Physical Attraction vs Personality.

[Titanll]

Interesting how differently we all perceive the dynamics of attraction and mate selection. Granted, there is some degree of uniqueness in what individuals find attractive in the opposite sex, but there is also general consensus in terms of what we all find attractive.

 

We know from research that men prefer a waist to hip ratio of .87 and waist to chest ratio of .74. These physical characteristics also correlate with the optimal health and child-bearing physique. We know that both genders strongly prefer symmetrical to asymmetrical physical characteristics, and there is general consensus on the preferences for various facial structures, even though in terms of objective measurement there may be little difference. We are highly sensitive to pattern recognition, which is not accidental. It's the result of repeated selection of what works best, which also means extinguishing of that which provides neutral or negative benefit. Many people believe that our preferences for certain facial structures correlates with Fibonacci sequences, or the golden ratio as it is sometimes called.

 

I have to disagree that by excluding the top and bottom five percent you're left with ninety percent of people being more or less average. While there may be some differences in what individuals prefer, these are on a micro scale, but we find general consensus on a macro scale. People are quite intent on recognizing hierarchies, and attractiveness is a biggie... because in evolutionary terms it goes directly to optimization of genetic potential, which of course drives pretty much everything whether we're aware of it or not.

 

All of this pickiness and difficulty we all have in finding a mate... it's all just our biological programming optimizing our reproductive potential. We do that by being very selective about which genes we choose to enhance our own. Women are more inclined to selectivity since they have limited reproductive opportunities, while for men a quantity over quality approach can be advantageous. However men tend to be selective when choosing a long-term mate, but less so when pursuing a quantitative strategy. And the two are not mutually exclusive.

 

Let's just use a middle school class of thirty as an example. I'd bet that if you had each student put all the name in order attractiveness, you'd see a considerable amount of consensus, with the variations being only small number of places different. I wonder if anyone has done that experiment.

 

Even in a case where 99% of humans find some particular thing or person attractive and 1% do not, I argue that attractiveness is not universal. Consensus and universality are obviously two different things but things like attraction can't, in my opinion, be explained by consensus or biological imperative. That smacks of some supreme importance of physical attraction. For me anyway, I need to be physically and emotionally attracted to the person. The emotional attraction is based quite a bit on the other person's behavior or personality for lack of better terms.

[Cookiesandough]

Interesting how differently we all perceive the dynamics of attraction and mate selection. Granted, there is some degree of uniqueness in what individuals find attractive in the opposite sex, but there is also general consensus in terms of what we all find attractive.

 

We know from research that men prefer a waist to hip ratio of .87 and waist to chest ratio of .74. These physical characteristics also correlate with the optimal health and child-bearing physique. We know that both genders strongly prefer symmetrical to asymmetrical physical characteristics, and there is general consensus on the preferences for various facial structures, even though in terms of objective measurement there may be little difference. We are highly sensitive to pattern recognition, which is not accidental. It's the result of repeated selection of what works best, which also means extinguishing of that which provides neutral or negative benefit. Many people believe that our preferences for certain facial structures correlates with Fibonacci sequences, or the golden ratio as it is sometimes called.

 

I have to disagree that by excluding the top and bottom five percent you're left with ninety percent of people being more or less average. While there may be some differences in what individuals prefer, these are on a micro scale, but we find general consensus on a macro scale. People are quite intent on recognizing hierarchies, and attractiveness is a biggie... because in evolutionary terms it goes directly to optimization of genetic potential, which of course drives pretty much everything whether we're aware of it or not.

 

All of this pickiness and difficulty we all have in finding a mate... it's all just our biological programming optimizing our reproductive potential. We do that by being very selective about which genes we choose to enhance our own. Women are more inclined to selectivity since they have limited reproductive opportunities, while for men a quantity over quality approach can be advantageous. However men tend to be selective when choosing a long-term mate, but less so when pursuing a quantitative strategy. And the two are not mutually exclusive.

