Am I shallow?

[somedude81]

I'm tired of people calling me shallow or that I have shallow preferences, whatever, in just about every thread I post in.

 

So here it is.

 

I want a woman that looks like a woman. Healthy weight, hair at least shoulder length, breasts at least average size. Face: roughly as attractive as I am, but in a feminine way. 5'0-5'8. I don't care about her butt as long as it's normal. Hair and eye color don't matter.

 

Prefer Caucasian because that is what I self-identify as.

 

Now does that make me shallow? If so, am I more shallow than anybody else?

[Els]

Must... resist... bait...

[Necromancer]

You´r not shallow.

 

Women say "i just look at inner beauty" so they don´t look shallow.....then they call you shallow for telling the truth while they lie.

[ThaWholigan]

I don't think you're any more shallow than anyone who has preferences of a similar kind, of which there are quite a few, although not too frequent. I don't think it's your "shallowness" that makes people comment on it. Moreso I think it's in relation to the fact that in quite a few posts, you have a tendency to bemoan the fact that girls have a level of preferences that may exclude you at some point. It frustrates you, I get that.

 

I have my own preferences myself, some that I would consider shallow. I don't exclude most women if they don't meet them, but at the same time, I know what I like and I make no apologies for it. However, I recognize that I may not be some of those girls' cup of tea. They may like white guys, or they may go for guys who are fitter than I am, or have more status or different hobbies.

[udolipixie]

As you're human you're most likely shallow and most likely youre more shallow than anybody else as people tend to differ in shallowness.

 

Seems more like you want a gal who looks like a gal by your definition of what a gal is.

 

Perhaps it'd be best suited to compare a pic of yourself and a pic of a gal you think is the same as you aka fits your preferences. I've often had guys list traits that would seem reasonable or minimal however the visual image differed greatly.

Edited May 7, 2012 by udolipixie

[somedude81]

No, seriously go ahead.

 

That's what this thread is about.

 

I want to know if what I said above makes me shallow.

 

BTW, if you or anybody else is going to say, that I'm lying about what I want, then don't even bother.

 

I would be perfectly happy marrying a 5'3, brown haired, brown eyed, B-cup girl, who is as weight proportioned as I am who is as least as attractive as I am, but in a girly way.

 

Are any of those unreasonable?

 

Of course the non-physical things also matter, but this thread just focuses on the physical.

[Philosoraptor]

You like what you like. You're entitled to be as strict as you want as long as you are willing to live within the confines of what you want.

[FitChick]

Is this a generational thing? I don't recall anyone worrying about being called shallow -- ever.

[Els]

No, seriously go ahead.

 

That's what this thread is about.

 

I want to know if what I said above makes me shallow.

 

BTW, if you or anybody else is going to say, that I'm lying about what I want, then don't even bother.

 

I would be perfectly happy marrying a 5'3, brown haired, brown eyed, B-cup girl, who is as weight proportioned as I am who is as least as attractive as I am, but in a girly way.

 

Are any of those unreasonable?

 

Of course the non-physical things also matter, but this thread just focuses on the physical.

 

Alright, awesome, I have the time to give this one more try, so what the heck.

 

1) Your 'requirements' for a woman are almost all physical, bar one (similar hobbies, IIRC). It is not the degree of 'hotness' that makes them superficial, but rather the fact that they almost all consist of, well, superficial stuff.

 

2) As ThaWholigan said, the majority of posts about your 'superficiality' are not about that per se, but rather hypocrisy. There are other issues as well, but I don't really want to derail this thread, as you would most likely be defensive upon mention of them, and they aren't relevant.

 

3) You have slightly warped ideas about what a woman on the same superficial 'level' (ugh, hate that term) as you would be like, and you always insist on them. Levels are really not my cup of tea, but I know how they are usually categorized, and if you're going to play that game you should know what they entail.

[iris219]

You have more physical requirements than I do, that’s for sure (and I’m an attractive woman). However, it’s OK to have physical requirements as long as you accept that those requirements will make it much harder for you to find someone. Are you willing to accept that?

