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.
It's really not..if that were the case you'd see a ton of mismatched looking couples..
People are as shallow as their options allow them to be ..simple as that.
If someone's with someone not very good looking it's probably because they're not that great looking themselves and it's the best they could get physically speaking not because they find their partner amazingly good looking.
You're missing the point here. What made you fall in love with your first boyfriend in the first place? You say he was a geek (which is, frankly, a fairly neutral trait when it comes to attraction). What were some of his other qualities? How tall was he? Was he in good shape? Was he good-looking? Was he popular? Was he fun? Did he have money? Was he simply just the only guy pursuing you at the time? Was he the best you could at the time in terms of your own looks (be honest)?
I'm sure he had some objectively attracted traits that compensated for the fairly neutral trait of "geeky".
Again, as I said, when it comes to attraction, beauty is very objective. This is why, in our current online dating culture, people tend to be matched up with their physical equivalents. If beauty wasn't objective, you would see more mismatched couples, which you don't see.
I will answer your questions assuming you really want to know the answers and that they're not rhetorical based on assumptions, most of which are actually wrong, and I'm not making this up - I will be entirely honest here.
1. He was 5'7". He worked out and wasn't "bulky" but tight. Then again, back then most of us were slender and we were pretty physical so most of us had at least some tone as well.
2. Good-looking...well...he was about average-looking? He did have blonde hair. He had sort of soft facial features. He didn't really have the traditional "male" stuff like the strong jaw and so on. But he wasn't ugly, either. At all. He was about average, facially.
3. Popular: NO. Beyond no. He always felt he "didn't fit in" and that was true. He was incredibly introverted.
4. Fun: I thought so. Quietly so. More fun in the way of being humorous, I'd say, than doing fun "things" per se.
5. Money: No. We were both middle class.
6. The best I could get: no, I had dated quite a bit by then, including the "good-looking" guys, every so often.
What made me fall in love with him? He was smart, oh God just so smart. And everybody who knows me knows I go for smart. I think you're of an age to remember this: the movie Real Genius? Remember the woman who was sleeping with every bright guy at the school and wound up with Lazlow, the guy in the closet? My friends all joked that I was that girl - not necessarily the sleeping around part but the weird (apparently) penchant for extremely bright guys.
The other thing was that he loved me SO much. That started to make me realize over time that he was a kind person who could be a great mate, or I thought so at the time (things fell apart later...we were kids). Over time our friendship deepened and I just finally started to have feelings for him.
So that's my story.
Did he have SOME objectively attractive traits? I suppose so; for example, many people think blonde hair is gorgeous (it's not my preference but it seems popular) and he wasn't overweight. He was healthy. Are you saying a person has to fall in love with a person with literally not one single physical trait in order to prove beauty is in the eye of the beholder? Because that just wouldn't make sense. Everybody has SOME "objectivey" good trait in this way. Even if it's nice hands...or height...or not being overweight...or having a certain color hair...or eyes...an appealing voice. SOMEthing.
It's really not but it certainly gets meaningless when a person thinks he/she deserves more than they offer.
I fully believe this is where the bottom line is to this post, and others like it. People who CAN'T care about another person unless she is physically close to perfect (i.e....he is so enamored of perfection that he has to create artificial women on an computer, and repeatedly "jokes" that he wishes he could create a perfect woman in a lab) also CAN'T believe anyone could love anyone else who is less than physical perfect.
But that isn't true. This entire inability to love someone who isn't some culturally gorgeous ideal is that person's own flaw...not everyone else's. I literally think this some actual inability. I don't know whether it can be fixed. Perhaps not.
It's really not..if that were the case you'd see a ton of mismatched looking couples..
People are as shallow as their options allow them to be ..simple as that.
If someone's with someone not very good looking it's probably because they're not that great looking themselves and it's the best they could get physically speaking not because they find their partner amazingly good looking.
Nah, this is because most people are average (hence that word, average); most people aren't either extraordinarily ugly, or extraordinarily beautiful.
And given most people wind up with someone, well...there are a bajillion more average than extremely, overwhelmingly ugly or extraordinarily beautiful choices. It is simple math.
As far as "...not because they find their partner AMAZINGLY (my caps) good-looking"...so what? People don't necessarily NEED "amazingly" good-looking (per cultural parameters), full stop. This is the one thing that some here simply do not seem to understand. And apparently, if it isn't "amazingly" (like...shockingly? Like way beyond? Or what?) good-looking then there is no way they find the partner good-looking, period? Or something? Can't find the person beautiful? Because that person doesn't look biologically Photoshopped? If not then the person can't be beautiful to the person who loves him/her? Physically beautiful?
