Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Of course I’ve dated people all over the looks spectrum and was attracted to them all. I’m just talking in terms of how people seem to think a person has no right to even approach someone more attractive then them lol
Some people look at good looking people as deity’s
The people you’re describing probably don’t date much. If you’re putting that much emphasis on looks, I’d imagine you’re not doing well in the dating world. As others have stated good looks don’t always correlate with attraction.
I’m a pretty good looking gal and I physically attract a lot of men, but the men I’ve been attracted to are typically mediocre looking by universal standards
lt always amazes me in forums how often someone will talk about someone they've just met and might rant a whole page, but the only thing really, they mention about the actual person, is their looks. Or they might throw in a few more superficial's too but bounce back to looks all through their post.
Or the only thing so many even in replies seem to mention in any detail, is attractiveness.
l dunno , don't understand a lot of people out there, l mean how far are looks going to go - until you sleep with them , that's about it how far.
You bet l need to like her looks , but it's what comes out of her mouth , mind, the person , what she's about and whom she is that counts next and equally.
Dk how many times l've met someone and thought hmmm, but she opens her mouth and that is it for me.
So basically op , ldk wth your talking about , except for what l see in posts about here and other places but to me- most of it makes no sense whatsoever. Bc how you feel about her looks alone are only a small part of the complete equation.
lt always amazes me in forums how often someone will talk about someone they've just met and might rant a whole page, but the only thing really, they mention about the actual person, is their looks. Or they might throw in a few more superficial's too but bounce back to looks all through their post.
Or the only thing so many even in replies seem to mention in any detail, is attractiveness.
l dunno , don't understand a lot of people out there, l mean how far are looks going to go - until you sleep with them , that's about it how far.
You bet l need to like her looks , but it's what comes out of her mouth , mind, the person , what she's about and whom she is that counts next and equally.
Dk how many times l've met someone and thought hmmm, but she opens her mouth and that is it for me.
So basically op , ldk wth your talking about , except for what l see in posts about here and other places but to me- most of it makes no sense whatsoever. Bc how you feel about her looks alone are only a small part of the complete equation.
A lot of people have no depth at all. There bores.
When they say someone can do better 99 times out of 100 it’d because that person is better looking then their partner
You very rarely hear someone mention that about a mismatch in character or loyalty or compassion it’s mostly about looks
1) Liquid water itself is not wet. Liquid water can make other things wet.
2) Liquid water can make other things wet because liquid water has a low viscosity. The viscosity of water at a temperature of 20 degrees Celsius is approximately 0.01 poise or 10^-3 Pa. s (Pascal seconds). Viscosity is a measure of the resistance of a fluid to deformation at a given rate.
I agree with you, but I will say that with my experience on dating sites, it simply came down to whether there was any attraction. I don't usually go for looks, but we can't help who we are and aren't attracted to. Nobody wants to pursue something with a person whose looks they aren't attracted to. Not to say they are only attracted to "atrractive and good looking" people; it's a matter of personal attraction. I dated a guy that I thought was so cute but nobody else did. We simply can't help it.
I've looked at profiles of men that I thought were "good looking" and wasn't attracted at all. I've looked at men's profiles whose pics weren't so great, but I liked their profile. It's all in the attraction thing.
Exactly. My husband (in my profile pic) is the best-looking man I know. I think most would say he isn't all that attractive. But, he's attractive to me (he has since gone on home to be with the Lord). I've had several men interested in me since my beloved husband's passing but though I enjoy being with them as a friend, I am not attracted to any of them physically so can go no further in regard to a relationship. It may be shallow, but I know my limits; I can't commit to someone whom later I know I will eventually not be able to keep my vows to (most so-called "good-looking" men I am not attracted to).
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dissenter
Because people are visual creatures. Anyone who says otherwise is a total idiot.
Exactly. I told my husband that before I saw a picture (after I learned he was not too tall for me)--I told him, "I'm a visual person, so if I do not find you physically attractive, I won't be able to pursue a relationship" (we met on an internet forum like this one so didn't know what each other looked like).
No, not really. You only view things this way because society places romantic relationships, and marriage especially, on such a high pedestal. There's more to life than romantic relationships, which involve a more "selfish" kind of love if we're being honest. You can eschew romantic relationships altogether and live a fulfilling life of friendship, community, kindness, love and service to your fellow man.
I could see someone deciding to focus most of their energy into longer-lasting, unconditional relationships, such as family and close friends. There's an argument that these relationships are more "pure" since you might love your mother, child or brother for who they truly are, warts and all, rather than for the butterflies they give you. Then that same person might be satisfied with more fleeting romantic relationships (most are anyway) and approach them very differently.
