How often do women settle for someone they aren't attracted to

[PrettyEmily77]

I guess your stunner of a friend's scenario is probably a preferred outcome for any settled for guy, as long as the status quo stays the same. The guys who get settled for really walk into the relationship at their own free will, but what can often happen is the love/nature of the woman slowly deteriorates over time as she resents him.

 

 

That's an ideal scenario for the guy if all you care about in a woman is her appearance above anything else, and the love/nature of either can deteriorate overtime; it's all a big risk you have to take from the onset.

 

 

Yes, they're both happy because my friend was seriously hurt and she just wanted to be with someone who would be good to her, and he feels lucky because she's stunning and a good person.

[SolG]

Wouldn't contemplate even dating someone I'm not fervently attracted to. However, your assumption that physical appearance is the end sum total of attraction is way off the mark in my opinion. Yes, physicality will get you a good position on the starting grid, but it's the whole of you that determines where you finish.

 

You can look like Sven the Swedish underwear model/love machine... But be entirely unattractive if you can't hold a decent conversation.

 

Who's to say a woman is 'settling' for someone conventionally not so attractive? Her measure of attractiveness may just be a bit deeper than that.

 

I think men--because of their highly visual preference--have a hard time accepting that women don't necessarily work the same way.

[SummerDreams]

it's so hard (and often vain) to try and find the perfect man, so I find it very normal that a woman who wants to get married and/or have a family chooses one not so handome guy to do these things with. I don't like the word "settle" cause nobody forces anyone to be with someone, we are all adults and we can make our choices without having to give reasons for them. I've been with handsome men in my life, but this is something that fades and doesn't matter at the end of the day, when you want someone to hug you and tell you that everything's gonna be ok.

[Woggle]

it's so hard (and often vain) to try and find the perfect man, so I find it very normal that a woman who wants to get married and/or have a family chooses one not so handome guy to do these things with. I don't like the word "settle" cause nobody forces anyone to be with someone, we are all adults and we can make our choices without having to give reasons for them. I've been with handsome men in my life, but this is something that fades and doesn't matter at the end of the day, when you want someone to hug you and tell you that everything's gonna be ok.

 

Accepting that perfection doesn't exist is not settling. Settling is when you marry somebody you are not really in love with and who doesn't turn you on.

[elaine567]

Accepting that perfection doesn't exist is not settling. Settling is when you marry somebody you are not really in love with and who doesn't turn you on.

 

Yes exactly, but for some men, it seems, an alpha male with film star good looks, with a bad boy attitude, is the man ALL women want and any man they want to be with or marry who is below that "standard", means they must be "settling".

 

But "love" has never been about alpha males with filmstar good looks and bad boy attitudes.

[serial muse]

Did you look at the studies that I cited at all?

 

Did you? As Elaine noted, only one (the Nature study) was about paternal age as a risk factor, and it confirms that it is indeed associated with greater risk of autism.

 

So the point you've effectively made is that advanced ages in men and women are both associated with increased risks. In other news, water is wet.

[Woggle]

Yes exactly, but for some men, it seems, an alpha male with film star good looks, with a bad boy attitude, is the man ALL women want and any man they want to be with or marry who is below that "standard", means they must be "settling".

 

But "love" has never been about alpha males with filmstar good looks and bad boy attitudes.

 

True but I do notice that women who are frequently into bad boys or always chasing after unavailable men rarely turn it off. When a woman tells you that you are so nice and different from all the other men she dates it is a red flag.

[SummerDreams]

How can we objectively say that a woman has chosen a man who doesn't turn her on? And even if she has, how do we decide that this woman has "settled"? Are the things women look in relationships and marriage the same universally? Can't a woman have different needs than another woman? So if in my opinion settling would be to marry a guy who wears glasses, does this mean all women who have married men without glasses have settled?

 

Who makes the rules in people's personal lives?

[elaine567]

True but I do notice that women who are frequently into bad boys or always chasing after unavailable men rarely turn it off. When a woman tells you that you are so nice and different from all the other men she dates it is a red flag.

 

And of course women are incapable of changing their minds or incapable of knowing that some bad boy is not going to make a great father or incapable of learning that bad boys break hearts.

Yes, women are just idiots.

[xxoo]

True but I do notice that women who are frequently into bad boys or always chasing after unavailable men rarely turn it off. When a woman tells you that you are so nice and different from all the other men she dates it is a red flag.

 

I'd agree that line is a red flag, because it implies she currently dates not nice men, which is stupid.

 

It's a totally different scenario from a woman who had a couple big mistakes attaching to losers in her early 20s, and steadily makes better choices as she grows older.

[xxoo]

How can we objectively say that a woman has chosen a man who doesn't turn her on? And even if she has, how do we decide that this woman has "settled"? Are the things women look in relationships and marriage the same universally? Can't a woman have different needs than another woman? So if in my opinion settling would be to marry a guy who wears glasses, does this mean all women who have married men without glasses have settled?

