What do you consider "shallow"?

[5x5]

As a woman who's 5'7 and has dated (and married 2) men who are my height or smaller, I find the whole male height thing laughable. Height and personality are generally not related - unless you're Napoleon. Shallow, shallow, shallow.

 

Edited to add: apparently I have to rethink my previous stance about only saying "shallow" if one complains about a lack of partners....

 

I think it's perfectly reasonable for someone to not be interested in someone because of their height.

 

That said as a 5'3" man, I've never had a problem finding attractive sexual partners. My ex-wife is 5'6", my current (2nd) wife is like you 5'7", and I've been with other women from 5'2" through to 6'3".

 

Plenty of women asked me out, took me on dates, propositioned me and a couple even asked me to marry them (I only said yes to one of them though).

 

Since that kind of thing has come very easily, I don't think height is much of an issue at all.

[Els]

I think it's perfectly reasonable for someone to not be interested in someone because of their height.

 

That said as a 5'3" man, I've never had a problem finding attractive sexual partners. My ex-wife is 5'6", my current (2nd) wife is like you 5'7", and I've been with other women from 5'2" through to 6'3".

 

Plenty of women asked me out, took me on dates, propositioned me and a couple even asked me to marry them (I only said yes to one of them though).

 

Since that kind of thing has come very easily, I don't think height is much of an issue at all.

 

Haha, I actually know a 5'2" guy (not the same guy as my previous crush) who was extremely popular when we were in college. He had no issues getting dates at all, and had two LTRs back to back in the 4 years that I knew him.

 

I suppose it somewhat helped that he had a very nice car for a college student, LOL. But that aside, he was also very extroverted and quite the charmer.

[JuneL]

In my entire lifetime,I have always been magnetically and subconsciously attracted to a specific body type in a woman...Even back in HS, it was always the same...It was so powerful that there were times where other girls/women were invisible to me unless they fit that "look"...Its really crazy...Even just flipping the channels on the tv, I always tend to stop and gaze a bit, when I see what I consider my ideal..

 

So, in a lot of these cases, I can't say that's shallow...You are only seeking what is somehow burned into your brain...Id say if you choose to deliberately not go there with the idea that you are expanding your horizons and opening yourself up to something else, you may never be truly happy...

 

I know this probably sounds immature and silly, but hey, it is what it is...

 

TFY

 

Did you end up always dating your exact type? When I was much younger and superficial, I used to say I'm going to have a very good-looking bf. But my first serious bf turned out to be very average in the looks dept (by the conventional standard). As I became more "mature", I would say (and genuinely think) looks are not important as long as my man is hygienic and healthy. Guess what, my second and third/current serious bf's are both objectively very good-looking

[thefooloftheyear]

Did you end up always dating your exact type? When I was much younger and superficial, I used to say I'm going to have a very good-looking bf. But my first serious bf turned out to be very average in the looks dept (by the conventional standard). As I became more "mature", I would say (and genuinely think) looks are not important as long as my man is hygienic and healthy. Guess what, my second and third/current serious bf's are both objectively very good-looking

 

Generally speaking, yes...

 

I think what happens to some people is that perhaps they stray away from their ideal, not by choice, but because they no longer have the luxury of being so selective...

 

While I can't say its something I am necessarily proud of, quite frankly if a woman didn't really fit the type, then they are just as invisible as they always were..I just can't fight that urge....

 

 

TFY

[S_A]

So, regardless of biological wiring, I do think it's fair to consider it "shallow" if someone prioritizes looks or money over anything else that makes a person a person.

 

So if a man chooses his partner using looks as only a secondary factor, then that's ok? You have a composition breakdown that maybe establishes "shallow" thresholds? I am guessing that if looks make up at least 51% of a man's decision, it is shallow in your book? What about 40%? Would he not be shallow then? Or if MANY factors are involved in a man's decision, should looks not weigh heavier than any other factor by itself? For instance, if five factors come in to play when a man makes a decision about a partner, is looks then limited to no more than 20%? Would love to know your rules/criteria for "shallow."