So I don't necessarily think of a person as being shallow or superficial based simply on what criteria they use to share a bed with someone. To each her/his own, I say.
Last edited by BajanYankee; 12-10-2022 at 09:56 AM..
No, not really. You only view things this way because society places romantic relationships, and marriage especially, on such a high pedestal. There's more to life than romantic relationships, which involve a more "selfish" kind of love if we're being honest. You can eschew romantic relationships altogether and live a fulfilling life of friendship, community, kindness, love and service to your fellow man.
I could see someone deciding to focus most of their energy into longer-lasting, unconditional relationships, such as family and close friends. There's an argument that these relationships are more "pure" since you might love your mother, child or brother for who they truly are, warts and all, rather than for the butterflies they give you. Then that same person might be satisfied with more fleeting romantic relationships (most are anyway) and approach them very differently.
So I don't necessarily think of a person as being shallow or superficial based simply on what criteria they use to share a bed with someone. To each her/his own, I say.
I’m not judging people on how they are attracted to someone it’s more the pedestal we put on looks as far as value
Like I said usually when we say you can do better it’s about looks but not character or heart or integrity
We automatically assume “better” is a better looking person
I’m not judging people on how they are attracted to someone it’s more the pedestal we put on looks as far as value
Like I said usually when we say you can do better it’s about looks but not character or heart or integrity
We automatically assume “better” is a better looking person
I hear you. I would say your point is often true, but it's often not true as well. If a woman is dealing with a man who talks down to her, or constantly cheats on her, or is lazy and forces her to work 3 jobs while he sits at home and plays video games, people will often say she "deserves better." You do sometimes hear people say "he/she can do better" meaning they can get someone more on their level of physical attractiveness, I agree. But I also agree with the one poster who mentioned something about "rejection management," and that when people are talking about "leagues," they are usually talking to or about a person who is constantly reaching for and failing to get attractive people.
Whenever I browse forums I see people who say stay in your league looks wise and over the years I’ve heard people tell me I was too good looking for my partner and vice versa. Why do we put looks on such a high pedestal to where we think the better looking person is on a higher level and worth more and a lesser attractive person is worth less?
It’s a sad commentary imo when to a lot of people that’s the most important measuring stick on where you are of value in the dating scene. I’d never want to be with such a bore of a person who lacks such depth that that’s where they think most of someone’s value comes from
Like Florida2014 says, like asking why water is wet. A man's little head 'wants what it wants' and there's nothing anyone can do to change that.
Men don't place all value on looks. It's very simple: a guy has a certain threshold of attractiveness a woman needs to reach to 'do it for him.' If a woman isn't there or is in the grey area, the man is going to struggle to enter the relationship and stay in it. A man can have sex without being in love, but sex is a requisite for love and a man can't romantically love or develop strong feelings towards a woman without being physically attracted to a certain degree.
Women value looks too obviously - maybe even more so than men do these days - but can afford to be more flexible on the question if need be, presumably since they don't have the physical burden of sexual performance as much as men do, and probably for other reasons relating to gender differences.
This is actually a crisis in online dating (which now constitutes most dating), and again it's very simple:
1) Men will readily dip down a couple notches lookswise if they must. A 9.5 or 10 man is going to have sex with a 7-7.5-8 woman any day of the week. If he's drunk or especially horny you can double-plus that differential. Therefore, women of certain ages (especially under 30) who are a 7-7.5 or higher are getting swiped by virtually all men, assuming no glaring values conflict in the profile, and even that is often overlooked. Men figure, what do I have to lose? If I don't like her that much I'll just stop talking with her on the dating app, or hook up with her once and move on. Women are matching with these men and wrongly thinking they have a significant chance of LTR, when in most cases the odds are pretty much zero.
2) Men who are not in the top 1-5%, let's say who are a 7.5-8.5 lookswise, are left with 4 or 5-level women who are enthusiastic about dating those men but who may not physically do it for them, and the men aren't enthusiastic about pursuing said women. I'm somewhere in the middle where I get good matches on occasion, but I feel like many women 'in my league' (based on my IRL partners) are shooting much higher than they should (not that the guys are better than me in terms of personal value, but maybe better looking and more than that, just have lot better photos), and legions of them are going to end up alone as a result.
So in a nutshell, many women - who now have direct access to all men everywhere, with limited exposure to real rejection; 'hey' DMs etc - are shooting way higher than they should, leaving many men to dip down lower than they physically can. The huge increase in singleness and 'situationships' are the result.
Last edited by pleg1; 12-10-2022 at 11:27 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