 

Having physical requirements don't necessarily make you shallow. Being shallow has more to do with valuing looks over anything else. Do you do this? Would you overlook or reject someone with great qualities because she didn't fit your ideal in terms of the physical? If so, then, yes, I'd say you're shallow.

[Onlyjonley]

No. You pretty much you want a somewhat attractive girl that takes care of herself. How is that shallow?

[verhrzn]

When you're adding the qualifier "at least" to two or more physical features, probably a good bet you're shallow.

[bean1]

Nothing wrong with that. I've got a small chest, so I married an ass man instead As others have said, it's fine to have requirements, you just can't complain there isn't enough to choose from when they are qualities that can't really be changed either.

[somedude81]

I don't think you're any more shallow than anyone who has preferences of a similar kind, of which there are quite a few, although not too frequent.

Huh? What's not too frequent?

 

I don't think it's your "shallowness" that makes people comment on it. Moreso I think it's in relation to the fact that in quite a few posts, you have a tendency to bemoan the fact that girls have a level of preferences that may exclude you at some point. It frustrates you, I get that.

The only thing that I feel excluded on is when a girl refuses to date men under 5'10. And it seems really stupid when she's under 5'4 herself. I just want somebody roughly equal to myself. While I interpret a short girl wanting a tall guy, as wanting something better than herself.

As you're human you're most likely shallow and most likely youre more shallow than anybody else as people tend to differ in shallowness.

Can you explain why I am more shallow than anybody else?

 

Seems more like you want a gal who looks like a gal by your definition of what a gal is.

Uh, sure.

 

Perhaps it'd be best suited to compare a pic of yourself and a pic of a gal you think is the same as you aka fits your preferences. I've often had guys list traits that would seem reasonable or minimal however the visual image differed greatly.

I can send you a picture of a me and the girl I used to know.

Is this a generational thing? I don't recall anyone worrying about being called shallow -- ever.

It's because people are telling me that I'm single because I'm 'shallow.'

Alright, awesome, I have the time to give this one more try, so what the heck.

 

1) Your 'requirements' for a woman are almost all physical, bar one (similar hobbies, IIRC). It is not the degree of 'hotness' that makes them superficial, but rather the fact that they almost all consist of, well, superficial stuff.

I've already addressed this in the post you quoted.

 

I'd also like to point out, I've never been in a relationship and don't really know what other characteristics are important. So it's easier for me to focus on the physical. Cause if I'm not attracted to her, I don't think anything else matters.

 

You have slightly warped ideas about what a woman on the same superficial 'level' as you would be like, and you always insist on them.

And what would she be like?

 

IMO, the only thing off about me is that I'm shorter than average, for a white guy.

[udolipixie]

The only thing that I feel excluded on is when a girl refuses to date men under 5'10. And it seems really stupid when she's under 5'4 herself. I just want somebody roughly equal to myself. While I interpret a short girl wanting a tall guy, as wanting something better than herself.

 

5'10'' is the average height for guys in my country, America, and it seems as if you were in America so why is it really stupid for her to want an guy with a height that most guys are?

[chimneychamp]

Heh, yeah. "At least" as attractive as you means you require her to be more attractive than yourself.

 

Perhaps what you meant was "in the same general range" of attractiveness?

[Els]

I've already addressed this in the post you quoted.

 

I'd also like to point out, I've never been in a relationship and don't really know what other characteristics are important. So it's easier for me to focus on the physical. Cause if I'm not attracted to her, I don't think anything else matters.

 

I understand, but that does not disprove my point, does it? It only explains 'why' you are as superficial as you are. You are absolutely incorrect that physical appearance is the most important foundation for a relationship. Perhaps correct that if you aren't attracted, everything will crumble, but there are plenty of other non-physical incompatibilities that will make 'nothing else matter', too.

 

FWIW, there are many inexperienced people with a more balanced set of requirements. Experience helps but it isn't the only way.

 

And what would she be like?

 

Well, as ZG mentioned in the other thread, the two most common superficial factors for men are usually weight and breasts/ass/legs. The two most common superficial factors for women are usually career/affluence/status, and height.