 

Let's just use a middle school class of thirty as an example. I'd bet that if you had each student put all the name in order attractiveness, you'd see a considerable amount of consensus, with the variations being only small number of places different. I wonder if anyone has done that experiment.

 

 

What kills my about sex role psych is how spun it is. Why are men always allowed this quantitative/qualitive strategy, and it is called that, yet women are not? Why wouldn't women benefit from both strategies just as much as men would? If fact, since she has limited reproductive opportunity, it would make sense for some women to be less selective and more polyandrous to assure fertilization as many times as possible. Especially as her fertility starts to decline. But do we see that in real life? Nah, usually contrary.

 

 

Also, the only thing a female can discern by her her initial attraction to a male then that he then that he is has probably genetically fit for her. So again, I really don' see any support for men finding more women physically attractive than women find men having to do with sexual investment theory.

 

 

It just seems to me like human mating behavior is much too complex to reduce to a single, universal pattern. There are just too many social and cultural forces at play, in addition to our ability to look beyond our biological drive to maximize reproductive success. Not saying it's necessarily not an underlying factor, just that these theories put wayyy to much heritage into it.

[salparadise]

What kills my about sex role psych is how spun it is. Why are men always allowed this quantitative/qualitive strategy, and it is called that, yet women are not? Why wouldn't women benefit from both strategies just as much as men would? If fact, since she has limited reproductive opportunity, it would make sense for some women to be less selective and more polyandrous to assure fertilization as many times as possible. Especially as her fertility starts to decline. But do we see that in real life? Nah, usually contrary.

 

Because women conceive internally, are pregnant for 280 days, bear one offspring per pregnancy, breast feed for up to a few years, and are generally responsible for raising the progeny to the age of maturity and self-sufficiency. Therefore women cannot bear and raise more than about a dozen to maturity in a lifetime. Men on the other hand, are physically capable of impregnating multiple females in a single day, and remain fertile indefinitely. It's biological and physiological.

 

No, women need to maximize each of their twelve or so opportunities by selecting the best genes, ensuring she chooses a male who will make the familial investment, and otherwise securing resources to give each offspring the best opportunity not only for survival, but for maximizing their reproductive opportunities.

 

Where it's to a woman's advantage to be polyandrous (if you want to call it that) is in securing resources from more than one male, having backups in case the sabertooth gets ahold of the primary dude, and by obtaining better genes for her offspring than the primary protector/provider has to offer. So women tend to be more promiscuous during ovulation, and tend to select for physical characteristics than a provider at that time as well... since the male never really knows as long as she's discreet about it.

 

 

Also, the only thing a female can discern by her her initial attraction to a male then that he then that he is has probably genetically fit for her. So again, I really don' see any support for men finding more women physically attractive than women find men having to do with sexual investment theory.

 

You say that as if genetically fit is not a big deal. It benefits all progeny when the female seeks the best genes. If one male has demonstrably better genes than the rest, all the females will prefer those genes for their progeny. This is the essence of sexual selection... utilize all female capacity, breed them all with the best male, and have all the other males in the protector/provider role helping to ensure their survival and proliferation.

 

Nature also tends to maximize overall reproductive capacity for the species as a whole. Since women are the limiting factor (bottleneck) in populating the earth, 100% of female capacity is utilized (we're talking evolutionary environment here).

 

So typical and logical behavior is for women to hold out for the best male genes, while all the other males are doing their best to find ANY mating opportunity for their own genes. That requires a female, of course, so they will keep knocking on doors until they find one who accepts them, or run out of doors. It's not at all unusual in humans or other mammals/primates for a significant portion of males to have zero mating opportunities in a lifetime. This is serious business. Females are not altruistic when it comes to sex.

 

 

It just seems to me like human mating behavior is much too complex to reduce to a single, universal pattern. There are just too many social and cultural forces at play, in addition to our ability to look beyond our biological drive to maximize reproductive success. Not saying it's necessarily not an underlying factor, just that these theories put wayyy to much heritage into it.

