Are good looks the only thing that is of value to women?

[ZA Dater]

36 minutes ago, BaileyB said:

Then change your peer group...  seriously.

You want desperately to hang with the “top tier people” and then complain constantly about their values. 

 

The comment is less to do with me and more to do with the topic at hand, my views and experiences support the assertions being made that looks are VITAL to most ladies and a fat wallet is also nice to have. I am not desperate to hang with them because I do hang with them for large parts of my life so I have this view point.

Ask yourself this question, good looking guy, status and prestige but uncaring and selfish but you live a glamorous life or not as good looking guy, adores you, cares, generous but you cant live that glamorous life....unfortunately 8 out 10 will take guy 1 because of security, prestige and status. I have spent years competing against this and I sure many other good decent guys have too. You cant compete there, you cant buy a Rolex with Casio money, as kids most of us are brought up, rightly so to believe we are handsome and attractive but life soon either confirms or rejects this notion.

 

[poppyfields]

10 hours ago, Trail Blazer said:

He might not want kids, but nature intends on him reproducing.  The desire for sex is a biological driver to ensure the continuation of our species.  Good looks is an outward display of good genes.  

Ok but what's a man immediate thought when he first meets a beautiful woman?

"I want to bang this chick to produce healthy offspring"? 😳

I'm not a science person but from a biological standpoint, I sort of see your point, but with respect to dating and physical/sexual attraction - raw, unadulterated physical and sexual attraction when first meeting a woman - I am having trouble wrapping my brain around this concept.

Thanks for trying though. I may research on my own in more depth, it's quite fascinating.

[ZA Dater]

7 minutes ago, Pumpernickel said:

There are several studies that say that men, regardless of their age, tend to be attracted most to women in their late teens/early 20s, while women are most attracted to men their own age. It’s like – you’re a 70-year old widower and you lust after a 20-year old, or even younger? I find that sad. But it’s just biology, right?

I mean – so many things have changed in terms of gender roles over the last century, but the excuse that guys are “more visual” remains, and everything is "biological", and it's an "instinct", men are "wired that way", etc.

Look: If women can change over the centuries from only raising offspring (it's their "instinct"), to having a career, raising children, managing a household, having/investing their own money, making their own decisions, why can men not develop into using their brains more, rather than their Stone Age "instincts" like Neanderthals?

What it does is that it keeps the patriarchy very much alive, unfortunately, and women are treated like merchandise. Who is/looks the youngest, who has the biggest/perkiest boobs, who is the thinnest/fittest/sexiest, whose legs are the longest, etc. It’s getting old. Men are still very much slaves of their sex drives, and it’s boring and lame. And it’s also dangerous. I wish men were more introspective and less shallow. Just one example: There’s sex trafficking all over the place, girls as young as 14 forced into prostitution. The younger – the better. And we want to excuse this by saying it’s a biological instinct? I am obviously not saying that every guy wants to have sex with a minor, but if the “attraction” is there, by nature, and they’re so helpless, then that danger will always be there, and women and young girls will never be safe. As long as we make excuses about "it's biology; they can't help it; they're wired that way" – that demand will always be there. It's sad.

 I agree but this is largely because of an over sexual nature of society so yes sadly media encourages this "commodity" approach as do most dating apps. There are people who do actually like the overall person but its pretty much impossible for these people to date because society has ensured that certain qualities are over valued and others totally under valued.

This topic is interesting because it goes to how we think and how we are influenced.

[BaileyB]

17 minutes ago, ZA Dater said:

Ask yourself this question, good looking guy, status and prestige but uncaring and selfish but you live a glamorous life or not as good looking guy, adores you, cares, generous but you cant live that glamorous life....unfortunately 8 out 10 will take guy 1 because of security, prestige and status.

I could not disagree with you more. 

I don’t have a single friend who has done this. They have all married rather average looking, hardworking, kind,  arming, generous men and they are (for the most part) happily living their lives and raising their families.

but, I suppose when you hang with the “top tier group of people” you would become jaded in this kind of way. When these are the people with whom you seek to associate, you would assume that everyone is this superficial. 

[ZA Dater]

3 minutes ago, BaileyB said:

I could not disagree with you more. 

I don’t have a single friend who has done this. They have all married rather average looking, hardworking, kind,  arming, generous men and they are (for the most part) happily living their lives and raising their families.

but, I suppose when you hang with the “top tier group of people” you would become jaded in this kind of way. When these are the people with whom you seek to associate, you would assume that everyone is this superficial. 

