us looked or how a computer program or website rated either of us. 



> *Hey Uviteru,*
> 
> We just detected that you're now among the most attractive people on OkCupid.
> 
> ...


Besides the one Snail posted of me here is another (I'm the human, not the wonderful dog)


----------



## Master Mind (Aug 15, 2011)

wisdom said:


> Am I the only one wondering what he looks like? I'll presume not "hot," but beyond that, I don't know.


Not particularly. As long as she's happy, what does it matter to me, you, or anyone else? Regarding that matter, her opinion is the only one that's relevant. It's not even anyone else's business.


----------



## wisdom (Dec 31, 2008)

Of course it matters, due to her outspoken suggestion that pure physical attraction doesn't or shouldn't matter (and sometimes with the insinuation that those who care about looks are morally inferior to her kind). That she's engaged to a poor man's Rob Pattinson (shorter and in need of hair removal) doesn't help her credibility. Fellow INFP yello would have a field day with that. She ripped off my signature and uses it in a way that foments animosity between the sexes and fuels accusations like "I want a hot chick to love me for my personality." How many more people would be in happy relationships if a greater percentage of the population made a reasonable effort to look physically attractive? I personally suffer because of that.

I'm also annoyed by the flaunting of sexual behavior, which frankly I think shouldn't have much of an impact on a relationship built around true compatibility. And while I sense some grounds of a legitimate connection there, I'd strongly encourage a few months of abstinence as a test of "love."


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

wisdom said:


> Of course it matters, due to her outspoken suggestion that pure physical attraction doesn't or shouldn't matter (and sometimes with the insinuation that those who care about looks are morally inferior to her kind). That she's engaged to a poor man's Rob Pattinson (shorter and in need of hair removal) doesn't help her credibility. Fellow INFP yello would have a field day with that. She ripped off my signature and uses it in a way that foments animosity between the sexes and fuels accusations like "I want a hot chick to love me for my personality." How many more people would be in happy relationships if a greater percentage of the population made a reasonable effort to look physically attractive? I personally suffer because of that.
> 
> I'm also annoyed by the flaunting of sexual behavior, which frankly I think shouldn't have much of an impact on a relationship built around true compatibility. And while I sense some grounds of a legitimate connection there, I'd strongly encourage a few months of abstinence as a test of "love."


Actually, he's taller than Rob Pattinson (to whom I am not attracted, because I don't know him personally), and I don't have anything against body hair. (I grow out mine, too.) I have dated men of varying heights, some of whom were conventionally handsome, and some of whom were not at all. It would be against my values to discriminate against someone because he looks a certain way, whether his looks are despised or loved by other people. 

You ask how many more people would be in happy relationships if a greater percentage of the population tried to look physically attractive, and you say you suffer because of other people's failure to conform to your aesthetic standards. I suggest that happy relationships ought to be built on something more meaningful than mutual objectification. I wouldn't settle for the kind of "happy relationship" you so desperately desire, because I would never feel like my partner's love was authentic. It would always seem the same as any other kind of materialism, which is not love. 

The flaunting of sexual behavior makes a point. Sexual attraction doesn't have to be based on looks. He desires me even though I am not conventionally attractive, and I am capable of enjoying sex with him even though I am attracted to him for reasons other than his looks. 

We began our relationship online, without touching at all, and waited to have sex until we were certain we wanted to be together for life. I don't think our mutually satisfying sex life takes anything away from our claims to feel a legitimate connection based on respect and spiritual compatibility. It is an expression of our love, and represents the joy of having found our soulmates, even in a world where the unpopularity of our values, along with our determination to avoid settling, made it hard for us to find suitable partners.


----------



## Uviteru (Jul 30, 2012)

wisdom said:


> Of course it matters, due to her outspoken suggestion that pure physical attraction doesn't or shouldn't matter (and sometimes with the insinuation that those who care about looks are morally inferior to her kind). That she's engaged to a poor man's Rob Pattinson (shorter and in need of hair removal) doesn't help her credibility. Fellow INFP yello would have a field day with that. She ripped off my signature and uses it in a way that foments animosity between the sexes and fuels accusations like "I want a hot chick to love me for my personality." How many more people would be in happy relationships if a greater percentage of the population made a reasonable effort to look physically attractive? I personally suffer because of that.
> 
> I'm also annoyed by the flaunting of sexual behavior, which frankly I think shouldn't have much of an impact on a relationship built around true compatibility. And while I sense some grounds of a legitimate connection there, I'd strongly encourage a few months of abstinence as a test of "love."





wisdom said:


> How many more people would be in happy relationships if a greater percentage of the population made a reasonable effort to look physically attractive? I personally suffer because of that.


There would be no more happy relationships and probably quite a few more unhappy ones due to the way body shame (such as the type you promote) causes psychological damage and promotes shallow, unhappy relationships. 




wisdom said:


> I personally suffer because of that.


How exactly do you personally suffer because of that? And even if you do suffer from it, why should others suffer by harming them selves in the process striving for an arbitrary aesthetic standard that you want them to strive for?

Others have no responsibly to suffer for your particular aesthetic preference. 
of


wisdom said:


> I'm also annoyed by the flaunting of sexual behavior, which frankly I think shouldn't have much of an impact on a relationship built around true compatibility.


It was not my intent to "flaunt" our sexual behavior. I was thanking snail for the deep meaningful relationship which we express in many ways including sexually. We also cook amazing food for each other and go on long walks and talk and snuggle and hug and show love for each other in innumerable ways. 



wisdom said:


> poor man's Rob Pattinson (shorter and in need of hair removal)


I'm actually taller and I assure you that I have no need for hair removal (ouch!). Although you may have a preference for men who appear pre pubescent, I would not choose to date (or marry) anyone who demanded I conform to that particular fetish. 

Regarding your insinuation that she should have chosen someone whose physical aesthetics LEAST resembled some arbitrary cultural ideal (It was a mutual decision by the way), you do realize I hope that the philosophy advocated by Snail (and I) suggests that people should not select each other based on physical characteristics at all. 

Rejecting me because of how I look (regardless of if you think I'm closer "hot" or "not hot") would be hypocritical. She did not do that and therefore was not hypocritical.



wisdom said:


> I'd strongly encourage a few months of abstinence as a test of "love."


*Considers your advice* 

Um, no thanks! We both have high sex drives and enjoy being able to express love to each other sexually. However we would still be getting married even if the other was unable to have sex for whatever reason.


----------



## wisdom (Dec 31, 2008)

I have very standard, natural aesthetic preferences that most people share. Many others just need to be honest with themselves that if they want to be satisfied in relationships, they probably need to look attractive to whatever kind of person they desire. It might be a painful self-admission, but that doesn't inherently promote "body shame" for anyone with a sensible approach toward aesthetic improvement.

The snail philosophy seems to be, If I tried much to look attractive, how would I know someone likes me for who I really am? Which is a valid question, but the truth is most people aren't so superficial that they commit to relationships based on looks alone. Their superficiality merely leads them to ignore/reject individuals who don't look good to them. Bluntly, how can you condemn a man for not being physically attracted to, and therefore not interested in, an obese woman? I think many people are almost involuntarily single because of the pool of available, fit-looking individuals is small. _"I want a slim, but still curvy woman with a pleasant face" is much more accurate than the "hot chick" accusation, and it is a reasonable want for many guys._

Furthermore, it's self-serving for snail to say she shouldn't reject someone for being too good-looking, but that she has no duty to look good for her potential partner. And for her to act as though she's immune to the halo effect and, for example, isn't quicker to have sex with a good-looking guy than with a homely one.

I hereby publicly ask for replacing her virtually mocking and discredited signature with something genuinely helpful, like "If you want a relationship, get out there and try to find someone. If using dating sites, write a good profile. Use pictures that are honest and reflect real, positive personality traits."


----------



## abigaleblues (Apr 11, 2012)

Biologically speaking, men want women that have a 0.7 waist-to-hip ratio. It's ideal for child bearing, which subconsciously drives men to sex. That's why men like a lot of different sizes and looks, but honestly, still prefer the woman with the correct proportions.


But in regards to "I want a hot chick, but she has to like me for my personality" well, that's not going to work because women also have a biological desire for a caretaker. That's why men that make more money are often more desirable to women.


It's really the age old argument. Men want sex. Women want money. 


Of course this isn't always the case. This is simple biology. But it does have a large influence over much of the world's population today, even in times of post-feminism, globalization, etc. etc.


----------



## wisdom (Dec 31, 2008)

I just want to add that body hair preferences also are more objective than subjective. I don't know of any culture that likes its women hairy, and I know that most women don't like very hairy men. Easy problem to solve (or to ignore, if the partners in a relationship so wish, work issues notwithstanding). And there's no good reason to have even a mild version of a uni-brow (tweezing is almost painless if done right). People can be stubbornly self-defeating, or without having to be "hot," they can do things that improve their chances.


----------



## Mr. Meepers (May 31, 2012)

wisdom said:


> I'm also annoyed by the flaunting of sexual behavior, which frankly I think shouldn't have much of an impact on a relationship built around true compatibility. And while I sense some grounds of a legitimate connection there, I'd strongly encourage a few months of abstinence as a test of "love."


If you want to encourage a few months of abstinence to get to know someone, I won't argue with that ... What I will argue is that you seem to be saying people should not be flaunting their sexuality in a relationship built around true compatibility ... sexuality is an aspect of compatibility ... I am a pretty sexually person and I would need to be with someone who is not a prude toward adult sexuality (whether just talking or, once we are ready, getting to know what each other like) ... I don't need to be with someone I saw as sexy on first sight as someone can become sexy to me overtime ... but I am a sexual person and my sexuality is an aspect of who I am and is a part of compatibility ... you may argue that it is not an important part of compatibility, but it is a part of compatibility

Edit: @snail I love the image in your signature that asks people to change the way the see things, not the way they look ... I think, sometimes, the problem is not what is, but what we perceive it to be ... and I think, when it comes to the beauty of a person, we look too hard at what our eyes see and not what our mind sees within them ... Although (physical and emotional) aesthetics is different than (physical and emotional) sexiness (although they seem to have some relationship)


----------



## Razare (Apr 21, 2009)

I don't really have the problem stated in the title, "I want a hot woman to love me for my personality."

My personality mostly stinks, unless they have a childish side like I do, which we could share. But I wouldn't expect any woman to love me for my adult personality. If they did, that would be kind of bizarre. I'm critical, analytical, and my humor is sarcastic... even among guys only a couple of them have appreciated my personality, most just find me strange I think.

That said, in the past I've dated on looks and I'm proud of it. No point dating someone I'm not attracted to physically in some way, otherwise there wouldn't be any passion in the bedroom, since physical attraction is what drives my sexual passion. It's almost impossible for a woman to turn me on with her personality, but it's happened 2 or 3 times perhaps.

They have to be smarter than me and wiser... in these instances, their intellect is expressed in a specific field of knowledge, but doesn't have to be... but when they can combine that with life wisdom in a witty fun way, I melt. So yes, I date on looks because these nerdy woman invariably do not date men like me... they seem to either go for hunks or successful men (because they're smart, obviously they wouldn't date me because that'd be a bad move considering their amazing skill set.)

So I date on looks, and end up with woman like my ex, who had a childish side like I do, and we could get along on that level but as far as my adult-side... no, not really at all, but the sex can be good so its a more realistic relationship than the alternative. But it's probably not the sort of relationship suited to last because sex gets old and I revert to my adult-side eventually.

And the reason I couldn't date someone who is less intelligent than me, not good looking (from my viewpoint), and less wise than I am... I would be so frigging bored with the person, the relationship would fall apart overnight... she'd dump me most certainly because of my lack of enthusiasm.

If you're not interested in a person for some reason, why date them ?  And why not looks?

But I agree in that there's no point in complaining when it goes south because you picked a bad match, since your only concern was looks. And after stating all this, I wouldn't go back to dating based on looks because I've been there and done that, just I don't expect to date on personality either because that's a dead-end as well.


----------



## dann (Feb 11, 2012)

As a male, I'm a visual creature..I want a female that I find physically appealing. You don't need to be "hot" or drop dead gorgeous--let's not think on extremes here--just appealing enough to get my dick hard so I can impregnate you. I am biologically wired to reproduce after all. 

You as a woman need to find someone worthy of mating with. What matters to you isn't that I have six pack abs or chiseled features...what matters to you is that I'm a kickass dude, an alpha male, and got things going for me. 
I find it odd that you are offended by this mindset...its not really what I desire...it's ju how it is...or I'd anything...what you expect as a female. 

What youre really offended by are losers that suck at life who want pretty women to love them for their insecure, crappy personalities. They're really lame anyways so why do you care at all. Leave tthem be and stick with men like me who are actually awesome.

Excuse the typos..writing longer posts on a phone is difficult


----------



## wisdom (Dec 31, 2008)

Actually, looks do matter to women. For example, alpha males seldom are naturally ugly (or short). That's why I am very disappointed to find that snail apparently is disengenous (I should have thought things through earlier). If she's going to avoid the issue, then I will need to ask a moderator to push her to stop using the feel-good sig that she based on my sig.