 

Nobody is saying that it's not complex, or trying to reduce it to a single, simple pattern. There are many, many nuances and contingencies, and exceptions to the overall patterns (plural). Genetic diversity is necessary for change and eventual selection of the more efficient, most efficient characteristics. Evolution works slowly in human time, but fast in geological time, by process of random selection and elimination. The process doesn't actually have intent, it just identifies what works best and all it to proliferate while less efficient option extinguish.

 

Humans are in a unique position as we have come to understand (somewhat) and control (somewhat) how we reproduce, but in the evolutionary environment there was little or no awareness of genetics, fertility or anything like that... and we really don't even know at what point humans began to consciously realize that sex is the behavior that causes little humans.

 

One of evolution's best tricks is instilling individuals with a strong desire for behaviors that cause the outcome rather than trying to make them desire outcome itself.

Edited May 10, 2017 by salparadise

[Cookiesandough]

Because women conceive internally, are pregnant for 280 days, bear one offspring per pregnancy, breast feed for up to a few years, and are generally responsible for raising the progeny to the age of maturity and self-sufficiency. Therefore women cannot bear and raise more than about a dozen to maturity in a lifetime. Men on the other hand, are physically capable of impregnating multiple females in a single day, and remain fertile indefinitely. It's biological and physiological.

 

Yes, I understand. That was the premise. Female have a much narrower window of fecundity. The argument was that it can be advantageous strategy to sleep with as many male partners, decrease selectivity to increase likelihood of pregnancy. It's just one strategy that some species of animal 'employ'.

 

You say that as if genetically fit is not a big deal

 

Again, sort of missing my point. I think I am not the best at articulating this, sorry. It was that this

 

[...]women need to maximize each of their twr so opportunities by selecting the best genes

can be accomplished(at least to some extent) by a quick size up of a crowd of men and choosing >5% she finds attractive,, but this

... ensuring she chooses a male who make the familial investment

can't. So her attraction to so few men can't solely be attributed to her instinctual drive to "securing resources from males so her offspring can survive a sabertooth attack". I get you believe she will only mate with the best of the best, which in your opinion, is who the most people agree is hottest.

 

It benefits all progeny when the female seeks the best genes.

 

'Best', in terms of natural selection, is simply who survives to have sex to have progeny. It is not necessarily the richest, smartest, or most symmetrical. So someone the consensus deems undesirable but has sex is way 'better' than someone who is deemed super hawt but choosing not to reproduce or holding out for the best possible and never reproducing, in this context.

 

If one male has demonstrably better genes than the rest, all the females will prefer those genes for their progeny. This is the essence of sexual selection... utilize all female capacity, breed them all with the best male, and have all the other males in the protector/provider role helping to ensure their survival and proliferation.

 

True. Unless you mean by 'best' , the alpha men take all the ladies while the other 95% don't reproduce and just provide and protect, because humans don't organize this way. And to my knowledge, never have on any notable scale in their history.

 

 

Nobody is saying that it's not complex, or trying to reduce it to a single, simple pattern. There are many, many nuances and contingencies, and exceptions to the overall patterns (plural). Genetic diversity is necessary for change and eventual selection of the more efficient, most efficient characteristics. Evolution works slowly in human time, but fast in geological time, by process of random selection and elimination. The process doesn't actually have intent, it just identifies what works best and all it to proliferate while less efficient option extinguish.

 

Humans are in a unique position as we have come to understand (somewhat) and control (somewhat) how we reproduce, but in the evolutionary environment there was little or no awareness of genetics, fertility or anything like that... and we really don't even know at what point humans began to consciously realize that sex is the behavior that causes little humans.

 

One of evolution's best tricks is instilling individuals with a strong desire for behaviors that cause the outcome rather than trying to make them desire outcome itself.