Happy to be proved wrong! The reality is we all have different experiences with this and the responses here prove that. Maybe those of us who have been on the receiving end of this over and over again do become jaded. 

People will also never really own the fact they value looks over all else, its not the done thing but the reality is a LOT of people do value looks very highly if they were not important the entire concept of dating would be a lot easier. I always wonder how many people wonder "could I have done better", a terrible thing to think but the divorce rate in many countries does support this assertion that many were never really attracted to their partners to begin with, attraction being overall in this instance.

[Weezy1973]

9 hours ago, hotpotato said:

I'm basically saying that men are generally soso and quite a few are flat out unattractive.

That is true of both men and women. There are a few good looking people, a lot of average looking people, and a few ugly people. 

 

9 hours ago, hotpotato said:

I guess one would have to define slender. Plenty of men like bigger women, they're just low key about it. 

I think it would be more helpful to define “plenty”. While there are some men that like bigger women, men generally consider being slender part of being attractive more than women do. Here is some research:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/09/150916162912.htm
 

“Gender Differences: Specifically, the study revealed that men and women differed in the percentage indicating:

it was 'desirable/essential' that their potential partner was good-looking (M 92 percent vs. W 84 percent),

had a slender body (M 80 percent vs. W 58 percent),

had a steady income (M 74 percent vs. W 97 percent),

and made/will make a lot of money (M 47 percent vs. W 69 percent).”

You can see that while “good looking” was desirable close to equally for both men and women, the vast majority of men (80%) had a preference for a slender body, just over half of women (58%) had the same preference. 

Perhaps where your thinking is flawed is believing that overweight women are still generally considered attractive. While you might still find them beautiful, the vast majority of men do not. 

[hotpotato]

35 minutes ago, Weezy1973 said:

That is true of both men and women. There are a few good looking people, a lot of average looking people, and a few ugly people. 

 

I think it would be more helpful to define “plenty”. While there are some men that like bigger women, men generally consider being slender part of being attractive more than women do. Here is some research:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/09/150916162912.htm
 

“Gender Differences: Specifically, the study revealed that men and women differed in the percentage indicating:

it was 'desirable/essential' that their potential partner was good-looking (M 92 percent vs. W 84 percent),

had a slender body (M 80 percent vs. W 58 percent),

had a steady income (M 74 percent vs. W 97 percent),

and made/will make a lot of money (M 47 percent vs. W 69 percent).”

You can see that while “good looking” was desirable close to equally for both men and women, the vast majority of men (80%) had a preference for a slender body, just over half of women (58%) had the same preference. 

Perhaps where your thinking is flawed is believing that overweight women are still generally considered attractive. While you might still find them beautiful, the vast majority of men do not. 

It's especially true for men. They are generally quite blah imo. If a woman is soso something sexy to go with it like a big rack or a big round booty. Men on average are just kind of blah and make it worse by carrying too much body fat. Id go so far as to say that men are much, much more likely to be ugly or flat out unattractive than women. In my people watching, ive been amazed at just how unattractive some men are. If a man and woman are average, I'd be willing to bet the woman is still the sexier of the two. 

In my experience, I wouldn't say that men prefer slender necessarily. They prefer curvy but not fat. A woman can be slender and be an hourglass, top heavy, have a fat booty, etc. Slender is Ok on a man. When I think slender on a man Im thinking very thin with not much muscle tone, which wouldn't be my ideal, but I'd take that any day over obesity. 

I don't know how many men are into big women, but I know personally some who are, even some guys who are very into fitness. It's somewhat taboo to be a man esp a fit one and admit to being into bigger women. My ex was into fitness and could admit that some bbws were very good looking. He had a crush on one, too, despite saying he wasn't into bbws. The fit guys I'm thinking of make good money, too. One is an airplane mechanic. So *shrug*

I was quite slender for awhile, and that definitely didn't help with dating, although slender for me is different than slender for other women. I thnk the studies with actually pictures are better sources bc everyone has their own opinion of what constitutes slender. 

 

Edited April 6, 2021 by hotpotato
clarity

[Envy123]

I've had a very interesting dating life. I guess I can be classed as unlucky or lucky, depending on your point of view.

I have met a good amount of women who are respectful and educated and willing to overlook my beer belly, who just so happen to be as attractive as models, well, in my opinion.