Edit: but I keep thinking of the "love me for my personality" stuff not fitting most men. I believe that most single men just want a woman, for arm candy, sex, someone to take care of, or mom substitute. (Objectification in a way, not really a good thing). Or someone to do things with (maybe that's slight objectification). How she feels about him isn't a big concern (which causes all sort of relationship problems). Women are the ones who often insist on being loved for who they are (and sometimes with the insistence that looks and personality are unrelated). Therefore, this thread is partly built on faulty projection.


----------



## strawberryLola (Sep 19, 2010)

I disagree. Snail's been pretty consistent in what she says. I respect her for that.

I don't assume to speak for all "women" or all "men" so I won't generalize and claim to know what everybody thinks, but sharing the world view of "that's just the way it is" simply ends all discussion.

It's pretty apparent that saying that someone should like me for how I look because that will naturally attract them to me is disingenuous engagement in the first place. I like to take care of myself for me and not anyone else. Should people like me for who I am or the way I look, that's their prerogative. I don't judge people for how they look but _how they treat others._

Character is absolutely far more important above all else.


----------



## wisdom (Dec 31, 2008)

99.9% of people judge others on their looks (with some blind people finding ways to do that). Even snail has admitted to judging on clothing. Also, whether it's conscious behavior or not, few people dress purely for themselves (on average, both sexes probably dress more for women than men when socializing). I have low tolerance for nonsensical claims, especially when they can cause harm if taken seriously.

Important subtext to this thread: men usually know when they like someone for personality reasons; but it seems that women often have trouble separating physical attraction (or chemistry) from personality attraction (as the attracted one or the subject of attraction)


----------



## Ramysa (Mar 22, 2012)

U are so right! 
Also, there are men who think they are good looking and they are not. At all. But they act like they are some sort of special human beings and that they should date models. I knew one guy like that who was really ugly and full of himself.


----------



## Master Mind (Aug 15, 2011)

Ramysa said:


> U are so right!
> Also, there are men who think they are good looking and they are not. At all. But they act like they are some sort of special human beings and that they should date models. I knew one guy like that who was really ugly and full of himself.


I've known people who society would regard as attractive, who were nonetheless ugly people.


----------



## dann (Feb 11, 2012)

Ramysa said:


> U are so right!
> Also, there are men who think they are good looking and they are not. At all. But they act like they are some sort of special human beings and that they should date models. I knew one guy like that who was really ugly and full of himself.


I find this funny. Do you expect ugly people to be meek and insecure about themselves, making them even more unattractive? 

Obviously that is not what you're suggesting, and I agree with you, humility is a good thing, but so is a sense of entitlement,and by golly, if a man knows he deserves a model, then so be it!!


----------



## Mr. Meepers (May 31, 2012)

wisdom said:


> Actually, looks do matter to women. For example, alpha males seldom are naturally ugly (or short). That's why I am very disappointed to find that snail apparently is disengenous (I should have thought things through earlier). If she's going to avoid the issue, then I will need to ask a moderator to push her to stop using the feel-good sig that she based on my sig.
> 
> Edit: but I keep thinking of the "love me for my personality" stuff not fitting most men. I believe that most single men just want a woman, for arm candy, sex, someone to take care of, or mom substitute. (Objectification in a way, not really a good thing). Or someone to do things with (maybe that's slight objectification). How she feels about him isn't a big concern (which causes all sort of relationship problems). Women are the ones who often insist on being loved for who they are (and sometimes with the insistence that looks and personality are unrelated). Therefore, this thread is partly built on faulty projection.





wisdom said:


> 99.9% of people judge others on their looks (with some blind people finding ways to do that). Even snail has admitted to judging on clothing. Also, whether it's conscious behavior or not, few people dress purely for themselves (on average, both sexes probably dress more for women than men when socializing). I have low tolerance for nonsensical claims, especially when they can cause harm if taken seriously.
> 
> Important subtext to this thread: men usually know when they like someone for personality reasons; but it seems that women often have trouble separating physical attraction (or chemistry) from personality attraction (as the attracted one or the subject of attraction)



Yay for massive generalizations and assuming people's main motivations are biological :tongue: ... Okay, so how someone dresses is more of a fashion statement, than what the physical body looks like and is usually a choice made everyday and many people use it as a form of self expression ... also their is a difference between being (physically) aesthetically good looking and being (physically) sexy.

I'm curious as to how these things, such as saying looks are not that important to some people are harmful? Since you said it is, I would like to hear why, as I find what you are saying more harmful as I would imagine your way asks people to base a part of their "worth" on their physical looks, while, I would say, @snail's way would ask people to base their worth on their personality, maybe influence, maybe intelligence, ... and not on their physical body image ... To me, you are limiting beauty and sexiness to the physical and are forgetting the emotional part of it. Personally, I find the emotional part a much stronger attraction ... and since I match @snail's view on not caring about whether I am physically attracted to someone (I want the person to look like a human around my age, but I don't need initial sexual attraction), I feel as though you are projecting how you view sexuality onto people like me ... We are all different and we may have lots of things that attract us to a person, not just the physical


----------



## Uviteru (Jul 30, 2012)

wisdom said:


> Actually, looks do matter to women. For example, alpha males seldom are naturally ugly (or short). That's why I am very disappointed to find that snail apparently is disengenous (I should have thought things through earlier). If she's going to avoid the issue, then I will need to ask a moderator to push her to stop using the feel-good sig that she based on my sig.
> 
> Edit: but I keep thinking of the "love me for my personality" stuff not fitting most men. I believe that most single men just want a woman, for arm candy, sex, someone to take care of, or mom substitute. (Objectification in a way, not really a good thing). Or someone to do things with (maybe that's slight objectification). How she feels about him isn't a big concern (which causes all sort of relationship problems). Women are the ones who often insist on being loved for who they are (and sometimes with the insistence that looks and personality are unrelated). Therefore, this thread is partly built on faulty projection.


Snail and I are happily enjoying a nudist resort in the mountains together today and I just signed in to see your long list of highly offensive and totally false posts such as this. 

1. Snail and I chose each other based on who we are not what we look like. For you to suggest you somehow know our "true" motivations is simply offensive and wrong and shuts down any conversation. How Snail feels about me is very important to me. 

You pretend to understand the motivations of all males and all females but you only understand your own motivations. If you're really that shallow fine: I'm not. Snail is not. 

2. Looks do not matter to Snail (A woman) or to me (A man).

3. As a man I want to be liked and appreciated for who I am and my personality. Not what I look like. When I was dating I would reject anyone who only or mostly seemed interested in looks or money or anything like that. 

4. Both snail (a woman) and me (a man) insist on being loved for who we are. Stop making up disgusting lies about us.


----------



## wisdom (Dec 31, 2008)

Do we really need to hear about a nudist retreat? Don't complain about me being offensive when you do the same.

Anyway, those were generalizations that apply more strongly to some than others. That said, I highly doubt that anyone is totally immune to them, which is a reason I'm mad at snail for claiming to be above all that and for encouraging delusion. (The comments and pictures by the twosome in this thread have destroyed the "demisexual" credibility with me and probably others.) Furthermore, I think many people would be insulted - if in the context of "love" - to be wanted more for their looks, money, or other things than for who they are, even though sometimes they in fact are liked for rather shallow reasons.

Re basing worth on looks, I don't encourage it, but I don't see a problem with basing a little of it on looks. Saying "I'm worth a lot" (instead of trying to look good) while being deemed worthless by most (not worth getting to know based on appearance) is much worse for self-esteem than my strategy.

P.S.
I just tweaked the sig to address the "worth" issue.


----------



## Uviteru (Jul 30, 2012)

wisdom said:


> Do we really need to hear about a nudist retreat? Don't complain about me being offensive when you do the same.
> 
> Anyway, those were generalizations that apply more strongly to some than others. That said, I highly doubt that anyone is totally immune to them, which is a reason I'm mad at snail for claiming to be above all that and for encouraging delusion. (The comments and pictures by the twosome in this thread have destroyed the "demisexual" credibility with me and probably others.) Furthermore, I think many people would be insulted - if in the context of "love" - to be wanted more for their looks, money, or other things than for who they are, even though sometimes they in fact are liked for rather shallow reasons.
> 
> ...



What exactly is so offensive about saying that Snail and I are at a Nudist resort? I was letting you know why she has been away from her computer. 

You need to stop pretending that you understand the motivations of others. Do you know what I think you're problem is? I think your problem is that you are jealous. You are jealous that Snail found true love by standing up for her convictions and not compromising and that we're having a great time together. 

You are jealous that we decided we were right for each other not based on "chemistry" (which I have no idea what really means as I've never understood it. I don't feel sexual attraction for someone who I don't know and love) but instead because we had a lot in common and chose to create a new life together full of love and compassion and respect where neither of us objectify each other or allow each other to be objectified. 

You cling to a false world view and all evidence that contradicts that view you choose to ignore. It is proven false because there are individuals for which your statements do not apply and when you encounter such individuals, instead of evaluating your ideas, you simply refuse to accept the evidence that is right in front of your eyes.


----------



## wisdom (Dec 31, 2008)

Where I come from, people publicly talking about their sex lives is not cool, especially if it's bragging or people I'd rather not think of as engaged in sex. I realize this is the Sex & Relationships section, but this thread isn't about individual's sex lives and therefore those comments don't belong here.

Of course I'm a little jealous. But that has nothing to do with the skepticism I've expressed, for I firmly believe that my worldview is accurate and I don't know of any research that contradicts it. I'd say that some of my anger is the fact that people who put in the effort aren't getting the rewards that others who haven't done the work are getting. So how about helping single people achieve their goals instead of indicating superiority? There's too much BS in this section where people judge each other for their preferences and not nearly enough helpful behavior.


----------



## perfectcircle (Jan 5, 2011)

@wisdom, I don't want to be rude, but do you ever stop to think the reason your personal relationships are suffering is not because others are not "taking care of themselves" but bceause you aer so judgemental towards others and impose your own standards built out of insecurity onto them?

*Fact:* It's safe to assume physical attraction matters to a lot of people in picking a mate, but it's also a pretty well-known phenomonon that some people don't factor in physical attraction at all.
*Fact:* Physical attractiveness is subjective and while you may insist that body hair, height, or any other list on your "genetic assets" may be something you believe everyone is attracted to, it's simply not true. There are definite trends in human attraction, among them biological and cultural factors ALONG with personal taste, and these are also influenced by (assuming you are a person who is attracted to physical looks) demeanor, values, personality traits, interests, sense of humor, intelligence, and/or success.

Therefore, saying that "if people took better care of themself I would have a relationship" really makes no sense. If you believe that you would date these girls but you "can't" because they don't meet your standards, fine, but have no sour grapes about it, that is your choice, your decision, and no one is depriving you of ANYTHING except yourself. Meanwhile people who can find the beauty in others are happily dating and in love. I think it's worthy looking at, on a truly honest level, why you are single and bitter, because you must admit there are tons of girls who _do_ take care of themselves, and yet they also either do not meet your standard.... or are *they* not interested in *you*? If your standards are "never good enough", why would that be so except to protect yourself from feeling as though OTHERS have rejected YOU? Perhaps you are not seeing the good in other people and you unpleasant to be around and that is truly why you are single. Either way, you speak as though every person who adopts the same arbitrary set of values and standards that you have adopted is entitled to a mate, but entitlement is the most unnattractive attitude a person can have, and it also isn't true. No one owes you anything considering their own body. 

Now onto the obvious objective vs. subjetive area.

Sorry, buddy, but anyone and everyone can admit that objective means "universally true as in not open to opinion or interpetation" and almost everyone can admit that attraction is SUPER subjective. Perhaps that is a fact you deny by reading rigid scientific articles about trends in mate-picking, but trends are trends and real life is real life and they aren't always the same. Tons of people like or don't care about body hair, for starters, and that alone proves the main point-- if you're getting different answers, that show it is subjective. You can't take a situation where everyone is giving different answers to what is attractive-- and trust me, read any forum on what traits, physical and personal, that turns others on, and you will see an endless variety of answers, and sell that as 'there is one way to be attractive'. Even from a genetic standpoint, if everyone is seeking to improve their genetics when making children (and this is an untrue generalization anyways since it factors out the more holistic factors of picking a mate), since everyone' genes are different they will be attracted to someone different-- scientifically it's been proven that people tend to be attracted to those whose scents reveal different immune systems because genetic diversity is a good thing. 

I'd like to state for any male worrying around the globe, most girls do not want you to look like TV stars. The right girl wants someone who is right for her and is themself and kind and their best possible self. Tons of women do not find Robert Pattison and TV is not an accurate prediction to real life. I am not saying physical looks are not important to many-- but how others will find peopel phyically attractive is different. And not all care about physical looks at all, and that's their truth. There is no one way to be attractive, you just have to be an attractive version of yourself. The variety among human individuals is endless and by memorizing how one girl works or how one book describes attraction and applying that to other people you will end up a miserable failure. I see guys trying to memorize the tricks and be flummoxed and resentful when they "don't work" on the next girl because they feel cheated-- they tried the rules and the girl still didn't put out! News flash: people are not slot machiens, and everyone is different. The truth is you ahve to be genuine and yourself, and if a girl or guy isn't interested in you, it means they aren't for you and find someone else. 