 

I think you downplay the role of social programming in attraction. I'm sure sexual preference does start in the womb, and even before, but research has shown what we are exposed to early on in development really shapes our sexuality. That aside, what I was trying to say was that mate selection isnt as reductionist as most of what you described in this post. This looks find and dandy in theory, but doesn't work out pragmatically so it is moot imo

Edited May 10, 2017 by Cookiesandough

[CptInsano]

Interesting how differently we all perceive the dynamics of attraction and mate selection. Granted, there is some degree of uniqueness in what individuals find attractive in the opposite sex, but there is also general consensus in terms of what we all find attractive. [/Quote]

 

No, there is actually not, at least beyond symmetrical features, good health and clear skin. A lot of the consensus is media-generated, which is reflected in how strongly this ideal type varies along cultural boundaries and over time.

 

We know from research that men prefer a waist to hip ratio of .87 and waist to chest ratio of .74.

 

No, we know that the mean is at these values. It doesn't say much about variances or external factors. You get these answers because you are asking a specific question.

 

These physical characteristics also correlate with the optimal health and child-bearing physique. We know that both genders strongly prefer symmetrical to asymmetrical physical characteristics, and there is general consensus on the preferences for various facial structures, even though in terms of objective measurement there may be little difference. We are highly sensitive to pattern recognition, which is not accidental. It's the result of repeated selection of what works best, which also means extinguishing of that which provides neutral or negative benefit. Many people believe that our preferences for certain facial structures correlates with Fibonacci sequences, or the golden ratio as it is sometimes called.

 

Again, I would have my doubts about the theory which you refer to as a consensus. Having lived in different parts of the world I can tell you that the ideal body image is not universal. Neither is it constant. Even my own preferences changed over the years.

 

I have to disagree that by excluding the top and bottom five percent you're left with ninety percent of people being more or less average. While there may be some differences in what individuals prefer, these are on a micro scale, but we find general consensus on a macro scale. People are quite intent on recognizing hierarchies, and attractiveness is a biggie... because in evolutionary terms it goes directly to optimization of genetic potential, which of course drives pretty much everything whether we're aware of it or not. [/Quote]

 

I didn't say that there is no difference in optical attractiveness within these 90%, but other factors, such as status, intelligence, empathy or social skills in general factor in, as the differences in external attractiveness are not that severe. Yes, there are hierarchies, but they are often based on multiple factors. Your reduction toward a single parameter makes no sense to me.

 

Or in other words, based on my looks alone I should have never been able to attract the women I did.

[JuneL]

 

I didn't say that there is no difference in optical attractiveness within these 90%, but other factors, such as status, intelligence, empathy or social skills in general factor in, as the differences in external attractiveness are not that severe. Yes, there are hierarchies, but they are often based on multiple factors. Your reduction toward a single parameter makes no sense to me.

 

 

I personally don't care too much about a guy's looks, as long as he keeps himself clean and healthy. So, in theory, I agree with your 90% conclusion in terms what one is naturally born with. On the other hand, in the US, 1/3 of the adults are obese, and being obese points to an unhealthy lifestyle. Also, I notice that, often, some women look very physically attractive only after they put the effort into grooming themselves (hairstyle, makeup, clothes, nails). So how one takes care of himself/herself can make a huge difference in terms of the level of physical attractiveness perceived by others.

[CptInsano]

I personally don't care too much about a guy's looks, as long as he keeps himself clean and healthy. So, in theory, I agree with your 90% conclusion in terms what one is naturally born with. On the other hand, in the US, 1/3 of the adults are obese, and being obese points to an unhealthy lifestyle. Also, I notice that, often, some women look very physically attractive only after they put the effort into grooming themselves (hairstyle, makeup, clothes, nails). So how one takes care of himself/herself can make a huge difference in terms of the level of physical attractiveness perceived by others.

 

Oh, you can definitely change your looks to some degree, work out, buy nicer clothes and such. My question is whether that is a quantitative or qualitative change. Or to put a fine point on it: Would she have found a partner if her make-up was better, or would another factor be more important?