 

Again, I must repeat that I find all this leagues stuff to be bullcrap, but if you genuinely wish to subscribe to that, you would be superficially ranked below average. Of course, this doesn't mean that you can't get a wonderful girl (in a non-superficial sense) by being a wonderful guy (again, in a non-superficial sense).

[ThaWholigan]

5'10'' is the average height for guys in my country, America, and it seems as if you were in America so why is it really stupid for her to want an guy with a height that most guys are?

To add to that, this isn't the most common thing in the world. Girls date a lot of short guys. It really should not bother you and I still don't know why it does. You aren't even THAT short, I know a guy who is 5 foot 3 and he has a girlfriend. My brother is the same height as you, and he's had many girlfriends and still has many admirers. Height is not something you should be bothered about Somedude.

[LondonS]

I dont post much but I just had to today so I can post a response here...

 

Here is a thread for you....guy started with qualities of a girl he is seeking, now compare that with yours...You'll have your answer.

 

http://www.loveshack.org/forums/romantic/dating/325234-where-meet-my-kind-girl

[somedude81]

You have more physical requirements than I do, that’s for sure (and I’m an attractive woman).

So you don't have any physical requirements at all? Take a few minutes to think about that.

 

However, it’s OK to have physical requirements as long as you accept that those requirements will make it much harder for you to find someone. Are you willing to accept that?

Of course. Even though, my requirements are hardly exclusionary.

 

Having physical requirements don't necessarily make you shallow. Being shallow has more to do with valuing looks over anything else. Do you do this? Would you overlook or reject someone with great qualities because she didn't fit your ideal in terms of the physical? If so, then, yes, I'd say you're shallow.

It really matters if she at least meets my minimum requirements or not, which is a different list. In short, I would pass up somebody with great qualities if she were obese. There are several reasons why it just wouldn't work.

No. You pretty much you want a somewhat attractive girl that takes care of herself. How is that shallow?

My thoughts exactly.

When you're adding the qualifier "at least" to two or more physical features, probably a good bet you're shallow.

Why?

 

You do know that the vast majority of women, meet the "at least" physical features" right?

Nothing wrong with that. I've got a small chest, so I married an ass man instead

Heh, it's just how men break down. Either breast men or ass men. The back just doesn't matter to me at all. Sure it's a nice thing to have but if I could only have one, it's the front.

 

 

As others have said, it's fine to have requirements, you just can't complain there isn't enough to choose from when they are qualities that can't really be changed either.

Enough to choose from what?

 

BTW, almost all of the requirements can be changed. Some more easily than others.

 

Heh, yeah. "At least" as attractive as you means you require her to be more attractive than yourself.

 

Perhaps what you meant was "in the same general range" of attractiveness?

Sure, Ok.

 

I just don't want to be with a girl and have people call me the pretty one.

[wwwjd]

shallow is kind of a silly word and probably over used.

 

I don't like... no, I HATE green beans. Tastes like $#!t in MY mouth. Does that make me shallow?

Maybe on that same lines, my body is NOT attracted by blond haired girls. Again, am I shallow?

 

Of course not. It is just preferences. Maybe even on a subliminal physical level.

 

MAYBE you even prefer a thinner body over a heavier one? Others CALLING YOU shallow is THEIR internal problem, not YOUR preference issue.

Shallow is relative and usually externally residing in others.

Are guys that prefer the heavier bodys also called shallow?

 

I won't apologize for hating green beans, and they can call me shallow, culinarily superficial, or a bean hater all they want.... won't change the fact it tastes like $#!t in MY mouth, and I don't have to change.

[udolipixie]

You have more physical requirements than I do, that’s for sure (and I’m an attractive woman).

So you don't have any physical requirements at all? Take a few minutes to think about that.

 

Ironic

[dasein]

No SD, you aren't shallow, none of the preferences you list are unreasonable in the least, and in a thread asking "am I shallow" it would be presumed that the preferences expressed would be mostly physical as opposed to intangible, so don't pay much attention to nitpickers on that.

 

You are simply an easy target here on LS due to your good nature and honesty. IMO the answer to your issues with women is in volume and building a rich social life for yourself. Building a social network and then starting to use those skills in the process of meeting women. Similar to what I think verhrzn's solution will involve.

