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.
Location: Huntersville/Charlotte, NC and Washington, DC
26,700 posts, read 41,798,419 times
Reputation: 41398
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by timberline742
Being overweight is a choice, you know. I was a fatty. I changed it. It made a big difference in my dating choices.
If you read a couple of posts ago, I'm working on it. But the fact is women are still not going to find big guys attractive for the most part. It is a fact I've accepted.
I'm sure that the people who say "absolutely NOT" are most likely single, struggle with dating and have been for a while. While the ones who say "maybe, once I get to know them" or "beauty is subjective" are more likely to be in relationships (be their partner "ugly" or not).
Yeah, and I'm sure that you're wrong about this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighFlyingBird
This is an excellent story. "Looks" are far over rated and I know lots of people who miss out on so much love because they were obsessed with that (and even more so, what people would think of them for being with someone who didn't measure up to some sort of expectations).
Looks are overrated for some, sure, but there's usually a reason for that.
If you read a couple of posts ago, I'm working on it. But the fact is women are still not going to find big guys attractive for the most part. It is a fact I've accepted.
Women love tall, and you have that covered. Some like big-and-tall, because it makes them feel protected. There's also the teddy-bear effect that shouldn't be underestimated. This is not to say that there's no such thing as "too big". Obesity is a turnoff for most people. Beefy, however, can be a good thing. Good for you for working on it.
Women love tall, and you have that covered. Some like big-and-tall, because it makes them feel protected. There's also the teddy-bear effect that shouldn't be underestimated. This is not to say that there's no such thing as "too big". Obesity is a turnoff for most people. Beefy, however, can be a good thing. Good for you for working on it.
The way you are parsing looks down to tiny details reminds me of those PUA guys who analyze every portion of each other's faces for symmetry, etc. Think Eliot Rogers and his "Short lower third and gay midface, with zero brow ridge” issues.
It's fetishistic. Just enjoy who you are.
Attempts to place me into "PUA" (term I barely got to know after searching for a proper estate in Richmond, and only after staying in this sub-forum for a while) are misguided. Throwing in Eliot Rogers on top of that is a deliberate slander.
There are no "eye of the beholder" stories on certain aesthetics and it's not fetishizing when I mention that people can quickly notice and find it physically unattractive if someone has a fairly visible and obstructing mole on his/her nose, or in case of mild strabismus. It's about mentioning things that are physically unappealing for the general audience and although it's hard to explain certain things, these "details" are rather fairly straight-forward in actual, real-life situations.
It has nothing to do with me or my enjoment about myself.
I don't intend to lead discussions like that and if possible, I'd with to avoid getting this topic to revolve around me all the way. If I had a desire to make it about me, I'd bring my story up and ask for comments. I'd be more interested if you have your own experience of meeting and/or dating (or rejecting) physically unattractive people, if you feel desire to share them.
No, never date someone you think is ugly. Don't think you're doing them a favor by dating them, as there is always going to be someone else who can appreciate them better than you can.
Perfect example is when a dude last year asked me out. He was a really sweet person, smart, and caring, but I just couldn't get myself attracted to him no matter what. So I had to say no. This year he's with a girl who seems really into him and I'm happy for them and for turning him down.
Again I say, the "absolutely nots" are all most likely single, have ex's that were "hot" but are still single, or struggle with dating altogether. If a person can't seem to either successfully pursue, attract, or keep once they've attracted whatever fits their personal standard, are they really bringing to the table these qualities they demand? And if so, why are these people currently single?
Great points.
I can only speak for myself but every man I've dated have met my physical criteria. I have never been in a situation where I liked a man that did not like me back or where I was attracted to a man that did not find me attractive. I've always said the best way to determine if one is being realistic about their options is by assessing what they have been able to get or currently get. If they cannot get the type of people they want yet that group is their type, then they need to work some things out, if it's become such a hindrance that they are perpetually unhappily single.
However if by all accounts they can attract the people they want to attract, have relationships and/or dating situations with these types then unless they have a reason to, I see no reason to adjust their criteria. Relationships end for various reasons, not being able to sustain a ltr or short term relationship with men of your type could be for various reasons. But a break up, divorce, etc. in itself doesn't necessarily mean that one is incapable of keeping the attention of those that meet their personal standards.
I know for myself I am single by choice and my reasons have nothing to do with my personal standards. Frankly I can be picky about who I chose to date because it has not hindered me thus far to be picky which is somewhat funny to me because according to city data I am the last one that should be picky because I am a black single mother. On the contrary my experiences offline with men that meet my personal standards have led me to believe that I can be picky and specific and get the results I want. This, without having to change my standards.
Yet, I can admit that the one quality that I have only recently began to desire(a very very deep soul connection) would be difficult to find because from experience it is rare to develop that type of bond. As it stands I struggle with forming that connection with most men even this outside of my type. I can admit then that the only way I would be open to dating someone that I did not find attractive based on my personal standards, is if we formed the deep connection that I've been unable to form thus far. I'm not talking about love either because I've been in love. The only way I can describe it is that the few people I've met that formed this connection with their spouses described it as feeling from the moment they met their spouse like they already knew them, like they had perhaps met in several other lives. They spoke of feeling so familiar in this persons presence that it felt like this person was home(which many people associate with feeling absolutely free, comfortable, and at ease with who they are).