 

I very infrequently had to decide between two women, but the few times I did, it was not a decision based on looks. While the impact of a physically unattractive vs. attractive person is huge, those minor differences between generally attractive women were not that relevant to me.

[GunslingerRoland]

Definitely not 90%, but I find way more women physically attractive enough to date, than the number I would be able to date based on personality.

[Mysterio]

I find women to be very careful now a days. Your not just going to go out with them in an easy way.

 

Sometime I feel like women are gaurded. Even though the date is just a date. Its not Sex and heavy duty commitment. Its an evening out to test romantic compatability. It may or may not be there.

[Imported]

Also, I notice that, often, some women look very physically attractive only after they put the effort into grooming themselves (hairstyle, makeup, clothes, nails).

 

How would you feel if you dated a guy, like the way he looks and his personality and then later find out he was earing 5" shoe lifts and instead of being 6' tall, he's actually 5'5"? And he's wearing a wig, although a very good wig since you didn't notice it as such till months later?

 

 

Just saying, some women are presenting themselves so deceptively that their "looks" are a lie. When a woman looks completely different in a bad way with no make-up.....she is misrepresenting herself. When you look trim, fit and like you have a good figure because of body shaping clothing, that's misrepresenting yourself. Eventually, I'll see her naked and I insist lights remain on.

 

Personally I think @ 30% or so of women are attractive for anything more than just hooking up with. If I were trying to decide between two different women, it'd be about their personality and how they mesh with me........because they are both attractive looking of course. It's not going to be like, " You know, Mila Kunis is really good looking, but I like Rosanne Barr's personality better, so ya Rosanne's gonna be the mother of my children". Just saying, even when people say it's more about personality.......it was still all about looks first.

 

People are going to try for the best looking partner they can get, then juggle based on personality, how they get along and how much rationalizing they can do to accept how that person is.

[CptInsano]

I find women to be very careful now a days. Your not just going to go out with them in an easy way.

 

Sometime I feel like women are gaurded. Even though the date is just a date. Its not Sex and heavy duty commitment. Its an evening out to test romantic compatability. It may or may not be there.

 

Are you talking about OLD? Because IRL I find them very trusting, and really can't detect much of a change in attitude.

[littleblackheart]

I understand. Just to be clear, I think a lot more than 5% see a lot of people as "cute"/physically appealing! I was talking purely who I am attracted to in the sense I would want to date them. And I think that has to do with I can infer about a about a person personality-wise(whether true or not) based on their appearance.

 

I get what you're saying.

 

 

Anyway, these discussions are fun and everything, but when you meet someone you like enough to want to date them, there's a good chance that the physical attraction vs personality balancing act and all the things you thought you were looking for matter less than the feelings they ignite in you.

Edited May 10, 2017 by littleblackheart

[Mysterio]

In real life. I do feel like women are guarded to a point. I think that they think that I want some big love affair and I don't. I am a normal person in my view. I am not heavy handed with people for the most part.

 

I would say that friendship is much more solid in my world than love relationships. If I look at my past. Form 18 to know. Friendships has reonated a lot more than dating and being in love.

 

All my hardships are more love related than friendships.

[Titanll]

I am curious about this. In what ways do you think you are "at the bottom" and what do you have to offer that attract women who are "at the top" (and therefore have a much larger pool available to them - the top guys and the "bottom" should they be so inclined).

 

As for what I am attracted to, it's heavily weighted on personality. As they say, a woman's orgasm starts in the brain. There has to be a baseline of physical attraction, but personality and chemistry / communication dynamics are the deal sealers.

 

Actually it was just self deprecating humor on my part. I don't really subscribe to any continuum of attractiveness. I certainly find people attractive and unattractive physically but I don't necessarily lump them into categories. Personality is huge for me but again, it's the combo of personality and physical attraction for me and when I hear someone say that one or the other is enough, I have to wonder about that person. It smacks of desperation, in my opinion but if I will listen if someone cares to explain their feelings.