 

Is there any chance at all that the whole prefrontal cortex thing you brought up is a front to justify your judging of others as shallow? Why might you need justification to judge others? Well, to not feel like a hypocrite for trying to make yourself feel better by judging a man as shallow who rejected you based on looks (I know it's a hard pill to swallow for a woman).

 

I'll only call them shallow if they won't settle for someone without X, Y and Z but then complains about being single. If they are doing well in their search and doesn't complain to me, then good luck to them.

 

When you say X, Y, Z, I think you mean checklists? Checklists is more of a female phenomenon. I, as a man, do not think a woman is shallow for having a checklist. And I especially do not think a woman expressing frustration over not finding men that fits their checklist pushes her in to the realm of "shallow." But tbh, I don't think I have every called anyone shallow. The word definitely has a fluid meaning.

 

EDIT: I will say though, I can imagine how you would feel annoyed if you're girlfriends keep coming to you complaining about not finding men that fit their checklists.

Edited July 2, 2018 by S_A

[Echo74]

When you say X, Y, Z, I think you mean checklists? Checklists is more of a female phenomenon. I, as a man, do not think a woman is shallow for having a checklist. And I especially do not think a woman expressing frustration over not finding men that fits their checklist pushes her in to the realm of "shallow." But tbh, I don't think I have every called anyone shallow. The word definitely has a fluid meaning.

 

EDIT: I will say though, I can imagine how you would feel annoyed if you're girlfriends keep coming to you complaining about not finding men that fit their checklists.

 

I'll admit that I have a checklist such as integrity, loyalty, intelligence, etc. A friend of mine was surprised that I didn't have any physical features on the list. I explained that one of the main things about attraction for me is having a spark, a "connection" if you will. For me, if there's no initial spark, there never will be.

 

Once I dated a guy for several years. He was homely as far as looks goes, but a great guy and bf whose company I enjoyed. Although I did feel a love for him there was never a spark. I was never in love with him. So even if a guy fulfills my list, if there's no spark, there's no future. I will not settle on a fulfilled list but an unfulfilled heart.

 

So what creates a "spark"? If a guy fulfilled the more important characteristics on my list, can the "spark" be something in his personality?

 

It seems like my visual preference may lead me initially. But my head and heart eventually guide me.

[Logo]

In my view, shallow is having a very specific set of criteria without looking deeper into the personality. And ruling out others who don't fit those criteria without at least giving them a chance.

 

 

Most of the time, when I see a very good looking woman, I might find her attractive. But then she might have some behaviors that sway me the other way.

 

Then there are women that I might still find attractive, but wouldn't nominate them to be runway models and still be ecstatic about the energy and lively personality they bring to the relationship.

 

When searching for a partner, some people would be happy if they could "Create [their] own pizza", others think that if they continue shopping they're bound to find exactly what they're looking for, a person who will tick all the boxes. The problem is that nature designs us according to arbitrary specifications. There is no market research group that gets together and decides which product is going to be the most successful based on focus groups. It just doesn't work that way.

 

I think online dating has manipulated a lot of people into that line of reasoning. The way I see it, there's the ideal (the perfect) and the realistic. Some people are just unrealistic when it comes to searching for a partner. Please don't confuse this with "settling for less" or "lowering one's standards." No. It's about finding balance between physical attraction and mental attraction.

 

Having said that, there are women who I might not find physically attractive. So when there is no physical attraction, I can't force myself to feel an attraction, no matter how charming their personality is. Does that make me shallow?

Edited July 3, 2018 by Logo

[MissBee]

So this has been an ongoing question which has made me curious what others think it means.