In any case I think there is a fair number of people that perhaps may have standards that are outside of what they have successfully been able to get but there are plenty that may seem to have high standards to others but these standards have been realistic based on what they've been able to get. I think people often try to guilt trip those that place emphasis on looks for doing so because it seems shallow and discounts people that don't look a certain way but imo physical attraction is another criteria that I find to be complex. Some of the same people that find it distasteful to be so picky about looks are often projecting their own beliefs about looks onto others. That is, because looks don't matter to them as much and they believe it to be incredibly shallow, they project this idea onto everyone else actually believing that those that dont feel the same as they do are "wrong" or "mean", etc., when this is often far from the truth. There is nothing wrong with preferring certain physical looks and on the same hand it doesn't make someone a better person for not caring about looks. And vice versus. We all are unique and have different things that we value in relationships.
We all will weigh various things differently when it comes to what we want-projecting our ideals and standards onto others is somewhat futile. Even if there are people that have said absolutely not and remain unhappily single, if they believe looks are important, then that is their belief and an important criteria that they cannot overlook. Guilt tripping these folks for these beliefs isn't going to make them feel any differently.
Last edited by Faith2187; 12-22-2015 at 11:00 AM..
I've met two cases recently, my new neighbor's wife and someone on my vacation. In my neighbor's case, his wife might not be what I considered good looking but she is a joy to talk to, very nice person. He is also a rich doctor, so it definitely beauty is in the eye of the holder.
Last edited by NewbieHere; 12-22-2015 at 10:55 AM..
Again I say, the "absolutely nots" are all most likely single, have ex's that were "hot" but are still single, or struggle with dating altogether. If a person can't seem to either successfully pursue, attract, or keep once they've attracted whatever fits their personal standard, are they really bringing to the table these qualities they demand? And if so, why are these people currently single?
Ah, yes, my favorite logical fallacy on this forum. Because someone is single at a given point in time, they must suck at relationships or somehow be lacking as a human being. It's confusing circumstance and the very human reality of goals, values, and personal growth, change, and choice with character, and it's nonsense.
I married a hottie. He changed his mind on kids, or we'd still be married as we'd have resolved everything else with time and love.
Furthermore, one does not have to offer the same qualities one is attracted to and prefers in a partner. While similar values and goals are necessary for a successful relationship, in terms of characteristics, opposites or complementary traits, not similar, attract. Guys who are attracted to me tend to like that I'm a little more creative than they are, have a more off-kilter sense of humor than they do, am better at cooking and things requiring a sense of aesthetics (putting together clothing or a room) than they are, and have more of a gift with language and writing than they do. I find technical and mechanical expertise to be attractive, and as long as the guy isn't stodgy or fusty, I don't mind being the more colorful one in the relationship. For practicality's sake, he should be better with money than I am, as well, because I'm terrible with it. Just as a team of all goalies or all pitchers isn't going to work, male and female versions of the same person won't form an efficient team. The best teams have members with different qualities that form a cohesive unit.
As far as looks go, that is a personal thing. As this thread demonstrates, it's more important to some than to others. I would say most of the guys I've dated were a league or two higher in that regard, but I'm one of those people where you either dig the way I look or you're like "no thanks." There's very little in-between with me. While many guys would say, "I don't see it," the ones who do dig me REALLY dig me and would argue that I'm not below them in physical attractiveness.
Ah, yes, my favorite logical fallacy on this forum. Because someone is single at a given point in time, they must suck at relationships or somehow be lacking as a human being. It's confusing circumstance and the very human reality of goals, values, and personal growth, change, and choice with character, and it's nonsense.
I married a hottie. He changed his mind on kids, or we'd still be married as we'd have resolved everything else with time and love.
Furthermore, one does not have to offer the same qualities one is attracted to and prefers in a partner. While similar values and goals are necessary for a successful relationship, in terms of characteristics, opposites or complementary traits, not similar, attract. Guys who are attracted to me tend to like that I'm a little more creative than they are, have a more off-kilter sense of humor than they do, am better at cooking and things requiring a sense of aesthetics (putting together clothing or a room) than they are, and have more of a gift with language and writing than they do. I find technical and mechanical expertise to be attractive, and as long as the guy isn't stodgy or fusty, I don't mind being the more colorful one in the relationship. For practicality's sake, he should be better with money than I am, as well, because I'm terrible with it. Just as a team of all goalies or all pitchers isn't going to work, male and female versions of the same person won't form an efficient team. The best teams have members with different qualities that form a cohesive unit.
As far as looks go, that is a personal thing. As this thread demonstrates, it's more important to some than to others. I would say most of the guys I've dated were a league or two higher in that regard, but I'm one of those people where you either dig the way I look or you're like "no thanks." There's very little in-between with me.
^ Had ex's that were 'hot', but is most likely single.
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.