And I have met a good amount of women who are average looking and just so happen to be so insecure that either:

• They rely upon me as a crying shoulder in tough times, while giving nothing in return
• They are so downright hostile and deliberately hurt me

Being confident in yourself is a must-have and it really is a no-brainer which women I gravitate towards.

[dramafreezone]

2 hours ago, poppyfields said:

Ok but what's a man immediate thought when he first meets a beautiful woman?

"I want to bang this chick to produce healthy offspring"? 😳

I'm not a science person but from a biological standpoint, I sort of see your point, but with respect to dating and physical/sexual attraction - raw, unadulterated physical and sexual attraction when first meeting a woman - I am having trouble wrapping my brain around this concept.

Thanks for trying though. I may research on my own in more depth, it's quite fascinating.

Of course no one thinks that.  The very definition of instinct is that it's not governed by conscious thought.  If it were that would defeat the purpose and humans would've died off a long time ago.

You can't bypass instinctual imperatives with conscious thought.  The imperative is that a man must be sexually attracted to a woman.  If not, he can't pass on his genes, and he won't.   If you cut off or bypass the very triggers that ensure survival, you can't survive.

Edited April 6, 2021 by dramafreezone

[mark clemson]

1 hour ago, hotpotato said:

 Men on average are just kind of blah and make it worse by carrying too much body fat. Id go so far as to say that men are much, much more likely to be ugly or flat out unattractive than women. In my people watching, ive been amazed at just how unattractive some men are. If a man and woman are average, I'd be willing to bet the woman is still the sexier of the two.

FWIW, I think many men are capable of improving their looks at least somewhat but aren't particularly inclined to. This is partly cultural as many men think it's not "manly" to do so. George Clooney (ironically) said something to this effect. Men who are too good looking get labelled as "pretty boys" and men who spend TOO much time on their looks get labeled "metrosexual" (as if their sexuality is somehow different).

So there's cultural pushback and I think many men simply aren't taught to value looking good culturally.

This makes men who do look good easily, e.g. with a simple layer haircut (like Clooney), even better off than they would otherwise be. AND it's also true (as been pointed out) that plenty of mediocre looking men manage to have wives, GFs, and families, etc.

C'est la vie.

[SpecialJ]

Since everyone on this thread appears to be obsessed with weight and giving men the excuse of biological programming, why is it that men were historically attracted to thicker women (there's tons of evidence found of this in archeological finds and theories to back it up -- food used to be more scarce and ability to store reserves was looked on as a positive both biologically and perhaps as a symbol of wealth) yet now they're not? Apparently something evolved at some point, culturally and attitudes influenced available resources (easier access to food) at least in wealthier societies. So this "pre-programming" is more influenced by the images and attitudes you see growing up than you think. Different looks, perhaps besides youth and symmetry, go in and out of fashion. Too many generalities here. 

[dramafreezone]

50 minutes ago, SpecialJ said:

Since everyone on this thread appears to be obsessed with weight and giving men the excuse of biological programming, why is it that men were historically attracted to thicker women (there's tons of evidence found of this in archeological finds and theories to back it up -- food used to be more scarce and ability to store reserves was looked on as a positive both biologically and perhaps as a symbol of wealth) yet now they're not? Apparently something evolved at some point, culturally and attitudes influenced available resources (easier access to food) at least in wealthier societies. So this "pre-programming" is more influenced by the images and attitudes you see growing up than you think. Different looks, perhaps besides youth and symmetry, go in and out of fashion. Too many generalities here. 

What's "thicker" women mean?  I think a well proprotioned curvy look falls right in line with what we're talking about here, the hour glass figure.

If you're going to try to say that men inherently prefer overweight or obese women, I reject that and I'd love to see what studies support that theory.

People can make choices on who they prefer to pursue based on secondary factors such as wealth, cultural fit, and that's outside of the scope of this discussion.  If a man has a choice between two women equally qualified in terms of personality, wealth, all secondary criteria, most (not all) will choose the fit, shapely woman over the overweight/obese woman.  I know a lot of you wish that wasn't the case but it is.  Most men like pretty women.  Don't know why people are pushing back on this.

You don't see men pushing back on the idea that most women are attracted to a tall guy with broad shoulders, or questioning it.

Edited April 6, 2021 by dramafreezone

[SpecialJ]

I'm not pushing back on anything other than the assertion that the slender ideal is biological. And again pointing out that this is all super subjective -- I am lucky and naturally am in line with the body ideals of my society, but that never stopped men who want to find physical "flaws" to fixate on later on from finding them, if they were not in a good mindset for commitment in general. Which is why my advice to OP was looks are looks, they'll matter more or less to some people, but no matter what she hears, being secure enough in herself to gauge the character of others before internalizing their feedback is most important. 