 

I'm going to preface this by stating that I've dated men who were Asian, Polynesian, Caucasian and Latino. From that I had pretty much figured out that I prefer one ethnicity over all others because I'm generally attracted to the features of the ethnicity. I also prefer men who are 6 feet and over which is what I'm used to. So does preferring specific ethnicity and preferring tall men make me shallow? I don't feel it does, I feel that it's simply a visual preference. Those who don't mind dating a large mix of ethnicities or couldn't care less about height simply are more open than I am. Doesn't mean I'm shallow and they are not. At least that's the conclusion I've come to.

 

Plus there are men in my preferred ethnicity who would never date someone of my ethnicity and that's okay by me because it's all a personal choice. But why am I tossing out this question? Because I heard someone saying that she "stopped being shallow about dating tall guys" and then she met her husband who is a bit shorter than she (she's 6 ft) is.

 

 

Our personal preferences can be informed by prejudices and biases, even implicitly, so I always try to examine mine. As a social scientist, I know this is true, so I never really buy the get out of jail free card of "oh it's just a personal preference" when it comes on to social category preferences.

 

Besides that, that's part of not being shallow: thinking more deeply about things, having nuance and going beyond the surface. Shallow for me is when people sort of live very surface level lives, don't really introspect, don't really have self-awareness, are often shortsighted and make life and dating choices primarily on very trivial things (i.e. physical appearance or titles etc ) rather than more substantive things like values.

 

Being physically attracted to certain things is not in and of itself shallow. Shallow is when you don't really have much more that you go on besides those preferences and also when you substitute those things for more important things and make those things the end-all-be-all. When I'm looking for a partner I care about their beliefs, values, life choices, lifestyle preferences, morals, all kinds of things help me to decide if we're a match. Why? Because if we make a life together those things are gonna be the day to day make it or break it stuff, when we have kids together that's what's gonna inform how we parent etc...their eye color, height or the kind of car they drive literally will not be the glue to hold stuff together, and so putting those things as priority to me means you're shallow and don't really think beyond your nose. If you're not thinking about partnership longterm and just casual then being shallow isn't much of a problem in my opinion, but if you're looking for something stable then that's where being shallow can really come back to bite you.

Edited July 5, 2018 by MissBee

[Els]

So if a man chooses his partner using looks as only a secondary factor, then that's ok? You have a composition breakdown that maybe establishes "shallow" thresholds? I am guessing that if looks make up at least 51% of a man's decision, it is shallow in your book? What about 40%? Would he not be shallow then? Or if MANY factors are involved in a man's decision, should looks not weigh heavier than any other factor by itself? For instance, if five factors come in to play when a man makes a decision about a partner, is looks then limited to no more than 20%? Would love to know your rules/criteria for "shallow."

 

Enigma pretty much sums up my answer to this:

 

I think a person is shallow when they prioritize looks over all else. When you are thinking about your ideal partner, and the first thing that comes to mind is just a bunch of physical features, you are shallow.

 

Is there any chance at all that the whole prefrontal cortex thing you brought up is a front to justify your judging of others as shallow? Why might you need justification to judge others? Well, to not feel like a hypocrite for trying to make yourself feel better by judging a man as shallow who rejected you based on looks (I know it's a hard pill to swallow for a woman).

I'm not sure why that is the assumption that you default to - while "rejection" may be a huge bugbear for you, it isn't really something that many of us think about. To be honest, I've not had any issues with rejection, personally.

 

Also not sure why you're trying to turn this into a man vs woman thing. Yes, I do think a man is shallow if his primary criteria for a woman is all about looks. I also do think a woman is shallow if her primary criteria for a man is all about looks... or all about money (which is more common from my observation). Looks and money can be part of the pie, but not all of it.

 

There isn't really any need for "justification" or anything else that you mentioned. I don't need to justify judging anyone as shallow. We all judge, and trust me, "shallow" is as mild a judgement as they come. You should see some of my other judgements...

 

 

P.S. The prefrontal cortex is quite a genuine part of homo sapiens anatomy! Well, for most of us, anyway...

Edited July 6, 2018 by Elswyth

[S_A]

Our personal preferences can be informed by prejudices and biases, even implicitly, so I always try to examine mine. As a social scientist, I know this is true, so I never really buy the get out of jail free card of "oh it's just a personal preference" when it comes on to social category preferences.