Last of all, on the body hair issue, tons of people find it attractive in varying degrees and tons don't care at all. I barely shaved at all when with my last boyfriend and he didn't give a shit, and he was a pretty attractive guy, I would catch other girls making eyes at him all the time-- he liked me any way and thought I was sexy regardless, and I loved his body hair because it was manly and sexy and real. It also traps pheremones, which is the reason human beings have hair in the pubic area, chest, and armpits at all-- the smell produced by the sweat glands tells genetic make-up clues about our immune systems to a potential mate. In other words, the function of body hair is to be sexually attractive. The removal of body hair is a cultural phenomenon, and while not inherently wrong, should be taken as subjective as all cultures all, and to ignore that fact in arguement is misleading. 
last of all, guys who shave, in my humble opinion, are kinda gross. The artifice of it is creepy, I want a man not a doll. And guess what? There are going to be tons of girls who disagree with me.
I'm sorry if these personal details made you uncomfortable, but maybe reading how othres have found success would be good for you so you can force yourself to look at the facts and realities out there that make you so uncomfortable, and ask yourself why that is.


----------



## perfectcircle (Jan 5, 2011)

snail said:


> Looks are irrelevant, but because I am in love with him, I find him adorable.


Did you take the picture? he looks so happy


----------



## Playful Proxy (Feb 6, 2012)

On the first page: Men pick women for only looks. 
On the last page: "I don't care about looks at all."

Is it impossible to get both?


----------



## wisdom (Dec 31, 2008)

Saying some seeing people are not influenced at all by physical attractiveness is like saying some people have never experienced anger. Almost inherently implausible.


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

Signify said:


> On the first page: Men pick women for only looks.
> On the last page: "I don't care about looks at all."
> 
> Is it impossible to get both?


Yeah threads like this always end in clashes of values. People fail to take into account that their values aren't necessarily those of others, and that doesn't mean others' values are invalid. It's just a massive clusterfuck of projecting, making false inferences, and attacking character.

Personality and looks are important to me. If the looks part makes me an objectifying misogynist then I guess I am an objectifying misogynist.


----------



## abigaleblues (Apr 11, 2012)

I agree with several comments about how we would all be liars if we didn't consider looks when picking a mate. Duh.


But to base you choice solely on appearances? Or the worst, when a man feels that he *deserves* a hot woman/man? Shallow, man. But it's just as shallow for a woman to select a mate based on how much money someone makes. 


I agree that values should play the largest role when selecting a mate.


----------



## wisdom (Dec 31, 2008)

It goes back to my point about obesity. Can anyone seriously condemn a man for being repulsed by obesity? That eliminates a significant percentage of the single female population. Of those left, many have personality "issues." Hence many men with attractive women are forced to put up with nonsense - although most such men probably like some of the personality traits involved. (Don't assume anything about my life from that.) Even the most superficial men usually have some personality requirements.

To have someone going around implying it's fine to be obese or to dress sexlessly - that's poisoning the well by encouraging people's bad instincts.

(Despite the female-centered comments above, I'm for both sexes trying to look attractive.)


----------



## dann (Feb 11, 2012)

This is just my personal opinion, but I think insecurity drives people to desire a mate solely for their personality. If you were really secure with yourself and your appearance, you would be okay with the fact that people admire physical beauty.


----------



## Snakecharmer (Oct 26, 2010)

dann said:


> This is just my personal opinion, but I think insecurity drives people to desire a mate solely for their personality. If you were really secure with yourself and your appearance, you would be okay with the fact that people admire physical beauty.


...or, you know from experience that after a while, looks DON'T matter that much, and personality is far more important...


----------



## Master Mind (Aug 15, 2011)

wisdom said:


> many men with attractive women are forced to put up with nonsense


"Forced?"

No one's forced to put up with anything. One can cut someone loose at any time. If they don't, then that's a choice they've decided to make.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

wisdom said:


> It goes back to my point about obesity. Can anyone seriously condemn a man for being repulsed by obesity? That eliminates a significant percentage of the single female population. Of those left, many have personality "issues." Hence many men with attractive women are forced to put up with nonsense - although most such men probably like some of the personality traits involved. (Don't assume anything about my life from that.) Even the most superficial men usually have some personality requirements.
> 
> To have someone going around implying it's fine to be obese or to dress sexlessly - that's poisoning the well by encouraging people's bad instincts.
> 
> (Despite the female-centered comments above, I'm for both sexes trying to look attractive.)


Whats dressing "sexlessly?"


----------



## wisdom (Dec 31, 2008)

Look in the INFP forum and at sentence #2 in the sig.

As for the other comment, it's splitting hairs and unrealistic. People rarely leave de facto committed relationships in which they feel strong physical attraction, especially when alternatives seem likely to be worse. Maybe people think interpersonal bonds will deepen and problems will settle down - but unfortunately today many of the attractive women are narcissistic and hardly able to form real bonds.



> How to Identify a Female Narcissist
> 
> Physical Appearance
> 1.She dresses provocatively, flaunting sexually suggestive body parts.
> ...


http://www.psychforums.com/narcissistic-personality/topic59168.html

By the way, contrary to a line above, recent research shows that narcissists generally are more attractive than others.


----------



## Mr. Meepers (May 31, 2012)

wisdom said:


> Saying some seeing people are not influenced at all by physical attractiveness is like saying some people have never experienced anger. Almost inherently implausible.



Okay, I understand what you are saying I think ... BUT there is a big difference between being influenced in everyday life and not rejecting someone based on physical looks ... ... ... I won't lie ... I like beautiful things (art, nature, ... ) and I like physically aesthetic people and I like physically sexy people (assuming I don't think they are bad people) ... I do feel both types of sexual attraction (physical and emotional) and I will might be more flirtatious with a "beautiful" stranger than a physically unattractive stranger ... but if a physically unattractive stranger gets into a conversation with me about something I am interested, especially passionate about, I will see her as a beautiful person ... as if the lines between physical and inner beauty are hazy, I will now see her as beautiful ... My perception of her will change ... ... .. ... In my experience, there have been some women that have been physically unattractive, but as I got to know them, I saw them as being more beautiful than anyone I every knew and saw ... and I associated my perception of who they were with their looks, so I could see them and just see beauty ... ... ... That is what I mean by physical looks do not matter ... Once you fall in love with someone, you can not help, but see them as beautiful ... OR at least that has been my experience


What I think Beauty itself is


----------



## wisdom (Dec 31, 2008)

Putting aside the practical issues that few people will interact enough with 'uglies' to where they could conceivably fall in love with the inside and that many individuals can reasonably expect to find loveable non-ugly mates....

Would you want to fall in love with, say, an obese woman?
And would you still find the initially unattractive woman pleasant to look at during a bad period in the relationship?


----------



## DustyDrill (May 20, 2011)

After reading a good chunk of this thread I can confidently say that I'm immune to this garbage. Because I don't "like" anyone until they prove their worth as a person and a partner. Not to say that I need some semblance of attraction... but my version of attraction is no where near "hot chicks". It's more "she looks like she's healthy and hygienic, but is she a decent person?"

I think people need to approach dating somewhat logically. Not ignore animal instinct to chase down the best physical specimen possible, but to supplement it with hard logic. It's a delicate balance that could lead to something pretty fucking spectacular. Sure he/she could be 11/10, but if you share no common interests what-so-ever, it's going to be a complete waste of both your time in the long run. Time you could have spent with that 7/10 who shares 80% of your interests, your desire to have kids, and your opinion on the current state of society. The 11/10 would seem like a 5 at that point.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

DustyDrill said:


> I think people need to approach dating somewhat logically. Not ignore animal instinct to chase down the best physical specimen possible, but to supplement it with hard logic. It's a delicate balance that could lead to something pretty fucking spectacular. Sure he/she could be 11/10, but if you share no common interests what-so-ever, it's going to be a complete waste of both your time in the long run. Time you could have spent with that 7/10 who shares 80% of your interests, your desire to have kids, and your opinion on the current state of society. The 11/10 would seem like a 5 at that point.


Rofl, where are the 7/10s who share 80% of my interests and my opinion on the current state of society  If those things are impossible to find in any woman, surely I should instead just shoot for the best looking, no? (including superficial interests like what food you like and how much you drink.) 

But yes, the point sticks. You are right. What I think a lot of people look for really is a "10/10 who will give me just the right amount of freedom to go to the pub and watch the football but also the right amount of attention, i.e. dinner and copulation." A lot of men don't really want a partner to share their life with, that's for their friends. They want a partner so that they can feel loved, so that they can have sex and then kids, so that they have someone to fall-back on when things are getting tough. People _want_ to live out archetypal lives.

I don't know where this desire comes from. It's a complete parody of male-female relations. Maybe there really are couples like that, but not in my experience :|


----------



## DustyDrill (May 20, 2011)

Diphenhydramine said:


> Rofl, where are the 7/10s who share 80% of my interests and my opinion on the current state of society  If those things are impossible to find in any woman, surely I should instead just shoot for the best looking, no? (including superficial interests like what food you like and how much you drink.)
> 
> But yes, the point sticks. You are right. What I think a lot of people look for really is a "10/10 who will give me just the right amount of freedom to go to the pub and watch the football but also the right amount of attention, i.e. dinner and copulation." A lot of men don't really want a partner to share their life with, that's for their friends. They want a partner so that they can feel loved, so that they can have sex and then kids, so that they have someone to fall-back on when things are getting tough. People _want_ to live out archetypal lives.
> 
> I don't know where this desire comes from. It's a complete parody of male-female relations. Maybe there really are couples like that, but not in my experience :|


But is that really happiness? Or simply something/someone to do when I'm bored/vulnerable?

Maybe it's my personality type talking here, but I dislike having people around if I don't have anything in common with them. They bore me, and I often want them to go away. So if I don't share a sense of humour, a favorite movie genre, a nerdy hobby, or something similar with the person I have to see every fucking day... you'd think I would probably want to keep looking, no?

Luckily, I have one already. But it's because I screen heavily and don't waste my time on obviously bad fits personality-wise. Some people say it's luck, I say it's strategy and knowing what the hell you want.


----------



## wisdom (Dec 31, 2008)

My extended family is loaded with seeming archetypal relationships. Most of them disgust me, and many of the people in question clearly are SJs. Nevertheless, most of those relationships work for those relatives, due to shared values, similar levels of intelligence, probably similar backgrounds, and at least decent matching in activity levels and social interests. The original premise of this thread is mostly a misandric-seeming red herring, except perhaps as applied to a few scary parts of the world. (Kelsey Grammar seems like that kind of man.)

Now why are people refusing to more than nominally comment on my point that there's an unnecessary shortage of non-narcissistic single women who present themselves well? People afraid to be honest or be swayed by reason?


----------



## Uviteru (Jul 30, 2012)

wisdom said:


> Do we really need to hear about a nudist retreat? Don't complain about me being offensive when you do the same.
> 
> Anyway, those were generalizations that apply more strongly to some than others. That said, I highly doubt that anyone is totally immune to them, which is a reason I'm mad at snail for claiming to be above all that and for encouraging delusion. (The comments and pictures by the twosome in this thread have destroyed the "demisexual" credibility with me and probably others.) Furthermore, I think many people would be insulted - if in the context of "love" - to be wanted more for their looks, money, or other things than for who they are, even though sometimes they in fact are liked for rather shallow reasons.
> 
> ...


We only mentioned something about our sex lives once a few days ago. Are you still really offended by that? You realize a nudist resort is non sexual right? It's just hot tubs, sauna, pool laying on the grass relaxing, ect except everyone is naked which is much more comfortable. 


We act less sexual while naked at the resort then we do with our clothes on walking down the streets. I purchased Snail and I a membership yesterday. We are back in town today and Snail is on her way to another town. I already miss her terribly and she's only been gone a couple hours. 


It sounds like you live in a really conservative area if you view what we've said as “flaunting”. Where do you live anyway? 


You say that there is too much “BS in this section where people judge eachother for their preferences” is that not exactly what you're doing? Judging us for choosing what we value in a relationship? Judging us for caring about the person and instead of what they look like? 


As for research that contradicts your worldview? Well there is plenty but you've not provided any “research” (at least in this thread that I've seen) so it's quite pointless to attempt to argue against you at an academic level as what you're saying seems more reflective of “pop science (psudo science)” You've not provided anything that can be discussed scientifically since you're in the realm of opinion: not science. If you want to discuss science then you need to stop with the opinions and talk about models and specific documented research and you need to not make claims that you don't have a source for. 


Until then we're simply having a conversation where your opinion is as valid as anyone else's unless and until you start claiming that your opinion is more valid then theirs simply because you assert it to be. 


Besides, what you're essentially saying is that you’re upset that real actual females are not acting the way your worldview would have them act. It seems to me that should be enough evidence all by itself that your worldview is not reflective of reality. 