 

My attractiveness is apparently high based on dates/relationships. Physically, I am lucky in that I have the more or less classic V taper. Wide shoulders are genetic but low body fat is my choice and the need to stay fit during my career. I'm 6' tall which is possibly the perfect height...not too tall or too short. I dress very well and I inherited/learned my style from my dad. I can rock a three piece as easily as a T shirt and jeans. My clothes fit because I have them tailored or buy items that fit. Oh, and trends are for sheep. You won't catch me wearing sneakers with a suit.

 

Personality wise, I am warm and open. I will flirt with you if I'm interested. I'm very intuitive and I can read your approach calls from a mile away. Being intuitive helps also when you aren't interested...I know when to say "have a good evening" and move on. I'm"strict" in the sense that I do not tolerate anything that I consider BS or games. I will simply next you into oblivion at the first sign of any kind of game. "Rules" or dating rules are my biggest pet peeve. I will call you when I want (being respectful of schedules) and I will ask you out when I want. I will hold your hand, kiss you, etc, when I want. Being intuitive has it's benefits and I would never jam my tongue down some unwilling woman's throat, haha! I take the lead but I very much enjoying taking a back seat and letting you lead.

 

In my current relationship, I was very much the driving force initially and I got push back with rules and taking things slow and I balked. I basically said screw it and moved on. One week later we were together and on the right track thanks to her. I trust my sense of judgement and I don't make anyone conform to me but I can scotch my heels and end things if we are too far apart. In most cases, we are on the same page it's just some people have preconceived notions about the way things should work and they are entirely wrong for me. Communication is the key. I make my point and listen to yours. I can compromise but only a little. And...I would not want someone to compromise much to fit with me. Relationships are beautiful when two people are nearly perfectly aligned.

 

I am emotionally healthy and available. In a relationship, I give feedback almost constantly about how we are doing and I expect the same in return. I like to be close. I like to cook together. Some of the most fun I can remember is drinking a glass of wine or beer and dancing in the kitchen while cooking dinner. The kitchen is an underrated place for romance. Sexually, I am open and adventurous and have zero hangups. Well, I may be more conservative in some respects. I won't tie you up and whip you or hurt you but I may smack your ass if you ask nicely, haha!

 

I'm intelligent but not in the boring as hell "I'm an intellectual and I will prove it" sort of way. I'm well educated and hold multiple undergrad and grad degrees but you will only know if I tell you. I'm financially secure and that is something that I can't hide...not that I want to. I can certainly sense if someone is interested in me for that reason.

 

Sorry for the wall of text but you asked what I have to offer and this is about as brief as I could make it. I left a ton of things out but you get the point...

 

Oh, and I tend to agree with you. The physical attraction has to be there but personality more or less seals the deal.

[RecentChange]

Hahahah I suppose you should add modest to that list right?

 

Okay, so you were basically being facetious. You are a "high value" man, therefore​ can essentially have your pick of the litter.

 

And proving the point made by many here. Like usually attracts like, birds of a feather and all of that.

 

Some place higher importance on physical looks than others, but when it comes down to it, we all basically have a check list of what we have to offer - and the longer and more impressive your list is, more options you have.

 

Guys or gals "at the bottom" do not generally have the collateral to exchange with someone at "the top".

[JuneL]

I'm actually with you on this one. I specifically wrote "perceived by others", because, often, people seem to rate physical attractiveness based largely on how one grooms herself. I personally never like those high maintenance looks, even if I have the time and money to groom like those

 

I think generally people fall in love with someone they find attractive to them (they may even realize that s/he is not considered attractive by the conventional standards). Once you're in love with that person, you wouldn't want to trade his/her looks with [the looks of the most good looking celebrity in your mind]. And once you're in love with someone, all his/her imperfections would become such cute features to you

 

 

How would you feel if you dated a guy, like the way he looks and his personality and then later find out he was earing 5" shoe lifts and instead of being 6' tall, he's actually 5'5"? And he's wearing a wig, although a very good wig since you didn't notice it as such till months later?