Edited April 6, 2021 by SpecialJ

[dramafreezone]

9 minutes ago, SpecialJ said:

I'm not pushing back on anything other than the assertion that the slender ideal is biological. And again pointing out that this is all super subjective -- I am lucky and naturally am in line with the body ideals of my society, but that never stopped men who want to find physical "flaws" to fixate on later on from finding them, if they were not in a good mindset for commitment in general. Which is why my advice to OP was looks are looks, they'll matter more or less to some people, but no matter what she hears, being secure enough in herself to gauge the character of others before internalizing their feedback is most important. 

In between anorexic and obese is what's most desirable.  I think people have one idea in their head and they're thinking that's what we're talking about.  There's a lot or variation in between those extremes, but unfortunately the overweight/obese contingent is growing and growing, and there's also a growing culture that's shaming men for not wanting it.

[hotpotato]

1 hour ago, mark clemson said:

FWIW, I think many men are capable of improving their looks at least somewhat but aren't particularly inclined to. This is partly cultural as many men think it's not "manly" to do so. George Clooney (ironically) said something to this effect. Men who are too good looking get labelled as "pretty boys" and men who spend TOO much time on their looks get labeled "metrosexual" (as if their sexuality is somehow different).

So there's cultural pushback and I think many men simply aren't taught to value looking good culturally.

This makes men who do look good easily, e.g. with a simple layer haircut (like Clooney), even better off than they would otherwise be. AND it's also true (as been pointed out) that plenty of mediocre looking men manage to have wives, GFs, and families, etc.

C'est la vie.

I can agree with that kind of. I do feel like straight men dont care about their looks. They're more like, "I'm a man, and im anatomically correct. What more do you want?" I had a guy say something similar to me. 

I don't think its inherently metrosexual to care about ones health. I wouldn't call a man metrosexual bc he plays football or climbs, lift weights, rocks metrosexual, girly, vain, or whatever. I think women openly wanting a good looking guy is frowned upon. I see sometimes where women assume if a man cares about his looks/health he must be bad in some way, which is not necessarily true at all. I suspect the idea is that if a man is less attractive he is more stable and wont cheat. Even here I get told that I basically need to drop them standards. Asking for a man to be in shape and at least fairly good looking is apparently too much. 

[poppyfields]

2 hours ago, dramafreezone said:

Of course no one thinks that.  The very definition of instinct is that it's not governed by conscious thought.  If it were that would defeat the purpose and humans would've died off a long time ago.

You can't bypass instinctual imperatives with conscious thought.  The imperative is that a man must be sexually attracted to a woman.  If not, he can't pass on his genes, and he won't.   If you cut off or bypass the very triggers that ensure survival, you can't survive.

Thank you, that is what I had asked in my previous post, if it was some sort of a subconscious thing.

I will research this later on my own because I find it interesting, but what you wrote makes sense, so again thank you dramafreeze.

[mark clemson]

1 hour ago, SpecialJ said:

I'm not pushing back on anything other than the assertion that the slender ideal is biological. And again pointing out that this is all super subjective

I think you're correct about it not being biological. Some extra body fat is helpful in terms of reproduction, particularly "gynoid" fat. Which is probably part of the reason you see plenty of women who don't fit the "slender" ideal nonetheless having BFs, husbands, and families, etc. It may take a bit more effort for them to get to that end result in our modern society, though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gynoid_fat_distribution

Edited April 6, 2021 by mark clemson

[dramafreezone]

27 minutes ago, hotpotato said:

I can agree with that kind of. I do feel like straight men dont care about their looks. They're more like, "I'm a man, and im anatomically correct. What more do you want?" I had a guy say something similar to me. 

I don't think its inherently metrosexual to care about ones health. I wouldn't call a man metrosexual bc he plays football or climbs, lift weights, rocks metrosexual, girly, vain, or whatever. I think women openly wanting a good looking guy is frowned upon. I see sometimes where women assume if a man cares about his looks/health he must be bad in some way, which is not necessarily true at all. I suspect the idea is that if a man is less attractive he is more stable and wont cheat. Even here I get told that I basically need to drop them standards. Asking for a man to be in shape and at least fairly good looking is apparently too much. 

The first bolded part is due to insecurity of those women that think that. 