You say that “people who put in the effort aren't getting the rewards that others who haven't done the work are getting” actually we both did put in the “work” just not the type of work you want us to. Of course, if snail had followed your advice she'd still be single since I would not have been interested in her. If your advice is so correct then why is it not working for you? Because women refuse to adhere to your model of how theoretical women are supposed to act? 


Also, why do you believe that you deserve to be “rewarded” with a person? Women are not prizes you win by playing a game correctly. Women are not property or things. No one owes you anything. 


Man to man here is what you need to know about women. They are people: Every one unique just like men and they all have their own interests and things they enjoy and like to talk about and their own hopes and dreams. Actually women are just like men in pretty much every way that matters! 


All that “alpha male” and dating advice stuff is trash. If that's not your real personality, don't listen to it unless you want to get depressed. 


The true secret to a good relationship is honesty and being yourself and working to strengthen emotional bonds. Time spent improving your looks is useless. Don't pick a women who would not make an amazing friend if she does not think you would make a good partner . Look for someone who is someone that you like to be with. Yeah I know a lot of people say that “friendship” is a bad thing but it's not. It's a wonderful thing. Snail and I are friends and lovers and all good (Deep meaningful and fulfilling) relationships I know of are like that. Actually that's a requirement in a relationship for me. 


Most of what you are calling “natural” (preference for lack of body hair for example) is purely cultural and fad driven. A simple look at history and archeology will tell you that. There are also plenty of men and women who prefer the natural human body. I would have fell in love with snail regardless of her body type.


----------



## Uviteru (Jul 30, 2012)

wisdom said:


> Putting aside the practical issues that few people will interact enough with 'uglies' to where they could conceivably fall in love with the inside and that many individuals can reasonably expect to find loveable non-ugly mates....
> 
> Would you want to fall in love with, say, an obese woman?
> And would you still find the initially unattractive woman pleasant to look at during a bad period in the relationship?


Yes. As a male I can state without a doubt that I would have been happy to fall in love with my soulmate regardless of what she looked like at any point in her life. Including if she was obese, skinny, short, tall, was hairy, had no hair at all, ect. 

I cringe at the prospect that I would miss out on finding the right person simply because of being judgmental about her body. How sad it would be to be cursed with loneliness and never finding the right person just because I was unable to see past something as trivial as body shape (which changes throughout ones lifetime anyway)

Luckily for me, the way Snail looks did not, in any way, my desire to have a lifelong romantic loving relationship with her.


----------



## Uviteru (Jul 30, 2012)

wisdom said:


> My extended family is loaded with seeming archetypal relationships. Most of them disgust me, and many of the people in question clearly are SJs. Nevertheless, most of those relationships work for those relatives, due to shared values, similar levels of intelligence, probably similar backgrounds, and at least decent matching in activity levels and social interests. The original premise of this thread is mostly a misandric-seeming red herring, except perhaps as applied to a few scary parts of the world. (Kelsey Grammar seems like that kind of man.)
> 
> Now why are people refusing to more than nominally comment on my point that there's an unnecessary shortage of non-narcissistic single women who present themselves well? People afraid to be honest or be swayed by reason?


No, I've not noticed any shortage of non narcissistic single women who "present themselves well" (by which I assume you mean they look like models?). I have a few friends who fit that criteria and are single and they are always talking about how hard it is to find guys who are not total jerks (and some are trying REALLY REALLY hard to find a guy who is half decent)


----------



## perfectcircle (Jan 5, 2011)

What the hell? No one cares about anyone's physical preference, that's a personal matter, the only thing people take any objection to is people denying the validity of prefences other than their own. The last part of the therad took a tangent, it's not saying "people who want an attractive mate are shallow" it's saying "it's nto true that looks are the only improtant thing to every single person". It isn't a clash of values, it'd be solved simply by saying, "Well I see what you are saying but I personally am not that way." Whaddya know. The problem persists when someone insists others share their standards or worldview, and then when someone replies that sying "wait a second that's not true for me, I don't care about looks" as trying to argue caring about looks is wrong for everyone. They are commenting not on the validity of caring about looks but on the validity of making overgeneralizations about the importance of looks or attractiveness which is subjective.

The second point that is causing confusion is more concerned with the point of the main thread, the people seeing the title post referring too the comical guy who wants a hot chick due to his personality and "Well why shouldn't I have a hot chick, that's important, jesus physical attraction is important to me and is biologically proven" is missing the point of the thread, that if you're not hot too you shouldn't be surprised when someone judges you by the same standards you're judging them, and isnt intersted, and omst importantly the *attitude of entitlement and thus underserved bitterness when they don't get what they want*. Wiping that off as "you are against me being physically attraected and having personal preferences" is a mis-leading argument and it really should just stop.


----------



## wisdom (Dec 31, 2008)

Multi-quote next time.

(Below I am not referring to very young people, who rarely are suited for lifelong relationships anyway. I mean mid-twenties and above. I certainly hope that the majority of very young women today are reasonably attractive, though with the obesity epidemic, who knows.)
No, I don't mean like "models" (lose the subtle attacks). I mean not fat and with curves and pleasant faces, mostly. And who don't dress slutty (er, I'm not supposed to say this, but that usually indicates narcissism or extraversion). I think there might be another issue at play, which is that INFPs and probably some other types hate putting themselves out there. Rather they just privately complain about being single. (That is why I recommended a get-out-there statement for snail's new sig.) _The relevance to thread is the very limited findable choices outside of annoying 'arm candy' and uglies (which naturally means many men are going to gripe almost as if not getting a deserved level of "hotness") and misguided forces who foment that situation by casting attractiveness effort as a bad thing._

You don't seem to understand that physical attraction isn't much within one's control, especially repulsion. It's "judgmental" to be turned off by obesity? By extreme thinness? Plus, you seem to contradict yourself on body type - you'd have rejected snail if she followed my advice, as in being close to a healthy weight and not basically hiding a health-looking body?

Also, you think I just made this stuff up? I have read a ton of it. Googling for a second would lead to this.
Physical attractiveness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Are you going to argue the facts it mentions? (Yeah, body hair is arguable, but still it's a sensible strategy to avoid becoming very hairy.)

Of course, part of the issue here is it seems to me snail does value looks (even as a subtle as a friendly-looking face) and didn't accidentally end up quickly engaged - in other words, the not practicing what's preached.

Finally, about me...
1) "Where I come from" means how I was raised, family home environment mostly - but nevertheless, unsolicited public references to one's sex life is hardly normal or welcome by most readers.
2) I'm very fixated on finding a soulmate (as are many INFPs) and on some level, it's like obtaining an object; but absolutely women are not objects and aren't much different from men and the joy is in interacting as openly and lovingly as two people can. 
3) Lecturing doesn't work on people like me, which probably includes snail.


----------



## wisdom (Dec 31, 2008)

There's an interesting, somewhat relevant issue of whether feeling entitled to a mate (not a specific person) is justifiable - but I think that should be a separate thread.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

wisdom said:


> There's an interesting, somewhat relevant issue of whether feeling entitled to a mate (not a specific person) is justifiable - but I think that should be a separate thread.


 You don't think it's justifiable?


----------



## wisdom (Dec 31, 2008)

I think it's justifiable. I believe some (especially women) disagree. First person to think of a captivating, curious way to create that topic gets to do so.


----------



## Uviteru (Jul 30, 2012)

wisdom said:


> Multi-quote next time.
> 
> No, I don't mean like "models" (lose the subtle attacks). I mean not fat and with curves and pleasant faces, mostly. And who don't dress slutty (er, I'm not supposed to say this, but that usually indicates narcissism or extraversion). I think there might be another issue at play, which is that INFPs and probably some other types hate putting themselves out there. Rather they just privately complain about being single. (That is why I recommended a get-out-there statement for snail's new sig.) _The relevance to thread is the very limited findable choices outside of annoying 'arm candy' and uglies (which naturally means many men are going to gripe almost as if not getting a deserved level of "hotness") and misguided forces who foment that situation by casting attractiveness effort as a bad thing._
> 
> ...


Snail DOES practice what she preaches as do I. When you say "lecturing doesn't work on people like you" do you mean to say that you decline any evidence that does not conform to your existing beliefs? 

For someone who does not like being "lectured" to, you sure seem to do your share of lecturing and judging others. 

If you are indeed so against "lecturing" then why do you insist on "lecturing" others and judging their relationships? Do you see any problem with that?

Exactly what unsolicited public reference to our sex life are you so offended by that you must keep bringing it up so often? You may want to avoid the section called "Sex and relationships" if you are so offended by any reference at all to sexual relations between two people. 




wisdom said:


> Plus, you seem to contradict yourself on body type - you'd have rejected snail if she followed my advice, as in being close to a healthy weight and not basically hiding a health-looking body?


You are so fixated on body type as being so important to attraction that you are impossible to have a discussion with. No I did not say that I'd reject snail if she was a weight and height that you, personally, consider ideal. 

Instead I would have rejected her if she had held your beliefs about altering ones body to fit the desires of others (which is what following your advice would entail)

Again, I am attracted to snail for WHO she is, not what she looks like. Indeed neither snail nor I had any initial physical attraction for each other at all. After we fell in love that quickly developed. 

You however insist on thinking you know what's "REALLY" going on in my head and in snails head. You are not telepathic and you have never met either of us. 

Snail and I agree on almost everything. Out of over 500 questions on okcupid (mostly relating to philosophy, ethics, ect) we agreed on everything. That's why we contacted each other initially. As we got to know eachother we found we had more and more in common. 



wisdom said:


> Also, you think I just made this stuff up? I have read a ton of it. Googling for a second would lead to this.
> Physical attractiveness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Are you going to argue the facts it mentions? (Yeah, body hair is arguable, but still it's a sensible strategy to avoid becoming very hairy.)


First of all, Wikipedia is not a valid source. 

Secondly you've not made any argument based on the wiki article. I'm not having a conversation with the authors of that wiki entry. I'm having one with you. So present your own argument and source it correctly if that's the route you want to take. Otherwise admit you are simply stating opinions. 

Thirdly, the wiki article does not support your philosophy. It simply describes some forms of physical attraction and some studies done on the topic. 



wisdom said:


> Multi-quote next time.


 No. I wanted to respond to specific posts you made. Not compile your posts together and submit a single one. I also did not respond to each a the same time and did not know how many I would have time to reply to. 




wisdom said:


> No, I don't mean like "models" (lose the subtle attacks).


What exactly do you mean then? You have been really vague and yet are very judgmental of anyone who you believe falls outside of your specific understanding of attractiveness?


----------



## Uviteru (Jul 30, 2012)

wisdom said:


> I think it's justifiable. I believe some (especially women) disagree. First person to think of a captivating, curious way to create that topic gets to do so.


Really? wow that's messed up. The idea that anyone "deserves" a mate is particularly scary. How exactly do you feel this should be enforced? Who should be obligated to be your mate? Do you get to choose?

I feel many people are simply not ready for a relationship and that some people are not able to be in healthy relationships and thus should not be until they can relate to others in a healthy way.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

Uviteru said:


> Really? wow that's messed up. The idea that anyone "deserves" a mate is particularly scary. How exactly do you feel this should be enforced? Who should be obligated to be your mate? Do you get to choose?
> 
> I feel many people are simply not ready for a relationship and that some people are not able to be in healthy relationships and thus should not be until they can relate to others in a healthy way.


 As far as people feel that, given some degree of their own input, they are entitled to live a happy life, then I think it is justified. That's not to say you are entitled to a particular person, or that said entitlement means you can act like an idiot, but having a happy sex life is just part of having a happy life, which is something we all deserve, isn't it?


----------



## Uviteru (Jul 30, 2012)

Diphenhydramine said:


> As far as people feel that, given some degree of their own input, they are entitled to live a happy life, then I think it is justified. That's not to say you are entitled to a particular person, or that said entitlement means you can act like an idiot, but having a happy sex life is just part of having a happy life, which is something we all deserve, isn't it?


No, you're never entitled to sex from anyone. Saying one is entitled to a happy sex life is the same as saying someone should be required to provide sex to you because another person is required to fulfill that entitlement. 

No one owes you a sexual relationship.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

Nobody _in particular._


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Diphenhydramine said:


> Nobody _in particular._


Not to be crass, but they can just use their hands and/or a toy along with porn/smut/imagination if need be. Although, I think the rudest thing I've ever said to someone who propositioned me inappropriately was a snapped, "You have two hands; use one."


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

koalaroo said:


> Not to be crass, but they can just use their hands and/or a toy along with porn/smut/imagination if need be. Although, I think the rudest thing I've ever said to someone who propositioned me inappropriately was a snapped, "You have two hands; use one."


 That's quite lol. I would use that if I was a woman.

I just think that to be happy one has to have a partner. We're entitled to a happy life, so i believe we're entitled to partnership, in that sense. I don't agree that there is some "right to a girlfriend" or "right to a sex life" in the sense you could claim someone was violating it by not sleeping with you (because they also have a right to a happy sex life, too), but yeah. If anyone can understand what I mean by that...