 

 

Just saying, some women are presenting themselves so deceptively that their "looks" are a lie. When a woman looks completely different in a bad way with no make-up.....she is misrepresenting herself. When you look trim, fit and like you have a good figure because of body shaping clothing, that's misrepresenting yourself. Eventually, I'll see her naked and I insist lights remain on.

 

Personally I think @ 30% or so of women are attractive for anything more than just hooking up with. If I were trying to decide between two different women, it'd be about their personality and how they mesh with me........because they are both attractive looking of course. It's not going to be like, " You know, Mila Kunis is really good looking, but I like Rosanne Barr's personality better, so ya Rosanne's gonna be the mother of my children". Just saying, even when people say it's more about personality.......it was still all about looks first.

 

People are going to try for the best looking partner they can get, then juggle based on personality, how they get along and how much rationalizing they can do to accept how that person is.

[sweetgirl75]

I am a totally different person at work. I am serious but I am friendly and easy to get along with at the same time. I may give off too much of a serious vibe at work because that is my job and I am not really thinking about attracting men while I am on duty. On the other hand in public out with my friends I am bubbly and laughing a lot. I am a very happy person. What I find attractive in a man is personality then looks. You can have a Casanova that is dull has a hammer. Or you can have a Jim Carrey that makes you laugh until you cry and treats you like a queen. Looks can change in an instant. Think of fires and auto accidents. Will you leave them if they become disfigured? It is much more than looks that holds the relationship together.

[Titanll]

Hahahah I suppose you should add modest to that list right?

 

Okay, so you were basically being facetious. You are a "high value" man, therefore​ can essentially have your pick of the litter.

 

And proving the point made by many here. Like usually attracts like, birds of a feather and all of that.

 

Some place higher importance on physical looks than others, but when it comes down to it, we all basically have a check list of what we have to offer - and the longer and more impressive your list is, more options you have.

 

Guys or gals "at the bottom" do not generally have the collateral to exchange with someone at "the top".

 

Haha! No modesty here but I still don't really see myself as attractive. I think that most people would be surprised at what I look like and what my girlfriend looks like. Some will find me handsome, some will not. I find my girlfriend stunning but not all guys will. And I doubt that our relative attractiveness or lack thereof will be based upon the observers level of attractiveness.

 

I don't think I proved anything suggested. Your mental image of me may be Brad Pitt when I actually come closer to Dwayne Johnson. That may not be a good comparison but that's the best I could come up with...some will argue that Mr. Pitt has better collateral than Mr. Johnson. I disagree.

 

Oh, I have certainly had buddies tell me that I punch above my weight class. So to some, I have more "collateral" than I deserve. It's all in good humor and I agree totally that I punch above my weight. The women that I have dated are way more attractive than I am.

 

As far as a checklist, other than physical attractiveness and personality, no one knows what's on your list initially. I met my girlfriend when I was dirty from horses, and I was driving a beat to hell farm truck. She looked like she walked out of a fashion magazine, haha! What can I say, dirty cowboys are hard to resist! We still laugh about our first date. I suggested a restaurant and she said, "you know that place is expensive, right?". I loved it. Our "list"of goodies that we had to offer was very slowly revealed and both of our lists are impressive but entirely different. And...they mean nothing to us.

 

As far as being high value, I tend to agree but maybe not in the same sense. I value my openness , honesty, and emotional intelligence more than any other attributes that I may have. I'm independent and value individuality highly. I value those same things in people.

 

If I have the pick of the litter that implies that someone gets the ones that I passed over. I disagree even if there may be some truth to that statement.

 

I do know one thing for certain: I have only been called picky by those that did not have everything that I want. I won't, don't and will never date anyone because I am bored or desperate or have no other better choices. Relationships are very important to me. I'm not interested in casual at all. I will only continue to date someone that I consider to have the potential to be my wife. I'm on no schedule but my ultimate goal is to marry.