It's certainly not too much to ask for whatever you want, you just have to be what you want to attract.  If you want a fit man, of course you have to be fit yourself.  If that type of guy is available to you then I don't see the problem.

[mark clemson]

36 minutes ago, hotpotato said:

I can agree with that kind of. I do feel like straight men dont care about their looks. They're more like, "I'm a man, and im anatomically correct. What more do you want?" I had a guy say something similar to me. 

I don't think its inherently metrosexual to care about ones health. I wouldn't call a man metrosexual bc he plays football or climbs, lift weights, rocks metrosexual, girly, vain, or whatever.

To the first point, yes, I think many men think this way.

To the second point, definitely agree as well. Metrosexual is different that that, but being athletic can get "physical attractiveness results" for many men and indeed may be their preferred method for many, if they're going to bother.

[dramafreezone]

On 4/4/2021 at 1:32 AM, basil67 said:

No, it's not how society is.  This is how a subset of society is.   

I think you'll find that most intelligent women might have interest in the attractive man who has nothing going for him when she first sees him, but loses interest as soon as he opens his mouth.   I dare say it's the same result for women who've got nothing to offer other than looks.

That's all we're talking about here, attraction and what drives it.  It's visual.

What do you think men want from a woman other than looks?  What I would say is most want someone that's agreeable, is fun to be around and generally adds to his life instead of being a drain on it.  Anything else (such as education, high intelligence, career) is a nice-to-have but not a need, and none of these latter qualities can make up for a lack of any of the first qualities I mentioned.

Edited April 6, 2021 by dramafreezone

[Weezy1973]

1 hour ago, SpecialJ said:

I'm not pushing back on anything other than the assertion that the slender ideal is biological.

It’s included in the biological but not the only body type. What seems to be the most important is the hip to waist ratio with a 0.7 ratio the most ideal. So an hourglass figure would still be considered attractive to most men. And yes culture plays a role, but which direction does it go? Don’t marketers use slender women in the media because they illicit the greatest response due to natural predilections? 
 

Women also have these preferences by the way. For example women prefer the inverted V body type - that is broad shoulders tapering to a narrow waist. Some prefer “thicker” guys, and some prefer slimmer, but that inverted V is pretty much a requirement.

[Weezy1973]

4 hours ago, hotpotato said:

 In my people watching, ive been amazed at just how unattractive some men are. If a man and woman are average, I'd be willing to bet the woman is still the sexier of the two. 

First, this is clearly just your preference you’re talking about. It’s not objective and not a reflection of the real world. Just your personal thoughts (which is fine, just not transferable to the world at large). And the more important point being if they’re both average then they’re a match! Boom. Matching phenomenon.

[dramafreezone]

27 minutes ago, Weezy1973 said:

It’s included in the biological but not the only body type. What seems to be the most important is the hip to waist ratio with a 0.7 ratio the most ideal. So an hourglass figure would still be considered attractive to most men. And yes culture plays a role, but which direction does it go? Don’t marketers use slender women in the media because they illicit the greatest response due to natural predilections? 
 

Women also have these preferences by the way. For example women prefer the inverted V body type - that is broad shoulders tapering to a narrow waist. Some prefer “thicker” guys, and some prefer slimmer, but that inverted V is pretty much a requirement.

They certainly do, and I think guys for the most part accept it.  There isn't a movement to force women to see short or fat men as an ideal, or to make them into the new type of models.  There's no huge ad campaigns dedicated to plus-sized male models.  On OLD,  how many times have we seen "No guys under 6'."  A guy says "no fat women" he'll get lambasted, or even get his account suspended.

It's possible to accept the realities of what's attractive to each gender, while also realizing that if you look hard enough there is someone around that will find what you have to offer attractive, and it doesn't even matter if you're trying to be the best version of yourself.  Someone will like you just as you are right now.  I'm really bothered by this idea that men need to change or expand what they find beautiful.  Just find one person that likes you for you, it's not everyone's moral obligation to like you for you.

Edited April 6, 2021 by dramafreezone

[SumGuy]

On 4/3/2021 at 10:53 PM, Katkats7777 said:

Are good looks the only thing the counts to women, not how "smart" they are or if they have an Ivy League degree?

Of course they are not the only thing that counts; although I am certain there are men (and women) where they are.

Quote

Its like every time people first see someone they mention, "oh, how pretty" she is and I've seen how some people treat unattractive women, they don't treat them very nicely. And it doesn't seem to matter if they are smart, because they only thing people focus on women is they way she looks...