To be honest,re the text of the OP, I haven't had sex in six months, I'm going to go insane if this lasts any longer. At this point, "hot chicks" and "my personality" are not two things Im particularly bothered about. Not that I am conflating that with the present discussion. I have been drinking though.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

I just want to add a disclaimer that what we're talking about now is nothing at all to do with the fact my sex life has been physically extirpated recently.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Diphenhydramine said:


> I just want to add a disclaimer that what we're talking about now is nothing at all to do with the fact my sex life has been physically extirpated recently.


In think what you're meaning to say (not here but in previous posts) is that in_ general _someone is entitled to happiness and if that happiness includes a partner, then the person has a right to finding a match that makes sense for their situation. That said, no one is entitled to a particular person or to sex with a particular person.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

koalaroo said:


> In think what you're meaning to say (not here but in previous posts) is that in_ general _someone is entitled to happiness and if that happiness includes a partner, then the person has a right to finding a match that makes sense for their situation. That said, no one is entitled to a particular person or to sex with a particular person.


 Rather.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

koalaroo said:


> Although, I think the rudest thing I've ever said to someone who propositioned me inappropriately was a snapped, "You have two hands; use one."


This is why I like you.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

android654 said:


> This is why I like you.


My dazzling emasculating wit?


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

koalaroo said:


> My dazzling emasculating wit?


 No, it was the semi-colon.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

If you use a semi-colon like that again I will be forced to reconsider my view on what 'entitlement' means; if you get my drift.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

fourtines said:


> I am very tired of this. There are men who keep crying that their girlfriend is nothing but a gold digger, or their exes ALWAYS dump them...and there are really times where it becomes glaringly apparent to me it's because these men aren't *really* choosing the best women for them. They're choosing their girlfriends (or the girls they wish would be their girlfriend) based almost entirely on physical standards. This makes about zero sense to me.
> First of all, what is attractive is largely subjective. When I first met my ESFJ I thought he was cute but I wasn't sure I was attracted to him at first and we were friends, and then when we finally hooked up it was like "omgz he rocked my world." Later I found out that MANY women found him to be exceptionally handsome, including my own mother who looked at a photograph of him and was like "Wow your boyfriend is freaking gorgeous. I bet he's full of himself." There was also another incident where a girl walked into a display at Wal-Mart because she was staring at him.
> Point being, although I found him very attractive because I fell in love with him, at first I wrote him off as "not sure he's my type" although apparently other women (including my own mother) thought he was handsome, even from the most shallow perspective.
> I've found that's the case sometimes with women, too, like some men will go on and on about how a chick is hot, but other guys will act like she's not good enough for them.
> ...


you make it sound like attraction is a choice. I wouldn't give 99% of guys a chance simply because I don't find them attractive. that doesn't make me a snob (well, I am a snob, but this has nothing to do with it LOL) just that what turns me on is very specific. I think a lot of guys are like this too. also, I don't think it makes sense to say "you're chubby, so you should be willing to date chicks who are chubby too". granted, a chubby guy who _judges_ chicks for being chubby is a hypocrite, but simply not finding them attractive/giving them a chance does not. to give a personal example that is somewhat similar. I am a fairly masculine guy (in terms of appearance and personality), but I would never give another masculine guy a chance in a million years. nothing against them, it's just a complete turn off. 

that said, you have a point. I know a lot of guys who complain about "why don't girls like me for who I am?" and I'm like "okay, let's look at this objectively. 
- you're fat
- you dress terribly
- you don't shave
- you're not confident
- you don't take your partners pleasure into account at all when you're having sex (this one kinda pisses me off the honest. if you're not concerned with your partner's pleasure during sex, you don't deserve to have it)
...why would a girl find you attractive?" gender aside, anyone who is complaining about not finding a partner needs to get off their ass and invest in ways to make themselves more attractive
doesn't need to be much, the following list will improve most people's attraction by several times
- take care of yourself
- if you're a guy, SHAVE (or, if you desire facial hair, at least trim it into something fashionable. just growing out your facial hair without doing anything to it is classless and looks disgusting)
- if you're a girl, wear makeup, and wear it tastefully
- wear at least decent looking clothes
- exercise 
- stop feeling sorry for yourself. it's pathetic and no one finds it sexy :dry:

to make a similar point, I think people have this tendency to expect certain people to find them attractive and grill them for "reasons" when they say they don't. as I said earlier, attraction is not a choice and expecting someone to give you a "reason" for a physiological phenomenon is utterly foolish.


----------



## wisdom (Dec 31, 2008)

Uviteru said:


> Snail DOES practice what she preaches as do I. When you say "lecturing doesn't work on people like you" do you mean to say that you decline any evidence that does not conform to your existing beliefs?
> 
> For someone who does not like being "lectured" to, you sure seem to do your share of lecturing and judging others.
> 
> ...


It's hard to define physical attractiveness. That's one reason I cited the Wiki. It's easier to state what's generally not attractive, such as obesity, baldness, severe acne, and (on women) more than a little facial hair. To give a real-life example of a woman who probably is nobody's idea of "hot" (in either face or body) but yet likely is "reasonably attractive" by most standards, there's Ellie Goulding.

I'm not lecturing much in this exchange (although I want to say that no matter how similar partners are, they should keep some psychological separation). I am judging, yes, because there's nothing wrong with reasoned judgments. The problem with your position is that it's pure assertion and cannot be supported by objective evidence. "Demisexuality" is not a proven concept. While it's probably real to some extent, it's not inconsistent with my skepticism of supposed irrelevance of looks.
“Though factors such as looks and personality do not affect primary sexual attraction of demisexuals (since demisexuals do not experience primary sexual attraction), such factors may affect romantic attraction, as with any other orientation.”
Demisexual - AVENwiki

Maybe you're just one of those guys who doesn't care about what body types look like because you associate all body types with pleasurable sex. Could you fall in love and happily have sex with a 60-year-old woman who looks her age?

None of what I'm saying is meant to doubt that personality is the main reason for the connection between you and snail (nor to wish bad on the bond). But basically you'd have to both be objectively unattractive and report a history of bisexual romantic attraction and falling in love before having a strong idea of people's looks, plus not have strong sexual desire (and maybe also be bad at identifying what society considers objective good-looking, which snail seems to know well) for me to seriously entertain the possibility that in this case appearance played no role.

However, a very cynical way of judging things (that I mainly bring up over snail annoyingly not responding for herself) would be to say that snail has a "I want a cute guy to love me for my personality" philosophy. I have come across INFP women who clearly held such an attitude but would mostly deny it. This is a personality type that is prone to self-centeredness and likes to think it's above 'base' impulses. Also, INFP usually involves a craving for authenticity, which some find at odds with almost any appearance enhancement (so "I want an effortlessly cute guy..."). 

Regardless, it's common (according to studies) for women's self-reported sexual/physical attraction to be inconsistent with what physiological testing shows. _The main reason I've been poking my nose into the relationship is because of the position that snail has loudly claimed on this site for years._ (If not for that, I think it would unjustified and kind of inappropriate.) I get triggered by signs of dishonesty and (ironically to many readers) superficiality.

Here, for anyone who wants to better understand appearance as it relates to psychology
http://facelab.org/Publications/search?type=paper

Finally, the multiquote practice is meant to prevent extending thread page count (and navigation problems) with multiple replies, and there's actually a rule about too many consecutive posts on this site.


----------



## Playful Proxy (Feb 6, 2012)

Random input here: I would be interested to see what percentage of women who consider personality to be the only 'proper' deciding factor are actually attractive. This may be a massive stereotype or generalization (what have you), but given that I have found no evidence against such a statement...the possibility is valid.

What makes this more interested is that I do know of a few beautiful women who are with extremely ugly guys. Even more interesting: it usually was an abusive relationship (could be from either side). Either the guy had a self-esteem death because he got a girl he knew he didn't 'deserve' or the girl has such a shit self-esteem that she thought all she could get was a guy who looked like that.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

I don't mind having a hottie recognize me for my personality.

Takes one to know one, if you know what I mean :mellow:


----------



## wisdom (Dec 31, 2008)

Well, the Face Research Lab information clearly indicates that attractive women focus more on physical attraction - but individual results may vary.


----------



## Snakecharmer (Oct 26, 2010)

Uviteru said:


> Again, I am attracted to snail for WHO she is, not what she looks like. Indeed neither snail nor I had any initial physical attraction for each other at all. After we fell in love that quickly developed.
> 
> Snail and I agree on almost everything. Out of over 500 questions on okcupid (mostly relating to philosophy, ethics, ect) we agreed on everything. That's why we contacted each other initially. As we got to know eachother we found we had more and more in common.


This is awesome, and IMO is an ideal way for a strong relationship to start. I'm in an on/off relationship (we met 6 years ago) with someone I met online. We started off talking via PMs on a weightlifting forum, then on AIM, then the phone, and finally met in person after several weeks. We didn't know what each other looked like until right before we met (we had to exchange pictures so we'd recognize each other when we met). We've had bumps in our relationship along the way, and we've had periods where we've split...and I don't know what will happen with us long term (I want to move to my home state; he does not), but I can honestly say that this is the strongest, healthiest relationship I've ever had with a man (and I'm older than most of you, and I've been married before).


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

wisdom said:


> I have very standard, natural aesthetic preferences that most people share. *Many others just need to be honest with themselves that if they want to be satisfied in relationships, they probably need to look attractive to whatever kind of person they desire.* It might be a painful self-admission, but that doesn't inherently promote "body shame" for anyone with a sensible approach toward aesthetic improvement.


I am honest with myself about relationships, and about my own emotional needs. In my case, looking "attractive to whatever kind of person _ desire" would be impossible, because I needed someone who placed no value on looks. I had no desire to be with someone who might have suddenly fallen out of love with me if my looks started to change, such as a chubby chaser who might have lost interest if I became thin, or someone who would have been disgusted by the thought of growing old together because of an aversion to wrinkles. *Being* attractive to him (which is different from *looking* attractive) comes naturally, because my partner values me deeply. What you call sensible aesthetic improvement, I call fear-based conformity, which seems very much like body shaming for the sake of control. 





wisdom said:



The snail philosophy seems to be, If I tried much to look attractive, how would I know someone likes me for who I really am? Which is a valid question, but the truth is most people aren't so superficial that they commit to relationships based on looks alone. Their superficiality merely leads them to ignore/reject individuals who don't look good to them. Bluntly, how can you condemn a man for not being physically attracted to, and therefore not interested in, an obese woman? I think many people are almost involuntarily single because of the pool of available, fit-looking individuals is small. "I want a slim, but still curvy woman with a pleasant face" is much more accurate than the "hot chick" accusation, and it is a reasonable want for many guys.

Click to expand...

I am not trying to intentionally look ugly just to test for superficiality, although I admit that trusting a mate to be authentically compatible might have been harder if I had occupied the kind of body for which some potential partners would be willing to lie. Also, just to clarify, I don't think that a person needs to base the mate selection entirely on looks in order for it to count as shallow. It is rare for any person to want to see oneself as shallow, so it makes sense that most shallow people would make excuses that set the boundary just past wherever they are, to avoid having to define themselves that way. I see any superficiality at all as a dealbreaker, even if looks are not someone's only way of determining desirability. As for your question about the obese woman, I can easily condemn size discrimination, (which is against forum rules, in case you weren't aware) because it is unfair, unkind, and unnecessarily limiting to both the victim and the perpetrator. 

I think many people are *voluntarily* single because they are picky about things that have nothing at all to do with true compatibility, or with being deeply in love. Someone who is seeking a lasting, loving relationship (not a partner whose main purpose is to engage in meaningless sex), is more likely to be *involuntarily* single because s/he is still looking for someone who is just right for him/her as an individual, who has shared values and is capable of a bonding securely with mutual respect. 



wisdom said:



Furthermore, it's self-serving for snail to say she shouldn't reject someone for being too good-looking, but that she has no duty to look good for her potential partner. And for her to act as though she's immune to the halo effect and, for example, isn't quicker to have sex with a good-looking guy than with a homely one.

Click to expand...

You haven't asked for photos of my previous boyfriends, but even if you were to find them all attractive, (you would probably reject the obese ones, the ones with weird body odor, and the ones who were shorter than I am,) it would still be about *your* tendency to be attracted to them for their looks, since I do not discriminate in such a manner. 

If my soulmate (who cares about the same things I care about) had been ugly by your standards, you might have used a different argument against me, to discredit the validity of my demisexuality, claiming that I was motivated by some secret dissatisfaction with him. You might say, as others have mistakenly claimed during my past relationships, or while I was single, that my demisexuality comes from a subconscious personal desire to have access to more attractive mates. "You only care about size discrimination because you are a fat person who doesn't feel satisfied with only being able to attract the kinds of guys who are ugly enough to settle for you. No wonder you are so outspoken about these issues, if that is the best you can do." You would disapprove of the one I was able to win as a supposed prize for looking a certain way, and would still misunderstand my reasons for having these beliefs. 



wisdom said:



I hereby publicly ask for replacing her virtually mocking and discredited signature with something genuinely helpful, like "If you want a relationship, get out there and try to find someone. If using dating sites, write a good profile. Use pictures that are honest and reflect real, positive personality traits."

Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong with my signature. Maybe you have forgotten about that time when you told me that you wished you had an equally catchy way to express your argument. I borrowed mine from a bumper sticker that I especially liked. Beyond the picture in which I try to get people to reject body shaming attitudes, I also quote a past boyfriend's helpful relationship advice about being yourself in order to attract someone who is actually attracted to you. 



wisdom said:



I just want to add that body hair preferences also are more objective than subjective. I don't know of any culture that likes its women hairy, and I know that most women don't like very hairy men. Easy problem to solve (or to ignore, if the partners in a relationship so wish, work issues notwithstanding). And there's no good reason to have even a mild version of a uni-brow (tweezing is almost painless if done right). People can be stubbornly self-defeating, or without having to be "hot," they can do things that improve their chances.

Click to expand...

Sexy Chest Hair : theBERRY Even superficial women sometimes prefer hairy men. It is a matter of personal taste, which means about as much as a person's favorite color, or whether s/he likes peas, and has absolutely nothing to do with lifelong cooperation or being in love. 

I don't understand your point. First you accuse me of lying about my demisexuality because you find my fiance attractive; then you say his body hair is unattractive. Make up your mind. 

I like that there is a soft, fuzzy place to rest my head when we are cuddling, but I would probably feel just as warm and cozy there if he were naturally smooth. It isn't relevant. 





wisdom said:



Actually, looks do matter to women. For example, alpha males seldom are naturally ugly (or short). That's why I am very disappointed to find that snail apparently is disengenous (I should have thought things through earlier). If she's going to avoid the issue, then I will need to ask a moderator to push her to stop using the feel-good sig that she based on my sig.

Click to expand...

Sure, women can be shallow too. I am not using looks to decide anything. I am not disingenuous. Saying a demisexual can't fall in love with someone who is conventionally handsome is as silly as saying that a true feminist, who promotes the right for women to work outside of the home, must never choose to be a homemaker. Ultimately, the goal is not to be influenced by anything artificial or external, and to choose based only on reasons that are personally significant. A person who is influenced against something for the sole sake of defying an external expectation, is still being controlled by the existence of that expectation. Authentic choices occur without regard for whether the choice will be seen as pro- or anti- expectation. 

I didn't choose my partner because you find him physically attractive. 
I will not avoid choosing my partner because you find him physically attractive.
I choose my partner because we are compatible for reasons unrelated to physical attractiveness, which have nothing to do with your evaluation of his looks. 




wisdom said:



Edit: but I keep thinking of the "love me for my personality" stuff not fitting most men. I believe that most single men just want a woman, for arm candy, sex, someone to take care of, or mom substitute. (Objectification in a way, not really a good thing). Or someone to do things with (maybe that's slight objectification). How she feels about him isn't a big concern (which causes all sort of relationship problems). Women are the ones who often insist on being loved for who they are (and sometimes with the insistence that looks and personality are unrelated). Therefore, this thread is partly built on faulty projection.

Click to expand...

It is sad that a lot of men are looking for the things you listed, and are not ready for real relationships. I don't see how women wanting to be loved for who they are is such a horrible problem, though. I believe that any self-respecting woman would settle for no less. 



wisdom said:



99.9% of people judge others on their looks (with some blind people finding ways to do that). Even snail has admitted to judging on clothing. Also, whether it's conscious behavior or not, few people dress purely for themselves (on average, both sexes probably dress more for women than men when socializing). I have low tolerance for nonsensical claims, especially when they can cause harm if taken seriously.

Important subtext to this thread: men usually know when they like someone for personality reasons; but it seems that women often have trouble separating physical attraction (or chemistry) from personality attraction (as the attracted one or the subject of attraction)

Click to expand...

I have admitted that clothing can be used expressively, to communicate something personal, or to show identification with a group, which is not the same as saying that I would require my mate to dress a certain way in order to seem attractive to me. Sports jerseys are a turn-off only when they mean that a man likes competitive hobbies. A suit and tie are only unattractive when they mean that a man cares too much about his job or his image. Sometimes clothing doesn't communicate what I associate with it, so rejecting someone for dressing a certain way would be silly unless the message were obvious, such as a shirt that promoted something against my values.

I love my fiance regardless of his sense of style. I'm not a fan of his latest haircut, because I associate it with being business-like and conservative, and I think it is a poor expression of what he is actually like, but I don't love him any less for it. I still find him sexually desirable for the internal qualities that define him. I know his character, and it isn't my place to decide his personal style. 

Also, your last statement was sexist, where you essentially said that women are more deceived about our sexual motives than men are. 



wisdom said:



Do we really need to hear about a nudist retreat? Don't complain about me being offensive when you do the same.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry I was away for so long. My fiance wasn't trying to offend you or shock you. He gets internet on his mobile device, so he was explaining my absence. 

There is nothing offensive about where we were. It was a lovely place where people of all ages, shapes and sizes felt comfortable in their own skin, and where they had a swimming pool for enjoying the sunny weather. You probably would have disliked our vacation, because there were a lot of obese people being happy and free, and not hating themselves. 



wisdom said:



Anyway, those were generalizations that apply more strongly to some than others. That said, I highly doubt that anyone is totally immune to them, which is a reason I'm mad at snail for claiming to be above all that and for encouraging delusion. (The comments and pictures by the twosome in this thread have destroyed the "demisexual" credibility with me and probably others.) Furthermore, I think many people would be insulted - if in the context of "love" - to be wanted more for their looks, money, or other things than for who they are, even though sometimes they in fact are liked for rather shallow reasons.

Re basing worth on looks, I don't encourage it, but I don't see a problem with basing a little of it on looks. Saying "I'm worth a lot" (instead of trying to look good) while being deemed worthless by most (not worth getting to know based on appearance) is much worse for self-esteem than my strategy.

P.S.
I just tweaked the sig to address the "worth" issue.

Click to expand...

I don't know why my demisexual credibility would be destroyed by something as random as the fact that you find my fiance physically attractive. I also don't see how basing one's self-worth partly on other people's perception of one's conformity to an arbitrary physical standard could ever be good for a person's self-esteem. Being considered worthless by superficial people has not decreased my ability to love and respect myself, nor has it prevented me from finding happiness. It has increased my desire to change the world, because I am sad that so many relationships suffer for such a silly reason. 




wisdom said:



Where I come from, people publicly talking about their sex lives is not cool, especially if it's bragging or people I'd rather not think of as engaged in sex. I realize this is the Sex & Relationships section, but this thread isn't about individual's sex lives and therefore those comments don't belong here.

Of course I'm a little jealous. But that has nothing to do with the skepticism I've expressed, for I firmly believe that my worldview is accurate and I don't know of any research that contradicts it. I'd say that some of my anger is the fact that people who put in the effort aren't getting the rewards that others who haven't done the work are getting. So how about helping single people achieve their goals instead of indicating superiority? There's too much BS in this section where people judge each other for their preferences and not nearly enough helpful behavior.

Click to expand...

He only mentioned our sex life once. If you are referring to the nudist comment, then that is a misunderstanding. We weren't having sex there. It was a family resort, with little children around, and public sex would have been considered completely inappropriate.



adverseaffects said:



Did you take the picture? he looks so happy 

Click to expand...

Yes. He often looks at me with such affection and joy.  



wisdom said:



Saying some seeing people are not influenced at all by physical attractiveness is like saying some people have never experienced anger. Almost inherently implausible.

Click to expand...

It isn't automatically untrue just because you can't relate to it. 



wisdom said:



It goes back to my point about obesity. Can anyone seriously condemn a man for being repulsed by obesity? That eliminates a significant percentage of the single female population. Of those left, many have personality "issues." Hence many men with attractive women are forced to put up with nonsense - although most such men probably like some of the personality traits involved. (Don't assume anything about my life from that.) Even the most superficial men usually have some personality requirements.

To have someone going around implying it's fine to be obese or to dress sexlessly - that's poisoning the well by encouraging people's bad instincts.

(Despite the female-centered comments above, I'm for both sexes trying to look attractive.)

Click to expand...

Yes, I condemn size discrimination. It eliminated a significant percentage of the single male population when I was looking, because I refused to tolerate being treated unfairly. 

If the women you are attracted to tend to have personality issues, you might want to reconsider your taste.



wisdom said:



Look in the INFP forum and at sentence #2 in the sig.

As for the other comment, it's splitting hairs and unrealistic. People rarely leave de facto committed relationships in which they feel strong physical attraction, especially when alternatives seem likely to be worse. Maybe people think interpersonal bonds will deepen and problems will settle down - but unfortunately today many of the attractive women are narcissistic and hardly able to form real bonds.



Is female narcissism/NPD on the rise? : Narcissistic Personality Disorder Forum - Psych forums

By the way, contrary to a line above, recent research shows that narcissists generally are more attractive than others.

Click to expand...

Why would you be sexualizing the very qualities that you say are most frequently associated with narcissism? Why not just choose a woman who isn't a narcissist, without worrying about her looks? 



wisdom said:



Putting aside the practical issues that few people will interact enough with 'uglies' to where they could conceivably fall in love with the inside and that many individuals can reasonably expect to find loveable non-ugly mates....

Would you want to fall in love with, say, an obese woman?
And would you still find the initially unattractive woman pleasant to look at during a bad period in the relationship?

Click to expand...

If some people refuse to interact with "uglies," then they probably aren't ready for mature relationships. Therefore, no suitable partners are eliminated by their avoidance. 

Enough with the discriminatory remarks against obese women. Such comments are against forum rules for a good reason.

Why would it matter whether someone found someone else pleasant to look at during a bad period in a relationship? Looking good isn't the best way to resolve arguments. Communicating, respecting each other, and trying to accommodate each other's feelings works much better.



wisdom said:



Now why are people refusing to more than nominally comment on my point that there's an unnecessary shortage of non-narcissistic single women who present themselves well? People afraid to be honest or be swayed by reason?

Click to expand...

It makes sense that narcissistic people, of any gender, would care about presenting themselves well, because vanity is naturally self-serving, and presentation can be used manipulatively. 



wisdom said:



(Below I am not referring to very young people, who rarely are suited for lifelong relationships anyway. I mean mid-twenties and above. I certainly hope that the majority of very young women today are reasonably attractive, though with the obesity epidemic, who knows.)
No, I don't mean like "models" (lose the subtle attacks). I mean not fat and with curves and pleasant faces, mostly. And who don't dress slutty (er, I'm not supposed to say this, but that usually indicates narcissism or extraversion).

Click to expand...

Enough with the size discrimination. Also, why the slut shaming?



wisdom said:



You don't seem to understand that physical attraction isn't much within one's control, especially repulsion. It's "judgmental" to be turned off by obesity? By extreme thinness? Plus, you seem to contradict yourself on body type - you'd have rejected snail if she followed my advice, as in being close to a healthy weight and not basically hiding a health-looking body?

Also, you think I just made this stuff up? I have read a ton of it. Googling for a second would lead to this.
Physical attractiveness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Are you going to argue the facts it mentions? (Yeah, body hair is arguable, but still it's a sensible strategy to avoid becoming very hairy.)

Click to expand...

This is from the article you linked. 




Body mass

Body Mass Index (BMI) is an important determinant to the perception of beauty.[107] Even though the Western ideal is for a thin woman, some cultures prefer plumper women,[87][108] which has been argued to support that *attraction for a particular BMI merely is a cultural artifact*.[108] The attraction for a proportionate body also influences an appeal for erect posture.[102] One cross-cultural survey comparing body-mass preferences among 300 of the most thoroughly studied cultures in the world showed that *81% of cultures preferred a female body size that in English would be described as "plump"*.[109]
*Availability of food influences which female body size is attractive* which may have evolutionary reasons. Societies with food scarcities prefer larger female body size than societies having plenty of food. In Western society males who are hungry prefer a larger female body size than they do when not hungry.[110]
In the United States, women overestimate men's preferences for thinness in a mate. In one study, American women were asked to choose what their ideal build was and what they thought the build most attractive to men was. Women chose slimmer than average figures for both choices. When American men were independently asked to choose the female build most attractive to them, the men chose figures of average build. This indicates that women may be misled as to how thin men prefer women to be.[108] Some speculate that thinness as a beauty standard is one way in which women judge each other[92] and that thinness is viewed as prestigious for within-gender evaluations of other women.[51] A reporter surmised that thinness is prized among women as a "sign of independence, strength and achievement."[92] Some implicated the fashion industry for the promulgation of the notion of thinness as attractive.[111]

Click to expand...





wisdom said:



Of course, part of the issue here is it seems to me snail does value looks (even as a subtle as a friendly-looking face) and didn't accidentally end up quickly engaged - in other words, the not practicing what's preached.

Click to expand...