[somedude81]

I understand, but that does not disprove my point, does it? It only explains 'why' you are as superficial as you are. You are absolutely incorrect that physical appearance is the most important foundation for a relationship. Perhaps correct that if you aren't attracted, everything will crumble, but there are plenty of other non-physical incompatibilities that will make 'nothing else matter', too.

What's wrong with thinking that looks are the most important. Correct me if I'm wrong, nobody wants to be in a relationship with somebody they are not attracted to.

 

And of course I'm not saying that nothing else matters.

Well, as ZG mentioned in the other thread, the two most common superficial factors for men are usually weight and breasts/ass/legs. The two most common superficial factors for women are usually career/affluence/status, and height.

I'm only talking about physical. You did say height, but I know there is more than just that.

 

Again, I must repeat that I find all this leagues stuff to be bullcrap, but if you genuinely wish to subscribe to that, you would be superficially ranked below average. Of course, this doesn't mean that you can't get a wonderful girl (in a non-superficial sense) by being a wonderful guy (again, in a non-superficial sense).

I do agree with you about me being below average, and that's completely dependent on my height, which of course is something I have zero control over. So all I can do is say "F you!" to my paternal grandfather and God who thought it would be a nice idea to curse me with this height.

 

Believe me, if there is something I could have done to get taller, I would have done it already. Surgery is an option, but I don't have $80,000 to blow on it right now.

Edited May 7, 2012 by somedude81

[zengirl]

I want a woman that looks like a woman.

 

I would suggest you NOT say things like this. Part of the reason you come across as shallow is because you say such socially awkward things. How would you feel if a girl said (and I've heard girls say such things and think it's equally gross as when you say such things) that she wanted a man who "looked like a man" and thus excluded short guys?

 

Healthy weight, hair at least shoulder length, breasts at least average size.

 

So: Below average weight, long hair, average or above average breasts. Nothing too terribly picky, in theory, but the primary shallow areas a man fixates on if he's going to.

 

Face: roughly as attractive as I am, but in a feminine way.

 

I don't even know what that means, honestly. "As attractive as you are" is totally subjective. That's not a real measurement. Why even bother with it?

 

5'0-5'8.

 

So you have a height limitation too.

 

I don't care about her butt as long as it's normal.

 

What's "normal"? Again, just a weird description.

 

Now does that make me shallow? If so, am I more shallow than anybody else?

 

Well, the fact that you ONLY listed physical qualifiers makes you shallow, yes. That's what you persistently do. You then backtrack and say, NO, that's not what you mean, so hard to say. You're probably less shallow than some but more shallow than any of the men I've dated in recent years, who don't think of types of beauty and just react to beauty in the world around them.

 

I actually don't have a problem with the fact that you're shallow. I have a problem with the hypocrisy of your shallowness. Many people are shallow --- but keep in mind that the main shallow requirement a woman will have will be height. C'est la vie. So, if you complain about that, you're essentially complaining about girls who are equally or possibly less (that's only a single qualifier!) shallow than you are.

 

1) Your 'requirements' for a woman are almost all physical, bar one (similar hobbies, IIRC). It is not the degree of 'hotness' that makes them superficial, but rather the fact that they almost all consist of, well, superficial stuff.

 

Right, this.

 

2) As ThaWholigan said, the majority of posts about your 'superficiality' are not about that per se, but rather hypocrisy. There are other issues as well, but I don't really want to derail this thread, as you would most likely be defensive upon mention of them, and they aren't relevant.

 

And this.

 

3) You have slightly warped ideas about what a woman on the same superficial 'level' (ugh, hate that term) as you would be like, and you always insist on them. Levels are really not my cup of tea, but I know how they are usually categorized, and if you're going to play that game you should know what they entail.

 

As well as this. Summed up: You want your height to be irrelevant to your level but none of your requirements are irrelevant to someone else's level.

 

Personally, I don't think short guys are unattractive. Some are, some aren't, just like tall guys. However, a short guy who complained that women had a preference for tall men WHILE having a preference for women who are thin or have a certain sized breasts or whatever is being a hypocrite. Make peace with other people's preferences, even when they exclude you, and I'd never bring up the idea again.