 

Besides that, that's part of not being shallow: thinking more deeply about things, having nuance and going beyond the surface. Shallow for me is when people sort of live very surface level lives, don't really introspect, don't really have self-awareness, are often shortsighted and make life and dating choices primarily on very trivial things (i.e. physical appearance or titles etc ) rather than more substantive things like values.

 

Being physically attracted to certain things is not in and of itself shallow. Shallow is when you don't really have much more that you go on besides those preferences and also when you substitute those things for more important things and make those things the end-all-be-all. When I'm looking for a partner I care about their beliefs, values, life choices, lifestyle preferences, morals, all kinds of things help me to decide if we're a match. Why? Because if we make a life together those things are gonna be the day to day make it or break it stuff, when we have kids together that's what's gonna inform how we parent etc...their eye color, height or the kind of car they drive literally will not be the glue to hold stuff together, and so putting those things as priority to me means you're shallow and don't really think beyond your nose. If you're not thinking about partnership longterm and just casual then being shallow isn't much of a problem in my opinion, but if you're looking for something stable then that's where being shallow can really come back to bite you.

 

AND

 

Enigma pretty much sums up my answer to this:

 

 

 

I'm not sure why that is the assumption that you default to - while "rejection" may be a huge bugbear for you, it isn't really something that many of us think about. To be honest, I've not had any issues with rejection, personally.

 

Also not sure why you're trying to turn this into a man vs woman thing. Yes, I do think a man is shallow if his primary criteria for a woman is all about looks. I also do think a woman is shallow if her primary criteria for a man is all about looks... or all about money (which is more common from my observation). Looks and money can be part of the pie, but not all of it.

 

There isn't really any need for "justification" or anything else that you mentioned. I don't need to justify judging anyone as shallow. We all judge, and trust me, "shallow" is as mild a judgement as they come. You should see some of my other judgements...

 

 

P.S. The prefrontal cortex is quite a genuine part of homo sapiens anatomy! Well, for most of us, anyway...

 

Sure you can judge. But people want what they want. Take the example of the hot young woman that marries the rich guy for his money. In this relationship, both get what they want. The man is career-oriented, likely an entrepreneur (you don't get rich working for someone else), and puts in 80 hours of work a week. His business activity is his legacy; his passion. This guy wants to be able to have a nice piece of ass next to him when he comes home or when he goes to upscale events. He gets that with this young woman.

 

The woman young woman in this pairing also gets what she wants; to be taken care of. She also gets security, which she craves. She'd like to have kids (that's a big deal for her), and she knows that with this rich guy she can devote all her time to them (as opposed to having a nanny look after them, which is a big deal). In the long term, she would also be able to afford to get them in to the best school.

 

The problem with the above quoted posts is that they are shallow. They describe how the poster observes another's preferences on the surface, and immediately judges whether another person is shallow or not based on those preferences. But as any social scientist with a prefrontal cortex should know, it is a good idea to ask why someone may have the preferences that they have and to gain context BEFORE making judgments as to the quality of the person. Of course, you don't need to ask why. You're free to make judgments that are un-backed by thought and context. Whatever makes you feel better about yourself.

 

The thing is, I can't fault the 80 hour a week guy, or the woman that wants to feel secure and to have the means needed to help raise the "perfect" kid(s).

 

And before someone tries to attack me with why does the woman in your example need to be the housewife... I also don't blame the woman-go-getter who hustles 8 days a week professionally and is just looking for a stud BF to routinely bang her brains out. While this is not common, as "successful" women still tend to date "up," there is a group of these types of women out there (they are typically older).

 

Nobody gives you bonus points in life for pairing with the ugly person that's smart, or the broke person that is really nice. Now if you're going to say "well, all I am saying is that looks and money should only be a part of what you base your decision on," then explain at what point does one cross into the realm of shallow? Btw, am I shallow if I marry someone strictly because they are hyper intelligent?