I value a friendly person, whose face reflects that friendliness as an act of expression, not as an aesthetic quality. The swift engagement came from recognizing that we are soulmates who have everything important in common.




wisdom said:



The problem with your position is that it's pure assertion and cannot be supported by objective evidence. "Demisexuality" is not a proven concept. While it's probably real to some extent, it's not inconsistent with my skepticism of supposed irrelevance of looks.
“Though factors such as looks and personality do not affect primary sexual attraction of demisexuals (since demisexuals do not experience primary sexual attraction), such factors may affect romantic attraction, as with any other orientation.”
Demisexual - AVENwiki

Maybe you're just one of those guys who doesn't care about what body types look like because you associate all body types with pleasurable sex. Could you fall in love and happily have sex with a 60-year-old woman who looks her age?

Click to expand...

Demisexuality is proven by the fact that some people experience it, just as being gay is real because some people experience it, and being asexual is real because some people experience it. You doubt that we experience it, and we can't make you believe it any more than a homosexual can make an oblivious, homophobic heterosexual think of him as anything other than an imperfect heterosexual who is acting unnaturally. 

My fiance is not one of those guys who associates all bodies, at random, with pleasurable sex, who would have sex with any woman he meets. He has been very selective, but his selectiveness has been based on qualities other than body type. He associates sex with being in love, and he will almost certainly still find me sexually desirable when I am sixty. 



wisdom said:



None of what I'm saying is meant to doubt that personality is the main reason for the connection between you and snail (nor to wish bad on the bond). But basically you'd have to both be objectively unattractive and report a history of bisexual romantic attraction and falling in love before having a strong idea of people's looks, plus not have strong sexual desire (and maybe also be bad at identifying what society considers objective good-looking, which snail seems to know well) for me to seriously entertain the possibility that in this case appearance played no role.

Click to expand...

...then you cannot be convinced. Your standards for proof are unreasonable.

Here is the best I can offer:

I have been in relationships with people you would probably consider unattractive.

I am not bisexual. I was once attracted to a transgender man who had a vagina, but gender isn't about the body. 

I have been attracted to people I met online, without having known what they looked like.

Sex drive is not necessarily related to demisexuality, and many demisexuals have high sex drives when we are in love.

Identifying society's trends isn't the same as agreeing with them. I am quite aware of the patterns I have been exposed to by advertising, movies, television, magazines, and by other people's strongly voiced opinions about who they consider hot. I don't have to be affected personally in order to recognize what affects others. 




wisdom said:



However, a very cynical way of judging things (that I mainly bring up over snail annoyingly not responding for herself) would be to say that snail has a "I want a cute guy to love me for my personality" philosophy. I have come across INFP women who clearly held such an attitude but would mostly deny it. This is a personality type that is prone to self-centeredness and likes to think it's above 'base' impulses. Also, INFP usually involves a craving for authenticity, which some find at odds with almost any appearance enhancement (so "I want an effortlessly cute guy..."). 

Regardless, it's common (according to studies) for women's self-reported sexual/physical attraction to be inconsistent with what physiological testing shows. The main reason I've been poking my nose into the relationship is because of the position that snail has loudly claimed on this site for years. (If not for that, I think it would unjustified and kind of inappropriate.) I get triggered by signs of dishonesty and (ironically to many readers) superficiality.

Here, for anyone who wants to better understand appearance as it relates to psychology
Face Research Lab » Researchers » Search

Finally, the multiquote practice is meant to prevent extending thread page count (and navigation problems) with multiple replies, and there's actually a rule about too many consecutive posts on this site.

Click to expand...

I wanted a man who shared my values, regardless of cuteness. Wanting to be loved and respected was not self-centered, because I have always been willing to offer my partner the kind of treatment I expect from him. I do not practice appearance enhancement, but that doesn't mean that "I want an effortlessly cute guy..." at all. It means that the kind of effort I put into building relationships is focused on non-superficial forms of connection. I am willing to work hard at pleasing my partner as long as his demands are reasonable and not arbitrarily controlling. 

I am not being dishonest about anything, nor am I being superficial._


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

double post


----------



## wisdom (Dec 31, 2008)

I appreciate the effort to reply to all that, but it hasn't really changed my mind about anything. The only part I wish to quote is below.



> Demisexuality is proven by the fact that some people experience it, just as being gay is real because some people experience it, and being asexual is real because some people experience it. You doubt that we experience it, and we can't make you believe it any more than a homosexual can make an oblivious, homophobic heterosexual think of him as anything other than an imperfect heterosexual who is acting unnaturally.
> 
> My fiance is not one of those guys who associates all bodies, at random, with pleasurable sex, who would have sex with any woman he meets. He has been very selective, but his selectiveness has been based on qualities other than body type. He associates sex with being in love, and he will almost certainly still find me sexually desirable when I am sixty.


The line about demisexuality is like saying some people can remember past lives because they say do. I don't know that demisexuality is provable.

Your claim about desirability at age 60 is far from an answer from your fiance on whether he could fall in love and happily have sex with an elderly woman (at, as implied, his current age).

Also, logic would have predicted that any snail soulmate himself would be unlikely to be physically attractive by society’s standards. (Appearance shapes experiences and attitudes.)

Furthemore, sometimes even unrepetently superficial people date unattractive individuals. It's like a white racist claiming he cannot be racist because he has had non-white friends. But I am not going to conduct an unpleasant, intrusive inquisition about past boyfriends to try to learn whether you've shown bias in favor of the better-looking ones.

The only past boyfriend I'll refer to concerns the sig's origin. Being disingenuous about that doesn't help your claim to be immune to the influence of appearance (for example, the automatic effect appearance - as in a smile - can have on mood). And I probably could prove the reason the signature was added, with past private messages. You started using it to counter the main point of my sig. That is disrespectful (and, worse on a rational level, harmful to some people influenced by it). Plus, it seems that you don't fully stand by the second part of the sig (the part that bothers me), which implies that appearance never should be changed. The comment about your fiance's hairstyle suggests you do think that there are situations in which a person might as well adjust his or her appearance to get positive interpersonal results. My sig is what it is because many people are this site are unhappy with their lives, often due in part to what they look like. It's that collective pain that becomes threads like this.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Thought this was relevant to the thread.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

wisdom said:


> I appreciate the effort to reply to all that, but it hasn't really changed my mind about anything. The only part I wish to quote is below.


Why did you select that one part, out of everything I said? It wasn't the most interesting. 



wisdom said:


> The line about demisexuality is like saying some people can remember past lives because they say do. I don't know that demisexuality is provable.
> 
> Your claim about desirability at age 60 is far from an answer from your fiance on whether he could fall in love and happily have sex with an elderly woman (at, as implied, his current age).


If we had a huge age difference, I am sure he would still love me, although he might not have found me as easily on OkCupid, because of the usual match settings and such. I'm sorry you don't believe me about my experiences as a demisexual. There is nothing that would work as proof for you, so I don't know what you are expecting me to say.



wisdom said:


> Also, logic would have predicted that any snail soulmate himself would be unlikely to be physically attractive by society’s standards. (Appearance shapes experiences and attitudes.)


Not necessarily. I had the same values even when I was young and thin, when I was picked on for being eccentric/crazy instead of for being ugly. Also, he was bullied as badly as I was by his peers despite his looks. His experiences have been very similar to mine, as have his thoughts about those experiences. While I acknowledge that appearances can have an impact on one's experiences, by acting as something for cruel individuals to target as a supposed excuse for abuse and exclusion, there are other things, besides being victimized, that can cause a person to come to the same conclusions about the unfairness of such situations. Out of hundreds of match questions at OkCupid, we answered everything exactly the same way except for the question about sleeping with the lights on or off. Being attractive or unattractive has nothing to do with our being soulmates.



wisdom said:


> Furthemore, sometimes even unrepetently superficial people date unattractive individuals. It's like a white racist claiming he cannot be racist because he has had non-white friends. But I am not going to conduct an unpleasant, intrusive inquisition about past boyfriends to try to learn whether you've shown bias in favor of the better-looking ones.


I haven't shown any bias. I have no such bias. I have treated all of my boyfriends with the same respect. Some were just less compatible with me, for reasons that had nothing to do with how they looked.





wisdom said:


> The only past boyfriend I'll refer to concerns the sig's origin. Being disingenuous about that doesn't help your claim to be immune to the influence of appearance (for example, the automatic effect appearance - as in a smile - can have on mood).


You found Cryptonia attractive too? If I pick someone pale and bony who has minimal body hair because I believe he shares my values, you say I must be attracted to him for his looks (?), but if I pick someone rugged and manly looking because he shares my values, you say the same. What about the fat, hairy, toothless guy who was in his late fifties on whom I had a severe crush because of his creativity and kindness? What about the guy in high school whose torso was longer than his legs, who had the strangely shaped bottom, who was attractive to me because he was my best friend and because I understood his poetry? What about the boyfriend with sores all over from picking at his skin, on whom I had a severe limerent crush because I felt that our relationship had nearly infinite potential for ridiculously deep levels of intimacy, or the one who never brushed his teeth who was sweet and gentle-natured, or the one with the enormous nostrils who seemed wise about many things, or the fat one whose penis was the size of my thumb, who wanted to understand my art? I found them all desirable. You only notice the ones you find attractive because those are the ones you consider me unfairly blessed to have gotten. 



wisdom said:


> And I probably could prove the reason the signature was added, with past private messages. You started using it to counter the main point of my sig. That is disrespectful (and, worse on a rational level, harmful to some people influenced by it).


I have this signature because I want to fight superficiality, which is harmful to relationships because it turns them into something needlessly materialistic and unsatisfying, and teaches people to hate themselves instead of hating the oppressive society that wishes to control them. It wasn't to disrespect you personally, but to challenge the faulty ideas you stand for. I still consider you my friend. I just think you are very wrong about something important. I think you are sabotaging your own happiness because of that wrongness. 




wisdom said:


> Plus, it seems that you don't fully stand by the second part of the sig (the part that bothers me), which implies that appearance never should be changed. The comment about your fiance's hairstyle suggests you do think that there are situations in which a person might as well adjust his or her appearance to get positive interpersonal results.


I never said that appearances should never be changed. I think every person has a right to decide how s/he wants to present himself/herself, in order to feel most authentic. I just don't think that anyone else should get to dictate what form of presentation is best for someone else. I think there are situations in which a person may wish to adjust his/her personal appearance in order to feel more comfortable, more expressive, or more connected to a group with which s/he identifies. I believe that the act of changing should not be something one does to please others. It should always be personal. 



wisdom said:


> My sig is what it is because many people are this site are unhappy with their lives, often due in part to what they look like. It's that collective pain that becomes threads like this.


Many people are unhappy with their lives, not because of what they look like, but because of how others (those who use looks as an excuse for exclusion) treat them. It is a pain that can best be remedied by working to change society so that it is no longer hostile to those who either refuse to conform to an external aesthetic standard, or are incapable of doing so. 

Changing how one looks in order to avoid being hurt or rejected for it is only a limited, temporary, personal remedy, not a cure for the real problem. It is like negotiating with terrorists in order to rescue a hostage. One might save that person, but in doing so, one ends up sending the message that intimidation will be rewarded on a larger scale. Selling out everyone else in order to earn a personal exemption from judgment is not how any meaningful change occurs. It makes the bigger societal problem worse, because it validates discrimination instead of fighting it, making it harder for others who are in the same situation to feel safe standing up against it.


----------



## muhahaha (Sep 1, 2012)

Why should anyone love you for your personality when you can't love them for theirs?!


----------



## WickedQueen (Jun 1, 2009)

Diphenhydramine said:


> I just think that to be happy one has to have a partner. We're entitled to a happy life, so i believe we're entitled to partnership, in that sense.


I disagree.

I disagree that one has to have a partner to be happy.
I disagree that we are entitled to have a happy life.
I disagree that we are entitled to partnership.


----------



## Ziwosa (Sep 25, 2010)

WickedQueen said:


> I disagree.
> 
> I disagree that one has to have a partner to be happy.
> I disagree that we are entitled to have a happy life.
> I disagree that we are entitled to partnership.


You'd think that on a forum people would at least want to discuss opinions instead of just agreeing or disagreeing?


----------



## WickedQueen (Jun 1, 2009)

Ziwosa said:


> You'd think that on a forum people would at least want to discuss opinions instead of just agreeing or disagreeing?


If I think my opinion matters, do you think I would not want to state it?


----------



## Ziwosa (Sep 25, 2010)

WickedQueen said:


> If I think my opinion matters, do you think I would not want to state it?


So your opinion doesn't matter? Then why did you voice it anyway?
Retreating, as I realize this is highly off-topic.


----------



## WickedQueen (Jun 1, 2009)

Ziwosa said:


> So your opinion doesn't matter? Then why did you voice it anyway?
> Retreating, as I realize this is highly off-topic.


I don't think disagreement always need a reason. If no one wants to know about my reasons, then there's no need to point that out. 

But as not to derailing the thread, in case if someone is curious, here is my reasons.

Most people need to be happy and loved to be able to live. Yet for me, happiness, sadness, anger, contentment, are just emotions that I can control. I can be happy and content even when I'm being alone. It's just a matter of switching my perspective.

Example:

"I'm alone and I feel lonely. Nobody wants me. Nobody loves me. Nobody needs me."
Emotion that comes up by this perspective : sad, depressed, unmotivated.