If it truly is every time it's the people you are interacting with; will agree that mainstream society is all about social status signifiers and seems bound and determined to have looks be the number one thing for women.   Even in the pure physical department, "pretty" ain't it for me...sexy, in great shape, sure.  

Quote

....its like what's the point of women studying and going off to college, if women are playboy playmate hot, then they will make a career out of that and who cares if she is dumb? Look at anna nicole smith for example, she had an 8th grade education, pretty sure she wasn't book smart only relied on her looks. 

The point of college etc. isn't to do it to attract mates, it is for a career, or the idea of self improvement, knowledge, to make a difference, etc.  Sure people make a living off their looks alone, and their physical prowess alone, not much connected to their mental ability..so what, that is not a road everyone can take or even if they could want to take.  Some woudl liek their work to mean something more than transitory entertainment.

Quote

Also, even nerdy geeky guys who are not that attractive will most likely choose the hot women regardless of her education? Right. At least that's what this guy told me one time, he said "everything is based on looks, they don't care about college education, if a man see's a cute bartender he will pursue her, of course she can't be trash." I'm like..ok...

This guy speaks for himself. 

Also what does "choose" mean?  Based on the unattractive geek stereotype, not sure those stereotypical guys have choice.  What is this "of course she can't be trash..." statement...seems to imply that looks are not all that matters...her social status matters to.  If it is just looks and you are this stereotypical unattractive geek and the hot, but very trashy, bartender wanted to get with you the answer would be yes.

I'm a guy, a very geeky/nerdy one in so many ways, and have many such geeky guy friends, it is never all about looks when there is any choice what so ever.  Sure we all have our minimum of looks, but there is no one look all guys, especially geeky guys, go for.   So looks to me that may be a 10 are a 5 to other guys, and vice versa, not really exaggerating either.  As trite as it may sound personality (which includes if one is dumb as a stone) matters and can literally impact how attractive you think someone looks.   Stimulating conversation is more than just mentally stimulating.

As to not caring about college education, perhaps, because what is more important is intelligence not if one pursued a degree...not everyone's life circumstances allow for college but they can still be wicked smart.

Don't get me wrong, many men do only go by looks, but certainly not all and certainly not those men who many would call the high quality ones...as Prince put it so well (as long as she acts her age not her shoe size...)...

"You don't have to be beautiful
To turn me on
....
You don't need experience
To turn me out
You just leave it all up to me
I'm gonna show you what it's all about
You don't have to be rich
To be my girl
You don't have to be cool
To rule my world
Ain't no particular sign I'm more compatible with
I just want your extra time and your
Kiss..."

[SpecialJ]

42 minutes ago, Weezy1973 said:

And yes culture plays a role, but which direction does it go? Don’t marketers use slender women in the media because they illicit the greatest response due to natural predilections? 

While I've also seen the research about the 0.7 ratio and agree with that, I don't agree that's true about the marketing at all. I don't know what links are allowed here which is why I'm not citing anything in particular (in the past mine have gotten deleted), but just look up anything about the history of when did slender become the western female ideal, and you'll see it wasn't until relatively recently. And you'll also see no consensus on anything, even in research. Which means you can cherry-pick talking points in one direction or the other, but the fact of the matter is that the sizes marketed by western media at least are very recent and new in the history of humankind. 

 

Yes, women have their own preferences as well and are also indoctrinated into liking what marketing and others tell them to as well, from a young age. It's still someone's character that drives how they treat all others and how much they weight physical attraction as the priority in romantic relationships. You want to be attracted to a partner (not only visually, smell and taste too) but biology is only a portion of that whole package. I used to have preferences that I realized were brainwashed into me by older generations and by media exposure, and it took me years to realize that! There was a mental barrier there against certain types of traits (stupid stuff such as hair styles and eye color) because of what I believed was acceptable to other people... but in reality, I actually didn't care and was neutral to those preferences relative to many other contrasting kinds! Took years to realize that, though, because all that happening in childhood kind of becomes subconscious in adulthood. Doesn't mean I don't still have preferences (I live a healthy lifestyle and seek signals of that in prospective partners as well, and me and my boyfriend do a lot active things together for fun), but there's a wide scope of beauty out there to appreciate. 

 

So my perspective for the OP is still unchanging and to focus on her values. And I think it's healthy for everyone to introspect and challenge where one's own preferences in regards to the attractiveness of others are really coming from. But I don't expect to change anyone else's mind on anything.