Edited July 7, 2018 by S_A

[MissBee]

AND

 

 

 

Sure you can judge. But people want what they want. Take the example of the hot young woman that marries the rich guy for his money. In this relationship, both get what they want. The man is career-oriented, likely an entrepreneur (you don't get rich working for someone else), and puts in 80 hours of work a week. His business activity is his legacy; his passion. This guy wants to be able to have a nice piece of ass next to him when he comes home or when he goes to upscale events. He gets that with this young woman.

 

The woman young woman in this pairing also gets what she wants; to be taken care of. She also gets security, which she craves. She'd like to have kids (that's a big deal for her), and she knows that with this rich guy she can devote all her time to them (as opposed to having a nanny look after them, which is a big deal). In the long term, she would also be able to afford to get them in to the best school.

 

The problem with the above quoted posts is that they are shallow. They describe how the poster observes another's preferences on the surface, and immediately judges whether another person is shallow or not based on those preferences. But as any social scientist with a prefrontal cortex should know, it is a good idea to ask why someone may have the preferences that they have and to gain context BEFORE making judgments as to the quality of the person. Of course, you don't need to ask why. You're free to make judgments that are un-backed by thought and context. Whatever makes you feel better about yourself.

 

The thing is, I can't fault the 80 hour a week guy, or the woman that wants to feel secure and to have the means needed to help raise the "perfect" kid(s).

 

And before someone tries to attack me with why does the woman in your example need to be the housewife... I also don't blame the woman-go-getter who hustles 8 days a week professionally and is just looking for a stud BF to routinely bang her brains out. While this is not common, as "successful" women still tend to date "up," there is a group of these types of women out there (they are typically older).

 

Nobody gives you bonus points in life for pairing with the ugly person that's smart, or the broke person that is really nice. Now if you're going to say "well, all I am saying is that looks and money should only be a part of what you base your decision on," then explain at what point does one cross into the realm of shallow? Btw, am I shallow if I marry someone strictly because they are hyper intelligent?

 

Seems you're conflating judgmental with shallow. The two aren't the same thing.

[S_A]

Seems you're conflating judgmental with shallow. The two aren't the same thing.

 

Saying someone is shallow is judging them. I type on my phone. It makes it harder to express my thoughts.

Edited July 7, 2018 by S_A

[salparadise]

I'll admit that I have a checklist such as integrity, loyalty, intelligence, etc. A friend of mine was surprised that I didn't have any physical features on the list. I explained that one of the main things about attraction for me is having a spark, a "connection" if you will. For me, if there's no initial spark, there never will be.

 

Once I dated a guy for several years. He was homely as far as looks goes, but a great guy and bf whose company I enjoyed. Although I did feel a love for him there was never a spark. I was never in love with him. So even if a guy fulfills my list, if there's no spark, there's no future. I will not settle on a fulfilled list but an unfulfilled heart.

 

So what creates a "spark"? If a guy fulfilled the more important characteristics on my list, can the "spark" be something in his personality?

 

It seems like my visual preference may lead me initially. But my head and heart eventually guide me.

 

 

I like this definition as well as any I've seen. A non shallow person considers the person as a whole, not separating and prioritizing superficial aspects. Spark or chemistry is the wildcard that we can't define or control. We just know if it's there or not. If you don't feel chemistry it's not shallow to acknowledge that. Sometimes that may be affected by physical appearance, other times by character or personality characteristics or even speech or mannerisms.

 

We're all hard wired biologically to select for quality (in multiple areas) and that factors into the magical component of spark/chemistry. Most people seek approximate parity in terms of physical attractiveness and overall mating equity. Nature (evolution) has cultivated astute sensing of this. Those whose expectations are way too low or high pay a price for inaccuracy of judgement.

 

But as Echo has said, we could do a lot worse than to intentionally select for character and just listen to our feelings with regard to attraction. So much of it is intuitive.

[S_A]

Some social scientist