 

Who makes the rules in people's personal lives?

 

The feeling of being in love is pretty universal. Marrying without that feeling is settling. When in love, the details are overlooked. Love hormones make our partners seem ideal....for a while

[Woggle]

And of course women are incapable of changing their minds or incapable of knowing that some bad boy is not going to make a great father or incapable of learning that bad boys break hearts.

Yes, women are just idiots.

 

I never said that but men who have experience in today's dating world know all too well how showing too much interest will get you quickly dumped in many cases. You don't want a woman who needs perpetual want what you can't have syndrome in order to want to stay with you.

 

Yes many women realize bad boys won't be great fathers and loyal husbands but being a great father and loyal husband is not what turns some women on and if a man does not turn his wife on his marriage is doomed.

[Rejected Rosebud]

I am serious.

 

What does a woman really bring to the table besides her ability to reproduce (especially in today's world)?

We're fun, smart and have all kinds of special talents!!! :bunny:

[ascendotum]

it's so hard (and often vain) to try and find the perfect man, so I find it very normal that a woman who wants to get married and/or have a family chooses one not so handome guy to do these things with. I don't like the word "settle" cause nobody forces anyone to be with someone, we are all adults and we can make our choices without having to give reasons for them. I've been with handsome men in my life, but this is something that fades and doesn't matter at the end of the day, when you want someone to hug you and tell you that everything's gonna be ok.

 

There is still an element of settling reading between the lines, if this was a woman in her 30 saying this. Its like this woman who wants to now get married is choosing something different from what she would in the past, 'a not so handsome guy'. The not so handsome guy is now a viable option when it comes time for marriage. There has been a shift in priorities now she is older from handsome to a guy that inspires lower desire aesthetically now because his & hers looks are going to fade soon, so now put more emphasis on other aspects that will suit for old age. I know more women these days have a type thats for fun, a type for bf, and a type for marriage or old age and view it in pragmatic terms (I get it). There is no objective measure for what settling is beyond how it is processed by the individual, though imo if a women treats or considers her now 'not so handsome guy' any less special then her past bfs/lovers or wishes she was marrying one of her exes then she is settling.

[MissBee]

I saw this discussion on a blog somewhere, and it was apparently pointed towards women who have, due to maybe friends/family getting married all around them or reached or certain age (or both).

 

Would settle for a guy, in wedlock, to a man they weren't really all that physically attracted to.

 

The marriage is pretty much probably over as she winces through the honeymoon and there's some kind of resentment on her part that she just "settled."

 

My question though is, how often does this happen? How many women that you know of that had perhaps decided, "Okay, I usually don't like to date bald guys, but I just did reach 40 and well, that bald guy Ted is 'nice' and he's been asking me out plenty of times, so I think I'll settle for him."

 

Thoughts?

 

If I am absolutely not attracted to a man then it will not work.

 

However, if he is not necessarily the cutest man alive to me but measures up in other more important ways I'm more open to giving him a chance.

 

It's about weighing what is more important and what's less important. Looks for me are a bit more negotiable than say intelligence, character, life goals and ambitions for example. I cannot settle for a man lacking in those areas, no matter how attractive he is. But if a guy isn't all that cute but is acing all other qualities, those would be way more important to me. He cannot be someone I'm TOTALLY unattracted to or grossed out by though. I need to be able to be turned on by you and want to have sex with you, and also for many women (and men) attraction is not just looks.

 

I've said before and I'll say again, there are men I can look at and say they are good looking but I have ZERO sexual attraction to them. It's like looking at a handsome relative, where you can tell they are handsome but you have zero sexual feelings about them. While there are other men who I can look at and say objectively that they are not as good looking but something about them speaks to me and turns me on and I do feel that sexual desire towards them. So attraction isn't necessarily just about looks and some women might settle in the looks department where they are unhappy about their partner's looks while others genuinely love the person which makes them attractive to them even though they aren't necessarily their dream idea of good looking.

Edited April 7, 2015 by MissBee

[PrettyEmily77]

How can we objectively say that a woman has chosen a man who doesn't turn her on? And even if she has, how do we decide that this woman has "settled"? Are the things women look in relationships and marriage the same universally? Can't a woman have different needs than another woman? So if in my opinion settling would be to marry a guy who wears glasses, does this mean all women who have married men without glasses have settled?

 

Who makes the rules in people's personal lives?

 

 

There is a way of knowing when the woman (as is the case for my friend) admits it freely; it's totally subjective but it's not because it's subjective that the idea of 'settling' doesn't exist.

 

 

I'm a woman currently dating, and I have no problem admitting that it's a lot easier for me as a woman than it is for men, and this has been confirmed by the majority of the men I have dated in the last few months.