"I'm alone. That's good. I can do whatever I want. This is the right time for me to try out that new recipe I've always want to try. I haven't read the books I had bought either. No wait, that Korean Drama is also good to watch by myself. Oh my god, there's so many things I could do without no interference. Yay!"
Emotion that comes up by this perspective : happy, exited, content.

It's just a matter of perspective. You don't need to have a romantic partner to be happy. All you need is to change your perspective in life and you can switch your emotions to whatever you like. Some people, not everyone, can do this easily.

Since happiness is just an emotion and emotions can be switched and controlled, then you don't necessarily need to feel any particular emotions to live your life. One day you are happy, the next day you are sad, the next day you feel content, the next day you got bored, etc. That is life. You don't feel happy every day, yet you are still alive and able to live your life. So why do you have to cling onto happiness when you don't even necessarily need it to be able to live? If you think that you can't live if you're not happy, you push yourself to a high standard and imprisoned yourself inside that standard. How can you be a free soul if you have imprisoned yourself like that?

To some people, emotions are like waves of the ocean. They come and go. That is life. They enjoy their life simply for what it is, not for what it should be.

Third, many people live without partner and they are able to be happy or live their life well enough. Some people have high connection with their inner self and God, they don't need a romantic partner to make them happy. On the opposite, they would feel like they must sacrifice themselves and lost the strong connection with their inner self in order to bond with a partner, and to them, that's when they feel unhappy and chaotic.


----------



## Mr. Meepers (May 31, 2012)

Wow, I leave this thread for a couple days and I am over whelmed by posts lol



wisdom said:


> Putting aside the practical issues that few people will interact enough with 'uglies' to where they could conceivably fall in love with the inside and that many individuals can reasonably expect to find loveable non-ugly mates....
> 
> Would you want to fall in love with, say, an obese woman?
> And would you still find the initially unattractive woman pleasant to look at during a bad period in the relationship?


Sorry it took me a while to respond ...

To answer both your questions ... Yes, and I already have.

When you "love" someone it does not really matter what they look like. My first girlfriend was someone that was unattractive and someone I thought I would not want to date, but she was an acquaintance and, as we got to know each other and share intimate details with each other we began to see each other as attractive people ... In case you are wondering, she was very overweight and she had a small chest (although I may find thinner women with more a more ample chest more physically attractive, I did not mind) and she looked very overweight even though she wore an undergarment to make herself look much thinner ... Actually, the first time I slept over her house and she got changed into her sleep clothes (not in front of me) was the first time I saw her without the clothes that made her thinner and I was in shock at first, but after the initial shock, I just saw her as someone I cared for deeply and someone I lusted after ... After I dated her, I did fall in love with someone who was heavier. ... but back to my first girlfriend, we loved each other, but we were both too inexperienced and young to know what being in love was, we did lust after each other though ... and, when my high school friends found out I may have been being smitten with her (before we dated), they tried to make me feel bad about it and tried to sway me away from it because she was "ugly" ... Now, I have better self-respect (and I respect my own decisions more) and, honestly, friends who care more about me and are more open minded - so I don't worry about that stigma from friends anymore ... ... ... And because of that experience (my first girlfriend), and the next experience (and the next two experiences, the falling out of attraction with two women I had found very physically attractive after them that I dated or was FWBs with), I learned that there is a lot more too attraction than just physical looks and that what they physically look like is a component of attraction and initial physical attraction is not a needed component to feel attraction .... Yes, I do not deny that I feel physical attraction to strangers (and I may want to flirt with them), but the people I have gotten to know (and like) are much more beautiful to me, whether they initially looked good to me or not (because people I find attractive on the inside, will just look better and better to me as I get to know them ... also people's facial expressions can influence there physical attraction, at that moment in time, for me too) ... I am not condemning people who include looks when deciding who they will date (although, I feel like I am understanding it less and less as time goes on ... although I think I still understand it), I am just saying that not everyone does that.


As for your second question ... there are all types of love, and, through the lens of love, people just look better .... If you were to ask my Mom who the most beautiful man in the world was, she would probably pick me ... as they say, "love is blind" :tongue: ... The people we love are beautiful, to us (or at least that seems to be the case to me and how I perceive others). But, love and, let's say, anger are not mutually exclusive. ... There are people I am angry with because I love them. What I mean is that I tend to value the opinions and actions of people I care about more and it will hurt me so much more when they do something that I may find hurtful (even if I am okay if someone I barely know does the same thing to me and it does not hurt me when they do it). ... Now, when I am really angry with someone, no matter how good-looking they are, I won't want to see them ... because I am still hurting ... but I can still see them and think of them as just as beautiful as I thought of them before (which does not make me hurt any less) ... So, yes, I still find them beautiful to look at, but also no, because it may hurt to look at them if I have not gotten over what happened when I see them ... but it would hurt me just as much if I was not initially physically attracted to her.


----------



## wisdom (Dec 31, 2008)

snail said:


> Why did you select that one part, out of everything I said? It wasn't the most interesting.
> 
> 
> If we had a huge age difference, I am sure he would still love me, although he might not have found me as easily on OkCupid, because of the usual match settings and such. I'm sorry you don't believe me about my experiences as a demisexual. There is nothing that would work as proof for you, so I don't know what you are expecting me to say.
> ...


I used a partial quote because I get overwhelmed by long back-and-forth, I had a few specific points left to make, and I'm tired of arguing about someone's personal life and hurting feelings and damaging my reputation by doing so.

If you think you're above beyond influenced by physical features, then you think you're not human (INFP saintliness) and can't be reasoned with on anything related to that.


Also, I decided that demisexuality could partly be tested by wearing some kind of physiological monitor - although that splits hairs about whether demisexuality is any primary sexual attraction or (probably not reliably measured by today's technology) only conscious primary sexual attraction.

Cryptonia? I have no idea who or what that is.

Now that you admit two sig-related claims of mine, why don't you change the sig so that it is more accurate and doesn't tick me off so much? Don't friends compromise a little for each other? (I'm glad I have not completely burned bridges with you.) My philosophy isn't as far from yours as you think. I only encourage change that would make someone happier even if it didn't affect others at all (or not make someone unhappier while doing something circumstance - like a job - requires of him or her). People can help themselves on an individual level without encouraging 'discrimination' (in adults, most appearance judgments are automatic and not meant to hurt). What you are doing is breeding hostility between men and women - as though most men are 'superficial' by choice and society is trying to 'oppress' women - and in a way discouraging people from respecting their own bodies. To truly deal with unfair messages about appearance, address the epidemic of broken families, casual sex, people who parade their physical assets, the lack of good ways for singles to meet each other while sober, media airbrushing, etc.

Finally - let's see if snail has much open-mindedness - I encourage you to read research on physical attractiveness, especially studies about what people believe versus how they actually react to stimuli.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

wisdom said:


> I used a partial quote because I get overwhelmed by long back-and-forth, I had a few specific points left to make, and I'm tired of arguing about someone's personal life and hurting feelings and damaging my reputation by doing so.
> 
> If you think you're above beyond influenced by physical features, then you think you're not human (INFP saintliness) and can't be reasoned with on anything related to that.
> 
> ...


I am not influenced by physical features, but I am very human. I am influenced by communicative actions, which you might sometimes mistake for my being influenced by physical features. As you have noticed, a kind smile does attract me more than a hateful glare, but only because of the meaning. I may not be attracted to a specific voice, but I can be attracted to the tone someone uses, if it expresses acceptance. 

A physiological monitor of what kind? I'm not convinced that something like that would even work, since women self-lubricate for reasons other than arousal, as a reflexive response, and blood flow to the genitals means very little about actual sexual desire. 



> [T]o understand arousal in the context of unwanted sex, Chivers, like a handful of other sexologists, has arrived at an evolutionary hypothesis that stresses *the difference between reflexive sexual readiness and desire*. Genital lubrication, she writes in her upcoming paper in Archives of Sexual Behavior, is necessary "to reduce discomfort, and the possibility of injury, during vaginal penetration. ... Ancestral women who did not show an automatic vaginal response to sexual cues may have been more likely to experience injuries during unwanted vaginal penetration that resulted in illness, infertility or even death, and thus would be less likely to have passed on this trait to their offspring." Evolution's legacy, according to this theory, is that *women are prone to lubricate, if only protectively, to hints of sex in their surroundings*.


Cryptonia is the ex-boyfriend whose quotation I use in my signature about being yourself to find a compatible mate. I thought you were saying that the source of that quote (Cryptonia) should be considered as evidence for my supposed preference for conventionally handsome men. Perhaps I misunderstood what you were meaning. 

I am not going to change my signature, because it reflects my values, and is already accurate. I am trying to change the world for the better. If I succeed, nobody will ever have to suffer in the ways we once suffered, and the common pain that binds us as rivals will be relieved universally. I am not trying to create disharmony between men and women. I am trying to prevent the mutual objectification that is already happening, in which men are taught to see women as aesthetic/sexual prizes to show off to each other, while women are taught to see men as resources for physical/financial security. I hate that most relationships are essentially little more than prostitution, which harms both partners. 

In this way, I am addressing many of the problems you think I should be giving higher priority. Broken families often come from people choosing incompatible partners for all of the wrong reasons. Casual sex comes from treating other people's bodies like commodities to utilize for personal sensory gratification. The parading of physical assets only happens because people are rewarded for having a materialistic view of the self. One of the reasons singles tend to hook up at bars is because they are dimly lit places where people are too drunk to discriminate as harshly based on appearances. Media airbrushing happens because of the pressure for people to look thinner and younger in order to be considered attractive and valuable. All of these things you recognize as social problems are caused by the very attitudes you are promoting. In order to change the world, people must resist superficiality instead of giving in.


----------



## KINGoftheAMAZONS (Jun 21, 2011)

wisdom said:


> Would you want to fall in love with, say, an obese woman?


I've only fallen in love with one person before, and she happened to be chubby at the time I developed these strong feelings for her. She's thinner now, and for some reason the thought of being with her disgusts me. I've been attracted to many obese women, as well as many thin women (but mostly thick women). Is it possible that there are people who don't want to fall for a thin or an obese woman, but just a woman whom they could be happy sharing this thing called "life" with? I won't deny that physical attractiveness is given priority by a lot of people (perhaps even most). But some people are able to look past a person's superficial visage (which will undoubtably change as they get older), and find a deeper connection and love for the more tangible part of another human being.



> And would you still find the initially unattractive woman pleasant to look at during a bad period in the relationship?


I think everyone stops looking good during the bad period of a relationship depending on how bad the tension actually is.


----------



## wisdom (Dec 31, 2008)

> In this way, I am addressing many of the problems you think I should be giving higher priority. Broken families often come from people choosing incompatible partners for all of the wrong reasons. Casual sex comes from treating other people's bodies like commodities to utilize for personal sensory gratification. The parading of physical assets only happens because people are rewarded for having a materialistic view of the self. One of the reasons singles tend to hook up at bars is because they are dimly lit places where people are too drunk to discriminate as harshly based on appearances. Media airbrushing happens because of the pressure for people to look thinner and younger in order to be considered attractive and valuable. All of these things you recognize as social problems are caused by the very attitudes you are promoting. In order to change the world, people must resist superficiality instead of giving in.


*Again, basic human nature can only be much affected by changing genes.* Superficiality surely is largely genetic, for it has existed in presumably every society and has been documented in medieval England and (modern-day) primitive tribes. Historically some superficiality was masked by premature deaths (from disease and pregnancy) and social pressure to marry young (when most people look attractive) and stay together forever.

Getting rid of ugly people might work by leveling the playing field and allowing more emphasis on non-physical factors, though attractiveness has a sizable developmental cause. Legally raising the minimum age for marriage and marital waiting period length would help. Legal restrictions on certain physical enhancements, large families, and sex outside of marriage (yeah, not many supporters of that) - or at least old-fashioned condemnation of non-marital sex (but see below) - might be the few other ways to directly breed out some superficiality.

What won't work are the same quasi-feminist ideas that have been preached for decades, all while things get worse. Including women starting to catch up to men in degree of behavioral superficiality, and people divorcing when there isn't enough effort (fair or not, usually by the woman) to retain mutual physical attraction. Lots of resentment and defeatism on the part of women who exaggerate what's expected of them, leading to self-neglect and collective suffering. There probably is a higher percentage of unattractive young and middle-aged singles than ever before in human history, and the percentage of unmarried adults is at an all-time high.

Meanwhile, casual sex actually isn't as linked to attractiveness as popular lore says. Many people use it as a substitute for real bonds that they cannot find, and some people have higher attractiveness standards for life partners than sex partners. That makes sense, for after age 45, face shape and body shape (except probably for hourglass) usually don't change much and therefore reminders of initial physical attraction likely will remain for any life-long marriage. Also, it makes sense because superficiality selects for fertility, intelligence, physical strength, etc.

Physical attraction matters, and if that signature isn't going to be changed or demoted behind another quote, then I can just link to this discussion if I need to discredit the sig's purpose.


----------

