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

[SumGuy]

16 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.  

Sadly the biological/evolutionary argument is against you.   A better mate is one who is intelligent, intelligence signifies even better genes.  As humans our evolutionary advantage is not our looks or our brawn, it is our brains...and perhaps our social skills and cooperation as well...but yet again not related to looks.  

Alas if "good looks" were so hard wired, why is the look of the "hot" women from 1500 BCE different than today?  And certainly if hard wired there would be no differences in what is consider the best look among cultures, especially before media started selling looks.   

Last, but not least, the "looks" that signify good genes for procreation really do not equate with "good looks" as used today, the "good look" that signifies no genetic problems is a very low bar, and the "look" that signifies she has the survival and child bearing thing down would likely be called fat by todays standards or even manly because a strong body all over (upper and lower) signifies good physical genetics...if we are going with this being some base instinct stretching back to long before written history.

All that being said, sure many choose based on looks alone...perhaps we have that luxury these days in our evolutionary history...but it is far from some natural or even historical order.

[Wiseman2]

A pretty face only goes so far. Has to be something behind it.

[Woggle]

The standards of what looks good have changed but people being attracted to attractive people has not and it never will. People like to think we are more enlightened than they actually are but at the end of the day on a subconcious level they go with what turns them on. It's human nature and both genders do it. A hot 25 year old man will be more appealing than a 50 year old even if that woman is 50 years old. [redacted]

Edited April 6, 2021 by a LoveShack.org Moderator
offensive, poss. pedophilic

[poppyfields]

I may start a thread about this but a few years ago before I met my recent ex, I attended something called "Dating in the Dark" where singles interacted in a completely darkened room having no idea what anyone looked like.

The goal being developing an attraction based on a mental connection determined from voice, how they speak, articulate themselves, and the general energy/vibe between you.  Mostly the energy/vibe between you.

Quite fascinating, and as it turned out when it was over, the majority of folks were quite physically attractive!  I was surprised how attractive many were.

Personally I did not connect or vibe with anyone (not in the way I was looking to), but I believe in the concept.

In fact, if/when I go back to OLDing, I think it would be interesting to NOT exchange pics and meet blind, after determining you're vibing well on line.

JMO but pics can really skew things imo.  I am an attractive girl so not insecure about it, but when too many pics are exchanged, you form an idea/image of the person, you begin fantasizing about the person based on their pics, and when you finally meet, it can be a bit of a let down as the image/fantasy often doesn't match up with the reality of the person, despite how good looking they are.

 

 

Edited April 6, 2021 by poppyfields

[dramafreezone]

1 hour ago, SumGuy said:

Sadly the biological/evolutionary argument is against you.   A better mate is one who is intelligent, intelligence signifies even better genes.  As humans our evolutionary advantage is not our looks or our brawn, it is our brains...and perhaps our social skills and cooperation as well...but yet again not related to looks.  

Alas if "good looks" were so hard wired, why is the look of the "hot" women from 1500 BCE different than today?  And certainly if hard wired there would be no differences in what is consider the best look among cultures, especially before media started selling looks.   

Last, but not least, the "looks" that signify good genes for procreation really do not equate with "good looks" as used today, the "good look" that signifies no genetic problems is a very low bar, and the "look" that signifies she has the survival and child bearing thing down would likely be called fat by todays standards or even manly because a strong body all over (upper and lower) signifies good physical genetics...if we are going with this being some base instinct stretching back to long before written history.

All that being said, sure many choose based on looks alone...perhaps we have that luxury these days in our evolutionary history...but it is far from some natural or even historical order.

That all sounds good, except for the reality that people are generally not sexually attracted to intelligence. 

All of this sounds nice, but it stitll has to start with looks.  There's no geting around that.  None of that, social skills, cooperation, intelligence even matters if your looks don't get you an interview.