As women gain more freedom (and about time, too), men have to adjust. It's not an easy transition for them, and I happen to think that it can be made much easier if more of us women make the effort to recognise that 'being settled for' is a real worry for the single guys in this day and age.

Edited April 7, 2015 by PrettyEmily77

[SummerDreams]

The feeling of being in love is pretty universal. Marrying without that feeling is settling. When in love, the details are overlooked. Love hormones make our partners seem ideal....for a while

 

So you are suggesting that we should get married following only what our hormones are telling us, without taking our brains into account cause then we would be "settling", which is so so bad and nobody should do it. Why can't we accept that some women are willing to get married without being crazy in love with their partner rather than having rationalized their decision and having chosen the respect and deeper love they feel for him? I'm not talking about cold calculation but just mature and rationalized choice. After all women can be turned on by way more types of men than hot men. How can we rush into calling this settling without having any clue about this woman's thinking?

[SummerDreams]

There is still an element of settling reading between the lines, if this was a woman in her 30 saying this. Its like this woman who wants to now get married is choosing something different from what she would in the past, 'a not so handsome guy'. The not so handsome guy is now a viable option when it comes time for marriage. There has been a shift in priorities now she is older from handsome to a guy that inspires lower desire aesthetically now because his & hers looks are going to fade soon, so now put more emphasis on other aspects that will suit for old age.

 

Again, I find nothing wrong about it. It's called getting older, more mature and making choices for the long rather than the short term.

 

My grandmother has told me a story about when she was getting married to my grandfather. Her grandmother wished her "I wish you have nice days when you are old" and my grandmother was surprised like "wtf, I'm getting married and she wishes me for when I get old?". Now that my grandmother is old and her kid and grandkids have their own lives and she only has her husband she does understand what her grandmother was talking about. When I do get married I will choose a person who will be there for me when I get old more than be there for me while we are young for the fun times. Does this mean I'm settling? Maybe. But you know what? I don't care less about what the people think of that cause I know I'm making a wise choice that will make me happy in the long run.

[PrettyEmily77]

Again, I find nothing wrong about it. It's called getting older, more mature and making choices for the long rather than the short term.

 

My grandmother has told me a story about when she was getting married to my grandfather. Her grandmother wished her "I wish you have nice days when you are old" and my grandmother was surprised like "wtf, I'm getting married and she wishes me for when I get old?". Now that my grandmother is old and her kid and grandkids have their own lives and she only has her husband she does understand what her grandmother was talking about. When I do get married I will choose a person who will be there for me when I get old more than be there for me while we are young for the fun times. Does this mean I'm settling? Maybe. But you know what? I don't care less about what the people think of that cause I know I'm making a wise choice that will make me happy in the long run.

 

 

Trying to see it from a guy / the OP's perspective, seems like this thread is more to do with some guys not being very comfortable with 'being settled for' rather than how women have come to make the choice to 'settle' for someone one way or the other, and how happy these women are with this choice in the long run. A guy will worry his girl will have 'settled' for him when he hasn't, and I can kind of get where he's coming from, TBH.

 

 

I'd rather hold out for the guy who does it for me in every way than 'settle', but I can also see how happy my friend is to have found someone who makes her feel safe so obviously it works for some.

[elaine567]

Seems to me some men would prefer that their partner thought of them as some sort of sex object, rather than a man who can talk to his wife, provide for his children and be an all round decent human being.

[serial muse]

Seems to me some men would prefer that their partner thought of them as some sort of sex object, rather than a man who can talk to his wife, provide for his children and be an all round decent human being.

 

Well, it's certainly interesting...seems like for some, it is directly related to both marriage security and ego. I get it, in a way - I wouldn't want my husband to say I'm "not the most attractive" and that would, in turn, make me worry that he'd be looking around for something more so. So I think that women should be cognizant of the fact that even as they think they're paying a man a compliment by saying they chose him not for his looks but for his steady and trustworthy nature, he's not necessarily hearing it that way.

 

The trouble here is the assumption that degree of attractiveness is insurance of some kind against cheating, or that "not the most handsome man" is some kind of future assurance of cheating. And frankly, just because a woman says that she's not picking a guy because he's the most handsome doesn't mean she doesn't also find him sexy and appealing; she's trying to say it's not the most important thing, which you'd think would be reassuring to anyone approaching this in a rational way.

 

But rationality, feh. We're up against ego here, and the truth of the matter is I don't think many women would like to hear that either. I know I wouldn't. So who can really blame the guys on this one?

[GoodOnPaper]

Seems to me some men would prefer that their partner thought of them as some sort of sex object, rather than a man who can talk to his wife, provide for his children and be an all round decent human being.