Nor do this group seem to understand that while they rage against this total injustice (that is in their own minds), the mindset comes from them...from their own inability to love someone for non-shallow reasons.
I will answer your questions assuming you really want to know the answers and that they're not rhetorical based on assumptions, most of which are actually wrong, and I'm not making this up - I will be entirely honest here.
1. He was 5'7". He worked out and wasn't "bulky" but tight. Then again, back then most of us were slender and we were pretty physical so most of us had at least some tone as well.
2. Good-looking...well...he was about average-looking? He did have blonde hair.
3. Popular: NO. Beyond no. He always felt he "didn't fit in" and that was true. He was incredibly introverted.
4. Fun: I thought so. Quietly so. More fun in the way of being humorous, I'd say, than doing fun "things" per se.
5. Money: No. We were both middle class.
6. The best I could get: no, I had dated quite a bit by then, including the "good-looking" guys, every so often.
What made me fall in love with him? He was smart, oh God just so smart. And everybody who knows me knows I go for smart. I think you're of an age to remember this: the movie Real Genius? Remember the woman who was sleeping with every bright guy at the school and wound up with Lazlow, the guy in the closet? My friends all joked that I was that girl - not necessarily the sleeping around part but the weird (apparently) penchant for extremely bright guys.
The other thing was that he loved me SO much. That started to make me realize over time that he was a kind person who could be a great mate, or I thought so at the time (things fell apart later...we were kids). Over time our friendship deepened and I just finally started to have feelings for him.
So that's my story.
Did he have SOME objectively attractive traits? I suppose so; for example, many people think blonde hair is gorgeous (it's not my preference but it seems popular) and he wasn't overweight. He was healthy. Are you saying a person has to fall in love with a person with literally not one single physical trait in order to prove beauty is in the eye of the beholder? Because that just wouldn't make sense. Everybody has SOME "objectivey" good trait in this way. Even if it's nice hands...or height...or not being overweight...or having a certain color hair...or eyes. SOMEthing.
When you said he loved you so much does that mean he told you while you were friends that he wanted more? Or do you mean he just loved you so much in general while you were friends?
It's really not..if that were the case you'd see a ton of mismatched looking couples..
People are as shallow as their options allow them to be ..simple as that.
If someone's with someone not very good looking it's probably because they're not that great looking themselves and it's the best they could get physically speaking not because they find their partner amazingly good looking.
But of course you acknowledge that they are together because they are a good match otherwise, and are attracted to and care for each other?
Nah, this is because most people are average (hence that word, average); most people aren't either extraordinarily ugly, or extraordinarily beautiful.
And given most people wind up with someone, well...there are a bajillion more average than extremely, overwhelmingly ugly or extraordinarily beautiful choices. It is simple math.
As far as "...not because they find their partner AMAZINGLY (my caps) good-looking"...so what? People don't necessarily NEED "amazingly" good-looking (per cultural parameters), full stop. This is the one thing that some here simply do not seem to understand. And apparently, if it isn't "amazingly" (like...shockingly? Like way beyond? Or what?) good-looking then there is no way they find the partner good-looking, period? Or something? Can't find the person beautiful? Because that person doesn't look biologically Photoshopped? If not then the person can't be beautiful to the person who loves him/her? Physically beautiful?
Nor do this group seem to understand that while they rage against this total injustice (that is in their own minds), the mindset comes from them...from their own inability to love someone for non-shallow reasons.
It is pretty ironic.
I'm talking about just in general when people are saying they aren't shallow it's because they can't afford to be not because their such mature beings that see inner beauty where others don't..
I don't think you have to find your partner amazingly good looking but if you find them unattractive then I couldn't do that i don't care how many positive traits they have if I'm turned off physically they'res no way I'd be able to "perform" sexually never mind make out and get naked with that person..I'm sorry I need something to work with.
When you said he loved you so much does that mean he told you while you were friends that he wanted more? Or do you mean he just loved you so much in general while you were friends?
Oh God yeah. He asked me out all the time. I started to get some serious ribbing from friends, eventually. I could feel it, too. I could tell when he looked at me and spoke to me that he cared about me. Or...I thought I could. As much as a girl of 15-turning-16 can.
Why do you ask?
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.