 

Maybe I approach things like a bumblebee flies...no one told him he can't so he does.

[tetrahedral]

I just find "Physical Attraction vs Personality" to be a faulty premise. It constructs this duality where physical attraction is superficial, and personality is deeper, where physical attraction is primal and personality is noble, etc.

 

I don't think that's true at all. A lot of attractive men, have superficial appeal because of their personality. The tone of their voice, the way they carry themselves, their social standing, the way others regard them, the things they are good at, etc. It's not hard to punch "above your weight" physically if you are charming, have social worth, are masculine, etc.

 

The problem is that people (male and female) are not tuned to appraise their qualities outside of looks. For looks, there are visual aids. Most people can somewhat accurately place themselves in the looks spectrum. But if you ask 100 people "how good their personality is", you'd have 90 who say they have a good personality.

 

So it's not that personality doesn't matter, it's that you need to revisit your assumptions about personality.

 

As a man, it frustrates me to read a lot of the advice seeking posts on here, because men are told personality is important, but not encouraged to think critically about what personality means.

[Cookiesandough]

It's interesting to me how physical attraction to someone is seen as shallow, but being attracted to personality is seen as righteous. I suppose that is because people see personality as more controllable. Also, like you said, many people tend to rate their personality as high or higher than their looks, so people with 'bad' personalities don't get much empathy. Some people don't have the best personality traits and try as they might, haven't been able to change that. And even more lack the self awareness to begin to. Yet, if someone wont date someone because of they don't meet their physical requirements they're superficial and picky, but if someone won't date someone because they are too sloppy/disorganized it's understandable and justified. Looks do change, but other aspects of a person are fluid as well - change or come to light

Edited May 10, 2017 by Cookiesandough

[CptInsano]

It's interesting to me how physical attraction to someone is seen as shallow, but being attracted to personality is seen as righteous. I suppose that is because people see personality as more controllable. [...]

 

Your personality is not necessarily controllable, but your actions are. You can be aware of your predisposition and avoid certain types of behavior.

 

So if somebody steals a kid's ice cream, he has a choice in the matter. If he looks scary enough that the kid simply drops the ice cream and runs, he has no control over it. Therefore the former is seen as amoral while the latter is not.

 

If you are attracted to somebody who is physically attractive but exhibits questionable behavior, you are more of less guilty by proxy.

 

What surprises me is that physically less attractive people sometimes claim "inner values", or "nice guy" traits, where as in my experience there isn't much of a correlation between looks and ethical behavior.

[Cookiesandough]

Ty Cptinsano. I'm a little deterministic as far as thought/actions but I won't delve that deep or get philosophical, thiugh I 100%agree about guilty by proxy. To keep it simple, take something not as ethically abhorrent, like arrogance. Many people are not even aware of their own arrogance. When people tell them they are, they're too arrogant to listen. It continues to affect their interpersonal relationships and they don't get why. I just don't see why people find it more virtuous to be attracted to someone for their humility or intelligence vs their eyes or build

Edited May 11, 2017 by Cookiesandough

[CptInsano]

Ty Cptinsano. I'm a little deterministic as far as thought/actions but I won't delve that deep or get philosophical, thiugh I 100%agree about guilty by proxy. To keep it simple, take something not as ethically abhorrent, like arrogance. Many people are not even aware of their own arrogance. When people tell them they are, they're too arrogant to listen. It continues to affect their interpersonal relationships and they don't get why. I just don't see why people find it more virtuous to be attracted to someone for their humility or intelligence vs their eyes or build

 

I'm not sure there is any particular moral component to being attracted to somebody in particular. (In contrast to a universal love for humankind romantic love is egocentric pretty much by definition.)

[Mysterio]

For me. In the past I think I leaned on looks more. Today its personality. I still say that you can be fooled by looks if you let them get to you. Personality is where one should be really concentrating on, in terms of quaility people.

 

I find myself way more attracted to women that are into me, than when I have to make major efforts.