 

It's not necessarily an either/or thing, but what's more difficult to obtain or achieve. Being all the great things outside the bedroom is easy but it doesn't mean much -- or we feel foolish or taken advantage of -- if the intimacy is mediocre. The most desirable guys are thought of as sex objects first. Why wouldn't any guy in an LTR want to experience a little of that from his partner? But, I think those of us who struggle are deemed relationship guys first and women mistakenly assume that sex and intimacy are not as important to us as they are for said desirable guys.

[serial muse]

It's not necessarily an either/or thing, but what's more difficult to obtain or achieve. Being all the great things outside the bedroom is easy but it doesn't mean much -- or we feel foolish or taken advantage of -- if the intimacy is mediocre. The most desirable guys are thought of as sex objects first. Why wouldn't any guy in an LTR want to experience a little of that from his partner? But, I think those of us who struggle are deemed relationship guys first and women mistakenly assume that sex and intimacy are not as important to us as they are for said desirable guys.

 

I don't think that's actually true, though. It's a pretty big assumption that a woman who chooses a "relationship guy" also thinks that sex and intimacy aren't important for him. In fact, I can imagine a lot of women thinking "huh?" about that, particularly the intimacy part.

 

There's just a lot of black-and-white thinking in this thread, coming from guys who are clearly expressing a deep-seated fear, and I think it's confusing the women who just don't see it as so either-or. You're projecting a lot of stuff onto us that doesn't fit. Sure, there are women out there who aren't attracted to their partners at all. But those are outliers, and they are, I guess, your boogeymen. Real life isn't like that. It's not generally either-or; it's not even a spectrum. It's a complicated Venn diagram. I assure you that the vast majority of women who have the opportunity to choose want a guy who is both.

 

Seeing it as so black and white, as many guys on this thread are choosing to do, isn't actually fostering better understanding. It's just more of the same "women be shallow" stuff; a defense mechanism, perhaps, but still not helpful to anybody, and certainly not accurate or rational.

[Woggle]

This is not true of all women or even most so don't take offense but for some women they have certain relationship milestones. They want the big fancy wedding and to be married by a certain age for social status or to have a family and some other reasons. This has little if anything to do with love.

 

The man in all of this is just a prop for her milestones. He can pretty much by anybody. She would use a cardboard cut out if she could but she needs a walking and talking human being. After a few years being married to this prop resentment starts to kick in and she starts treating him like crap and becoming distant and he has no idea why. Maybe she has an affair but at the end of the day the marriage is doomed and we have another broken family where the guy has to fight tooth and nail to be a father to his own child. Put yourself in a man's shoes for one minute and understand why we want to avoid this scenario.

 

It's not that I want to be just a sex object but without a man's wife fancying him this is what marriage eventually turns into. I have seen it happen time and time again. You see the kind of passion that makes women in affairs or women dating married men or women who date unavailable guys have and for a man in a monogamous and faithful marriage to achieve that with his wife is just pure gold. That kind of thing alludes husband material kind of men so much and we want to feel that from the woman we make a life commitment with. A lot of people I know envy my marriage because they say I have managed to create that affair kind of love within a committed marriage.

Edited April 7, 2015 by Woggle

[PrettyEmily77]

Well, it's certainly interesting...seems like for some, it is directly related to both marriage security and ego. I get it, in a way - I wouldn't want my husband to say I'm "not the most attractive" and that would, in turn, make me worry that he'd be looking around for something more so. So I think that women should be cognizant of the fact that even as they think they're paying a man a compliment by saying they chose him not for his looks but for his steady and trustworthy nature, he's not necessarily hearing it that way.

 

The trouble here is the assumption that degree of attractiveness is insurance of some kind against cheating, or that "not the most handsome man" is some kind of future assurance of cheating. And frankly, just because a woman says that she's not picking a guy because he's the most handsome doesn't mean she doesn't also find him sexy and appealing; she's trying to say it's not the most important thing, which you'd think would be reassuring to anyone approaching this in a rational way.

 

But rationality, feh. We're up against ego here, and the truth of the matter is I don't think many women would like to hear that either. I know I wouldn't. So who can really blame the guys on this one?

 

 

 

 

I've not seen anyone on this thread make that assumption.

 

 

My friend didn't pick her SO because he's not very attractive, she picked him because he was a really good guy regardless of his physical appearance. I can't say for sure but knowing her, she wouldn't think he'd never cheat just because he's not the most handsome man. He wouldn't cheat because he's a good guy, and that's why she's with him because she didn't want to repeat previous mistakes, she recognises it herself and is very open about it. She is also absolutely gorgeous herself and would never cheat.

 

 

It's not really about potential for cheating, it's just about wanting to be lusted after for the way you look. I totally get it, I don't think it's about ego at all and there's nothing wrong with that, no more than there's anything wrong with not caring about somebody's level of physical attractiveness. It's not because it doesn't matter to you that it shouldn't matter at all to anyone, IMO.